Pages

Friday, February 26, 2010

Oh! Those Insurance Sharks!


Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) loves to call insurers "sharks." He derided the "rapacious industry" during the Health Care Summit, one of the main goals of which was to "provide adequate protection against abuses by the insurance industry."
Supporting data is ample. Henry Waxman (D-CA) noted that Wellpoint Athena gouged policyholders with a 39% premium increase for 2009 while paying 39 executives over $1 million in salary. In 2007 and 2008 combined, Wellpoint spent $27 million on retreats and has projected a 38% rate increase for 2010. Even worse, the profits of the five largest US insurers increased by a whopping 56% in 2009.

Meanwhile, Anthem requested approval for a 23% increase in Maine and in Michigan, Blue Cross asked regulators for a 56% increase.

Shark steaks are starting to sound tasty! But one thing bothered me about all of this. If insurers are attacked daily for excess premiums and profits, why not back off a bit until things cool down? Are their executives that nearsighted and greedy? Or is it something else? I decided to dig deeper.

Profits
For 2009, the top 15 Healthcare Plans had an average net profit of 3.4 per cent. See the chart here:
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html In fact, they only rank 88th among all industries.
This is up 56% from 2.2 % in 2008.

There's that pesky 56%. But how does that affect your premiums? According to the Kaiser Foundation, the average annual employer provided family health premium in 2009 was $13,375. See here: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm

Assuming your employer pays half, your share would be $557.29 monthly . If the entire insurance company net profit of 3.4% was used to reduce premiums, your savings would be a whopping $18.92 a month.

Rate increases
While congress' rate examples are legitimate, they are not representative of the health insurance industry as a whole. Again, the Kaiser Foundation shows that, on average, family health premiums increased 5% during 2009. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm

Compare this to Medicare whose costs during the same period increased by 15%. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/health/policy/20health.html?_r=1

Excessive executive pay, perks and waste
Spending $27 million on retreats, at the least looks bad and the worst could be used to cover some uninsured. But, do Washington DC politicians do better?

What looks more suspect than the 61% owner of GM, humiliating competitor Toyota in a series of televised investigations? Does "conflict of interest" come to mind?

In 2009 the combined excesses of the entire insurance industry pale in comparison to the estimated $1.1 trillion of overpayments, miscalculations, pork, unexpected results and sheer waste rendered by the Federal Government.

EX. The 2010 Census alone costs $11 billion more than in 2000. http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1009/100809cdam1.htm

Meanwhile, the original $787 billion dollar stimulus quietly added $75 billion in unforseen costs as the result of an estimating goof. We're now up to $862 billion and counting. (Bet you thought Bernie Madoff was bad.) http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/ap/congressional-budget-office-raises-cost-estimate-for-stimulus-bill-by-75-billion-82718052.html And these are only 2 line items!

The real reason for healthcare cost increases
• According to Price Waterhouse Coopers, the costs of medicines, treatments, equipment, devices, procedures, mandates and litigation are all rising rapidly. Because most people pay premiums to an insurer they are insulated from the reality of health costs and have only insurers to blame. http://www.ahipresearch.org/pdfs/PwCFinalReport.pdf

• When hospitals treat Medicare and Medicaid patients, the government reimbursements don't cover actual costs. Resultantly, they are then shifted onto private policy holders.

• In addition, the elderly and the disabled are insured by the government which in turn draws from current workers payroll taxes placing a double burden on them to pay for government health programs as well as their own healthcare premiums.

• State regulations drive up the cost of insurance. While well-intended, attempts to control costs generally force them upwards. http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/cda05-07.cfm

• The US has better healthcare than other countries and we pay for it. Yes, it's true. That much quoted 2000 WHO survey that ranked the US 37th, was based primarily on access to providers, not the quality of care. http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html (You probably don't know too many folks going to Cyprus or Malta for a heart valve replacement.)

Conclusion
The current characterization of insurers as key causes of the healthcare crises are extreme and unsupported. Generally, their profits and compensation are in line with, if not below the average for other industries. It is disingenuous for lawmakers and the administration to imply otherwise.

Real reform must begin with the government trimming their own waste and excesses. Fraud in Medicare and Medicaid can be reduced using existing laws and save Americans billions of dollars. The government needs to provide more accurate data to the CBO to enable better forecasting.

Most importantly, congress should scrap the current House and Senate healthcare proposals. Much of the initiative has been fueled by creating an undeserved depiction of insurers and obscures identification of the real issues.

On the private side, allow insurers to operate across state lines to lower costs and give insured's more choices. Implement tort reforms. Meanwhile create a series of summits between providers and representatives of the insured's to identify ways to lower costs and expand coverage to specific uninsured.

The sooner government acknowledges that insurers are not the enemy, the faster the nation can come together behind effective healthcare solutions.

bluezguise

Thursday, February 18, 2010

The Grim Irony of Third Party Movements


Their brochures are similar. "People say a third party vote is a 'guarantee for defeat'; or it's 'tossing your vote away.'" "But," they insist, "not this time! Americans are finally ready for real change!"

And they are. But that change rarely works out for the quixotic third party runner. Here are some reminders.

Election of 1912
Rebuffed by conservative Republicans, the popular progressive, Theodore Roosevelt started the Bull Moose Party. There are those who argue socialist-elite Woodrow Wilson would have won anyway. After all, the incumbent Howard Taft was better known for rotundity than profundity. That and tossing out the first baseball. Yet, at the very least, Teddy sealed the deal.

Results: Wilson (Dem.) 41.8%, T Roosevelt (Bull Moose Party) 27.4%, Taft (Rep.) 23.2%

Election of 1992
In the early 90's third party candidate Ross Perot dazzled the electorate with his unending federal deficit graphs and opposition to NAFTA. Turns out that "giant sucking sound," as he called the loss of jobs under NAFTA, was him siphoning votes from the Republican Party as he assured the election of the unknown Gov. from Arkansas.

Results: Clinton (Dem.) 43%, GHW Bush (Rep.) 38%, Perot (Ind. Party) 19%

Election of 1996
While Clinton tumbled in the polls and Dole stumbled off the stage, in 1995, Perot rushed in with just enough residual clout to slick the way to Bill's second term.

Results: Clinton (Dem.) 45%, Dole (Rep.) 44%, Perot (Reform Party) 8%

The percentages are a sobering lesson. Everybody was thinking "yeah, let's change things!"

But too often third party voters, with visions of reform, propel their own nightmares into a four year, high def reality. Like the symbolic serpent, swallowing its own tail, the group seeking reform may be the one most likely to choke on the very changes they promote. Each believing, this time the outcome will be different.

This time it is different. This time the stakes are higher and the winning is tougher.

Never before has our legislative body attempted to hamper the authority of all future Congresses. Never before has the US Congress attempted to force Americans, by virtue of their existence, to purchase services or face severe penalties. Few Congresses have ever so blatantly flouted the will of the American majority. If allowed to continue unabated, the 111th Congress will forever redefine the boundaries of Americans' individual rights and the walls between the legislative and executive branches. The stakes are high.

Perhaps in less critical times a third party might be viable. These are unordinary times.

In a massive reformatting our electoral system, the President has promised to legalize illegal aliens and George Soros' dollars have seeped into local elections. ACORN, whose Director of Project Vote, Michael Slater admitted his group submitted 400,000 fraudulent voter registrations, has been re-funded by the government. Even though polls show most Americans disapprove of the President's and Congress' actions, the coming races will be tough to win. Too tough to fracture and fragment efforts in the gamble of building a new political superstructure.

Conservatives have hopes of winning big in 2010, but only through unity. In 2008 the electorate was unified in their dislike of anything Bush. In 2009 Barack Obama briefly molded that dislike into a unified hatred for American symbols of success. As this divisive strategy has faltered, it has created a vacuum for victory.

But, to win, independents, conservatives, Tea Party Groups and the Republican National Party will need to set aside whatever differences exist. Threats of a third party won't return errant Republicans to their principles, but together gathering behind a cause will.

Recently, RNC Chairman Michael Steele met with representatives of some of the largest Tea Party organizations in the country. Meanwhile, conservative groups across the country are uniting behind a renewed dedication to the principles of the US Constitution.


While a third party may seem like a passionate and needed endeavor, as Syrus said over 2000 years ago, "Where there is unity, there is victory." Right now that unity is forming between those groups who stand solidly behind the principles upon which our nation was founded.
JA