|
|
|---|
|
American Politics Journal Atrios Barry Crimmins Betty Bowers Buzzflash Consortium News Daily Howler Daily Kos Democatic Underground Disinfotainment Today Evil GOP Bastards Faux News Channel Greg Palast The Hollywood Liberal Internet Weekly Jesus General Joe Conason Josh Marshall Liberal Oasis Make Them Accountable Mark Morford Mike Malloy Political Humor - About.com Political Wire Randi Rhodes Rude Pundit Smirking Chimp Take Back the Media Whitehouse.org More Links |
Subject: Re: The cost of health care reform
'There is a large void in this discussion. There is little talk of the impact which employer contributions have on the “big picture”.
It’s not easily stated in a single sentence.
So I start at the basics:
The costs of health care include the cost of insurance.
Most of the money in the health care business
is in the insurance premiums people pay.
The insurance company pays off claims with some
of that money thus feeding the remaining players in the US health care
industry.
The rest of that money is invested in things.
They seem to raise/lower premiums or raise/lower
coverage in response to the status of their investments (or to the possibility
of congressional investigation).
At least as many premium dollars are paid by
employers for their employees as are paid by “self-payers”. (It’s probably
a lot more.)
To recognize the reduction in costs of a reformed
system, the new system must be able to recognize those premiums paid by
employers separate from all other existing costs.
There is no way to calculate cost savings, existing
system vis-à-vis single payer, unless that number is quantified
and included in the equation. It must become “common knowledge”.
Until that recognition is the focus of the discussion
the response from the health insurance industry (and, following their example,
the health care industry)
will be, “I’m not hiding anything, how do you
know I’m hiding anything?, how do you know how much I’m hiding?, PROVE
IT.”
The true, inarguable, figures must come out.
The equation looks something like this:
$5711 the cost per year for each individual American’s
health care (2003 data)
$3100 the cost for the most expensive (France’s)
universal care system
$2611 the savings that could be plowed back into
the wallets of people when the US adopts single payer
That’s about $1 trillion. It’s like Christmas
comes twice EVERY YEAR from now on. But it’s like quicksilver to even discuss.
This “commandeering” of the argument requires
measurable accountability through honest brokering.
Each employer must relate accurate numbers on
its payments.
The aggregate of those existing outlays will
need to be “on the block”, in the public domain and not behind closed doors,
for accurate quantification.
Because it must be impossible for employers to
slip their existing outlays surreptitiously into their profits if/when
the employer
no longer pays for employee insurance due to
the availability of a government provider. I think this is near the core
of the issue.
Forcing this exposure and offering a cheaper option would undo the health insurance industry (and may well shake the foundations of all insurances).
It’s an invasion of privacy issue that would expose, like a surgeon’s scalpel, the arterial flow of cash from the nation’s employers into the investment organs of the insurance industry.
It may well expose a less than savory relationship
between some industries’ executives (companies with thousands of employees)
and health insurance providers.
We must clearly see this as unaccountable funneling of our general prosperity into the single largest source of worldwide venture capital in existence today.
The fear, mistrust and dread which accompany the
interaction Americans have with their health insurance fuels the world
economy.
It’s the story of an economic model out of control,
the primary beneficiaries of which don’t have the foresight to understand
that its existence depends on our health.
David M
Send e-mail
to Bart | Discuss
it on The BartCop Forum | Comment
on it at the BartBlog