I found the summit very useful, not just for exposing transparently obstructionist Republican tactics of the "let's just start over" (repeated ad nauseam) sort but also for laying out some honest-to-goodness policy differences. The mainstream media seemed to willfully ignore those, in favor flogging some personality driven sniping, of which there was actually comparatively little, the better to convey the meeting as some kind of demeaning, reality TV show.
Of the substantive differences, perhaps one of the most telling: Republicans object to the Obama plan in part on grounds of defending Medicare. When you hear a Republican defending Medicare, your bullshit antenna should go up, you should cover your nuts and grab your wallet (not necessarily in that order.) It became apparent that what they really meant is they want to protect Medicare C (aka "Medicare Advantage" plans.) I learned what these things are the hard way recently, by doing bureaucratic battle to get my geriatric father's Medicare advantage coverage accepted by a prominent national cancer center. In a nutshell, these things are private insurance market policies which "replace" the insured's Medicare, plus (in theory) provide a little additional coverage like preventative services, gym memberships, etc., of the sort which are extremely cheap and very infrequently used by senior citizens. For this, the private insurers can charge policy holders additional premium over and above what Medicare would charge, they also get paid an incentive from the government of about 15%, and are permitted to allow doctors and hospitals to whack insured's for an additional chunk of the total bill.
The kicker? Doctors and hospitals are free to accept or reject the coverage on a visit by visit basis. Meaning the policy holder cannot know in advance (as they can with other types of policies which have networks of hospitals and doctors)where they'll be eligible to be treated.
This is what Republicans mean by "market based solutions." The whole experiment has been an unmitigated disaster - - except for the agents and insurers who've reaped huge profits from a previously untapped market. And for Republicans who found a back door way to undercut Medicare, and provide themselves with another example of how "big government" programs don't work. Think Grover Norquist's wet dream of shrinking government down to the size where it can be drowned in the bathtub.
http://www.kunstler.com/blog/
Saturday, March 6, 2010
A Comment on Health Care
Petronia On The Hill
Friday, March 5, 2010
Tort Reform
Texas Tort Reform is NOT a Model for Nationwide Health Care Reform
Mike Ferrara Attorney
September 07, 2009 8:24 PM
Tort reformers like to talk a lot about how the threat of malpractice suits raises health care costs by forcing doctors to practice “defensive medicine”—the ordering of unnecessary tests, procedures, and prescriptions in an attempt to protect themselves against a possible negligence lawsuit.
In a 2008 AMA survey, they remind us, a majority of the doctors who responded admitted to practicing defensive medicine—a number that translates, the AMA calculated, to $1.4 billion more spent annually on health care. If our doctors weren’t threatened into doing this, we’d all save loads of money and our national health crisis would be over.
Are the tort reformers right? Well, let’s look at Texas. Several years ago, the state passed a stringent medical malpractice law that capped awards for pain and suffering at $250,000, and brought the number of malpractice lawsuits down dramatically.
So the cost of health care in Texas must also be down, you suppose, since doctors don’t face the same malpractice threats as the rest of the country. Eh, No. In fact, Texas is home to three of the top ten most expensive cities in the country to receive health care: McAllen, Harlingen and Corpus Christi. In each of these cities, every Medicare patient is costing the country more than $10,000 a year (a couple thousand more than the national average).
So if defensive medicine against the threat of malpractice suits isn’t driving up costs, what is?
Harvard Medical School surgeon Atul Gawande got a candid answer to this question from a general surgeon in McAllen, Texas:
“Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are [BS]. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.
The surgeon came to McAllen in the mid-nineties, and since then, he said, “the way to practice medicine has changed completely. Before, it was about how to do a good job. Now it is about ‘How much will you benefit?’ ” –Atul Gawande, The NewYorker
While tort reform like Texas' won't improve the cost of our health care, changing our charge-per-service structure just might.
So, is the high cost of health care the doctors' fault or the lawyers? I'd argue neither: it's the insurance companies. Take your pick.
700 William
Thursday, March 4, 2010
It's Greek To Americans
I shocked my wife when I was able to translate place names on our road trip through the Balkans, driving in the Republica Srpska, a bastard pseudo-state in Bosnia-Herzegovina whose fascist leaders yearn to be part of the Cyrillic world of Serbia and Russia. Of course languages are alive and to be remembered they have to be used and nowadays I find my ability to remember the difference between a D and an L, or a YI and an N to be fading away...
Unhappily for all concerned there was no mechanism written into the new currency to allow for countries that essentially over borrowed and went belly up, which is what has happened in all but name in Greece. That was because the framers of the Union didn't think about secret deals that might be made between governments and bankers and Goldman Sach's deal with Greece, it turns out, was a doozie. After much reading I think I have figured out in plain terms what they did. Goldman Sachs lent enough money to Greece to allow the country to write off sufficient debt to allow it to meet the threshold for entry into the Euro-zone. The loan was masked as a currency trade and the Greek government used future income (!!) as collateral for the loan. Does this sound like a crazy mortgage as sold to "home owners" in the US? What makes this even worse is that it seems Goldman Sachs bought and sold Credit Default Swaps on this loan giving the bank an incentive to drive Greece into bankruptcy.
There has been much discussion in the US about the moral legitimacy of walking away from "underwater" home loans and in the ordinary course of things one can understand a certain moral repugnance at people who abandon loans that cover properties that have simply lost value. However it is really important to understand that the institutions that underwrote those loans weighed the odds against them. Not only did they happily make loans to people clearly not able to handle them, they then bet the loans would fail, by using Credit Default Swaps. They then cut up the loan packages, mixed them in with solid performing loans and sold them around the world as Grade A US loans backed by the burgeoning real estate market. In this way they made it extremely complex for people to renegotiate their loan terms as the paper was held by thousands of people and institutions around the world (literally!) and besides that they had no interest in getting these loans to conform or pay off! They wanted these fragmented investment papers to fail because their insurance- the Credit Default Swaps- then paid off and paid off big time. And even then the banks caught in the trap pleaded with the US government that promptly shoveled some twelve trillion dollars of YOUR DEBT to them to cover their losses. This is exactly what is happening with Greece. It profits Goldman Sachs if Greece implodes! Are you scared yet? It gets worse.
Strikes and protests are building in Greece with workers demanding to know (unlike American sheeple) why the bail out has to come on their backs, and their indignation is spreading across Europe as the realisation sinks in that bankers have duped their governments. The Greek Government has no answer to this fundamental question of human justice, the Germans don't want to know about Greece's problems and the European Central Bank has no mechanism to bail Greece out except to pay off it's debts. It's as though the US Federal Government were to pay off Illinois and California's debts knowing full well both states will go back down the path of overspending and racking up more debts. Besides there isn't any money left! From here on out the Fed has to print dollars because foreigners, seeing the coming crisis, have figured they better not buy any more American debt. China and Japan principally have cut back hugely on US sales of Treasuries.
To close out this excessively long and unpleasant essay let me say that I believe we are in the equivalent of 1931 of our own 21st century Great Depression. I have no idea what to do to prepare for whatever comes next, except to keep on keeping on. I don't believe there is any recovery coming soon and we are starting to hear publicly expressed doubts by people who usually are in the cheerleading section of mainstream news. There is no jobs program and health care reform will run up against God knows what economic crisis. Even if what happens in Greece looks Greek and alien to us, it might be worth while paying attention because the next phase of economic collapse may take the same shape here in the US and it would be nice if it didn't come as a surprise.
Our bankers have already baked the first layer of our cake with the housing collapse, unemployment was the next layer, and to top that we will soon see public employment attacked as parasitic and then the icing will be the failure of our currency. Just like them Greeks are seeing right now.