Max Baucus versus health care reform?

After all, he's introduced a bill he says is intended to promote a bi-partisan reform solution.  Nobody except the few who reap enormous profits thinks we can leave the situation "as-is." We know costs are sky-rocketing. We know the insured end up paying for the uninsured when they show up at the ER, and that the bankruptcies triggered by medical bills aren't some "magic wand" solution that has no consequences for the people who don't get paid what they're owed. But Senator Baucus may be talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Following the success of Barack Obama's election to the White House, here's what Max Baucus said:

"In 2009, Congress must take up and act on meaningful health reform legislation that achieves coverage for every American while also addressing the underlying problems in our health system. The urgency of this task has become undeniable."

~Senator Max Baucus, (D-MT)
Chairman, Senate Finance Committee
12 November 2008

Insurance actuaries and CEOs know, for example, that the number of elderly Americans is on the rise, and that their health care is costly - but the solutions haven't been coming from their industry. Are they competing to find and provide solutions?

So, what do you think this powerful chairman of the Senate Finance Committe really hopes to do?

The number of uninsured has steadily increased; the profits of the insurance companies have, too. The profit motive works for a lot of things, but it's not the right model for delivering health care, let alone health care payments.

Tom Hayes: The profit motive is great, but...

There was a time when the concept of community was strictly geographic - in practical terms, what happened to people who directly affected your chance of survival was what mattered. Money and technology have profound ramifications for how we see communities and how they function.

We're all utterly interconnected.

Here's an overview, with excerpts, of the recent article, "Communities of Interest" describing the debate over health care insurance reform from a moral and community perspective at the Actualizers blogsite:

In the richest, most technologically advanced nation in the world, the United States of America, we are debating the merit of extending health care coverage to tens of millions of our closest friends and neighbors by making it affordable. Tens of millions of American citizens have no health care insurance.

Yet, rather than examine the successes in other countries and adopting their best practices, big business interests in this debate are spending millions of dollars every day (collected from health care premiums) to influence the men and women in Congress, who are sorely outnumbered by the lobbyists. It's a travesty - a sham - that makes a mockery of the alleged reliance on free markets to insure efficiency and improvement of goods and services.

One way or another, we pay.  One way, with only some of us insured, we not only pay for the costs of treating the uninsured, including potentially their bankruptcies, we also pay 8-digit salaries and bonuses to CEOs and lobbyists who profit from rising costs that have outstripped inflation for three decades.  Those costs do get spread across the area where the insurers do business, of course.

There's certainly no "perfect" system, and there's big money riding on keeping things "as is,"  but one thing has become obvious to even the most casual observer:

There's lots of room for improvement in the current scheme, for finding a fairer way to distribute the costs while controlling the expenses, and the benefit of improvement will flow to you, and me, and our community - no matter if you think of community as the neighborhood, the city, the country, or the planet.

The "profit motive" is great. It brings consumers choices for fair trade coffee, and tea parties, and "out-of-season" blueberries, and Blackberries™, and a veritable plethora of choices for our transportation, wardrobes, and more. It also brings the cost of MRIs down in Japan, by orders of magnitude when compared to what we pay in the USA - why is that? Because we've let the system of paying for health care mimic a competitive market, and fallen for the eristic rhetoric that preserves the profits of these gargantuan companies, sometimes operating as virtual monopolies. In practice it's not possible for a consumer to make a real, let alone well-informed choice, about health care costs or insurance.

The Congressional Budget Office has notified Congress that tethering a public option to Medicare reimbursement rates would save the government $110 billion! That's more than even a "public option" in which the government has to negotiate rates with doctors and other health care providers, which the GOP seems so opposed to. There are LOTS of ways to improve the bottom line -- but the bottom line is:
It's time to get the profit motive out of health care insurance.

Read more?

"We don't want the government to do anything."

That's the mindset of some folks, despite the fact the U.S. Constitution actually calls for government to manage things such as defense, domestic tranquility, etc. In a way, it's interesting - it's utopian:

I don't need anybody regulating the food I buy, I don't need anybody checking the efficacy of the drugs I use, I'm never going to need a fire-fighter or a policeman, I don't need roads and bridges maintained by some big agency, no not me, I'm fine with private "free market" solutions to everything, including education, defense, and immigration.

Call it a little naive, maybe, but... the sound bites seem appealing until you ponder little things such as: who deals with pollution in the streams you fish in, or how a family living in a hut copes with forest fires, hurricanes, or immigration (at least there'd be no more illegal immigrants.)

Read more... and Digg it!

The on-going confusion over "single-payer" health care

Single-payer isn't a synonym for "universal health insurance coverage." The two are separate issues - although many who support one support the other, as well.

Single-payer is only about who administers the payment. It could be the government, it might not be. In either case single-payer doesn't solve the question of "universal" coverage. The President has expressed his belief that while single-payer is an ideal, it is not a practical short-term goal due to the well-established (some would say entrenched) model already in force.

Universal health insurance coverage is one way to insure coverage for those who can't/don't get it through their employer - the unemployed, the self-employed, those who have been denied coverage for any number of reasons, etc.

A "public option" isn't either of those; a public option would mean setting up the government as one possible insurance plan provider among many, each responsible for their own paperwork. It is touted as a possible path to a single-payer system, but given the pragmatic attitude of the President dealing with wealthy companies buying influence in the Congress, it's not even that - and single payer is not going to happen anytime soon despite its obvious cost savings.

By the way: none of these is socialized medicine, either.

As long as what's being discussed is an option, as long as private plans remain available, the public option concept is simply about trying to get everybody covered. Are you with me? "Public option" isn't a synonym for either single-payer or universal health insurance.

Why, you may well ask, do the special interests oppose such changes, particularly that public option, and muddy the waters in the media while lobbying in Congress? Because insurance industry surveys show that a public option wouldn't attract merely the 50 million uninsured Americans, but actually more than double that number. Insurance companies don't want to compete with a plan system that operates efficiently on such low overhead - it threatens their profits, and the salaries and bonuses of the CEOs who, in some cases, earn tens of millions of dollars per year under the current system.

“…what we’ve seen is that the private healthcare insurers do not know how to deliver an efficient way.”

World Bank Chief Economist, Joseph Stiglitz