Wall Street concedes Murder by Spreadsheet healthcare is unsustainable

Here it is, directly from   ROBERT LASZEWSKI one of the most respected health policy analysts in the nation.

Wall Street finally seems to be figuring out that the health insurance business is, and has been for years, on a long walk off a short pier. What's sustainable about a business whose costs have continually exploded at 2-3 times the growth rate of the rest of the economy or the wage rate? Just where did Wall Street think this business was headed all those years the sector has been the darling of Wall Street?
http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspo...

And here's where the fight to take back our healthcare system from the merchants of death will begin in earnest.

Mad as hell?  June 19, in S.F. fight back against AHIP and for-profit healthcare.

The question of the hour remains. Why are our Democratic presidential candidates refusing to touch the true third rail of American politics?  Why won't Obama and Clinton explain to the American people that maintaining the status quo is an unwinnable and unworkable solution to the collapse of our healthcare system?

Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, you know full well that the American people cannot afford the junk insurance the insurance industry is still selling us.

I have been repeatedly asking the candidates what will you and I pay for our for-profit healthcare after President Clinton or President Obama signs into law healthcare reform?

I am currently paying $7557.96 a year! If I receive a very modest 8% increase this year, I will soon pay over $8000 a year for junk insurance.  This is the definition of unsustainable insanity.

All I want are some real numbers. How much?  We probably won't receive a straight answer because, even our Democratic candidates know all they have to offer is fuzzy math. More and more Americans are dropping their coverage because it is unaffordable junk insurance.

It gets better or worse depending on your frame of reference. Even the analysts have recognized this industry is doomed. The business model is kaput. Industries and companies live or die at the hands of the analysts.

Another nugget from ROBERT LASZEWSKI.

Perhaps most telling was the recent comment by one analyst in the Wall Street Journal, "What we're seeing is a market that's gotten so mature and beyond its customer that people can literally no longer afford to buy the product," said Sheryl Skolnick, an analyst with CRT Capital Group. "The number of uninsured is growing faster than any player in the game, and it's getting bigger at the expense of the Uniteds, the WellPoints."

As I explained the other day,  health insurer profits are collapsing under the weight of the pervasive culture of greed that permeates the industry.  Greed and a fully unsustainable business model which places profits ahead of the welfare of the American people.

But the political class seems determined to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. Sadly even Democrats, who are so beholden to the money which flows like water to them, spew garbage talking points. My own Charles Schumer is one who needs a primary.  Hey Chuck, you don't own the damn seat.

Why is Chuck Schumer waving the white flag of surrender? Oh, for a million reasons. He's totally out-of-touch and tone deaf.  He and his family receive heavily taxpayer subsidized health benefits through the FEHBP, which are not available to the American people.

Lastly, I've been advised that next week, Mr. McBush will be on his healthcare blitz. Last week it was the poverty road show, next week it will be the "I feel your pain" bus caravan.

Do you think the fawning media asswipes will ask him about his infamous quote? Nah. And if they do, they'll be told by McSame in no uncertain terms, to stop with the cheap shots.

"Everything's fine," McCain told reporters during a news conference. "Like most Americans, I go see my doctor fairly frequently."
http://www.politico.com/...

Just as an aside, you can check the Guaranteed healthcare website for for frequent updates on the activities planned for San Francisco on June 19th.  I'll be there, hope lots of you can make it as well.

Mad as hell?  June 19, in S.F. fight back against AHIP and for-profit healthcare.

•  So my question or challenge . . .

  to Clinton and Obama is to face reality, step up, act like leaders, and give us some straight talk.

  And Clinton is asking for another debate.  How about a debate just on healthcare.

  by nyceve on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:14:58 AM PDT

  •  we also need to elect single-payer . . .

    advocates like Faye Armitage to Congress.

    Does everyone know that Faye is a Kossack?

    If you're so inclined, you might go to her   Act Blue page and make a donation.

    We need people like Faye, if we are ever going to change the status quo.

    by nyceve on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:19:30 AM PDT

    •  There is a good list of Congressional Challengers

      who support single-payer here:

      http://www.sickocure.org/...

      by FLCitizen on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:33:00 AM PDT

      •  FLCitizen, the link appears . . .

        seriously broken.

        Can you give us a working link?  Getting this list disseminated is super important.

        Thanks.

        by nyceve on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:46:16 AM PDT

        •  Worked for me

          Just slow.

          by SarahLee on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:00:51 AM PDT

    •  i'm in Faye's district

      so thanks for reminging me to contribute
      again. SHe was so committed during 2004 on the
      stem cell issue, I guess i will knocking on
      doors to try and get tid of John(that's MY Chair)Mica....

      by demnomore on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:09:38 AM PDT

    •  Government run single payer & not for profit...

      ...is what is needed.

      If The damned Congress critters had kept their hands off of Social Security deductions by not putting them into the general fund and issuing worthless paper IOUs in place of the moneys paid in and calling that theft a lockbox Social Security would not be in trouble. They allowed the industrial tax base to go off shore but sell here TARIFF FREE.  They have excused corporations and the richest among us their taxes FOR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.  They have mandated millions upon millions that pay for programs the Federal government once could pay for to state and local government in the name of tax cuts. They have increased the hidden taxes exponentially to the point of wrecking the middle class and now won't assist the bulk of American voters against the insurance giants who kill off our friends and families for a buck. I see little reason to support about three quarters of Congress or any of the current Presidential candidates who wont toe the line on critical issuse facing the majority of voters.

      KEEP AMERICAN JOBS IN AMERICA!

      TARIFF OUR OFF SHORE CORPORATIONS TO THE POINT THEY CAN NOT MANUFACTURE USING SLAVE WAGE FOREIGN LABOR AND HAVE TO COME BACK INTO THE COUNTRY IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO SELL HERE AND THUS THEIR TAX BASE HOME!

      STOP OFFSHORE USE OF TAX HAVENS!

      INSTITUTE SINGLE PAYER NOT FOR PROFIT GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE!

      ...AND MAKE A GOOD EDUCATION AS AFFORDABLE AS IT ONCE WAS 40 YEARS AGO.

      If these basics cannot be met them we should have and old fashion 1776 style rebellion against the current money based royal class corrupting both political parties, running the primary processes and the government. You know, with tar and feathers, liberty poles and what ever else is necessary to return government for the people to the people from which it has been stolen.

       

      by Bobjack23 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:43:55 PM PDT

  •  Thank you, nyceve.

    Thanks for continuing to advocate so strongly on this issue.  It's one of the greatest import.

    I recently found a bit of information that brought healthcare into a little sharper focus.

    Our company is testing an online system for signing up and changing our benefits so that the HR department can be relieved of the burden of all that paperwork.  What they did was basically load all of our current information into a test system so that we could "field test" the software before going live.

    While testing, I found the page that lists our complete healthcare disbursements for our plans.  I pay roughly $160 per month for my individual healthcare plan at work ($200 if you count the eyecare and dental benefits.)

    What shocked me is that the company disburses nearly $300 in additional costs per month for my healcare plan.  That's just for me - a 28-year-old, healthy, no-pre-existing-conditions, healthy male.

    $460 - 500 per month.  Just for me.  I can't even imagine what the company pays out for a family, or somebody that has a pre-existing condition.  And this is in a company with 8,500 employees.

    I can't even imagine what the same level of coverage would cost to a company with 100 employees, or 50 employees.

    The only solution is single-payer.  At this point we're not going to be able to regulate anything to do with the private industry.  They simply must be replaced.

    Since I came here and started reading the diaries of yourself and others, I've written to my Representatives and Senators in Congress.

    Thanks again for your advocacy.  Tipped & Rec'd.

    by DemocraticOz on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:39:40 AM PDT

    •  Well, DemocraticOz, this entire farce . . .

      is imploding.

      We all know this intuitively, now Wall Street is even acknowledging the reality.

      They've priced themselves beyond the reach of all but the most affluent.

      While testing, I found the page that lists our complete healthcare disbursements for our plans.  I pay roughly $160 per month for my individual healthcare plan at work ($200 if you count the eyecare and dental benefits.)

      What shocked me is that the company disburses nearly $300 in additional costs per month for my healcare plan.  That's just for me - a 28-year-old, healthy, no-pre-existing-conditions, healthy male.

      by nyceve on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:43:51 AM PDT

      •  We need a return to Eisenhower-era tax rates

        Once that happens, we can then fund single-payer and eliminate the deficit.

        by Phoenix Woman on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:03:12 AM PDT

        •  funding shouldn't be a problem, really

          We're already spending 14% of the GDP on healthcare, far more than any other country.

          The only real difference in medicare-for-all is that businesses would send the health care premiums to the IRS instead of to the insurance companies.

          by ferg on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:02:40 AM PDT

          •  ferg, we're spending 16% of GDP . . .

            it will be 20% by 2020.

            This is bad, bad, bad.

            by nyceve on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:04:04 AM PDT

            •  What is more important

              than our health?
              What should we be spending more on than health care, as a society?

              The problem is not that we are spending this much, but that we are spending more than anyone else and getting results that are, at best, equal and, on many measures, worse.  

              by Justanothernyer on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:46:47 AM PDT

            •  Other Nations Spend 8-9% GDP For Better Care

              Frontline did an excellent episode a couple weeks ago visiting various countries. No lines, lots of bells and whistles, much fewer errors. You hear about how they are all "going broke," but they actually only spend half as much as America.

              by bernardpliers on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:16:41 PM PDT

    •  Absolutly. What my employer pays out

      for me in each paycheck could easily equal the cost of a new part-time position in the organization.  (Or, that money could be in my damn check, which might be enough to allow my husband to stay home with the kids, or at least work part-time.) If they raise premiums again this year, that many more companies will have to drop it altogether, that many more people "going naked."  At a certain point this will become exponential, and then, seemingly overnight, these insurance companies will be declaring bankruptcy and begging the government for a hand out.  

      by Reepicheep on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:06:48 PM PDT

    •  many companies routinely report this data.

      You act shocked. Some companies pay less, some more; depends on contracted benefits. usually within co. there is no differential for pre-existing or chronic illness. Family usually 240%.

      by samddobermann on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:07:52 AM PDT

  •  CLINTON HAD HER CHANCE!!!

    And she said she "wants to have universal healthcare by the last year of her second term."

    by ezdidit on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:02:56 AM PDT

    •  Totally unsatisfactory, ezdidt

      And I was criticized for suggesting that even Obama who says we will have "universal healthcare" by the end of his first term was way too long to wait.

      by nyceve on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:16:03 AM PDT

      •  And his healthcare

        won't be universal, since both candidates' plans are woefully inadequate.

        by dedmonds on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:30:25 AM PDT

        •  dedmonds, why do both of them . . .

          propose to load all the American people on a sinking Titanic?

          by nyceve on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:41:40 AM PDT

          •  Political cowardice

            as I gay man, I know all the symptoms of cowardice on important issues. Both our candidates have a bad, bad case.

            It's up to us to teach them bravery.

            by dedmonds on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:03:17 AM PDT

            •  Nail, meet head

              That's it exactly. It's not an accident that Clinton took the weakest part of Edwards' admittedly overcomplicated plan and left the most obvious solution on the cutting room floor. None of them want a war with Big Insurance and Big Finance.

              If there is any good news to come out of this diary, it's that Big Insurance and Big Finance have so royally screwed themselves that, like Big Auto, they may begin pushing for policies and regulations they would have fought tooth and nail even two years ago just because they see no choice. Big Anything has a long history of abruptly becoming fond of government referees when their own stupidity has left them on the ropes, getting pummeled.

              by oldjohnbrown on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:07:42 AM PDT

              •  Or, you know, nail meet hammer n/t

                by oldjohnbrown on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:08:14 AM PDT

            •  Watch it there, pal.

              Wouldn't want to get yourself branded an "anarchist," now would you?

              Yes, it's happened to me, in this very forum :) Heh, heh.

              by karmsy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:14:16 PM PDT

      •  Both candidates are taking the wrong approach

        I'm sure that with their private markets evaporating, AHIP members will suddenly discover their consciences and become loud advocates for universal health coverage:  as long as they're getting the business and the government's guaranteeing the premiums.  That's the direction that both Clinton's and Obama's plans go.  It's the wrong direction.

        I think that one of two things must happen for the right approach, single-payer, to come about:

        1. Public campaign financing, to remove the power of health industry lobbyists.

        2. A complete and utter meltdown of the private insurance system.

        Under the first, America would be much more likely to choose single-payer; under the second, it wouldn't have any choice.  I'm not sure which scenario will play out first, but I don't think it'll be too many years before one comes to pass.

        by Dallasdoc on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:46:58 AM PDT

        •  Why not have a Medicare buy-in option to any

          healthcare system proposed by the new President, if single payer won't fly on the first go-round? Edwards had it in his proposed healthcare system. People could opt to "buy-in" to Medicare, at any age. The cost would be much less than insurance, because Medicare's overhead is like 2% vs. 20% for insurance. The insurance companies would be forced to compete, and more and more of them would go out of business. Eventually, as everyone sees that government paid healthcare is NOT socialized medicine, we could transition to a single payer system over time. Obama should seriously consider putting this option in his plan -- and it would allow more people to have access to care because the cost would be so much lower....

          We need to push the candidates on at least transitioning to a single payer system with an option like this.

          by Kim from Pgh PA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:55:56 AM PDT

          •  The problem with the public option...

            ... is already being seen with Medicare, and has been evident for years with Medicaid.  Publicly-funded alternatives are invariably underresourced, with poor pay scales and limited coverage and options.  

            Even Medicare is slowly being privatized by a program called Medicare Advantage, in which private insurers take a patient's full Medicare allowance plus 16-18%, and provides a more normal-looking insurance coverage plan.  This was passed in the same bill that created Medicare Part D, with the infamous "donut hole" where prescription coverage is simply dropped for a time.

            Unless a public payer is at least close to universal, private insurers will use every bit of lobbying clout they have to make sure the public option is second-class, apartheid medicine.  It's the only way they can stay in business.  That's why I say we need public campaign financing, because that fundamental reform would defang industries like the health insurers.

            by Dallasdoc on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:03:52 AM PDT

          •  excellent idea, Kim!!

            But::::

            Most employees would want to exit their plans, immediately and take home more of their pay, so how does a carefully choreographed meltdown of this industry get done?

            Many insurance companies own for-profit medical facilities or hospitals outright that will have to close immediately. Do we nationalize them?  Does the government have to buy them out?  

            The lawsuits keep piling up against the loophole makers in D.C.  At some point, don't we need a health care czar to shepherd the process?  

            by ezdidit on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:08:04 AM PDT

            •  Wait, why would hospitals have to close?

              If a hospital or medical facility works, it's an asset on the corporate balance sheet. It can be sold to raise cash. Maybe at a fire-sale price, but that only makes it a better business proposition for the new owner.

              Someone will see an opportunity. (Maybe it'll be Wal*Mart!)

              Now, consolidation of hospitals and medical facilities into huge national chains with bargaining power against a government single-payer health insurance would, admittedly, be a slight problem down the road. But at least you'd be rid of the insurers. That's quite a lot of progress from where you are now.

              by Canadian Reader on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:22:02 AM PDT

      •  Whoever criticized you should be ashamed.

        We're only going to reform healthcare by being terribly "rude," and making real demands of our politicians.

        by karmsy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:54:17 AM PDT

        •  damn straight....!!!

          by ezdidit on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:59:22 AM PDT

          •  1-2 idiots that I've

            bumped into on DailyKos really want to downplay the role of the grassroots in progressive reform. I even got called an "anarchist" recently by some fool who was terribly worried that I spoke dismissively about politicians. Hah!

            THEIR rightful job is to listen to us and to help us get what we need. That's it.

            by karmsy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:06:27 AM PDT

  •  Check this out from

    McCain's general campaign co-chairman and finance chairman Tom Loeffeler, who was asked this week about "recognition of challenges of global warming and cost of health care."

    His answer:

    All of these things have not been issues in the past in the beginning of an administration.

    I.e., McCain will do nothing good, EVER, about the health insurance crisis.

    by devtob on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:20:16 AM PDT

  •  Straight talk?

    Carter tried that and suffered for his pains. Why would any politicians speak plainly if it means getting crucified?

    Now, both their healthcare plans are an enormous and achievable improvement - and one of the reasons I continue to blog here. McCain must not win - The United States cannot afford it (although a McCain presidency would be beneficial to us Europeans, supporting him because of that would be despicable).

    Step by step into regulation and finally into national healthcare... that the Democrats will eventually bring, I'm sure.

    by Dauphin on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:39:09 AM PDT

    •  You're correct, Dauphin . .

      For a politician to tell the truth is the kiss of death.

      But let's all acknowledge then, what we're hearing from both Clinton and Obama on healthcare is mostly campaign talk and bullshit.

      by nyceve on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:43:25 AM PDT

      •  That's a good definition of any

        politician's tripe, and the reason a politician may command my support (reluctant) but not loyalty.

        by Dauphin on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:55:56 AM PDT

  •  With McSame's luck...

    He will be standing before a group of uninsured when he claims our current healthcare system is working and just needs some tweeks. Like he did when addressing poverty before the dying factory last week!

    Lastly, I've been advised that next week, Mr. McBush will be on his healthcare blitz. Last week it was the poverty road show, next week it will be the "I feel your pain" bus caravan.

    Waiting for a sane plan,

    by illyia on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:10:15 AM PDT

  •  They won't.

    Give us straight talk about healthcare reform, I mean. That's just not what big politicians do--Democrat, Republican, or whatever.

    We, the grassroots, will put this issue on their radar by making raucous demands for commonsense healthcare reform.

    We, the every-day people, have to become too big a pain in the ass for the decision-makers to ignore. THAT'S how we're finally going to get cost-effective universal healthcare on our soil. The smarter pols, they get that you don't ignore the will of the grassroots.

    Thanks, as always, for the diary. And thanks for continuing plugs for the demo at the AHIP convention in SF.

    by karmsy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:51:49 AM PDT

  •  Healthcare, food & water crisis as well,

    by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:52:39 AM PDT

  •  My 2 cents . . .

    First, I think we need a Democrat to get elected.  If either one of our possible candidates were to come out before the General Election with a health care plan that is a death sentence for Big Insurance, they would inspire more GOP-backed obstacles to success.

    Second, regardless of the plan 'favored' by either Democratic presidential candidate, after the White House is won all proposals will be swept into the dustbin and a new - or several new - health care proposals will be brought forward in Congress - hopefully, a Congress with a significant Democratic majority that can get it passed and signed into law.  

    I have my fingers crossed for single-payer system that sends all the so-called 'insurance' companies packing - and ends the windfall profits program for Big Pharma while we're at it.

    by LeeB on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:26:19 PM PDT

  •  A debate on healthcare. I can see it now...

    Stephanopolous: "So, Hillary, between the two of you, who hates America more, judged by your desire to cripple our current healthcare model and put the entire country on welfare, raising taxes, and burdening good Republicans with everybody else's costs?"

    Oy.

    by justme on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:35:31 PM PDT

•  "fawning asswipes"

  I prefer Charmin, but...

  Everyone check out the link to the June 19 event--very important initiative.

  Thanks, Eve!

  RECOMMENDED

  by Jeffrey Feldman on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:18:22 AM PDT

  •  Forgive me Jeffrey, I just . . .

    couldn't help myself.

    Some days, I just get up and God knows what will come out.

    by nyceve on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:20:25 AM PDT

    •  No forgiveness needed!

      Your righteous compassion is a force that helps us all.

      I will be there on June 19. I live close by, and there's nothing more important I could do that day, for myself, my family, and my country.

      Thanks for getting the word out!

      by means are the ends on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:21:08 AM PDT

    •  Sacred rage, nyceve

      When our senses of justice and compassion and even security are constantly offended, the rage that rises up is righteous and pure.  It is a spiritual thing, meant to cleanse the world of evils too numerous to countenance.

      You are our prophetess of sacred rage, come to smite the demons of AHIP.  Sorry to go all purple on you, but your battle is worthy of a Greek playwright.

      by Dallasdoc on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:50:19 AM PDT

•  I have no money to give at the moment, but...

  ...I'll make a small donation to any candidate who promises to promote a bill stripping congresscritters of their health plan and replacing it with the same kind of crappy plan most of us have. And if they have any preexisting conditions at all, their new carrier will be perfectly entitled to drop them.

  by wiscmass on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:36:33 AM PDT

  •  Yes, wiscmass . . .

    This really needs to happen.

    You and I are criticized for making such an outlandish proposal.

    by nyceve on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:37:44 AM PDT

    •  Anyone who has a problem with such proposals...

      ...needs to get his/her head out of his/her ass. Our so-called leaders can't be counted on to do anything to actually benefit the entire country unless their own self-interest is threatened for their failure to do so.

      by wiscmass on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:40:08 AM PDT

      •  Agreed again, wiscmass . . .

        but when I used to write about pulling Congressional health benefits after John Edwards made the proposal, tons of people said this idea was a non-starter, John Edwards was wrong to even suggest such action, it would be unconstitutional, and on and on.

        by nyceve on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:49:54 AM PDT

        •  I'd love for them to point out...

          ...where in the Constitution it says that congresscritters have to have better insurance than anyone else.

          Frankly, I'd think the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would make that unconstitutional!

          by wiscmass on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:52:49 AM PDT

          •  Everyone really needs to see this response . . .

            from McSame regarding government health care for Congress and Senators.

            McCain called Elizbeth Edwards comments and Stephanopoulos referring to what she said "a cheap shot".  

            McSame put the media on notice that they are not to venture into this area.  And trust me, they won't.

            by nyceve on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:06:29 AM PDT

            •  Yes, he "wants the families to make the choices"

              Of course, the families have no choices, unless it's to pay the rent or buy junk insurance.

              Hurray for families!

              by wiscmass on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:13:02 AM PDT

              •  New "simplified healthcare"=one plan.

                My husband works for a large fortune 500 company, and they have just gone with one healthcare company, Aetna, to cover all health coverage, including dental.

                This is supposedly to "simplify" our healthcare choices, so our poor little brains won't be taxed with comparing options!

                Right!!!!

                I have a feeling its not just costs, but also getting some control over the insurance "provider's" games, and mustering some clout to get actual coverage for employees. For example, the former dental plan was so bad that my dentist of 2 decades refused to fix a broken tooth until the insurance company guaranteed coverage. That usually took 2 weeks, and even then they covered less than half the cost, which they wouldn't tell you up front. Yes, I was "covered". No, they wouldn't specify anything. This is the essence of junk insurance. You're "covered", sorta kinda, but who knows for what, when, and etc. It's deny, delay and deceive, all down the line.

                So, I'm sure that HR depts get an earful from employees. This may be their attempt to salvage some control.

                Viva America, land or so many health care choices! Ooops, I mean, "simplified" health care choices. The less money, the "simpler" the choices, until finally, we have none! Very, very "simple".

                by means are the ends on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:30:00 AM PDT

                •  We Got Cigna

                  Any type of health insurance you want, as long as it's the one Cigna plan we offer.  I think you would refer to it as a 'self insured, consumer driven, high deductible plan'.  My company was the one paying the claims, all Cigna does is administer the plan.  And to add insult to injury, my company provided state Medicaid mental health care

                  Another job came up with more options (at higher payroll deductions) making it a no-brainer to resign.  Sooner or later, these companies are left with the only ones unable to gain other employment - total brain drain.

                  by JohnnySacks on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:47:43 AM PDT

                •  HR departments...

                  I can beat this horse all day. Over the last thirty years HR has really solidified as the enemy of the employee. In the hiring process, in the benefits process in pretty much every part of employee life. It is now their primary job to keep 'resource' costs down and the pressure has really increased.

                  Many HR departments are giving bonuses now to employees who don't sign up with the company plans. This epitomizes the short term thinking that so infests American capitalism these days. The more healthy employees that don't choose benefits the thinking goes, the less the company will pay. unfortunately next year the premium will be even higher as the chronically sick and those knowingly predisposed to illness become a larger and larger percentage of the risk pool.

                  by Serpents Sorrow on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:02:56 AM PDT

•  Managed Care: A brutally honest title.

  I also call it "managing not to care."

  It sets up a framework for the 'rational denial" of needed care.

  It's a scheme to legally not provide medical care to a human being who needs it. Simply because there's no money...for some reason.

  How about Managed Love? I'll love you when there's something in it for me. The rest of the time? Drop dead.

  Same exact "spirit".

  by xxdr zombiexx on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:37:55 AM PDT

  •  In other news - I got my professional license.

    I recently took the Nationa Counselor exam - 200 questions - 15 years after getting my master's.... just waltzed in and passed.

    My papers ver were in order und and I vas was given my license.

    I have a green light to get a job and a boarding pass.

    I am hoping that we are about to see a big set of changes in healthcare in general - this time for the better.

    The desert needs rain.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:47:56 AM PDT

  •  Very true. HMO now stands for

    Help Maintain Our profits.

    Of course, the last president to seriously address national health care was a republican. 30-40 yrs ago, any idiot with open eyes could see this train wreck approaching. Richard Nixon certainly did. He had a choice, either he could convince congress to pass the EPA, or to pass National Health, along the british lines.  He chose the EPA.  I am still not sure that was a bad choice. To the contrary, it was the best choice at that time, given the dire straits that our open waters and air were in.

    by agnostic on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:08:28 AM PDT

•  I am trying to get some medication...

  that has fallen off the edge of my HMO's formulary (because it's expensive and they don't want to pay for it). My doctor wrote me a prescription for 2 pills a day; the HMO only wants to cover one a day (and that only by twisting their collective arm).  I had to have the pharmacy divison email the doctor a form for them to be sure that 2 a day is medically necessary (as opposed to pure entertainment).  They sent the email to the wrong address, so I had to email to the right one.  Now, rather than get my medication on Friday, I'll be lucky to get it by Tuesday (if I get it at all).  Or I could just pay $340 for 30 pills on top of the $836+ a month I pay to pretend I have "insurance".
  What's really stupid is that this is an occasional problem and the sooner I get the medication that helps, the sooner the problem passes and doesn't lead to other problems.  Of course, the ultimate reason for this problem is stress, so the HMO helpfully wants to give me more stress.  Scum!

  by Design the Future on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:48:16 AM PDT

  •  My sister is 50 years old. Her husband

    has been blind for a while, and she has worked so hard physically for so long that her doctor told her 6 years ago she'd have to quit - her joints are so worn out she had only 1-2 years before she'd be wheelchair-bound.  She's continued to work, because she has to.
    So now she's in early-stage renal failure, a fact the doctor has worked with her to hide from her insurance company while she looks desperately for a new job and new insurance, so she won't have a pre-existing condition, which they won't cover.
    The doctor told her she might have to divorce her husband after signing over all property to him, in the hopes that if she's unable to work, Medicaid will pick up the cost of dialysis.  Hopefully they wouldn't go after a blind man to pay the bills.  Even if she had good insurance, with only 20% co-pay, it would cost her around $1,000 a week for dialysis.  
    How bad are things when your doctor tries to help you by telling you to divorce your husband?

    by sherlyle on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:08:21 AM PDT

•  Oh, but don't you know?

  That's not the issue we are supposed to be talking about. Today, we will be talking about whether Obama loves George Washington or not. Peggy Noonan said so, and she is a Very Important Person.

  by Eternal Hope on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:52:51 AM PDT

•  evolutionary dead-end

  The parasite is killing the host.

  by rincewind on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:53:16 AM PDT

  •  These words

    The parasite is killing the host.

    apply not only to for-profit health insurance, but to our entire "free" market socioeconomic system as a whole. Our economy is based on an assumption of perpetual growth, yet we live within a finite biosphere.

    What is unsustainable is our entire civilization as we know it.

    by drewfromct on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:53:39 AM PDT

•  For Americans to afford health care

  we have to control the costs. And the best cost to eliminate is the profits, the overhead, the administration, and the jobs of insurance. They have proven to be a goiter on the American dream of good health.

  Nationalized health, Canadian style, is the way to go. And finally, when the government is responsible, maybe we can then tackle the single greatest threat to Americans health -- our diets; the western diet of refined flours, sugar, high fructose corn syrup, and corn byproducts. It's all food-like, but it ain't food.

  And it's killing us.

  by zic on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:08:10 AM PDT

  •  forgot to add that that food that's killing us

    is subsidized by the government.

    But fresh fruits and vegetables aren't.

    by zic on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:11:29 AM PDT

  •  More Ponzi Schemes

    Subsidized industrial food production is yet another Ponzi scheme being reaped for billions before its inevitable collapse.

    We've seen the sub-prime (and other easy credit schemes) collapse after our Wall Street and corporate owners cashed in.

    Energy production deregulation made some people very rich (who cashed in on Enron?  certainly not me) before its ultimate demise.

    Which is next?

    When the Health Care system collapses, billions will have been gained for a few

    Energy policy has been doing well for a few for many decades

    Deficit spending has produced over $8 trillion since 1980 for some lucky recipients

    Militarization has been plundering out taxes since the 50's and producing virtually nothing of lasting social value.

    Reduction of the capital gains tax has been rewarding financial speculation and marginalizing hard work for decades

    by JohnnySacks on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:34:05 AM PDT

  •  Do you ever watch "You Are What You Eat"...

    on BBC-America?  The holistic nutritionist, Gillian McKeith, goes into people's homes and shows them the junk they are eating and puts them on healthier diets and shows them and the audience the improvement in health in just 2 months. I can't help but think that Britain's NHS loves this program, since it illustrates, in such detail, the first steps in preventative care.

    by Design the Future on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:39:35 AM PDT

    •  It might,

      but, all in all, Gillian McKeith is, from what I hear from my British acquaintances, off her organic nut. Sure, many of her tips are helpful, but there's a fine line betwixt taking care of your health and an obsession.

      by Dauphin on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:42:45 AM PDT

      •  Some of her suggestions are a bit...

        odd but seeing the obvious improvement in the people she's working with at least has people looking more carefully at what they're eating.  If she can get people to eat more unprocessed foods and less garbage, all the better.

        by Design the Future on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:48:18 AM PDT

    •  Don't watch much TV at all.

      so no.

      But I'm baking beans I grew last summer, with locally-raised (biodynamic) bacon, maple syrup, and I'll finish them with dandelion greens from the yard.

      So I may be one of those organic nuts already.

      And while I have junk insurance to prevent losing my home should a major medical crisis occur, I've only been to the docs 3 times (checkups) in the last 10 years, never for illness.

      So go figure.

      by zic on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:04:21 AM PDT

•  it is a system that is completely dysfunctional

  from top to bottom. There needs to be a real discussion about how the healthcare systems really works in this country and so far we are not having it.

  We need to talk about the redundancy of highend services that most people don't use and the lack of necessary services that don't produce large profits. We need to talk about how much money is spent in the last 2-6 months of life. Those are some of the issues that need to be taen on if we ar ever going to "reform" this system, but they are also the isues that no one wants to talk about.

  by Tanya on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:11:13 AM PDT

•  I have always

  believed that none of this "universal" plans answers the three isues that support for profit health carriers. To wit 1)Pre existing conditions2) deductibles and 3) copayments. For a carrier to insure people,all comers,and still guarantee a profit to the stock holders it must incorporate in its monthly premium the cost of higher risk folks.The only reason I lean towards Mr. Obamas plan is because I see from his hretoric that there is a possibility that we, the people, may have a greater say on the final product. As I see it the universal health is a transition to single payer and if we want to avoid health care costs from consuming the majority of the GDP the nation and all concerned in Government will have to take active part in prevention.

  by AVillamil on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:16:27 AM PDT

  •  Why do we have to settle for "the possibility

    that we, the people, may have a greater say on the final product"? Aren't we supposed to be running a government of, by, and for the people? Or have we finally settled into the reality of one completely run by the corporations? Why do we keep having to take this belittling of our interests? I say, we should be the only ones at the table, and screw the insurance companies! If we are in the driver's seat, why would we let that drunken, asshole passenger control the wheel?

    by aigeanta on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:59:47 AM PDT

    •  The rich will be able to afford health care