13 October 2009

The travesty of the proposed "health care reform"

Matt Taibbi doesn't pull punches in this Rolling Stone piece:
Let's start with the obvious: America has not only the worst but the dumbest health care system in the developed world. It's become a black leprosy eating away at the American experiment — a bureaucracy so insipid and mean and illogical that even our darkest criminal minds wouldn't be equal to dreaming it up on purpose...

The bad news is our failed health care system won't get fixed, because it exists entirely within the confines of yet another failed system: the political entity known as the United States of America.

Just as we have a medical system that is not really designed to care for the sick, we have a government that is not equipped to fix actual crises. What our government is good at is something else entirely: effecting the appearance of action, while leaving the actual reform behind in a diabolical labyrinth of ingenious legislative maneuvers...

It's a situation that one would have thought would be sobering enough to snap Congress into real action for once. Instead, they did the exact opposite, doubling down on the same-old, same-old and laboring day and night in the halls of the Capitol to deliver us a tour de force of old thinking and legislative trickery, as if that's what we really wanted. Almost every single one of the main players — from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Blue Dog turncoat Max Baucus — found some unforeseeable, unique-to-them way to fuck this thing up. Even Ted Kennedy, for whom successful health care reform was to be the great vindicating achievement of his career, and Barack Obama, whose entire presidency will likely be judged by this bill, managed to come up small when the lights came on...

The only committee that didn't finish a bill is the one that's likely to matter most: the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by the infamous obfuscating dick Max Baucus, a right-leaning Democrat from Montana who has received $2,880,631 in campaign contributions from the health care industry...

The game in health care reform has mostly come down to whether or not the final bill that is hammered out from the work of these five committees will contain a public option — i.e., an option for citizens to buy in to a government-run health care plan. Because the plan wouldn't have any profit motive — and wouldn't have to waste money on executive bonuses and corporate marketing — it would automatically cost less than private insurance. Once such a public plan is on the market, it would also drive down prices offered by for-profit insurers — a move essential to offset the added cost of covering millions of uninsured Americans...

The House versions all contain a public option, as does the HELP committee's version in the Senate. So whether or not there will be a public option in the end will likely come down to Baucus, one of the biggest whores for insurance-company money in the history of the United States...

Even worse, Baucus has set things up so that the final Senate bill will be drawn up by six senators from his committee: a gang of three Republicans (Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Mike Enzi of Wyoming) and three Democrats (Baucus, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico) known by the weirdly Maoist sobriquet "Group of Six." The setup senselessly submarines the committee's Democratic majority, effectively preventing members who advocate a public option, like Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, from seriously influencing the bill. Getting movement on a public option — or any other meaningful reform — will now require the support of one of the three Republicans in the group: Grassley (who has received $2,034,000 from the health sector), Snowe ($756,000) or Enzi ($627,000).

This is what the prospects for real health care reform come down to — whether one of three Republicans from tiny states with no major urban populations decides, out of the goodness of his or her cash-fattened heart, to forsake forever any contributions from the health-insurance industry (and, probably, aid for their re-election efforts from the Republican National Committee)...

In the real world, nothing except a single-payer system makes any sense. There are currently more than 1,300 private insurers in this country, forcing doctors to fill out different forms and follow different reimbursement procedures for each and every one. This drowns medical facilities in idiotic paperwork and jacks up prices: Nearly a third of all health care costs in America are associated with wasteful administration. Fully $350 billion a year could be saved on paperwork alone if the U.S. went to a single-payer system — more than enough to pay for the whole goddamned thing, if anyone had the balls to stand up and say so...

Behind closed doors, Obama also moved to cut a deal with the drug industry. "It's a dirty deal," says Russell Mokhiber, one of the protesters whom Baucus had arrested. "The administration told them, 'Single-payer is off the table. In exchange, we want you on board.'" In August, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America announced that the industry would contribute an estimated $150 million to campaign for Obamacare...

Without a public option that drives down prices, the cost of other health care reforms being considered by Congress will almost certainly skyrocket...

Another favor to industry buried in the bills involves the issue of choice. From the outset, Democrats have been careful to make sure that a revamped system would not in any way force citizens to give up their existing health care plans. As Obama told the American Medical Association in June, "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."[...]

There's a flip side, though: If your employer offers you acceptable care and you reject it, you are barred from buying insurance in the insurance "exchange." In other words, you must take the insurance offered to you at work. And that might have made sense if, as decreed in the House version, employers actually had to offer good care. But in the Senate version passed by the HELP committee, there is no real requirement for employers to provide any kind of minimal level of care. On the contrary, employers who currently offer sub-par coverage will have their shitty plans protected by a grandfather clause...

If things go the way it looks like they will, health care reform will simply force great numbers of new people to buy or keep insurance of a type that has already been proved not to work. "The IRS and the government will force people to buy a defective product," says Woolhandler. "We know it's defective because three-quarters of all people who file for bankruptcy because of medical reasons have insurance when they get sick — and they're bankrupted anyway."

To recap, here's what ended up happening with health care. First, they gave away single-payer before a single gavel had fallen, apparently as a bargaining chip to the very insurers mostly responsible for creating the crisis in the first place. Then they watered down the public option so as to make it almost meaningless, while simultaneously beefing up the individual mandate, which would force millions of people now uninsured to buy a product that is no longer certain to be either cheaper or more likely to prevent them from going bankrupt. The bill won't make drugs cheaper, and it might make paperwork for doctors even more unwieldy and complex than it is now. In fact, the various reform measures suck so badly that PhRMA, the notorious mouthpiece for the pharmaceutical industry which last year spent more than $20 million lobbying against health care reform, is now gratefully spending more than seven times that much on a marketing campaign to help the president get what he wants...

All that's left of health care reform is a collection of piece-of-shit, weakling proposals that are preposterously expensive and contain almost nothing meaningful — and that set of proposals, meanwhile, is being negotiated down even further by the endlessly negating Group of Six. It is a fight to the finish now between Really Bad and Even Worse. And it's virtually guaranteed to sour the public on reform efforts for years to come.

"They'll pass some weak, mediocre plan that breaks the bank and even in the best analysis leaves 37 million people uninsured," says Mokhiber, one of the single-payer activists arrested by Baucus. "It's going to give universal health care a bad name." [...]

Then again, some of the blame has to go to all of us. It's more than a little conspicuous that the same electorate that poured its heart out last year for the Hallmark-card story line of the Obama campaign has not been seen much in this health care debate. The handful of legislators — the Weiners, Kuciniches, Wydens and Sanderses — who are fighting for something real should be doing so with armies at their back. Instead, all the noise is being made on the other side. Not so stupid after all — they, at least, understand that politics is a fight that does not end with the wearing of a T-shirt in November.

This is a long post, but it's only a small portion of the seven-page article at Rolling Stone. I hate to overuse the blue link to highlight sentences, and I hate even more to use large fonts, which strike me as sort of like allcaps, but this article has a lot to say, explaining many aspects that most people (including myself) simply have not understood because the legislative process has been so prolonged and convoluted. The public is going to get screwed on this.

The Reddit discussion thread is here.

Let me repeat what I view as the crucial sentence in the article:

Fully $350 billion a year could be saved on paperwork alone if the U.S. went to a single-payer system — more than enough to pay for the whole goddamned thing, if anyone had the balls to stand up and say so.

That is based on this New England Journal of Medicine article explaining that about 1/3 of all medical expense is caused by paperwork.

13 comments:

  1. Only thing is, the doctors themselves don't seem to think the government system is any easier to deal with. The proof is this: doctors limit the number of Medicare/Medicaid patients they take on. We have a child on Medicare, and were unable to find a single doctor in our city who was taking any new Medicare patients. Instead we must drive 45 miles to see a doctor for her (even though our own doctors are in town).

    I'd like to think a reduction in paperwork would save money, but my sad experience with the government in the past has shown that paperwork and red tape are part and parcel of any bureaucratic plan.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was also quite shocked that the government itself seems more sanguine than concerned when presented with such tremendous costs for entire regional populations of beneficiaries.
    The individuals interested probably have no idea how much their care is costing - taxpayers - only that Medicare "covers" them. If it a true, nobody knows.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "a bureaucracy so insipid and mean and illogical that even our darkest criminal minds wouldn't be equal to dreaming it up on purpose..."

    Oh? Like a government board decreeing a 21-year-old alcoholic can't get a liver transplant and should die instead? That happened in the UK recently.

    When a writer overreaches like that in the first graf, it's time to grab onto your wallet. Like someone said, never waste a good crisis.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bill, where is the problem with that?
    Should the new liver go to some arsehole that has already proven he is willing to destroy his own body, or to the dad of three that needs a new one because he had a tumor in his?

    I was talking about the topic with my sister (a doctor) recently, no alcoholic will EVER get a liver transplant unless they can prove (there is medical tests) that they have been abstinent for one year.

    ReplyDelete
  5. oops, my bad:

    In Germany that is.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's a typical Rolling Stone article -- nasty, illiterate, paranoid and cynical, condemning everyone and finding a "dirty little secret" behind everything and everyone within cursing distance. A nasty piece of work, of no constructive purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To respond to Mike's comment, I can say that it's definitely possible to have a government-run health care system that isn't overrun with paperwork and red tape. When I see a doctor in Canada, I plunk down my card, and that's typically the last I ever have to think about payment. The only time I ever paid out of pocket for a medical expense was when my wife gave birth to our daughter. We upgraded from a semi-private room to a private one for $25.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Terry, it's actually mostly the same for us. The problem isn't paperwork for me, but for the doctor trying to get paid. I'm not saying government CAN'T make a system without the bureaucratic mess, but that they HAVEN'T so far. That is why some doctors limit their Medicaid/Medicare patients. If it was easy to get paid, they'd welcome them with open arms.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It would help if doctors weren't paid by procedure in Medicare. A friend was told to come in weekly for various treatments for plantar fasciitis. She is a nurse, and realized that the doctor was just trying to get paid more for "treatments" that were totally ineffective.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bill,

    Is the 21 yo still drinking? If so, the individual will damage a second liver. It takes a significant amount of alcohol to destroy a liver by the age of 21, and there simply are not enough livers (or other transplantable organs) available for every individual who needs one.

    If the 21 yo is still drinking, why transplant an organ another individual can use?

    BTW, Bill, have you told your family and doctor that you are willing to be an organ donor? Have you signed your organ door card?


    CCL

    ReplyDelete
  11. Taibbi and crew are about the only people speaking truth to power these days.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "The public is going to get screwed on this."

    ... and the rest is, quite honestly, coincidental.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The insurance industry has fought standardized medical insurance forms (every company, same form, easy for doctors) for decades. Having said that, $350,000,000,000 at $50 an hour for medical clerks is 7 billion hours at 2000 hours a clerk a year that's 3.5 million people years. There are around 700,000 doctors in the US, so that amounts to five medical clerks per doctor and I just don't believe it.

    ReplyDelete