Sunday, November 25, 2007

Establishment loves insurance companies -- ask the New York Times (and vote for Obama to stop it)

The problem with too many elected Democrats is that they start acting as if they are part of the establishment instead of shaking it up to make life better for most people.

This New York Times editorial titled "The High Cost of Health Care" is a great example of establishment thinking that infects way too many D.C. Dems.

The topic is timely: why do we spend so much money on health care industries and end up with a poor infant mortality rates, 50 million of us without any insurance coverage and more medical bankruptcies than any other form of financially destroying Americans?

The obvious answer is because of the parasitic insurance industry. They add no value. They just make health care more expensive by profiting from taking our premiums and rationing out care. They also drive doctors, hospitals and other providers crazy by drowning them in ridiculous paperwork and inflate the cost of care by paying for all those commercials and downtown skyscrapers.

But that's too irresponsible for the establishment. The establishment likes insurance companies. You're either a pitchfork-wielding populist of a dreamy out-of-touch liberal in their eyes for pointing out the cost-driving waste of the insurance industry.

Here's how the Times puts it:

Single Payer. Deep in their hearts, many liberals yearn for a single-payer
system, sometimes called Medicare-for-all, that would have the federal
government pay for all care and dictate prices. Such a system would let the
government offset the price-setting strength of the medical and pharmaceutical
industries, eliminate much of the waste due to a multiplicity of private
insurance plans, and greatly cut administrative costs.
But a single-payer system is no panacea for the cost problem — witness
Medicare’s own cost troubles — and the approach has limited political support.
Private insurers could presumably eliminate some of the waste through uniform
billing and payment procedures.

So rich! Only those romantic liberals with their yearning hearts want to cut out the middlemen entirely. Nothing pragmatic or responsible about that -- instead, with limited political support, it's a rather silly idea that remains buried deep inside, like world peace.

The easier way to read the paragraph is simply to say: we love insurance companies. We want to keep them in the center of how we finance health care because.....well, we won't address that point directly, since there isn't any compelling reason to structure the financing of health care around for-profit middleman industries.

One of the reasons why I support Senator Barack Obama is because he is not swayed by that establishment thinking. I think he is a very shrewd operator and believes that it's in our national interest to minimize the role of insurance companies in the financing of health care. The national Republican Party has fully embraced the insurance industry as part of their corporate-evangelical coalition, and always looks to expand the profits and reach of the industry (which comes directly at the expense of all of us). The trouble is when Democrats try to look responsible or centrist and accept the Republican strategy of embracing the establishment as part of the solution to our problems. That's the problem with Senator Hillary Clinton (at least, that has been her problem -- way too corporate).

Beware the establishment Democratic elected official. They are too quick to sell us out.


Steve Bartin said...

It's strange to beat up on insurance companies for the cost of health care.The government has many new and unnecessary buildings.Think all of those patronage workers in Cook County driving up costs.That's a monopoly for you.The cost of government keeps rising.Health care could be much cheaper without as many state regulations and more competition.You don't get your car insurance at work,so you shouldn't be able to get your health care insurance at work.You'll notice there's no crises in car insurance premiums.Dan,what makes you think the government can run health care any better than they run the post office,inner city public schools,or Cook County hospital??? Maybe you can explain how partisan Cook County style Democrats can run anything efficiently??

WarriorMoM said...

I am limiting my comments to the maternity care, which is a cash cow. I would suggest that having for profit hosptials is also part of the problem. There's no incentive to making birth safer. It's much more profitable to do all sorts of things to pregnant and laboring women to bill the insurance companies.

In addition to poor infant mortality rates, we (U.S.) also have atrocious maternal mortality rates. Just shameful.

When it comes to maternity care, we have a wasteful system with bad outcomes. We have our specialists (OBs) attending the majority of births. It's an inverted triangle.

In all the countries with better infant and maternal outcomes (maybe one exception), they have their obs in the hospital handling only the higher risk, complicated cases. In thos countries, instead of highly specialized phsyicians attending most births, midwvives do a much better, healthier job with the vast majority of childbirths.

Here we have far too many obs, with high educational and malpractice costs, driving up the cost of maternity care. And instead of being hospital based, OBs are often off-site in their offices, running women through conveyor belt care. When an emergency happens in the hospital they have to be called in.

Midwives also tend to do a better job of providing wholistic community based care and support to help off-set many of the later causes of infant mortaility (drugs, poor nutrition, domestic abuse, etc.)


Dallas Health said...

What are the various types of health insurance programmes that are available to me, and which is best suited to suit the needs of my family and myself? How do I choose the ideal health care plan? What are the major points that one needs to bear in mind while buying Health Care Insurance Policy?