The Health Care Deceit

It is the War in Afghanistan Obama Declared a "Necessity," Not Health Care


By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts09142009.html

The current health care "debate" shows how far gone representative 
government is in the United States.  Members of Congress represent 
the powerful interest groups that fill their campaign coffers, not 
the people who vote for them.

The health care bill is not about health care.  It is about 
protecting and increasing the profits of the insurance companies. 
The main feature of the health care bill is the "individual mandate," 
which requires everyone in America to buy health insurance.  Senate 
Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont), a recipient of 
millions in contributions over his career from the insurance 
industry, proposes to impose up to a $3,800 fine on Americans who 
fail to purchase health insurance.

The determination of "our" elected representatives to serve the 
insurance industry is so compelling that Congress is incapable of 
recognizing the absurdity of these proposals.

The reason there is a health care crisis in the US is that the 
cumulative loss of jobs and benefits has swollen the uninsured to 
approximately 50 million Americans.  They cannot afford health 
insurance any more than employers can afford to provide it. 

It is absurd to mandate that people purchase what they cannot afford 
and to fine them for failing to do so.  A person who cannot pay a 
health insurance premium cannot pay the fine.

These proposals are like solving the homeless problem by requiring 
the homeless to purchase a house. 

In his speech Obama said "we'll provide tax credits" for "those 
individuals and small businesses who still can't afford the 
lower-priced insurance available in the exchange" and he said 
low-cost coverage will be offered to those with preexisting medical 
conditions.  A tax credit is useless to those without income unless 
the credit is refundable, and subsidized coverage doesn't do much for 
those millions of Americans with no jobs.

Baucus masquerades as a defender of the health impaired with his 
proposal to require insurers to provide coverage to all comers as if 
the problem of health care can be reduced to preexisting conditions 
and cancelled policies.  It was left to Rep. Dennis Kucinich to point 
out that the health care bill ponies up 30 million more customers for 
the private insurance companies.

The private sector is no longer the answer, because the income levels 
of the vast majority of Americans are insufficient to bear the cost 
of health insurance today.  To provide some perspective, the monthly 
premium for a 60-year old female for a group policy 
(employer-provided) with Blue Cross Blue Shield in Florida is about 
$1,200.  That comes to $14,400 per year.  Only employees in high 
productivity jobs that can provide both a livable salary and health 
care can expect to have employer-provided coverage.  If a 60-year old 
female has to buy a non-group policy as an individual, the premium 
would be even higher. How, for example, is a Wal-Mart shelf stocker 
or check out clerk going to be able to pay a private insurance 
premium?

Even the present public option--Medicare--is very expensive to those 
covered.  Basic Medicare is insufficient coverage.  Part B has been 
added, for which about $100 per month is deducted from the covered 
person's Social Security check.  If the person is still earning or 
has other retirement income, an "income-related monthly adjustment" 
is also deducted as part of the Part B premium.  And if the person is 
still working, his earnings are subject to the 2.9 percent Medicare 
tax. 

Even with Part B, Medicare coverage is still insufficient except for 
the healthy.  For many people, additional coverage from private 
supplementary policies, such as the ones sold by AARP, is necessary. 
These premiums can be as much as $277 per month.  Deductibles remain 
and prescriptions are only 50% covered.  If the drug prescription 
policy is chosen, the premium is higher. 

This leaves a retired person on Medicare who has no other retirement 
income of significance paying as much as $4,500 per year in premiums 
in order to create coverage under Medicare that still leaves half of 
his prescription medicines out-of-pocket.  Considering the cost of 
some prescription medicines, a Medicare-covered person with Part B 
and a supplementary policy can still face bankruptcy.

Therefore, everyone should take note that a "public option" can leave 
people with large out-of-pocket costs. I know a professional who has 
chosen to continue working beyond retirement age.  His Medicare 
coverage with supplemental coverage, Medicare tax, and income-related 
monthly adjustment comes to $16,400 per year.  Those people who want 
to deny Medicare to the rich will cost the system a lot of money.

What the US needs is a single-payer not-for-profit health system that 
pays doctors and nurses sufficiently that they will undertake the 
arduous training and accept the stress and risks of dealing with 
illness and diseases. 

A private health care system worked in the days before expensive 
medical technology, malpractice suits, high costs of bureaucracy 
associated with third-party payers and heavy investment in combating 
fraud, and pressure on insurance companies from Wall Street to 
improve "shareholder returns." 

Despite the rise in premiums, payments to health care providers, such 
as doctors, appear to be falling along with coverage to policy 
holders.  The system is no longer functional and no longer makes 
sense.  Health care has become an incidental rather than primary 
purpose of the health care system.  Health care plays second fiddle 
to insurance company profits and salaries to bureaucrats engaged in 
fraud prevention and discovery.  There is no point in denying 
coverage to one-sixth of the population in the name of saving a 
nonexistent private free market health care system.

The only way to reduce the cost of health care is to take the profit 
and paperwork out of health care. 

Nothing humans design will be perfect.  However, Congress is making 
it clear to the public that the wrong issues are front and center, 
such as the belief of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) and others that illegal 
aliens and abortions will be covered if government pays the bill.

Debate focuses on subsidiary issues, because Congress no longer 
writes the bills it passes.  As Theodore Lowi made clear in his book, 
The End of Liberalism, the New Deal transferred law-making from the 
legislative to the executive branch. Executive branch agencies and 
departments write bills that they want and hand them off to sponsors 
in the House and Senate.  Powerful interest groups took up the same 
practice.
The interest groups that finance political campaigns expect their 
bills to be sponsored and passed.

Thus: a health care reform bill based on forcing people to purchase 
private health insurance and fining them if they do not.

When bills become mired in ideological conflict, as has happened to 
the health care bill, something usually passes nevertheless.  The 
president, his PR team, and members of Congress want a health care 
bill on their resume and to be able to claim that they passed a 
health care bill, regardless of whether it provides any health care. 

The cost of adding public expenditures for health care to a budget 
drowning in red ink from wars, bank bailouts, and stimulus packages 
means that the most likely outcome of a health care bill will benefit 
insurance companies and use mandated private coverage to save public 
money by curtailing Medicare and Medicaid.

The public's interest is not considered to be the important 
determinant.  The politicians have to please the insurance companies 
and reduce health care expenditures in order to save money for 
another decade or two of war in the Middle East. 

The telltale part of Obama's speech was the applause in response to 
his pledge that "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our 
deficits."  Yet, Obama and his fellow politicians have no hesitation 
to add trillions of dollars to the deficit in order to fund wars.

The profits of military/security companies are partly recycled into 
campaign contributions. To cut war spending in order to finance a 
public health care system would cost politicians campaign 
contributions from both the insurance industry and the 
military/security industry. 

Politicians are not going to allow that to happen.

It was the war in Afghanistan, not health care, that President Obama 
declared to be a "necessity."

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the 
Reagan administration. He is coauthor of 
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0307396061/counterpunchmaga>The 
Tyranny of Good Intentions. His new book, War of the Worlds: How the 
Economy Was Lost, will be published next month by AK 
Press/CounterPunch. He can be reached at: 
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to Mark Crispin Miller's 
"News From Underground" newsgroup.

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to 
[email protected] OR go to 
http://groups.google.com/group/newsfromunderground and click on the 
"Unsubscribe or change membership" link in the yellow bar at the top of the 
page, then click the "Unsubscribe" button on the next page. 

For more News From Underground, visit http://markcrispinmiller.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to