Correspondent of the Day: Special Interests Call the Shots
Special Interests Call the Shots
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Western Europe, Australia, and Japan have universal health care at a lower cost per patient than the U.S., and their health statistics are comparable to or better than those of the U.S. Those democratic countries establish their health care systems by law, so their citizens can vote for leaders to end them if they are unpopular. But they don't.
The U.S. is wealthier than those countries, yet opponents of health care reform argue that the U.S. cannot ensure all citizens health care at a reasonable cost. Somehow this argument lacks logic. Could it be that rich special interests are disproportionately profiting from the current system, that their political power gives them a veto over public policy, and that consumers have no political power?
Groups opposing reform can afford saturating TV with misleading ads. Conservative columnists and FOX News present anti-reform propaganda. So do right-wing think tanks, publications, and blogs, many funded by these groups.
In a recent column, Robert Samuelson absurdly argues that more access to health care does not mean a healthier U.S. population. His arguments presume a health care market that is free or competitive. This is a myth. Adam Smith would not recognize the U.S. health care market as competitive, at least for the consumer. A market in which the consumer has either to find a job with health care benefits or purchase an individual policy that is prohibitively expensive for most people is not competitive.
Special interests that profit disproportionately from this unfree market use big campaign contributions, expensive lobbyists, and propaganda campaigns to keep the status quo while Congress pleases these groups with reform proposals meant to fail. It's these facts that give Samuelson's specious arguments the appearance of credence.
Charles W. Peraino.
Richmond.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
“Nobody seems to be saying much about reducing the cost of health care.”….Got that right; especially many in Congress who are more supportive of the largest most powerful lobby system in Washington…insurers and pharmaceuticals.
Why do insurers charge so much? Cause they can. Why do insurers and pharmaceuticals charge some drugs under Medicare 2X’s+ more than buying same drugs via Canada shipped from Germany at retail value? Cause they can. Why do they? Cause they are for-profit-only entities. Insurers make profits via four means of operation: increasing premiums 10%+ per year, raising copays of their customers, denying claims in part or whole, and squeezing physicians and hospitals for lower contracted pricing. Pharmaceuticals? As noted, charging far more to Americans than in any other country on earth. Classic example is the Medicare Plan D program, a $ bone tossed at them by Junior Bush for services rendered, meaning campaign support. Plan D was a classic Sting, producing vast profits for the “base”, while Bush could crow to we old folks, “look what I’ve done for you” (better would be…”to you”). An 85-yr old grandmother gets her mail order Lipitor at $87 copay + $239 paid by taxpayers (Medicare); thus $327, vs. buying the same stuff from a German pharmacy at $159 ($119 generic). Heck, we’d be “better served” by letting the government set up a mail order system; where by, that 85-yr old lady’s grandson calls the order to Washington (heck, outsource the whole thing to India), gets it delivered to grandma for a $50 copay, and Washington pays the German pharmacy the $159 + $10 order fee to India, and we taxpayers (Medicare) are out $119 ($79 generic) vs. current $239, cutting taxpayers’ costs in half.
But that might be considered prudent management. Heaven forbade, better to call it socialism! Saving money thus, is BAD. Would hurt the lobbyists and their profiteer employers.
Everybody talks about how to pay for health care. Nobody seems to be saying much about reducing the cost of health care.
Why do doctors charge so much. Two reasons and they are related. Lawsuits where plaintiffs are awarded millions of dollars in so called damages. These lawsuits result in higher malpractice premiums. In order to protect themselves against lawsuits, doctors order extra diagnostic tests which may not really be necessary. Now the premium for the patients medical insurance goes up because of the cost of the extra testing.
Finally, it’s back to the excessive awards from jurors who have no earthly idea the difference between a hemostat and a thermostat. They listen to the tear jerking arguments of the plaintiff’s lawyers, and feel sorry for the patient and believe nobody is being hurt because “the doctor is covered by insurance”
An interesting suggestion that I heard of just today, is to create a separate court system specializing in medical malpractice. Just as courts specialize in Juvenile offenses, divorces, bankruptcies, and others, these medical courts could be in a position to make more educated and less emotional decisions protecting both the doctors, as well as those patients who have been legitimately harmed.
Thank you for the compliment.
I aim to please.
I don’t carry all the information in my head on every subject so sometimes I have to resort to googling.
There is so much contradictary information out there. You are only safe putting everything in quotes. Or paraphrasing. Or pretending that you do have all the information at the edge of your brain.
Here is one to add to your collection.
Newcomers Network de.
Your Online Community in Germany.
It is very informative on this subject and dated 21 June.
Take two aspirin and call me in the morning!
Our thanks to greta for her level of intelligence in wising us up.
Among other newly-found bits of knowledge she allows herself to share are:
1) Germany’s health care system is funded by the people; not the government. Many of us Americans had thought the people’s government was…the government funded by the people already.
2) Germany’s hourly workers pay a 15.7% tax on their gross pay. Salaried workers pay or buy private insurance which can be partially or fully funded by their employers. Citizens can choose to bypass the 15.7% withdrawal if they buy private insurance…Greta’s wisdom contradicts National Public Radio’s research of July 2008 that reported: All German workers pay about 8% of their gross income to a nonprofit insurance company called a sickness fund. Their employers pay about the same amount. Workers can choose among 240 sickness funds. Basing premiums on a percentage-of-salary means that the less people make, the less they have to pay. The more money they make, the more they pay. This principle is at the heart of the system. Germans call it “solidarity.“ The idea is that everybody’s in it together, and nobody should be without health insurance. It’s about the same proportion of income that American workers pay, on average, if they get their health insurance through their job. The big difference is that U.S. employers pay far more, on average, than German employers do — 18% of each employee’s gross income versus around 8% in Germany. (No wonder U.S. systems cost as part of GDP is 50%+ more than Germany’s.)…and…Moreover, German health insurance has more generous benefits than U.S. policies cover. There are never any deductibles, for instance, before coverage kicks in. And all Germans get the same coverage. Plus, theirs cover all parts of health; like dental, visual (exams & glasses), and hearing, like hearing aids.
Indeed, thanks Greta, we know our health pain system is far worse than others.
Keyword-Basic.
After an interesting afternoon researching this subject I have found that there is a program for virtually every conceivable economic group to recieve “basic” health care.
Oddly enough many people do not take advantage of the programs available.
The much touted German system is in big trouble financially.
The systemis funded by the people not the government. Hourly workers pay a 15.7% tax on their gross pay. Salaried workers pay or buy private insurance which can be partially or fully funded by their employers. Citizens can choose to bypass the 15.7% withdrawal if they buy private insurance.
But just like in the old days. They get quicker treatments from doctors and hospitals because the “fee for service” is highter.
And from pages of similar sad stories in the British newspapers. This one from the London Sunday Times.
“When Linda O’Boyle 64, was diagnosed with cancer she decided to pay for additional private treatment out of pocket, hoping to prolong her life. O’Boyle was told that a medication not provided by NHS would increase her chabces of fighting the disease. After deciding to use her own savings to pay for these outside medications, NHS withdrew their services, including chemotherapy because current governmentlaws ban a patient from combining public and private health care. O’Boyle died 3/26/o8.“
Canada sends her more complex ob/gyn cases to the US.
All of the systems including ours have serious flaws, but after corresponding with my friends in Europe for lo these many years I will take our system any day.
“Americans seem to be under the delusion that under UHC they would be entitled to the same care as Donald Trump and it is going to readily available and close to free.”…Really? Oh, I don’t think people who can not afford basic health care truly feel nor demand they have access to the Cleveland Clinic for cardiac care, nor Mayo, Johns Hopkins, and such. Key word….”basic”. Affordability with copays to go to a general practitioner once a year for very basic look-over and some very basic blood work. Affordability with copays to go to hospital for birth of your baby (some insurers consider pregnancy as a life-long prior condition that can be used to deny coverage years later, or double the premium of that of “healthy“ insured). Basic care, like ALL other civilized nations now have. ALL. We are the only one that does not have basic call for all citizens. They ALL did wrong 50 years ago when formulating their systems of combo packages of basic care for all + private self-paid insurance like Donald Trump may have? If so, why has not even one country’s voters demanded return to the old days of “survival of the fittest”, meaning care for only those rich enough to afford it? Why does not Germany change their system to mirror ours? Why have WE not read a single
ALL other countries put their people’s health care needs above profit needs of corporations.
MacKenzie. Some good ideas! Perhaps he has love ones going through insurance financial pains. Add to it no private insurer can deny coverage to any person who takes meds for high blood pressure or had prior condition, such as a minor stroke many years earlier + no upcharge over same premium rate for same age male or female in their system of coverage. Today in VA there is one only option for a 62-yr old homemaker who had prior condition many years ago. It’s Anthem BCBS Virginia Standard with $5,000 deductible and 50%+ copays for meds and no coverage for doctor visits, at $755/mo, to increase 14%+ to $864/mo on July 1. That’s it. No other options.
Health care in the past was always viewed, and rightly so as a personal responsibility.
The quality of care was consumensurate with one’s ability to pay.
Just like some could afford larger homes and better food and schooling for their children.
And guess what? In Europe it is still the case. Harley Street physicians are not treating West Enders. Many
Americans seem to be under the delusion that under UHC they would be entitled to the same care as Donald Trump and it is going to readily available and close to free.
No. the wealthy and upper middle class will have the good health care they have always enjoyed. And for the rest of the hoi polloi “Waits will grow longer, costs will go up, and quality of care will go down.“ That quote comes from the Ross McKenzie article in today’s RTD.
He goes on to say.
“Politically, we probably have reached a time when the government has to mandate health care coverage for everyone. It could do that simply by requiring every taxpayer to attach to his federal tax return a certificate of coverage for him and his dependents. (non-taxpayers would get medical care through a pool funded in any of various ways.) Then private insurance carriers would compete to sell state-sanctioned pklans at lowest costs for a multitude of coverage plans.
‘That sounds a lot like the federal Employmees Health benefits Plan under which congresspersons and presidents buy their medical coverage.‘
Bingo”
How does that sound for a plan?
First thought is “are we a civilized society”? Of course. Organized civilized societies band together for basic needs of the society, determined to be basic rights as a whole. Basic needs as with security (military, police, and fire depts), basic education for all (grades 1-12), basic access to other forms of learning (city, county, state libraries), basic access to electricity, water, gas, roads….many basics paid partly by the whole of a civilized society and/or partly by individuals, relative to usage. Is one too poor to pay much in taxes denied security of our military and police? Denied access to basic education for their kids? No.
Denied access to “basic” health care? Yes. Not so with ALL other civilized societies. As bad as the Cuban government is, and it is bad; no citizens are denied access to basic health care because they can not afford it.
While most people definitely want health care - and want it to be affordable, is it really a “right” for everyone? Honestly? It is somewhat different than freedom of speech, peaceful assembly or the right to bear arms.
First, it is not enshrined in the US Constitution (nor even mentioned). Second, to make something a “right” in today’s world would imply (or require) it to be funded or paid for by someone else.
If we really want to go down this road, then do it properly. Pass a constitutional amendment that states health care as a duty of the federal government. Right now, it is not an enumerated power. Should it be made one now? This is an issue that needs to be addressed.
As for special interests opposing it, that is 100 percent true. There is enough ‘money’ in the health care system of our nation to provide an adequate level of care - no doubt. The rub is that as soon as you make something “free” or a “right” accessible to all, a whole other can of worms is opened and we will potentially make a bad situation worse.
How will a nationalized system not lead to rationing? Is it any better to have federal bureaucrats making decisions now being made by insurance companies or doctors? Just how high will our taxes have to go? How do we put a handle on ‘recreational medicine’ and people abusing the system because things appear “free” to them?
The old saying about being careful what you wish for comes to mind!
~ So sayeth The Dutchman ~
True.
Some have even been so indoctrinated as to believe basic health care is a privilege, not a basic human right other civilized societies have embraced. If public schools grades K-12 and public libraries were similarly operated like our health care system, many kids and their families would not have access to them.
There are basic legs on which a nation can survive or not in a competitive world. Among them are basic health care and education. When we have both legs strong, the general populace can better achieve self-sufficiency and contribution from all members, to the betterment of the nation as a whole and best for its position as a world of nations.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement