Stick with me–this 2-part post may be a bit long, but it is likely to be the most honest,accurate, and brief summation of the issue of Health Insurance Reform you are going to read anytime soon. This post is not meant to be an exhaustive foray into every corner and crevice of this issue. It is a high level overview. And it is brutal.
First, let me just get this out of the way: 1) I voted for Obama, 2) I believe he has thus far done an abysmal job based on his campaign rhetoric and promises, 3) This is not about red and blue, democrat and republican, conversative and liberal, and 4) I believe nearly ALL of Congress and nearly ALL of the mainstream media is corrupt and complicit in obfuscating the real discussion that SHOULD be taking place.
With those biases known, let’s start with 10 very telling and related facts about health care in America and the industry running it:
1) The National Coalition on Health Care and the Census Bureau estimates roughly 46 million people are without health insurance, which is about 18% of the population under age 65.
2) Health care costs in this country are simply out of control. They currently represent nearly 17% of our nation’s GDP. As late as 1961, it was only 7%. That means that 1 out of every 6 dollars spent in the US today goes to health care expenses in one form or another. What is even more staggaring is that these costs are expected to consume 1 of every 5 dollars or more in just the next 7 years.
3) There has been a nearly 50% increase in medically-related bankruptcies between 2001 and 2007 alone. And, a whopping 62% of ALL US bankruptcies can be traced back to crushing medical expenses.
4) A 2008 study concluded that the 7 major health insurance companies in America had increased their profits by a combined 170.2% from 2003 through 2007.
5) Health Insurance CEO pay is absolutely insane. Take for example:
- UnitedHealthCare CEO Stephen Helmsley has received unexercised stock options worth nearly $750,000,000 (that’s 3/4ths of a BILLION dollars!) His 2007 salary was a paltry $13.2 MILLION dollars.
- Cigna CEO Edward Hanway has received over $120,000,000 in compensation over the past 5 years.
- Aetna CEO Ronald Williams has received nearly $195,000,000 in unexercised stock options, plus had 2008 compensation alone that exceeded $24,000,000 dollars.
6) In just the past 2.5 years, just 9 companies/organizations with a large stake in the future of health care reform have spent OVER HALF A BILLION DOLLARS lobbying Congress ($511 million is the actual figure). As the writers of the study so aptly put it:
“That’s simply a lot of money. And the phrase “Return on Investment” immediately comes to mind. Presumably there is one, or why would they persist? One of the finer things that one can say about someone is that they “Speak Truth to Power.” Speaking money, however, seems the preferred means of communication.”
7) So far just this year, the pro-business US Chamber of Commerce and the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America has spent nearly $40,000,000 lobbying Congress. That’s just TWO organizations, and only 6 months worth of lobbying!
8. Consider the amounts these key Congressmen have received from health care lobbyists in just the past 7 months:
- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has brought in the most from the health sector so far this year at $394,400, followed by Senate Finance Committee member Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who collected $324,350, and former Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), who brought in $266,100. All three senators are up for re-election in 2010.
- House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was the Republican to bring in the most from the health sector for the year ($199,550) and is on the top recipient list for health insurers ($54,100) and pharmaceuticals ($76,400).
- So far this year health insurers have favored the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), with their cash, giving him $60,500. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) comes in next at $58,000. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who has taken the helm of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee in Sen. Edward Kennedy‘s absence, has collected more than any other Democrat from health insurers this year at $41,500.
- The three members of these committees to bring in the most from the health sector so far this year include Lincoln ($324,350), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who collected $257,400, and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who brought in $221,450. All three sit on the Senate Finance Committee.
9) The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States.
10) The familiar canard that universal health care is socialized medicine and would not be accepted by the public is simply a two-tiered falsehood:
- Single payer universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care providers would be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of the government, which would be socialized medicine. Single payer health care is not socialized medicine, any more than the public funding of education is socialized education, or the public funding of the defense industry is socialized defense.
- Repeated national and state polls have shown that between 60 and 75% of Americans would like a universal health care system (see The Harris Poll #78, October 20, 2005)
And for you fact nerds who just can’t get enough information, here’s a bonus fact for your noggin to process:
11) Private for profit corporations are the lease [sic] efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration.
These are all facts. You can try to dispute them, but you will be denying reality. Wrap your head around them as you think about why there has been so much opposition to a single-payer universal health care option. That’s what we’ll discuss in my next post.
In the meantime, please feel free to make a comment and contribute to this discussion. I’ll be interested in your feedback.
Against All Clods 
You claim that the study say 62% of US bankruptcys in 2007 were DUE TO medical debts. Actually, the report states on page 3 that it CONTRIBUTED to 62.1% of bankruptcy’s. No where in this study does it say 62% of US bankruptcys in 2007 were DUE TO medical debts. The loss of income, coupled with the bills themselves forced ppl to file. Not to mention, 801,840 ppl filed BK in 2007. This study only looked at 2314 of those, and only spoke to 1032. So, that is 1/5 of 1% of all filers that it LOOKED at, and obviously, and even smaller number of ppl they interviewed. I’m sorry, but less the 1/5 of 1% is NOT an accurate portrait of anything. I am aware of the concept of “statistical validity through sampling”. The report I sited, Fraser Institutes, concludes that there is no significant difference in the number of ppl that file BK here in the US compared to Canada, where they obviously have socialized medicine. So, the high cost of medicine can not be blamed SOLELY for ppl filing BK. This is all kind of a moot point, as I agree that reform needs to happen. The cost of medical treatment is ridiculous. The way that insurance companies operate needs to be reformed. But along with that, ppl need to have personal responsibility! Obesity is a leading cause of medical issues! Which lead to high blood pressure, stroke and heart attack. Not to mention problems with joints and diabetes! And then there is smoking.. All of these PREVENTABLE (for the most part) problems that Americans face (and do not face in other countries.. including the ones with socialized medicine) drive the cost of health care. But no one wants to talk about that…
By: Jessica F. on August 18, 2009
at 3:00 pm
No, I don’t claim that, the study found that to be true, as in this direct quote from their results summary at the top of the very first page: “Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical.” It also says the same thing in a big blue box in the middle of page two. Are you unable to read those words? Cherry-picking the 29% figure while ignoring the other statistics they use to calculate their results is dishonest parsing of the study, another favorite form of fact denial.
Also, the fact that the study didn’t look at EVERY person who filed bankruptcy doesn’t make it invalid as your statement tries to make us believe. It is called “random sampling,” and is a common, statistically valid form of analysis that has been around for eons. Unlike your discredited “Fraser Study” (see below), this study, completed by Harvard professors with only their reputations and livelihoods on the line, uses valid empirical methods of study, vs selective use of facts and statistics like in the Fraser “study.” Your false equivocations and trying to invalidate something that follows accepted methods of study protocol is a typical move right out of the right-wing handbook. If that is how you think, then you should never, ever believe a single poll that is reported by Fox News, or any other news source, because each and every one uses the same exact methodology.
Oh, and your vaunted Fraser Institute Study? Basically all but a fraud. Here is just the first paragraph from a well-known blog on bankruptcy law founded by 8 academics who practice, teach, and study the issue every day:
“The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is flogging a study from the Fraser Institute in Canada that purports to show U.S. medical bankruptcies are a “myth” because the Canadian bankruptcy rate is higher than in the United States. Reuters and BusinessWire have run the NCPA’s press release as a story on their news services. Before anyone takes this study seriously, a few important facts are needed to place the Fraser Institute findings in context. To be as charitable as possible, the study’s use of the bankruptcy data is extremely selective.”
They go on to say the Fraser Study plays fast and loose with their statistics, and doesn’t even use 2008 stats from both the US and Canada, both of which are readily available, and which have a significant impact on the resulting figures. Yeah, that’s some reliable stuff you can really “bank” on. You can read the entire article debunking your statistically invalid source here. And, you can read up on the REAL credentials of the author who is a professor for the Chicago School of Law and specializes in credit and bankruptcy law here:
With regard to your comments about obesity, smoking, etc, I am in total agreement with you that much more focus needs to be on healthy living and preventive care. But you totally and completely miss the point about that because our current health care system purposely focuses on “reactive” care vs “preventive” care. That’s because (of course) reactive care (expensive ER treatments, use of expensive machines like MRIs, and expensive drugs) is WAY more profitable for health care providers and drug companies than preventive care is. Whereas, the vast majority of other industrialized nations who have universal health care spend MUCH more time, effort, and money on preventive care in the first place, WHICH IS WHY THEIR PEOPLE ARE HEALTHIER, LIVE LONGER LIVES, AND HAVE LOWER INCIDENCE OF DISEASE AND INFANT MORTALITY. You rant about the lack of attention paid to healthy living and preventive care, yet bash universal health care in other countries who focus on those exact things. I love it.
And finally, you conclude by making a comment (meant to be viewed negatively) about “socialized medicine.” However, I’ve already demonstrated in 1 of the 10 facts listed in this post how what is being proposed is NOT socialized medicine. That somehow, a single payer system is inferior to the gouging system we currently have. If that is what you believe, then please explain to me why Medicare (a single payer health system encompassing 10s of millions of “high usage” seniors) seems to work so well for the vast majority who use it and why it has administrative expenses which utterly dwarf those of private insurance plans? I’ll look forward to responses from you which are much more rigorous and well-supported.
By: tonka2lips on August 19, 2009
at 3:23 pm
If we use the Japanese as our example of longevity along with their lifestyles and healthy diet, then we should all smoke, eat Natto, and work hard.
Data coming from third world countries suggest we should all avoid High Fruchtose Corn Syrup, eat numerous amounts of rice and fish, and become miners of precious metals.
Until we re-introduce research integrity into our medical institutions and higher education, we will always have these general discussions with no merit.
Like Thomas Sohl says, “Follow theMoney”
By: Ken123 on January 4, 2010
at 4:08 pm