Why Do We Need Health Care Reform? Don't Ask George Will
One of the things I hope to do with my blog is to call out misleading statements and statistics, outright lies and illogical assertions by opponents of meaningful health care reform—and to rat out the front groups that insurers and other special interests are funding to kill reform or, failing that, shape it to their benefit.
I’m starting with a biggie, conservative author and columnist George Will, who suggests in his June 28 column in The Washington Post that, because of the complexity and expense of reforming the American health care system, maybe we would be better off just leaving well enough alone.
Well enough? For him, maybe. He’s got a great gig at the Post and as a TV network pundit, and he has sold lots of books, so he probably doesn’t have to worry, as most other Americans do, about being just one layoff away from joining the 50 million other men, women and children in the ranks of the uninsured. And even if the Post gave him a pink slip this afternoon, chances are he has stashed enough away that he can afford to shell out the nearly $13,000 that the average annual premium for decent family coverage costs these days (and that was in 2007).
The median household income in this country is just about $50,000. I’m betting it has been a few years since Will faced paying more than a fourth of his family’s annual income—before taxes—just to cover the health insurance premiums. More and more of us also face paying thousands more of our hard-earned dollars in out-of-pocket expenses before the coverage we pay so dearly for actually kicks in. If Will and other critics of real reform just did a little simple math, they would understand why the number of people without insurance is so high and growing so rapidly, and why at least 25 million more of us are now under-insured.
After telling us we might live to regret trying to reform our dysfunctional non-system, Will makes this assertion:
“Most Americans do want different health care: They want 2009 medicine at 1960 prices.”
Yeah, that would be nice, and it sure makes for a great quip, but no one I know expects that. Maybe he knows “most Americans” better than I do, but I doubt it. Instead, I suspect he sees the world in much the same way insurance company executives see it from their spacious offices, the windows of their chauffeur-driven limos and the corporate jets that fly them comfortably over “most Americans.” When you’re at that altitude, it’s hard to get a real fix on what most Americans want, much less what so many of them so desperately need.
To be fair and perfectly honest, I saw the world that way too for most of the 20 years I worked inside the insurance industry. The more money I made and the more perks I was given, the less I thought about the hardships many people face who are not as privileged. It took seeing thousands of people standing in the rain in long lines to get care in a barn just a few miles from where I grew up to finally get it.
It is true, as Will notes, that many Americans enrolled in employer-sponsored health insurance plans have been able to rely on their employers to pay the lion’s share of the premiums. What is also true, but not mentioned in his column, is that fewer and fewer Americans can get coverage through their employers these days, and that of those who can, most are now having to pay a larger share of the premiums and much higher out-of-pocket expenses.
According to a recent Wall Street Journal story, the number of small employers offering coverage has dropped from 61 percent to 38 percent since 1993. And the way insurers and employers are dealing with medical inflation is to shift more of the financial burden onto the shoulders of working men and women.
Insurers and their ideological allies, like Grace Marie Turner of the Galen Institute and Betsy McCauaghey of the Hudson Institute, both of whom Will cites as experts in his column and both of whose organizations are corporate funded, say this is a good thing because, they contend, Americans have been insulated for far too long from the real costs of health care.
That’s easy for someone to say who has never had to file for bankruptcy, as millions of Americans have, because the insurance coverage they were counting on didn’t come close to covering their medical bills when they got sick or had an accident. And it’s easy for a rich, famous and out-of-touch columnist to callously content that all Americans really want is 2009 medicine at 1960 prices, so let’s just call the whole thing off.
Wendell Potter is the Senior Fellow on Health Care for the Center for Media and Democracy in Madison, Wisconsin.
Comments
Why do we need healthcare reform?
Kudos to you Wendell. It will be through individuals such as yourself where the truth of our healthcare system can be brought into the Light and more and more of us will know the truth of what we have chosen to ignore. We can be the change we wish to see and you and your divine gifts will help us all to BE the ones we've been waiting for.
Blessings of Everlasting Light and Love,
csp
Thank you Mr Potter
As someone who is under-insured, I find it so frustrating to talk to friends who don't understand what the problem is. As far as they're concerned, they have coverage, so why "mess with it?" I get so tired of trying to explain that everyone should be able to afford quality health insurance.
Thank you for "seeing the light" and helping others to "see it," too.
fork in the road
i Will start out with a comparison. to leave well enough alone is what these insurance giants should be asking themselves or should have thought of before they agreed to a sixty five million dollar contract. with huge perks for one person. profits vs. stability. for example. the auto industry. enjoyed high profits for years. the auto industry swam in huge profits with very little overhead. producing merchandise that would require expensive repair cost well before there foreign competitors.( there down fall.) the world rejected the skillfully engineered, high profiting junk equipment they were pumping out. Mr George Will is it wise for America to " leave well enough alone "? our heath insurance industry in on a path that will ultimately need a bail out as well. it is of my opinion that this bail out will be titled differently. maybe a restructure. could it be operation revamp. this health issue is very different than the auto collapse / bailout. the merchandise is now the human life. i would advise the health reform critics to carefully choose the correct path at the fork in this road. for the American tax payer is who runs this country. not your board members and CEO's. as tolerance levels grow thin with bail outs we ( tax payers ) will not allow greed to dictate our well being. can we imagine a corporate mandated pay cap. let us start making heath care cost cuts from within. we will create options for health insurance and this issue will be closed. let this be a lesson to corporate America. we have had enough of greed! i will end with a quote that baffles me to this day. "whats in your wallet ? "
health care
I wonder why, Wendell it took you 20 years to come forward, did your conscious all of a sudden kick in just before retirement?
healthcare
Better late than never. At least Wendell has a conscience.
Here's a proposal: don't
Here's a proposal: don't allow insurance companies to base their premiums on your age/health status/habits/etc. Make it illegal as if it were a form of discrimination (ie. "The right to health insurance"). That way, their actuarial computations would have to take into account the pool of Americans wanting health insurance. That way, we can truly shop for the lowest premiums. The only differences in cost would be the efficiency of their back-offices. That would surely be cheaper on the whole as compared to the current system (which is cheap until you have to renew your insurance after you've gotten sick). Although the healthier would have to take up some of the slack of the unhealthy. Plus there should be a minimum deductible (say 3000 dollars) so that patient's and doctor's decisions are still coupled to cost.
Just add in some incentives for a healthy lifestyle and (haven't figured that out yet), and we're set.
Stimulus funding mainly goes toward bank deposit for a rainy day
People are so worried about losing their job, coverage, denial of treatment, which seems to increase bank deposit latetly. That means stimulus funding mainly goes toward bank deposit for a rainy day increasing jobless rate. It proves again that a healthy society yields better productivity, prosperity.
It is time to 'Change' the notion of the public health as a fundamental human right and install 'a safety system for all' like all of the other industrialized nations, I think.
Please don't delete; Not a "removable, personal attack"
We have a very similar problem in health care access as we do in media --television and radio-- access. Private fiefdoms have been set up on top of the public in order to enrich the feudal lords at the expense of the common people.
Why? Because this arrangement provides the aristocrats with enough financial and political clout to control who gets to run for important elected offices, like Congress, Senate, or President of the United States.
Like O'Brien said in 1984:
There's no ultimate reason for wanting power. It is the end in itself.
After a high, single-digit number of gin and tonics or martinis on a Saturday evening in June, just as the lawn party is wrapping up, I can hear George Will saying something to that same effect as his buddy or his wife helps him to his car--you know, in an unguarded moment.
He should know, after all. He's one of the deceptive mouthpieces placed by the ruling class in order to stifle meaningful public political discourse (without the public realizing they're being gagged).
O'Brien has nothing on Will.
So there really can't be reform. There can only be a strangling of meaningful dialogue, with the usual failed results, as long as we the people let ourselves be controlled by the corporate chiefs, deceived by their media ministers, and frustrated by their officeholding stooges.
For those in power, and their George Will-ish propagandists, reform would be like giving the manor to the serfs.
Health care rationing-myth or truth?
Mr. Potter, I too applaud your humanity for taking the plunge and decided to root for the little guy.
The loudest drum beat of the anti-reform crowd is that if you have a nationalized plan, you will have rationed care. See 7-7-09 WSJ Opinion page
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692973435303415.html
It is a well crafted argument that you see everywhere. Care to comment?
FF
Myth
A "well-crafted argument"? I'm afraid I must have missed that part because all I saw was a cheap effort at using selective statistical manipulation to achieve the same old tired fear-mongering that the US ruling class has been using quite successfully to motivate gullible authoritarian conservatives into dieing for their leaders causes, and doing it on their own dime. And being proud of it! (grooaan.. why do they do it??!)
What you will rarely see in stories like this WSJ piece, is the use of Canadian statistics and/or anecdotes to make their case. This despite the universal health-care we Canadians adopted long ago. And the reason for that is simple. The typical American doesn't know anybody in Great Britain whom they can ask whether these things are true or not, whereas this is not the case when it comes to knowing somebody who is living or has lived in Canada.
Because if they did ask, they would hear the very same thing I am going to tell you about this attempt to deceive you. It's Bull-S**t! Period.
Health Care Reform
You discuss at length the problems of health care reform, but fail to mention that the ultimate reform must come from Americans taking charge of their own health. . . Changing to more healthful lifestyles that reduce their need for doctors and drugs.
'Ultimate'? Uh-uh.
I agree people should do what they can to take care of their own health, but that word "ultimate" only works if healthful lifestyles sufficed to eliminate the need for doctors and drugs, not just reduce it. Failing that, healthful lifestyle would merely be a "very significant" reform, not the ultimate one.
And remember, the deck is stacked against healthful choices for much of the population. You want healthful lifestyles for everyone, you have to do something about the economic, political, social and cultural factors that stand in the way.
Take charge of health?
I agree with you, Mr. Durbin, to a point. Sure, we have way too much obesity in this country which leads to higher cholesterol, more heart attacks and Type II diabetes. Some of this is unavoidable due to the highly processed, preserved, saturated and salted foods many have no choice but to eat. (I think there's an argument here for taxes on super sugary foods and drinks). And smokers are just asking for lung cancer. (Fortunately, we've taxed that to kingdom come and put informative labels on all products and advertising bans to children.)
However, accidents, illness and disease many times come on unexpectedly irregardless of how much you're taking care of yourself. So the crux of the issue comes back to the private insurance industry. The axing of those with pre-existing conditions many of which don't have a culpable cause, is in my view immoral.
Would you rather have a corporate bureaucrat concerned about his or her profit margin make health care decisions for you or a government bureaucrat with no interest in making a profit for him/herself?
Healthful Lifestyles
I must comment. We hear this so much! The fact is, STUFF happens. My wife suffered terrible symptoms for ten years. The doc would not go up against the insurance company and demand they pay for the tests. He told her it was stress and menopause (at age 40). After ten years of misery, my wife insisted on a battery of tests. Luckily, a radiologist reviewed another radiologist's diagnosis of a "normal" scan and found the tumors. By then, it had metastasized. Now, it costs $11,000 a month to care for her. If anyone knew then or knows now the cause of carcinoid, or neuro-endocrine, tumors, they must make that info available. Fact is, no one knows. My wife never smoked, worked out regularly, and had at most a glass of wine a week. Bad things happen to good people. This blame game is just another ploy of the insurance industry. I hope and pray to God that you do not have to deal with the misery that my wife faces every day. The reality is that you, nor anyone else, can prevent some diseases by lifestyle, prayer, or voodoo. That is why everyone must be in a national health insurance plan with a public option.
McNamara of Health Care
I worked for CIGNA for nearly twenty years, most of in the account management field. Apparently Mr. Potter who made quite a bit of money either keeping quiet about what he saw or getting his own hands dirty, was in charge of the communication arm that we used to inform customers of our policies.
I find it odd that he chose to come forward after he retires comfortably.
He reminds me of former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara who sent soldiers to their deaths in Viet Nam and only well after he retired did he admit that mistakes were made under his watch.
If any of Potter's charges are true, then I like the millions of Viet Nam vets who were irate at McNamara's confession feel Wendell Potter let down his fellow CIGNA employees as well as millionas of customers. Donate some of your tained retirement to the uninsured if you feel like making a difference.
Let down?
I notice you're not denying what Potter said.
If his charges are true, how can you feel let down? If they were true, how could you work there for 20 years without realization dawning at some point? Why weren't you out there blowing the whistle on Cigna's practices as exemplified by that so-and-so Potter, or at least looking for a cleaner job? Seems to me that if anyone let you down, you yourself did.
Mr. Potter would not be the
Mr. Potter would not be the first "whistle blower" to come out of a corporate closet. Are we to dismiss him because it took him so long to develop a conscience?
The corporate and political climate in this country has been fouled by greed for so long that even nice people can lose sight of the problems their jobs and careers are causing in society. We are all guilty of this to some degree. Ever think about the cheap labor that makes your clothes or harvests your food. Anyone work for a drug company out there whose products are destroying the livers of countless people everyday.
I think Mr. Potter has shown a lot of courage by coming forward. And I am sure that he is grappling with his recent realization that the industry that he found employment with all these years is responsible for the deaths of thousands and the financial ruin of countless others. Let the man redeem himself. No one is asking that you throw him a party.
No, Mr. Potter has had many
No, Mr. Potter has had many years to reflect on his role. In fact, he should understand just how the system locked himself and others into reality-denial; he was a reality-deflection agent himself. And yet he is still ambivalent and unwilling to address the larger scope.
If those plates had been silver-rimmed, would he have accepted his post-retirement job offer? Really, the public morality of Americans is disgusting. They stoop under the encumbrance of their capitalist armor.
"[E]ven nice people can lose sight of the problems their jobs and careers are causing in society." American's don't "lose sight". They almost never take their blinders off.
Govt-run doesn't work!
Government run healthcare will kill the world's greatest healthcare! What is wrong with you people? Do you honestly believe a government that can't even run Medicaid and Medicare now can handle coverage for the entire population???? Come on...wise up. This is a disaster waiting to happen. And why the rush?? Are you afraid that if you don't cram it down our throats now you'll miss the opportunity because the majority of Americans will figure out how they are getting shafted and then you'll never get it done??? This country better wake up before we lose every single liberty that our forefathers fought and died for....hello??? Anyone listening????
Who says it doesn't work?
First of all, nobody is proposing "government-run health care," but "government-run insurance." So you're misleading from the start.
On what basis do you contend that government-run health insurance won't work? Millions of Americans receive care through Medicare, and most of them are quite happy with it. If they're not, they're free to choose private medical insurance, but most opt for Medicare. And back in the Clinton Administration, when we had people in the government who actually believed in government, the VA ran a very good health care system before the Bush ideologues undermined the system.
There is a fundamental problem with private medical insurance: Insurers make money by NOT paying claims, and incentives for innovation are to find ways to minimize those payouts, rather than in providing better, more cost-effective care. Thus they cherry-pick customers, raise premiums, deny for pre-existing conditions, etc.. And for all the talk of "bureaucrats" getting between patients and doctors, now we have insurance company bureaucrats doing so.
I don't even claim private insurance firms are evil; they're simply rational. I support a single-payer system because then that single payer might have an incentive to spend money on public health and preventive care ("you can pay me now...or pay me later"), which many insurers have no incentive to pay now since the savings might accrue to a different insurer. If a private firm can do this, great, but I suspect only the federal government has the ability to create a single risk pool that would make this possible.
And for those of you who claim government can run things: you probably trust government to fight our wars, so why don't you think they can run health insurance?
fact check the over reaction, then take a breath
the worlds greatest health care? Based on what?
You are either not a provider of health care, or have not required significant health care.
In any event, the design and implementation of a system would determine its utility,
efficiency and value.
The so-called "rush' is that chronic disease is preventable or can be attenuated by early intervention .Lose a single Mom, and you now have a cost multiplier.
What liberties are preserved by restricting procedures and payments by for profit insurance companies?
health care is provided by providers: Doc, nurses, technicians, counselors, etc. and
everyone needs some form, so there is no such thing as health "insurance".
got the feeling you support the military: Single payer.
you use the internet, which came from the government's Arpanet.
there is a lot of lip service to sanctity of life, here is an opportunity to put it into action.
As for veterans, we surely didn't serve to benefit insurance companies,
nor have family members disallowed, rejected, bankrupt or die prematurely.
"Government" is more accountable than the corporation
We have the last 30 years' track record of a privately-oriented health care operation, whose evolved financial structure and incentives are so skewed that the provision of care -- which is the point -- is far too uncertain for too many Americans, even those who are covered.
The market is perfect for defining supply-and-demand for things like bicycles and sporting goods or plumbing services, but not for organizing and delivering health-related skills and resources. It is not appropriate for ensuring the health and well being of an entire nation of citizens. If government is not doing a good job at the tasks we assign it to do, we at least have the power, whether we use it or not, to change it. There is very little power to change what corporations have to do to ensure their continued growth. That is the essential disconnect here and why too many people speak in absolutes while passing in the night. Health care needs to be served by the private market, just like a city hires a contractor to build a library, not controlled by it.
It is amusing to hear status-quo supporters blast the idea that health decisions will be made by the notorious "government beaurocrats," when they are now made by private sector bean-counters. Maybe that's the choice: publicly accountable beaurocrat vs. privately incentivized employee. Really, we can do a hell of a lot better than that.
Govt Run - Medicare...
Actually, Medicare, according to my Ayn Rand/Reagan worshipping brother, is a fairly efficient program. So probably not the best example to use in your anti-goverment run health care argument. Even many conservatives agree with that
Another Misinformation Topic
Medicare does, in fact, work and has worked since 1965. It has done a great job of keeping health care costs under control to the tune of about twelve percent under its private industry counterparts. Funding went south when the Bush Administration added Part D with no corresponding method to fund the new drug benefit. They looked good, all the while sticking a huge monkey wrench into the program. One might even speculate it was intentional, if one is to believe that politicos can think that far ahead, which I do not.
The true dinosaur is employment based group health plans. This practice grew out of the post WW2 economy as a retention tool. Government tax policy encouraged the free ride for good little workers in major industries. Now that we will all be working 39 hours at WalMart, if we're lucky, we should stop believing in the health care fairy and face a stiff dose of reality. We all know it bites.
:Govt run doesn't work"
This item is full of the usual right-wing bullshit. For example:
"Government can't even run Medicaid or Medicare." Really? Government is doing a great job on both of these programs. Medicare's administrative costs are a fraction of those in the private health care industry. And it provides decent health care for some 40 million U.S. senior citizens, at a fraction of what Big Health Inc. charges.
"Wake up before we lose every single liberty that our forefathers fought and died for." Irrelevant moralizing. What liberty? To pay ever-increasing health care premiums? To find, just before an expensive operation, that our insurance doesn't cover it? To be refused coverage because we once had a disease that is now cured? If that;s liberty, I'll take government "control."
VA healthcare works
It's disturbing to me that whenever government healthcare is mentioned, the speaker usually refers to the Medicare system. This seems to me to be a misnomer. Medicare is an insurance system - not healthcare. The VA, on the other hand, is a highly functional system of providing health care. While any system is only as good as the individuals who make it function, the care provided by the VA healthcare system is based upon established standards of care and best practices. As a result, patients receive quality and timely care. As a veteran who has experienced employer-sponsored healthplans as well as self-pay options, I am grateful to have access to "government healthcare" - it's the most coordinated and proactive care I've ever received!
What is needed seems to me to be a reform of the way we receive care. If what care I can receive is dependent upon how much profit some other entity obtains, then my life is being treated as a commodity - or property - the quality of which depends upon whether someone else can make money as a result. Is this not a perverse form of human trafficking? To profit from the life, health (or lack thereof)of another? It is very different to make a profit on a service, or a product. But when profit is intimately linked to another's physical/mental being, then I think our morality is what needs reform.
VA Health Care System
TF, you think the VA health system works? Are you serious?
..
You are correct when you say that the VA system is government-run health care and is unlike Medicare's insurance only system. That is the problem.
..
Fact is, the US Government can't even deliver mail at a profit. Come on folks! Wake up!
..
If you like the VA system, you apparently think that rationed health care (Priority Groups), means testing for benefits, and sub-standard procedures (dirty colonoscopy tubes) is the way to go. If the VA system is so good, why don't they do away with TriCare, Medicare, and other government health programs and use the VA system?
..
The VA health system is what universal care run by the government would become....a disaster. Even governments with government-run health care are starting to see that.
..
A few of the facts: http://www1.va.gov/opa/Is1/1.asp
The government could fix the VA easily...
...just end these wars and use the money to deliver adequate funding to the VA on time.
One more time -- how the hell can anyone still say for-profit insurers don't ration care? The difference is, they do it to maximize their bottom line, not to try to deliver what care they can, with the resources they have, to the greatest number of patients.
And if you want to convince people that a government-run system must necessarily perform as badly as our resource-starved VA, you'll have to start by supplying some dirty-colonoscopy stories from the UK, France, et al., and keep going from there.
You're too quick to say "can't." Not subsidizing junk mail on the backs of first- and second-class users would be a good start.
"If the VA system is so
"If the VA system is so good, why don't they do away with TriCare, Medicare, and other government health programs and use the VA system?"
What?? Are you not awake or just what do you think we've been trying to do all these years? And apparently your the last conservative in the US to know that the VA system is widely agreed upon, and by no less a partisan voice as Bill Kristol, to be the superior health-care system in the USA.
I ask you, do you seriously think Aetna would be footing the bill for the tens of thousands of soldiers coming back with injuries that run the entire course of possibilities if they were allowed to drop them? Like hot potatoes they would!
Look. Why is the US the only First World government not to adopt it? Cold War rhetoric you've swallowed during the fight against communism. Period.
You are now victims of your own BS! Rather fitting in a Machiavellian/Twilight Zone sort of way, doncha think? I sure do.
Wendell Potter's analysis of George Will column
Potter states that Will suggests we should leave well enough alone. That is not true, Potter has, seemingly intentionally, misstated what Will said.
Will's column analyzed many aspects of the costs of health care, and the impending crisis caused by massive deficits, and the massive costs of health reform, and specifically said:
"The public, its attention riveted by the fiscal train wreck of trillion-dollar deficits for the foreseeable future, may be coming to the conclusion that we should leave bad enough alone".
Notice, Will did not say to leave well enough alone. He specifically used different terminology, which Potter ignored.
Will also cited polls and surveys on what Americans are willing to pay for health care. Potter's column is utterly misleading as to what Will said.
I think we need health care changes, but Potter's analysis of the Will column is so incomplete and misleading, that Potter hurts the chances for health care reform.
Potter comes across more and more as a man who made a lot of money in the insurance business, as an executive, and now sees he can make a lot more as a whistle blower.
Let's have a real analysis of what critics of health care reform as proposed by many Democrats, not a misstatement of what these critics say.
Potter's analysis of what Will says, versus what Will actually says, is tantamount to lies by Potter.
Do tell.
Such as? I'd be interested to hear some specifics.
So, who's going to pay him all that dough? Who, but the industry he left, can afford to? CMD for one isn't exactly rolling in it.
Who's misleading?
Here's the exact quote, which comes in the first paragraph incidentally, a fact that strongly suggests you were depending on the gullible not to check your own veracity....which is of course, lacking.
"In the beginning," says a character in a Peter De Vries novel, "the earth was without form and void. Why didn't they leave well enough alone?" When Washington is finished improving health care, Americans may be asking the same thing."
George F. Will - A Regrettable 'Fix' on Health Care - washingtonpost.com (4 August 2009)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/26/AR2009062603457.html
http://tinyurl.com/nnujrj
You're redeeming yourself Wendell
I really enjoyed watching your interview with Bill Moyers. Sounds like you had a real life changing experience near where you grew up. Now that you're retired and I'm sure, very well off financially, you are doing the right thing and speaking truth to power. I hope that you have maintained some strong "connections" within the health care insurance industry so that you can continue to give us the inside scoop on what they are up to in order to scuttle REAL reform in health care, preferably with a single-payer system. No legislator should settle for anything less than a very robust public option. Great idea to poke George Will here. He should stick to writing about baseball. He IS out of touch with everyday Americans.
Two points
1. One question everyone should be asking: Do I want a bureaucrat who is paid based on an increase of medial care provided to determine whether or not I get cared for or do I want a bureaucrat who is paid based on the number of claims denied to determine whether or not I get medial care? Right now, we have the latter.
We should accept that SOMEONE other than ourselves and our doctor will always oversee a medical care program. Stating that a "bureaucrat" will be in charge of our health care is like saying "the sky is blue."
2. Every commentator, pundit, columnist who wants to write about healthcare issues should disclose the following:
- Who is your health insurance company?
- Who is paying for your policy?
- What is your annual contribution?
- What is your annual deductible?
- Can this policy be revoked due to a particular illness or accident?
Then, the reader or listener can determine for him/herself how credible the person is.
More health care opinions: http://www.dogwalkblog.com/2009/06/24/insurance-disclosures/
Universal Health Care
My response to the supposed Health Care debate (which leaves out single-payer views): http://seaclearly.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/health-care-solved-are-you-poor-sorry
"misleading statements and statistics"
Mr. Potter,
I appreciate your argument about George Will's column, but encourage you to be more careful about your own claims, especially given your desire to "call out misleading statements and statistics." You write "chances are [Mr. Will] has stashed enough away that he can afford to shell out the nearly $13,000 that the average annual premium for decent family coverage costs these days... The median household income in this country is just about $50,000. I’m betting it has been a few years since Will faced paying more than a fourth of his family’s annual income—before taxes—just to cover the health insurance premiums." But the dollar amounts that you're comparing come from groups that aren't directly comparable. The "average annual premium" you reference is not an average across all families; it is for a family of four. In contrast, the mean household size is 3. I'm guessing that the "average" annual premium is a mean, not a median, and while I don't expect that the mean and median health insurance costs vary as much as the mean and median incomes, it's still not clear to me that it's appropriate to compare a mean cost with a median income. You also shift from families (for the premium cost) to households (for income); families and households are not equivalent, as the members of a household need not be related. I agree with your overall argument; I just think that you need to be more careful about these category shifts -- if you're sloppy about this, you're telling Mr. Will and others that it's OK for them to be sloppy too. And of course for some people, it may not be sloppiness; it may be a purposeful decision to mislead people by shifting among non-interchangeable categories while glossing over the fact that the categories aren't interchangeable. Thanks for your work. I was glad to see your interview with Bill Moyers, which is what lead me here. We need more people to join you in speaking out.
"misleading statements and statistics"
Mr. Potter,
I appreciate your argument about George Will's column, but I encourage you to be more careful in your own claims, especially given your desire to "call out misleading statements and statistics." You write "chances are [Mr. Will] has stashed enough away that he can afford to shell out the nearly $13,000 that the average annual premium for decent family coverage costs these days... The median household income in this country is just about $50,000. I’m betting it has been a few years since Will faced paying more than a fourth of his family’s annual income—before taxes—just to cover the health insurance premiums." But the dollar amounts that you're comparing come from groups that aren't comparable. The "average annual premium" you reference is not an average across all families; it is for a family of four, and median income households are more likely to only have three people in them. I'm also guessing that the "average" annual premium is a mean, not a median, and while I don't expect that the mean and median health insurance costs vary as much as the mean and median incomes, it's still not clear to me that it's appropriate to compare a mean cost with a median income. You also shift from families (for the premium cost) to households (for income); families and households are not equivalent, as the members of a household need not be related. I agree with your overall argument, and the general thrust should still be true if you use more accurate comparisons (although probably a bit less dramatic). If you're sloppy about these kinds of category shifts, though, you're telling Mr. Will and others that it's OK for them to be sloppy too. And of course for some people, it may not be sloppiness; it may be a purposeful decision to mislead others by shifting among non-interchangeable categories while glossing over the fact that the categories aren't interchangeable. Thanks for your work. I was glad to see your interview with Bill Moyers, which is what lead me here. We need more people to join you in speaking out.
health care reform
We need reform when there are so many people who can't afford reasonable health care, and insurance is largely a racket business. I am concerned about WHAT kind of reform we will have, because it isn't fair to make the public pay through the nose for the health care of people who choose to smoke, eat excessively, get unnecessary abortions, and many other lifestyle choices that result in high health care expenses.
...people who choose to
You mean people who got sucked in by tobacco company marketing and peer pressure as kids and then found themselves hooked as adults, just as the tobacco companies intended? If we had a government-run single payer system, the government could simply bill the tobacco companies annually for the money it spent on care for tobacco-related illnesses, plus a suitable multiple of those companies' marketing budgets. That would be a more humane and more just solution, and one that would help more to get rid of smoking altogether, than simply withholding coverage from smokers.
Who'll pass judgment on which abortions are "unnecessary," some committee of James Dobson clones? You'd better hope not, unless you as a taxpayer are willing to foot the bill for the many times larger social services costs the unwilling and likely unprepared mother will require for years to come. Oh, and you might want to stop covering Viagra but not contraception as well.
Why Not Compassion vs. Cost?
Glad that a former insider has entered the fray. It doesn't matter when you, Wendell, saw the light, but that you did and are willing to share your perspective in a very public way.
Why can't we re-frame the criterion for change. Now, it's all about cost and minimizing profit (only for those on our side). But it is essential to dare the disbelievers to call up that nationalistic fervor over Americans as compassionate and caring (a powerful myth that is probably now only rarely true). Your experience at the "expedition" made the U.S. appear like a 3rd world country. We can be no better as a nation than how we treat the poorest among us. Wonder if the pundits could gravitate toward the bumper sticker-length mantra that "We Owe Health Care to Our Fellow Americans"? We need to counter divisive slogans with other ones.
"Socialized" programs for society are no more threatening compassion for the sick and helpless. And we are all helpless thanks to the insurance industry's grip on access to health care providers.
Health Care Reform
Dear Mr. Potter,
I am grateful for your courage to speak out on the Healthcare issue and expose the efforts by the Healthcare Industry to derail real healthcare reform. Unlike the belief's of Frank Lutz & his Republican counterparts that a Public Option will lead to rationing, I know as well as they do that we already have rationing with the current Industry run system!
I have also asked my German friends what their opinion is of Germany’s Healthcare system and they said they were very satisfied with the service and care they received when they lived in Germany. Unlike Frank Lutz’s talking points they did not experience rationing or government interference with their healthcare while living in Germany.
Please keep speaking out and working to dispel the miss-information & propaganda perpetuated by the Healthcare Industry and their Republican supporters. Below is a letter I sent to Senator Feinstein on this topic.
Sincerely,
Tom
Dear Senator Feinstein,
I just want you to know that I support President Obama’s suggestion for including a Public Option in the Health Care reform plan. The main reason I can think of as to why someone would not support a public option is that they are too close to the health care industry and maybe accept too much money and or support from this industry. I wonder what their position on this subject would be if all elections were publically funded and they could not accept any money or support from the health care industry?
First of all I do believe that health care is a right and not a privilege. With this premise in mind then maybe the basic heath care providers should operate as “Not for Profit” organizations and should not be set up as for profit businesses? I urge you to work for the American citizens and put their interest first before the Health Care industry in this debate and restructuring of our health care system.
If you take the side of Republicans like Representative John Boehner and the health care industry then I will be very disappointed in your position and you will lose my support as well as my other Democratic friends support. We will work to get Democrats elected who truly support the citizens of this country and not special interest like the Health Care Industry!
Sincerely,
Thomas Radich
PS: It seems to me after listening to the debates on health care reform, Cap & Trade & reform of the financial institutions by Congress, that the only hope for real reform in any area is to get money out of politics. The special interest groups seem to have much more influence over Congress than the American People. I urge you to also support campaign finance reform & I support publically funded elections.
So you are mad because
So you are mad because George Will makes enough money to pay for his health care? Why don't you make more money and pay for your own darn health care?
inequities
At the heart of the matter lie the basic inequities that exist within our current system. Read the history books about the robber barons and see if there is not some similarity to the CEOs for example. The disequilibrium is the problem. I urge you to think carefully and not simply give a knee jerk reaction. If you are one of the lucky ones who can afford health care, that is awesome. However, do you believe that makes it ok, or even good, to ignore the fact that others cannot? Do you honestly believe that health care is a commodity that should depend upon the value that society has placed upon you? Open your heart and stop worrying about opening your wallet. If you fear that helping others will give you less than either you don't have much, in which case, one would think you would sympathize, or you have not considered the humanistic side carefully. Be thankful you have what you have and imagine those working hard to get even the mininimum necessary to survive. And don't kid yourself, they are working hard. For every person who is not working hard to live on the low end of the scale, we can find a person on the high end who 'works' by playing golf and taking people out to dinner. Of course, there will always be some hierarchy, but we have allowed it to go on too long.
No skin in the game
Mr. Potter is spot on with his comments about George Will. The right loves to say that many Americans have insurance and are perfectly happy with it, but what they don't say is how much these Americans are paying per year for that coverage, or how much of an impact their premiums have on their purchasing power. I think the average family premium is now closer to $16,000 per year and for many people who profess to be happy with what they have, I'd be willing to bet they are paying only a fraction of that cost. In the words of the insurance industry, they have no "skin in the game".
The biggest problem with the current system is that the costs of managing risk for our entire population are being borne inequitably by too few people. No one who shows up at a hospital needing treatment will get turned away- the costs just get shifted elsewhere, mainly in the form of higher premiums for those who are covered. Moreover, if you work for a small company (like less than 100 lives insured), you are penalized because your small risk pool represents an expensive account for the insurer, so they jack your rates up through the roof. Meanwhile, larger companies with safer risk pools get better deals. How in the world is that fair?
Lastly, what I find most perplexing is that someone like George Will would fail to understand how the current system hampers entrepreneurship and limits American competitiveness. People are afraid to start their own companies or move to better jobs because they can't afford the health insurance. Companies have to pass the costs of insurance on to customers...doesn't George get this? Either he is just not paying attention or he's bought the line of the insurance industry. I'm betting on the latter.