Spreading the Wealth Around to the Insurance Industry & Friends
This is the time when the excrement starts hitting the fan. The lobbyists are in overdrive, rounding up members of Congress just like the cowboys of the Old West would bring in the herd.
The industry groups will also have their friends in the news media working overtime hyping any possible obstacle to health care reform. And they are filling the airwaves with scary ads, warning that people will never be able to see a doctor again if meaningful health care reform passes.
Since there are trillions of dollars at stake, the effort is understandable. The basic story is simple. The insurance, pharmaceutical, and medical supply industries, along with the hospitals and the American Medical Association have rigged the deck so that they get rich at the public's expense. They have structured our health care system so that we pay more than twice as much per person as people in other wealthy countries, even though we get worse care by many measures.
The bloat in the health care sector is projected to grow rapidly over the next decade as health care consumes an ever larger share of the economy. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimates that just the increase in health care spending over the next decade will cost us $4.3 trillion. That is equal to a health care tax of $57,000 for an average family of four.
Who benefits from the taxpayers' generosity? CMS projects that $1.4 trillion, or $18,500 per family will go to the hospitals. Doctors and the pharmaceutical companies are each expected to score about $550 billion, costing families $7,300. And the insurance industry's share of GDP is projected to rise by $360 billion, or $4,800 for an average family.
These massive transfers are not the result of the wonders of the free market. These folks are getting money out of our pockets because their friends in Congress have rigged the deck so the money flows from us to them. For example, the government grants the pharmaceutical industry patent monopolies that prevent normal competition in the prescription drug market.
Unlike every other country in the world, the United States lets the drug companies use their government-granted monopolies to charge whatever they want. As a result, we pay nearly twice as much for our prescription drugs as people in countries like Canada and Germany.
Similarly, doctors are able to tightly control the supply of both U.S. trained physicians and the number of doctors that can enter the country from abroad. If custodians had the same control over the labor market for janitors, they would all be making $80,000 a year. We pay close to twice as much for our doctors as people in other wealthy countries. The gap is especially wide for highly paid specialists like neurosurgeons and cardiologists.
Of course the insurance industry is a total mess. They pocket more than 15 cents for every dollar they pay out to providers. By comparison, the administrative costs of Medicare are less than 2 percent of its revenue. If the insurers ever had to compete with a publicly run insurance plan on a level playing field, they would be blown out of the water.
We know that private insurers can't compete because we already had this experiment with the Medicare program. When private insurers had to compete on a level playing field with the traditional government-run plan they were almost driven from the market. That is why they got their friends in Congress to pass Medicare Advantage. This program spreads the wealth around by giving the private insurers a subsidy of more than 11 percent per patient.
As Congress debates health care reform we should be very clear what is going on. It is easy to devise reforms that will reduce costs without jeopardizing the quality of care.
That is not the fight. The fight is over whether Congress will leave in place structures that will siphon an ever larger amount of money out of taxpayers' pockets and put this money in the hands of the insurance industry, the hospitals, the drug companies and the doctors.
Getting a robust public plan, that both individuals and employers can buy into, will be the key indicator of whether Congress is still determined to redistribute income into the hands of the insurers, the drug companies and the rest. A robust Medicare-type plan will not only reduce the insurance industry's tax on our health care, it will also be able to bargain for lower prices from the drug companies, the medical supply companies and other health care providers.
For this reason, most of the industry is united against any sort of serious public plan. Their latest compromise is a system of small cooperative insurers that will have no bargaining power. That's a cute joke, but it has nothing to do with health care reform.
So keep hold of your scorecard. Unless Congress creates a serious public plan, you can expect to be hit with the largest tax increase in the history of the world - all of it going into the pockets of the health care industry.
-- This article was published on June 22, 2009 by Truthout.




Text of my comment did not load so here it is
By Mccormick, Donald at Jun 25, 2009 07:10 AM
The insurance company loading is indeed 15%, but there is an added 15% in gross profits in the Medicare Advantage Plans from which we have collected income and expense data over the last ten years. While the 15% is perhaps too much by two-thirds for administration and profits in a private system the added 15% that comes in underwriting profits is over the top. However, traditional Medicare with its big coverage gaps and need for private supplimental insurance is twice as bad. Medicare Advantage at least eliminates the need for Medi-gap coverage. That saves the patient from $150 to $350 per month. Further, it elimnates the need for a separate prescription drug plan that costs about $30 per month. Traditional Medicare also is open to substantial waste by being an open system in which there is no coordination of care and in which the patients are over tested and over treated and over drugged for no reason except money. The MA-PD plans without the price supports area more liberal benefit for the Medicare eligible people. Those supports are being taken back 3% in 2010,a nd 2% a year for the next 4 years according the CMS. The details of our cost experience with these plans over the last ten years can be found at tbt.org. The solutions to what we are facing seem to us to be the formation of patient cooperatives that hire the physicians that they need and get paid by whatever public or private funds that waht a no-load medical outcome based program.
Reply this comment
Cost of medical education
By Irons, Andrew at Jun 24, 2009 18:10 PM
One other factor to the cost of healthcare in the U.S. involves the high cost of obtaining a medical education. For instance, a doctor trained in Germany will have money given to them to pay for the cost of their education. If a physician in Germany in training does not use all of their money set aside for them, they will receive a payout. If they pay any part of their loan early, the total amount is reduced. Also, typically a physician trained in Germany will owe about $20,000 dollars after 4 years. They typical cost in the U.S. to be a physician ranges from about $100,000 to $200,000 in debt, which is now at 7% interest starting from the first year of a loan. The total cost after a 10 year loan then reaches $200,000 at least up to $500,000. This high cost also affects the nursing, PA, PT, and pharmacy students.
Reply this comment