“Someone’s premiums” bought my lunch on gold-rimmed china

Wendell Potter, former CIGNA exec, tells of the change of heart that caused him to leave the industry. While visiting family members in Tennessee, he drops in on a medical expedition, staffed by volunteers, at a Virginia fairgrounds, in a county where people have little health care access …

clipped from www.democracynow.org I had no idea what to expect, but when I walked through the fairground gates, it was just absolutely overwhelming … [P]eople … were lined up in the rain by the hundreds … and they were being treated in animal stalls … They also had set up tents. It looked like a MASH unit. It looked like this could have been something that was happening in a war-torn country, and war refugees were there to get their care [...] It was just unbelievable, and it just drove it home to me, maybe for the first time, that we were talking about real human beings and not just numbers [...] [T]wo or three weeks later, I was [flying to a meeting] on one of the corporate jets … I was served my lunch on a gold-rimmed plate, was given gold-plated flatware [...] it just dawned on me, for the first time, that someone’s premiums … were paying for my lunch on gold-trimmed china [...] I thought about those men and women that I had seen in Wise County … not having any idea that this is the way that insurance executives lived and how premium dollars were being spent … I had to leave [...]

One dollar of every three we send to our health insurance companies goes to something other than healthcare. Those who struggle to pay high premiums to protect themselves and their children buy corporate jets, skyscraper penthouses, and fine china for insurance executives. Those who won’t, or can’t, often die prematurely.

Should we really have choose between paying for corporate luxury or risking an early death?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Behind the Curtain: Wendell Potter on the Industry’s Management of Care and Reform (thehealthcareblog.com)
• Bill Moyers Interviews Wendell Potter, Whistleblower on Health Insurance Companies (managemypractice.com)
• Ex-exec testifies against insurance giant for ‘purging’ customers [Health Insurance] (consumerist.com)
• Caring For The Uninsured in Wise County, VA (Assignment Desk) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Ex-VP accuses insurer of ‘purging’ customers (cnn.com)
• Insurance insider spills the beans on Bill Moyers’ show (americablog.com)

DNC ad targets House: “It’s time”

Yes, it is.   Real reform.  Single-payer at best; strong public option at the very least.

Former insurance exec tells how industry threatens elected officials

Last Friday night, Wendell Potter, former head of Corporate Communications at CIGNA, told Bill Moyers of insurance companies’ tactics, and their fear of reduced profits should a Medicare-type system be enacted by Congress.

clipped from thinkprogress.org BILL MOYERS:  [...] “Position Sicko as a threat to Democrats’ larger agenda.” What does that mean? WENDELL POTTER: That means that part of the effort to discredit this film was to use lobbyists and their own staff to go onto Capitol Hill and say, “Look, you don’t want to believe this movie. You don’t want to talk about it. You don’t want to endorse it. And if you do, we can make things tough for you.” BILL MOYERS: How? WENDELL POTTER: By running ads, commercials in your home district when you’re running for reelection, not contributing to your campaigns again, or contributing to your competitor. [Saying he thought Moore's movie "hit the nail on the head," Potter describes it:] [H]is movie advocated that the government-run systems of other western democracies produce better health care outcomes [...] Potter said he was driven to speak out when “it became really clear to me that the industry is resorting to the same tactics they’ve used over the years [...] The companies “biggest concern” is … “a broader program like our Medicare program” which “could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies.”

See part 1 of the interview here.

Indeed.  And we’ll see if our Congressmen and women will use government to further increase corporate profits or to begin to decrease the cost of healthcare to ordinary people. The industry’s spending a million dollars a day. Our only hope is in letters and letters and letters.

There’s link in the right sidebar.

Related articles by Zemanta

• More on the Public Option (talkingpointsmemo.com)
• Ex-VP accuses insurer of ‘purging’ customers (cnn.com)
• Third Way’s Anti-Public Health Care Memo Drafted By Ex-Insurance Industry Advocates (huffingtonpost.com)
• What’s a public health plan anyway? (money.cnn.com)
• Social Institutions such as health care insurance, schools and management of our prisons should not be in the hands of profiteers – EVER! (iflizwerequeen.com)

Health insurers near monopoly control of most markets

Image by Steve Rhodes via Flickr

I thought I understood why insurance companies were the main threats to a “public option.” It’s easy.  Their overhead—exec salaries, advertising, political lobbying, etc.—averages 31%.  Medicare’s overhead is 1%.  No duh they don’t want to compete.

Today, I found out there’s another reason:  they mostly don’t even compete against each other. Consumers in 94% of America’s insurance markets buy their health insurance from near-monopolies that dominate their region.  The Bigs don’t want to avoid public competition, they want to avoid any competition.

And what happens when profit-makers don’t have to compete? You know what.

Premiums have risen 87% over the last six years, while profits at the ten Bigs rose 428%.  Wait a minute: If your insurer’s profit is up 400%, why are your premiums rising so fast?

So, on with the debate:  Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), speaking on Fox News, defended the insurance company position, saying a public option would “destroy the marketplace for health care.”

But TPM today covered a report by Health Care for America Now, saying:

clipped from tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com [T]he notion that most American consumers enjoy anything like a competitive marketplace for health care is flatly false. [...] The report … uses data compiled by the American Medical Association to show that 94 percent of the country’s insurance markets are defined as “highly concentrated,” according to Justice Department guidelines. Predictably, that’s led to skyrocketing costs for patients, and monster profits for the big health insurers. Premiums have gone up over the past six years by more than 87 percent, on average, while profits at ten of the largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007. HCAN describes the situation as “a market failure where a small number of large companies use their concentrated power to control premium levels, benefit packages, and provider payments…” [O]ne former top Federal Trade Commission official … has sent a letter to the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, asking for an investigation into the health insurance marketplace.

And maybe that’s why millions of your excess insurance premium dollars are being spent on defeating a public option, rather than on reducing your premium.

Related articles by Zemanta

• What’s a public health plan anyway? (money.cnn.com)
• NY Times/CBS News Poll: Wide Support For Government-Run Option Competing With Private Insurers (huffingtonpost.com)
• Why the Critics of a Public Option for Health Care Are Wrong (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com)
• No Country for Old Men (thehealthcareblog.com)
• Antitrust Laws a Hurdle to Health Care Overhaul (nytimes.com)
• Study: Americans Struggle To Pay For Health Care, With 40 Percent Delaying Treatments Or Services (huffingtonpost.com)

Spot the health insurance hokum in this TV ad

It appears that a group called Conservatives for Patients’ Rights has begun running healthcare ads designed to knock down changes in healthcare insurance before they can stand.

But good old FactCheck.org points out that the ad knocks down a straw man instead.   Some examples:

clipped from www.factcheck.org CPR Ad: “Not So Innocent” A conservative group’s ad implies Congress is on its way to instituting a British- or Canadian-style health system. Summary A group called Conservatives for Patients’ Rights began airing a television ad this week that criticizes government-run health care and falsely suggests Congress wants a British-style system here in the U.S.: The ad neglects to mention that President Obama hasn’t proposed a government-run plan and, in fact, has rejected the idea. It claims that a research council created by the stimulus bill is “the first step in government control over your health care choices.” The legislation actually says the council isn’t permitted to “mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies.” The ad quotes a Canadian doctor who has been critical of his country’s system, but leaves out the fact that the doctor has praised other government-funded systems, such as those in Austria and France.

A conservative group’s ad implies Congress is on its way to instituting a British- or Canadian-style health system.

Lots more good details may be found at the link.

The health insurance industry is a marvel of cynical ingenuity: it keeps itself profitable by insuring people who are healthy (whose claims, on average, will not exceed their payments), and terminating people when they become too sick to be profitable (i.e., when those people most need health insurance).

The industry – having become fabulously wealthy by offering insurance to selected clients, while posing as a helper to Americans generally – has a great deal to lose from an honest public discussion. Expect more alarmist hokum.