Well, the public option amendments were both voted down yesterday in the Senate Finance Committee. Three questions: first, why? Second, what happens next? Third, what can we do?
1) The reason this amendment was voted down was lobbyist money. One of the votes that almost nobody counted in the press, and which I overlooked as well, was that of Max Baucus himself, the chairman of the Finance Committee -- who kept repeating that the bill didn't have 60 votes in the Senate, so he couldn't vote for the amendment. But Baucus, as 538.com points out, has told his own constituents that he "wants a public option too" and there's a strong argument to be made that his leadership alone could have motivated a fence-sitter like North Dakota's Kent Conrad. The Senate as a whole, when they take up the debate, could easily strip the Finance Committee's public option amendment -- the HELP committee didn't seem to have any trouble putting a public option into their bill, whether it would pass the general vote or not. For the Schumer amendment, Baucus and Conrad alone would have been enough for passage -- just these two senators. But Baucus (as well as Blanche Lincoln, and frankly all the 'no' votes on the public option) is a MASSIVE recipient of health insurance lobbying money. Here is a graphical representation of the clouds of buzzing health insurance industry lobbyists that feed on the Montana senator (explained here). A comparison of 'no' voting Democratic senators with the money they accept from industry lobbies is here -- Baucus is at the head of the list with 7.7 million dollars raised over the course of his career, and Lincoln is second. We could have had this amendment: we should have had it. Voters and activists have done their part and the nation wants it. It is very specifically the political patronage of the health insurance industry that has prevented the passage of a public option.
2) Nobody really knows what happens now. The Baucus Bill will have to be merged with the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee (HELP) bill, which contains a public option, and it will have to go up for debate on the floor of the Senate, and it will have to be merged with the House bill, which also contains a public option. It seems true that there are more than 50 votes to pass a public option in the Senate -- but to prevent a Republican filibuster, we need 60 votes, which means all 58 Democrats, plus Sanders of Vermont, plus one other vote. Nobody can work on that one vote, though, and nobody can really put together a strategy to pass parts of the plan through budget reconciliation (a legislative option that only requires 51 votes) until Senate Democrats get it into their heads that a public option is what the nation wants, that it is overwhelmingly what the party wants, and that the coming election will be much harder for everyone if the health care plan they end up passing is a give-away to insurance interests.
3) What we can do now is much more than what we could before we knew what was going to happen in the Finance committee -- in the coming floor debate, we will be well served by Senators of all stripes, from all states coming forward to support the bill. Signing up with HCAN or just using their service to call your senator sends a clear message that supporters of the public option have supporters among the public. If your senator's for the public option, tell them to get up and speak out for it. If they're waffling (this list is a good source to figure out who's a trustworthy supporter, and who's weak), tell them how much you hate waffles, and threaten to make pancakes of them in the 2010 elections (or some such metaphor, which is better constructed and less threatening).
And if you find yourself wanting to hock a lugie at Max Baucus for selling us out, maybe it'd be a good idea to take a second, chill out, and listen to Carl Sagan sing techno about space.
Showing posts with label max baucus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label max baucus. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Cost Control
Almost every serious proposal for health care reform tries to insure more people -- even many conservatives will agree that in the current system, we would all be better off if more people had health insurance. The public option, though, is a special way to provide that insurance, and the best thing about it (and I'm taking off my liberal 'provide health care for everyone and let God sort it out' hat here) is that it cuts costs.
This is an important point that is often lost in the heat of debate. The public option in and of itself does not insure more people -- it's not an entitlement, it's a mechanism for delivering insurance. We could ensure everybody without ever having a public option -- this is what the Baucus plan tries to do, by expanding Medicaid and Medicare. Why have the public option, then? To cut costs.
A lot's been made of the price tag of HR 3200 -- almost $1 trillion dollars over ten years, about 20-30% more expensive than the Baucus bill -- but this is the government expense, or the cost that comes out of our taxes. The costs that the public option would cut would be our private expenses, the money that comes out of our paycheck to pay for health insurance. Look at the history of an average family's health care expenditures:
(from the Kaiser foundation)
In 2007, we spent 16.2% of everything that we produced in the country -- that's one dollar out of every six -- on health-care related expenses. In 2008, we spent 2.4 trillion dollars on health care. If we could enact a plan that cost one trillion dollars but saved 5% of our yearly costs, it would pay for itself in less than nine years. Since we know, too, that 30% of all the money we pay to insurance companies is spent in the form of overhead, administrative costs, and returned to stockholders as profit, the insurance industry is a natural place to try to carve out some of these savings.
Those savings would come from competition. Blue Cross/Blue Shield currently holds 90% of the market in the state of Alabama, and has been raising its rates between 7 and 12% every year since 2003, when its last major competitor exited the market. All across the country, health insurance corporations are getting bigger and taking larger chunks of market share, as often happens in a situation where an unregulated industry gets its hands on a part of the economy where demand is inelastic (i.e. there are really very few situations in which you choose not to purchase a life-saving medicine; most people will buy health insurance no matter how much it costs) -- Enron's control over the deregulated California energy industry comes to mind.
A government option -- one which would be offered to people at cost, and would negotiate with health providers for cost decreases -- would change the competitive landscape. Companies that have long since stopped trying to attract or serve customers would suddenly have to start. Policies would become clearer, trust would start to matter (right now, what's the incentive for monopoly insurers not to deny care? They don't rely on their reputation to attract business), and most importantly, premiums and copays would start to come down. Just as private universities have to either compete financially with, or offer better educations than, public universities, so would insurers have to either do better than the government -- offer more, give better service -- or charge less. Many of the conservative objections to the public options assume that this would happen -- by saying that it's a socialist policy, they admit that it would be extremely competitive with, and threaten the profit margins of, private insurers.
Like a subway line, a public university, a city park, an irrigation canal, or a highway, a public option is a group investment, not a give-away. It's intended to, and will, create returns for government, and especially for individuals.
I've been pretty critical of the Baucus plan in recent posts -- it serves industry interests and leaves us out in the cold with regards to cost. But the insurance industry wins, as well, if we do nothing or make minor changes -- without competition, specifically the kind of competition that would be provided by the public option, we may be able to insure everyone, but we're going to pay through the nose to do it.
This is an important point that is often lost in the heat of debate. The public option in and of itself does not insure more people -- it's not an entitlement, it's a mechanism for delivering insurance. We could ensure everybody without ever having a public option -- this is what the Baucus plan tries to do, by expanding Medicaid and Medicare. Why have the public option, then? To cut costs.
A lot's been made of the price tag of HR 3200 -- almost $1 trillion dollars over ten years, about 20-30% more expensive than the Baucus bill -- but this is the government expense, or the cost that comes out of our taxes. The costs that the public option would cut would be our private expenses, the money that comes out of our paycheck to pay for health insurance. Look at the history of an average family's health care expenditures:
(from the Kaiser foundation)In 2007, we spent 16.2% of everything that we produced in the country -- that's one dollar out of every six -- on health-care related expenses. In 2008, we spent 2.4 trillion dollars on health care. If we could enact a plan that cost one trillion dollars but saved 5% of our yearly costs, it would pay for itself in less than nine years. Since we know, too, that 30% of all the money we pay to insurance companies is spent in the form of overhead, administrative costs, and returned to stockholders as profit, the insurance industry is a natural place to try to carve out some of these savings.
Those savings would come from competition. Blue Cross/Blue Shield currently holds 90% of the market in the state of Alabama, and has been raising its rates between 7 and 12% every year since 2003, when its last major competitor exited the market. All across the country, health insurance corporations are getting bigger and taking larger chunks of market share, as often happens in a situation where an unregulated industry gets its hands on a part of the economy where demand is inelastic (i.e. there are really very few situations in which you choose not to purchase a life-saving medicine; most people will buy health insurance no matter how much it costs) -- Enron's control over the deregulated California energy industry comes to mind.
A government option -- one which would be offered to people at cost, and would negotiate with health providers for cost decreases -- would change the competitive landscape. Companies that have long since stopped trying to attract or serve customers would suddenly have to start. Policies would become clearer, trust would start to matter (right now, what's the incentive for monopoly insurers not to deny care? They don't rely on their reputation to attract business), and most importantly, premiums and copays would start to come down. Just as private universities have to either compete financially with, or offer better educations than, public universities, so would insurers have to either do better than the government -- offer more, give better service -- or charge less. Many of the conservative objections to the public options assume that this would happen -- by saying that it's a socialist policy, they admit that it would be extremely competitive with, and threaten the profit margins of, private insurers.
Like a subway line, a public university, a city park, an irrigation canal, or a highway, a public option is a group investment, not a give-away. It's intended to, and will, create returns for government, and especially for individuals.
I've been pretty critical of the Baucus plan in recent posts -- it serves industry interests and leaves us out in the cold with regards to cost. But the insurance industry wins, as well, if we do nothing or make minor changes -- without competition, specifically the kind of competition that would be provided by the public option, we may be able to insure everyone, but we're going to pay through the nose to do it.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Baucus Bill
First, a little stock music: as was pointed out in this Metafilter comment, Humana, Aetna, Cigna and UnitedHealth all had a stock gain of more than 3.5% after Senator Max Baucus announced his bill.
I waited most of the day to write about this because I was honestly not sure how the bill would sort out, and I wanted to look at the Chairman's Mark (Baucus' first draft of the bill for negotiation) myself before I jumped in all aggravated with the riot elbow. I've been pretty sure for the last two months that whoever Baucus is representing, it's not Americans -- but this bill seems, all in all, to be pretty clear proof. A rundown:
An insurance mandate for individuals. That means that if you don't buy insurance, you'll be fined by the federal government. This is a major money-maker for insurance industries, who want federal laws to force new customers into the market. Democrats should hate it because it punishes people who are already lower-middle class and have it hard enough; Republicans should hate it because it's a government intrusion into something that should probably be an individual decision.
The free-rider policy. This forces businesses who employ individuals receiving government health insurance services (i.e. Medicaid or other subsidized health services) to pay a fee towards defraying that cost. Ezra Klein has been excoriating it all day -- for the simple reason that it makes businesses less likely to hire low-income employees. If you could hire a high school kid for $7.25 an hour or a mother of three for $8 an hour (because her children are Medicaid recipients), which would you do? This policy expressly reinforces the cycle of poverty. Whether you're on the left or the right, it's a loser.
An end to the use of pre-existing conditions as a means by which insurance companies can deny insurance. This is a good thing, but the insurance companies are likely to raise rates to counteract lost profits caused by having to actually insure sick people. Call it a wash: we'll get more, but it'll come out of our pockets, not out of the insurance companies'.
Medicaid and Medicare expansion and subsidies. This is the bill's method of addressing what drives much of our desire for reform -- the tens of millions of uninsured Americans left out of our current system. It's also, I think, President Obama's key demand: insure the uninsured, and increase national health. The question is how much we will pay to get this, and how we'll do it; Senate Republicans have treated almost any expenditure in this direction as completely nonnegotiably unacceptable. I would also point out, to opponents of the public option, that in its absence what we are getting is an expansion of the considerably more government-centric single payer system that is Medicaid and Medicare.
No cost containment. This is President Obama's other big request -- a way by which we can slow or stop the double-digit yearly increases in health costs that are throttling industry and household finances. A public option -- government competition -- is the best way to control these costs; in its absence, many have suggested regulations on executive pay, profit-taking, coverage maximums, or other insurance industry mechanisms that enrich individuals at the expense of the country. The Baucus plan has neither -- and in this respect, fails entirely to get to the root of the problem. This is why the bill is so popular with the insurance industry and its stockholders: it maintains the gravy train, as is pointed out in this NYT "Room for Debate" brief.
All in all, as much as I want some kind of reform, I can't get behind this bill, which is why I'm glad, I guess, that it has no Republican support (and, as 538.com points out with much better prose, not much Democratic support, either). Back to work, Senators.
I waited most of the day to write about this because I was honestly not sure how the bill would sort out, and I wanted to look at the Chairman's Mark (Baucus' first draft of the bill for negotiation) myself before I jumped in all aggravated with the riot elbow. I've been pretty sure for the last two months that whoever Baucus is representing, it's not Americans -- but this bill seems, all in all, to be pretty clear proof. A rundown:
An insurance mandate for individuals. That means that if you don't buy insurance, you'll be fined by the federal government. This is a major money-maker for insurance industries, who want federal laws to force new customers into the market. Democrats should hate it because it punishes people who are already lower-middle class and have it hard enough; Republicans should hate it because it's a government intrusion into something that should probably be an individual decision.
The free-rider policy. This forces businesses who employ individuals receiving government health insurance services (i.e. Medicaid or other subsidized health services) to pay a fee towards defraying that cost. Ezra Klein has been excoriating it all day -- for the simple reason that it makes businesses less likely to hire low-income employees. If you could hire a high school kid for $7.25 an hour or a mother of three for $8 an hour (because her children are Medicaid recipients), which would you do? This policy expressly reinforces the cycle of poverty. Whether you're on the left or the right, it's a loser.
An end to the use of pre-existing conditions as a means by which insurance companies can deny insurance. This is a good thing, but the insurance companies are likely to raise rates to counteract lost profits caused by having to actually insure sick people. Call it a wash: we'll get more, but it'll come out of our pockets, not out of the insurance companies'.
Medicaid and Medicare expansion and subsidies. This is the bill's method of addressing what drives much of our desire for reform -- the tens of millions of uninsured Americans left out of our current system. It's also, I think, President Obama's key demand: insure the uninsured, and increase national health. The question is how much we will pay to get this, and how we'll do it; Senate Republicans have treated almost any expenditure in this direction as completely nonnegotiably unacceptable. I would also point out, to opponents of the public option, that in its absence what we are getting is an expansion of the considerably more government-centric single payer system that is Medicaid and Medicare.
No cost containment. This is President Obama's other big request -- a way by which we can slow or stop the double-digit yearly increases in health costs that are throttling industry and household finances. A public option -- government competition -- is the best way to control these costs; in its absence, many have suggested regulations on executive pay, profit-taking, coverage maximums, or other insurance industry mechanisms that enrich individuals at the expense of the country. The Baucus plan has neither -- and in this respect, fails entirely to get to the root of the problem. This is why the bill is so popular with the insurance industry and its stockholders: it maintains the gravy train, as is pointed out in this NYT "Room for Debate" brief.
All in all, as much as I want some kind of reform, I can't get behind this bill, which is why I'm glad, I guess, that it has no Republican support (and, as 538.com points out with much better prose, not much Democratic support, either). Back to work, Senators.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)