Tweet
We bailed out the banks to the tune of 2 trillion dollars in the past year, put through an enormous stimulus bill, bailed out the European banks, put through yet another war supplemental, and never asked how we were going to pay for it. We just wrote a bunch of big checks.
But now that it has come to taking care of the health of Americans, well, we have to tighten the old belt and it’s suddenly "pay-as-you-go."
Everyone is obsessed about "how we’re going to pay for this" when discussing health care. And as long as we’re prisoners of a CBO score (is it $1 trillion? $1.4 trillion?) we’re going to wind up passing a bill that does not cover average Americans in the way they need to be covered so that as a country we can step forward into a new business era of international economic interdependence. Other industrialized nations cover health care. We’re saddling business with that cost, and a huge chunk of what we are planning to spend will go to bail out insurance companies.
Meanwhile, just as Krugman and others predicted, White House aides are saying we need another stimulus plan. Joe Biden and Steny Hoyer have sent up trial balloons.
Middle class Americans pay huge premiums every month for junk insurance. Four hundred, six hundred, a thousand dollars a month easily. Even if they have employer-based insurance, huge deductibles mean that every trip to the doctor is costly. If those costs get cut, a huge financial burden is lifted off average Americans. They are no longer prisoners of a job, or a state, just to keep an insurance policy they can’t leave without risking their economic security or their health.
But more importantly, a huge burden of anxiety is lifted from Americans in a time of economic insecurity. If a plan is passed that only affects the poor, it’s going to anger the middle class when they are the ones that get shafted once again. It’s only going to increase anger and frustration that there is nobody at the helm who cares about them, and confirm their fears that government exists to benefit Wellpoint at their expense.
I was up on the Hill yesterday, and discovered that Congress never had ordinary people come and testify about their insurance company horror stories, because nobody wanted to piss the insurance companies off. It was incomprehensible and outrageous.
Compared to the huge sums we’ve shelled out without batting an eyelash over the past year, why are we going to have a shitty, compromised plan just so Blanche Lincoln and Olympia Snowe can achieve their objectives of protecting insurance company profits, when for $30 billion more a year we could actually do it right? Why is that suddenly such a big price tag?
In short, if we need more economic stimulus, why aren’t we talking about health care as economic stimulus?
3 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Great post, as per usual.
Regardless of the provider, the laws of supply and demand matter. What you have uncovered is that the insurance industry really doesn’t provide any value anywhere in the delivery process of health care commensurate with the resources they take out. Sure, there will be problems with implementing a public option. At least, however, it’s a more sustainable and stable platform for rewarding those entities in the supply chain who really deliver value.
It’s ’such a big price tag’ because these people fail to recognize:
1. The opportunities available in the health care industry for NEW EMPLOYMENT categories that involve everything from providing pedicures to the elderly (who often have problems with this simple task), to fitness classes for kids, and
2. Their clueless chatter about ‘high costs’ seem to be premised on the faulty notion that magically if there is no health care legislation no one will ever need to see a physician again. Ever. At least, not in the U.S. of A.
I’m with BooRadley — the health care entities add cost without adding value. We’re paying too many people to push paper and navigate the minutia of policy ‘contracts’, while too few are involved in direct delivery of services.
The other part these economic geniuses overlook is the fact that anyone can own stock in a health care or insurance agency. What is Blanche Lincoln going to tell her constituents if it turns out that one of the ’shareholders’ for Premera is a drug lord in Mexico? What if another ’shareholder’ happens to be a Ugandan mine owner? How does that ‘increase the efficiency’ of US medical care, when the profits of health insurance companies can be siphoned off anywhere on the planet?
Congressional claims about ‘market forces’ for health care are utterly bogus. I’d really like some of those health care insurance companies to list out in detail all their shareholders for the past 20 years. Might make a few eyeballs pop open rather widely.