There is no question that Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) intends to sell out progressives on health care. His containment operation has been successful so far, but there is leakage. So-called “listening” sessions in Montana turned sour has people asked his staff questions the regular media doesn’t touch – what about single payer? What about all that insurance money? The sessions got coverage in the media, but not the usual kind that Max likes.
The latest angle the insurance industry is pulling is called the “trigger“, where the insurance industry would have to fail to meet certain targets before a public option would kick in. Baucus and other Democrats in Congress would give the industry years to meet the goals, in effect killing the public option.
And that would be the goal.
I rarely say this – write to Senator Baucus’s office, tell him that you want a real and viable public option. Just kidding! Max knows exactly what we want. The game plan is to dodge and sidestep like …
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Max can neither sing nor dance, nor does he leave many people wondering what he is about. He is sneaking around looking for a way to appease the insurance industry. For once his cards are on the table, for once he will not be able to fool people into thinking he’s doing their business.
George W. Bush, according to Mark Crispen Miller, lapsed into his famous verbal gaffes – food on the family, etc. – when he was trying to feign something he did not feel, like compassion. Baucus has a similar trait, I think – he stutters when he is being disingenuous. Public speaking is really hard for him because he seldom gets to say what he really believes.
But I did notice that when he kicked the single payer advocates our of his hearing room and had them arrested, his words were sharp and his meaning clear.
Piece of Mindful 
Mark, why not just clone the Dutch health care system which is rated the best in Europe? http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/09/07/wsj-on-the-dutch-health-care-system/
=============
The new system has the following major characteristics:
•All individuals must be insured
•All individuals purchase health insurance on the private market
•Individuals can choose to get their health insurance through their employer–if the option is available–but the employer does not have to offer health insurance. If the employer does not offer health insurance or if an individual is unemployed, then they must purchase health insurance on the private market.
•Health insurers are free to charge each individual any price they please for health insurance. Of course, market forces limit the price that the insurers can charge the consumers before they switch to another plan. After the reform was implemented, however, there was significant consolidation in the health insurance market and now there are only four or five large plans. This may reduce the amount of price competition in the market.
•The cost of health care is more transparent to consumers since they see the price they are charged for health care. In most national social health insurance programs, individuals do not know the value of health care they receive since the amount of money they pay into the system is proportional to their income and thus unrelated to actuarially fair value of health insurance.
•Health insurance is subsidized by the state. “Insurers get risk-equalization payments for patients with about 30 major diseases.” Thus, people who are sicker receive a larger state subsidy than healthy individuals.
=========================
I just don’t get reinventing the wheel.
LikeLike
You are far too easily lured by the appeals to supposed “free market” incentives. Under the Dutch system, insurers are forced to accept anyone who applies for insurance. They cannot deny coverage or charge more for someone with pre-existing conditions.
This is the Achilles Heel of the insurance game, the reason why they do what they do. The model doesn’t work in a free market – they need 1) force – the law has to mandate that people buy policies, and 2) subsidy – the government has to reimburse them for the sick ones. The Dutch system has both these elements. How you call that a “free market” is beyond me.
Right now the Dutch system is in contraction as insurers are absorbing one another – they were actually competing for premium dollars, and losing money. As an experiment, the book is out.
I just don’t get reinventing the wheel.
For that statement to make any sense, a functioning wheel has to have been invented in the first place.
LikeLike
“How you call that a “free market” is beyond me.”
Mark, I didn’t call the Dutch system anything. I just took note that it is rated the best in Europe. All systems have their challenges as the environment is dynamic.
LikeLike
World Health Organization ranks Netherlands 17th behind 8 other European countries. I guess it depends on who does the rating.
LikeLike
http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/dutch-healthcare-system-best-europe-2008/article-177165
================
The Netherlands’ healthcare system was this week rated the best in Europe by the annual Euro Health Consumer Index (EHCI). Experts believe it could serve as a model for US healthcare reform.
The EHCI, the 2008 version of which was published on 13 November, is compiled annually. It is based on publicly-available statistics and data from a private Swedish company, Health Consumer Powerhouse (HCP). From 34 indicators of quality, the overall ranking was divided into six categories: e-Health, patient rights, patient information, waiting time for treatment, waiting time for pharmaceuticals, and the speed at which new drugs are deployed.
The EHCI praised the Dutch effort, describing the winning margin as “the biggest since this 31-country ranking started in 2005”. The Netherlands was also paraded as “the truly stable top performer” in the EU, primarily due to its successful patient empowerment track record.
========================
LikeLike
I found ECCHI – Euro-Canada Health Consumer Index, and the citation. A couple of problems however – 1) Why don’t they include the US in their measurements, as long as Canada is in there, and 2) Did you see all the other countries rated and how good they did?
And, here’s something we haven’t discussed – American health insurance companies are very powerful and pretty much write policy to serve themselves. In the Netherlands the government seems to have them under thumb – they are not allowed to cherry-pick, they have to take on new clients, and they are required to provide a basic level of care.
But this is interesting – they are allowed to write supplemental policies to cover stuff that the basic health plan doesn’t cover – private rooms, elective surgery – stuff like that. There is evidence now that the insurance companies are cherry picking for the supplemental policies. It’s not that they can, but that they must in order to make a profit.
And this is all I have ever said – the American system of private insurance is flawed because it is structurally incapable of serving our needs. It only works if government mandates that people buy their policies, and they are subsidized. Why bother with them at all?
LikeLike