I’ve been taking flak this week from several sources about inserting my ‘political’ views into this blog.
Guilty.
I’m also wondering why I didn’t hear similar complaints a few weeks ago when I was pillorying the Democrats [here here and here] for failing to include anything remotely resembling real cost containment in either the House or Senate Finance bills. Which is exactly what the “Town Hall Protesters” should be yelling about.
The problem with the Dems’ health reform efforts to date have nothing to do with death panels, rationing, government control of health care or any other right wing myth. We can’t afford to expand coverage unless we control costs. Covering another 35-45 million folks without controlling cost will devastate the budget, force large tax increases, and take funds away from infrastructure, energy, education, defense, and other critical needs.
That’s where the Dems are vulnerable – another entitlement expansion we can’t afford. Yet for some reason the protesters aren’t screaming at the top of their lungs about cost.
Are they not concerned about cost? Do they think a big new entitlement program is less of a problem than funding abortions or so-called death panels? Is the fate of Trig Palin more of an issue than the potential for vastly increased deficits? Are protesters OK with massive cost increases, as long as there aren’t death panels or comparative effectiveness research?
Of course not.
If they stopped for even a moment and thought about the Democrats’ proposed reform initiatives, the trillion dollar cost would become the front-and-center issue. Why haven’t they?
Perhaps it is because the opponents of health care reform don’t want anyone to start thinking about cost – after all, controlling cost means lower revenues and profits for hospitals, doctors, medical device companies, insurers, pharma, and other stakeholders. Sure, some will come out just fine, but the majority are terrified that meaningful, real cost controls will take big bites out of their top lines. But they can’t say this in public, even if they’re chewing their nails to the elbow in boardrooms.
So instead they are funding these fake ‘grassroots’ movements using made-up and patently false claims to scare the bejesus out of regular folks who will then (hopefully) kill any hope of health reform, thereby preserving the industry stakeholders’ business models.
I don’t have the resources to find out who the funders are behind Americans for Prosperity, Patients United Now (PUN – get it?) and many of the other groups. But there is ample evidence that one of the primary anti-reform groups is headed by Rick Scott, former CEO of hospital company HCA. The founder of Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, Scott has hired the same PR group responsible for the Swift Boat campaign to gin up resistance to reform.
Scott is a sleazeball. While he headed up HCA, the company was fined $1.7 billion for Medicare and Medicaid fraud; the company grew by buying up as many hospitals as possible in a market then shut down selected facilities while jacking up prices at the remaining hospitals. Great for his investors, not great for patients, employers, or taxpayers in HCA-dominated markets.
He’s also an investor in a Florida walk-in clinic operation, Solantic.
I’m sure there are other Rick Scotts out there, using their ill-gotten gains to encourage ignorant folks to rally against health care reform. I just wish I had the time to track them all down.
Aug
11
I agree with you, it is the costs. One of the main cost drivers is the Malpractice Insurance that each practitioner, hospital, and medical equipment company must carry. The Trial Lawyers are the biggest supporters of the Democrats, so the TorT reform will not be part of their plan.
The reason the ‘protesters’ at town hall meetings are not screaming about costs or cost containment that MUST be part of any true ‘health care reform’ is because they believe that cost containment would/could only come from ‘rationing’. Clearly none of these folks recognize that the real rationing in health care as it currently works is when a recission kicks in because you had the bad luck of actually getting sick while insured by one of these for profit companies. Having profit drive health care is ALWAYS going to eliminate a health insurer from willingly paying claims, especially claims that are costly as it would directly and negatively impact the bottom line.
Better to frighten those who have not yet suffered through recission into believing that a health insurance executive cares about your health and well being while your government does not. A public policy is the ONLY way to effect real health care reform that covers all citizens and controls costs. Otherwise health care is just another consumer item like a car…you may need it to get to work, but what you buy is dependent on your ability to pay.
And as to the other commmenter who said that tort reform is necessary to move health care reform and won’t be included because Dems take money from trial lawyers. I agree, but with a purely public plan such reform would follow naturally.
Cherilyn and Valerie – exactly how much of an influence is malpractice insurance on health care costs, and how much would tort reform reduce costs, and what do you base those statements on? I would encourage you to research the subject and provide sources and evidence to support your opinions. The fact is medmal and tort reform would have a rather minor impact on costs. see previous posts.
I fear you are paying too much attention to others’ statements and not enough to unbiased research.
I think you have to be careful how you label people in this situation.
For example, “opponents of health care reform” – i’m sure there actually are a small % of americans out there who want NOTHING to change about our healthcare system in general.
However, you’d be better off using the phrase “opponents of this administration’s idea of healthcare reform”. There are many more people that fit into that group; actually, according to recent polls, more people in this country are opposed to “this administrations idea of healthcare reform” than are for it.
Also, throwing all of the citizens who attend the townhalls into one group, labeling them as a “fake grassroots movement” is a little unfair as well. I’m sure some of them are bogus, or intent on disrupting things (which is stupid if you ask me), but i’m sure many of them are attending on their own free will (as i will) and are truly angry and upset about the steamroller that appears ready to crush them and some of their personal liberties.
It’s fascinating; according to a recent poll, the core issue here is more about the government getting bigger and more obtrusive and less about healthcare. If these numbers are correct, then i’m sure you can understand why so many people are angry and upset–just the mention of gov’t involvement immediately triggers the thought of increased costs. Why would anyone want the gov’t involved!
As Sean indicates, concerns are not limited to President Obama’s support for an approach to healthcare reform that will not work as proposed. The long-term moral and political ramifications of the approach taken to healthcare reform by the President’s administration are of greater concern to some than solely limiting this issue to economic impact. In that regard, Trig Palin’s life and the lives of the elderly are more important than restricting the argument solely to economic factors.
Healthcare reform, at its heart, must be about improving quality of care, giving doctors and patients more flexibility, and offering new solutions that cut costs. I agree with your statement that ‘we can’t afford to expand coverage unless we control costs’ – the reform movement needs to move beyond the limiting discussion of a public plan, it needs to move beyond scare tactics of euthanasia and abortion, and it needs to start talking instead about how we can innovate and create sustainable solutions for all Americans. I, for one, am trying to get us to focus on moving care to the home, instead of using expensive, overcrowded hospitals and clinics for every care encounter. There are great opportunities to cut 100s of billions of dollars by using technologies that are already available to prevent health problems and injuries from happening in the first place. If only we could spend as much national energy and time trying to invent those kinds of solutions as we have wasted on inventing fear campaigns. There’s no shortage of American ingenuity…we just focus on the wrong problems and issues. http://blogs.intel.com/policy
Joe, if costs are “too high,” as many claim, this is the classic economic excess profits issue. If there are truly excess profits in the system then an entrepreneur could come along, remove the excess profits, and offer a cheaper mousetrap. If this cannot be done, then the excess profits really don’t exist and your left with “it costs what it costs because that’s what it costs.” In that case, while you might be unhappy about the state of things, you might as well rage against the sky being blue.