Corporations Win Again - This Time It's Healthcare

We shouldn't have been surprised. I'm right now working on a book that exposes anew our corporate-owned government, which didn't change in any way when hope was reported to have prevailed a year ago. The new day in Washington when lobbyists would supposedly take backseats to citizen needs became instead The Washington Post calling last summer the Summer Of The Lobbyist. We're seeing now that insurance industry lobbyists did their work well.

Thus, I wouldn't get too excited about health care reform just yet. The word "historic" has been liberally tossed around everywhere since the House bill passed by five votes on Saturday night, but commentators in other countries noticed before the bill even made it to vote that it's ludicrously light fare compared to citizen health coverage in other countries.

The House bill -- which is more ambitious than the Senate bill -- does almost nothing to contain runaway health care costs. Those are what threaten to consume one-fifth of the US gross domestic product in coming years. Health insurance companies are surely laughing themselves silly as the bill would force people to buy insurance from them. The remnant of the public insurance option is pretty barebones, so those unable to pay for insurance won't be well covered.

Nothing is law yet and it remains to be seen if reform will get through, but even if it does, it's almost guaranteed to turn into another bonanza for health corporations, more national debt, and little improvement in access to health care. That's the worst of all combinations, but seems to so often be the one we get. More spending with real benefits would be good, less spending and thus less collected in taxes so we have more left over to get our own coverage would be good, but more spending and little new coverage is not good.

I'm afraid this will end the way so many issues end, with corporations winning while citizens get screwed.

In my opinion, the best summary of what's wrong with the ramshackle attempt to reform American health care was presented by Ohio Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich in his article, Why I Voted No. I recommend that you read it. At just 770 words long, it's worth your time.

Comments

[VennData]

"...The Washington Post calling last summer the Summer Of The Lobbyist..." How do they measure this?

"...commentators in other countries noticed before the bill even made it to vote that it's ludicrously light fare..." Which detailed proposals do they find to be inappropriate?

"...The House bill -- which is more ambitious than the Senate bill -- does almost nothing to contain runaway health care costs..." Almost?

"...Nothing is law yet..." There you go, a fact, how refreshing.

2009 Nov 09 09:38 AM

[tunaman4u2]

I'm afraid this will end the way so many issues end, with corporations winning while citizens get screwed.


In every phase... you're right. Middle class is dead... in 20 years when my 2 kids are in college what will it cost if its 50K now? 100K to be conservative? Thats 800K in college debt + 400K in the house + living costs + whatever it will take to retire....

Do the math & you realize quickly there is no chance if you add inflation while wages stagnate.

2009 Nov 09 11:11 AM

[cyclingscholar]

Yeah...a BIG win man! Forced to cover people who wait till they are sick before they buy insurance; forced to insure criminal immigrants at federal expense; leading medical technology and drugmakers burdened with extra taxes, restricted profit margins, and less patent protection.

Long live Joe Liebeman!

2009 Nov 09 01:09 PM

[philais]

The kid out of high school with his first job working at a mom and pop burger stand probably will be forced to buy insurance. It is just that he will be "given" the money through IRS tax credits to then pay insurance corporations to provide care.

Meanwhile you and I will be forced to buy insurance or pay and fine and go to jail...and...be taxed through our payroll taxes another 3% health care tax, to then have the IRS turnaround and give it to the kid. See how it will work?

2009 Nov 09 01:17 PM

[Socialism cannot compete!]

Socialism = THEFT and loss of Liberty. Delenda est Washington!!!

2009 Nov 09 01:24 PM

[Mr. Ed, Jr.]

"The House bill -- which is more ambitious than the Senate bill -- does almost nothing to contain runaway health care costs"

Well.....that is because it is not really about health care.

It is about politicians getting control of a significant portion of the economy, and using "mission creep" tactics to advance their agendas. It is about directing and influencing the flow of trillions of dollars-- it is a threat to our freedom.

If this atrocity of a bill passes, there will be no end to the regulations that will be imposed on us by stealth-- unelected agency and department heads making new "policy" outside of the legislative process.

The bill is unlikely to be passed, because the Senate has just a few less lunatics than the House. But it is a sad state of affairs when it depends on a head count of the lunatics in Congress.

2009 Nov 09 02:37 PM

[The Geoffster]

Almost the only persons who may be said to comprehend even approximately the significance, principles, and purposes of Socialism are the chief leaders of the extreme wings of the Socialistic forces, and perhaps a few of the money kings themselves.
Benjamin Tucker

2009 Nov 09 03:31 PM

[Robespierre]

The "health care reform" is a farce. If either party really want it to offer real health care then all they need to do is to extend medicare to all Americans. Insurance companies server no purpose. They have not contained cost as they say they do. They add billions of dollars in cost. I know some think that if we go medicare for all there is all this fraud going on. Well the solution to the fraud is simple: Offer to private companies (capitalism anyone?) %50 of the recovered fraud money and the other %50 if there are CRIMINAL convictions. But neither the limousines liberals democrats nor the idea-less republicans will ever do any real reform

2009 Nov 09 04:17 PM

[Steve in Greensboro]

I think Dennis "Cuckoo" Kucinich really needs to rally the Left wing of the Democrat party (redundant, I guess) to oppose Obama-Pelosi's health care bill.

If Democrats can't get pure single-payer done now with the huge majorities they have in both houses, they certainly won't be able to get in done after the 2010 midterms.

And don't worry about the impact on the economy of the huge tax increase required by socialized medicine. And don't worry either about the fact the Constitution does not allow the Federal government to take over health care.

You Lefties need to go for the gusto. Never let practical or legal considerations deter you.

2009 Nov 09 04:22 PM

[anarchist]

Robespierre is close. It is a disgrace that the US has 50 million people uninsured and god knows how many under-insured even if they have some kind of group health insurance. Cut out the insurance companies including HMOs and the $billions they bleed away from health care, give Medicare the ability to bargain for drugs, goods and services and there would plenty of money for comprehensive medical and dental coverage for all.
And please, get off the Socialism rhetoric, this is a fascist government not a socialist government and it was never a Democracy.


On Nov 09 04:17 PM Robespierre wrote:

> The "health care reform" is a farce. If either party really want
> it to offer real health care then all they need to do is to extend
> medicare to all Americans. Insurance companies server no purpose.
> They have not contained cost as they say they do. They add billions
> of dollars in cost. I know some think that if we go medicare for
> all there is all this fraud going on. Well the solution to the fraud
> is simple: Offer to private companies (capitalism anyone?) %50 of
> the recovered fraud money and the other %50 if there are CRIMINAL
> convictions. But neither the limousines liberals democrats nor the
> idea-less republicans will ever do any real reform

2009 Nov 09 06:23 PM

[anarchist]

Steve in Greensboro, did you read kucinich's article or are you such a kneejerk-conservative that you went ballistic at the mention of his name? Kucinich is unpopular with the liberals as well as the conservative becasue he offers simple and practical solutions that help the people not our owners the corporations. Did you use the same rhetoric " Never let practical or legal considerations deter you" when George Bush invaded Iraq and pissed off $millions a day? I missed that part in the Constition that forbids the Goverment from taking over health care, please point it out to me.


On Nov 09 04:22 PM Steve in Greensboro wrote:

> I think Dennis "Cuckoo" Kucinich really needs to rally the Left wing
> of the Democrat party (redundant, I guess) to oppose Obama-Pelosi's
> health care bill.
>
> If Democrats can't get pure single-payer done now with the huge majorities
> they have in both houses, they certainly won't be able to get in
> done after the 2010 midterms.
>
> And don't worry about the impact on the economy of the huge tax increase
> required by socialized medicine. And don't worry either about the
> fact the Constitution does not allow the Federal government to take
> over health care.
>
> You Lefties need to go for the gusto. Never let practical or legal
> considerations deter you.

2009 Nov 09 06:36 PM

[kcr357]

There is no need to address the lack of insurance, rather the need is to address lack of reasonable health care cost.

2009 Nov 09 06:37 PM

[Atypical]

Yeah. Let's hear it for ideology masquerading as informed opinion. Just use scary words like, socialism, constitution has nothing about healthcare, lefties, companies burdened with TAXES, restricted profit (what????), and illegal immigrants.

No one apparently cares about people just ideology.

Read some Wendell Potter to get an insiders view of the "wonderful" insurance companies.

Any bill WILL be crap because of $$$$ that control this country. But continue to complain about other things. It's much more emotionally satisfying to ideologues.

The author is right.

2009 Nov 09 06:39 PM

[a fat panda]

Guys - when Congress solves just about anything there are no winners. There are just people who lose more than others. It ought to tell you something that the supporters are calling this historic and comparing it to Social Security and Medicare as if those programs were successes.

2009 Nov 09 06:51 PM

[dw57]

while it might not do any thing. its impossible to accomplish any thing that will. nobody will allow a disinterested 3rd party to review doctor's opinions. today insurance companies are only interested in reducing what they cover, raising premiums, or canceling the policy for any reason imaginable before you get care. thats where they make their money and they have monopolies in most ares they serve. doctors only care to provide care that they get paid for. they have figured out that if they own the labs and other medical providers they can make even more by prescribing tests and other such procedures/ and they have monopolies in most areas they serve. but there are places in the US that don't seem to have those problems. but in those rare areas doctors are on salary.

2009 Nov 09 06:58 PM

[Atypical]

They are successful but hated by conservatives BECAUSE they work. It undercuts their "govt is bad' ideology.

There are bad programs that come from Washington. That's because most politicians only do what's profitable to them or only do what serves their ideological supporters so they get reelected. That's the problem - corrupt politicians not necessarily government.


On Nov 09 06:51 PM a fat panda wrote:

> Guys - when Congress solves just about anything there are no winners.
> There are just people who lose more than others. It ought to tell
> you something that the supporters are calling this historic and comparing
> it to Social Security and Medicare as if those programs were successes.

2009 Nov 09 07:11 PM

[RonC]

I dont think its about anyone but the banks.Whats the biggest source of bankruptcy filings in US? Medical Bills.Everyone forced to have healthcare,guess who wins?Banks.Who give housing,auto loans etc.Makes lending a little bit less risky.Who owns Congress?Banks.

2009 Nov 09 08:49 PM

[Reveille]

The insurance companies take 31% of their clients' healthcare dollars to administer "care"; Medicare takes 2% to 3%. Medicare doesn't deny care to sick people, or refuse to treat anybody due to pre-existing conditions. The insurance companies really don't want to have anything to do with sick people--payouts lessen profits, after all. Business is business. If you like the insurance you have now, it probably means you've never had to use it. Good luck, Steve. If you, your wife or child gets really sick, you could be dropped by your insurance company, and be stuck with hundreds of thousands of dollars for the cost of the treatments. You guys will be living out of your car--or a shopping cart. Think it can't happen to you? It's happened to others.


On Nov 09 04:22 PM Steve in Greensboro wrote:

> I think Dennis "Cuckoo" Kucinich really needs to rally the Left wing
> of the Democrat party (redundant, I guess) to oppose Obama-Pelosi's
> health care bill.
>
> If Democrats can't get pure single-payer done now with the huge majorities
> they have in both houses, they certainly won't be able to get in
> done after the 2010 midterms.
>
> And don't worry about the impact on the economy of the huge tax increase
> required by socialized medicine. And don't worry either about the
> fact the Constitution does not allow the Federal government to take
> over health care.
>
> You Lefties need to go for the gusto. Never let practical or legal
> considerations deter you.

2009 Nov 09 10:29 PM

[Dan in mpls]

If the government lets loose of the insurance companies - aside from antitrust limitation to insure some amount of competition, health insurance costs would drop. I for one would chose the policy that does not cover smoking related issues, any transplants, any iron lungs beyond a short amount of time, any antidepressants nor viaga, nor any obesity related claims. The list of possible exemptions would be long. I'd pay extra to let them chose the time when I appeared to be terminal to spare my family that decision and if I died a few years earlier than I might otherwise it would not really matter. I'm enjoying my life wildly but none of us will live forever and I'd rather take a nice vacation with my savings. Most importantly, I'd chose the policy wherein I waived my right to sue for malpractice. If I did decide I wanted to have malpractice coverage, I'd expect to pay for my own policy and the hospital nor doctor would be required to carry any. My own policy paid for out of my own pocket would cover me. My guess is that my health insurance policy would drop by an easy third to a half overnight as my health care provider would have a free hand at reestablishing death panels all but wiped out by lawsuits so that I would not be able to have experimental treatments nor those that are not likely to save me. If my company had a poor track record of killing people off too early, I'd switch to another policy and pay a bit more for the privileged of better health care. I'd guess the poor would have an even more stripped down policy than mine - subsidized by our ever generous Federal government.

2009 Nov 09 10:56 PM

[SeekingTruth]

Thanks for your excellent article and the reference for the D. Kucinich position.
I read it thoroughly and agree with it completely.
At least a few people like the author and D. Kucinich , and some others, have figured this out well before the disaster strikes.
While somewhat nebulous, this is not the same mystery as NAFTA/CAFTA/SHAFTA was when the legislation was so complex, convoluted, oblique and mysterious that no one but the insider crooks that wrote it and their sold out political and corporate allies could figure it out and profit handsomely from it (and still are).
So it looks like again that Wall Street, and the racketeering insurance and pharmaceutical industries "win " (purchase) the contest once again.
Of the people, by the people , for the people ?
Definitely NOT!

2009 Nov 09 11:16 PM