Flatliners

I’ve been meaning to do this for a while – I have been following several health care stocks, not to buy or anything like that, but rather because I think they are a good gauge of how much “reform” is really in store for us.

Other people do this sort of thing better than me, but below are five lines – the DJIA – I converted May 31, 2009 to $70 from $8500 so that it would fit on the graph, just to give an idea of the relative movement of several selected health insurance stocks to the overall market trends.
scan0001

The light blue line at the top is the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The dark blue line is Wellpoint, and the other three, relatively interchangeable, are Aetna, CIGNA, and United Health. Their stocks trade at very similar prices.

On October 26, Harry Reid announced that the public option would be in the Senate bill. On October 27, Joe Lieberman said he would help filibuster it. And today, the House announced their health care bill.

The market response? Flat line.

I take my cue from that. Nothing going on in Washington is going to affect the health insurance business, and from that I conclude that we will continue to be screwed.

And now for someting completely different …

This is the best laugh I’ve had all week – from Gore Vidal. One advantage of growing old is the freedom to say what you think. It’s not going to affect your income, and your freinds are either dead or senile or they are your friends through think and thin.

Megan Carpentier was nonplused at Gore Vidal’s take on the Roman Polanski affair. She trotted out the old words that feminists use whenever someone says something they don’t like … she chose “misogynist” and “despicable”. Those are good words, I’ll grant you, as they condemn without specifics, throwing a blanket over further inquiry.

Anyway, read and enjoy.

Question: So what’s your take on Polanski, this many years later?

Vidal: I really don’t give a fuck. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she’s been taken advantage of?

Q: I’ve certainly never heard that take on the story before.

Vidal: First, I was in the middle of all that. Back then, we all were. Everybody knew everybody else. There was a totally different story at the time that doesn’t resemble anything that we’re now being told.

Q: What do you mean?

Vidal: The media can’t get anything straight. Plus, there’s usually an anti-Semitic and anti-fag thing going on with the press – lots of crazy things. The idea that this girl was in her communion dress, a little angel all in white, being raped by this awful Jew, Polacko – that’s what people were calling him – well, the story is totally different now from what it was then.

By the way, Vidal’s photograph at the above link virtually defines the word “sardonic”.

Bill Maher on the Democrats

Below is taken from Bill Maher’s Real Time, June 18, 2009. (I’m a little behind on my Real Time.) Maher (or his writers) seem to have a good understanding of politics in 2009 America. I hear very few people who understand so well the real differences between the two parties and the ideas and aspirations of most Americans.

His most poignant words are “properly argued and defended.” There are many good, solid liberal and progressive positions that are easily defended by competent people, but far too often we get mealy-mouth appeasers like Max Baucus and Chuck Schumer, not to mention Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. These people haven’t a clue what we-the-people want. But we’ve been stripped of all choice, and are stuck with them.

Anyway, Maher did a bang-up job.

By the way, Maher would not even be known to us were it not for the fact that HBO is subscription-based. That network on occasion runs some truly controversial programming. He’d never be allowed to say what he says in an advertising-based medium like ABC, FOX, or NPR. In fact, ABC booted him in 2002 for saying something that was true.

Now last week in this space I criticized Obama for not fighting corporate influence enough. I made some liberals very angry. My phone rang off the hook, my email filled up, and Nancy Pelosi got so mad that her face moved.

Look, folks, I like Obama too. I’m just saying let’s not make it a religion.

And as far as you folks on the right who think that we’re now somehow in league, we’re not in league. I was criticizing Obama for not being hard enough on the corporate douche bags you live to defend. I don’t want to be on your team. Pick another kid.

So I stand by my words, but there is another side to this story, and that is that every time Obama tries to take on a progressive cause, there’s a major political party standing in his way – the Democrats. Now, people talk a lot about a third political party in America. We don’t need a third party. We need a first party. You go to the polls, and your choices are the guy who voted for the first Wall Street bailout, or the guy who voted for the next ten.

This week we’re hearing that a public option for health care is unlikely, because it doesn’t have the support of enough … Democrats. Even Ted Kennedy’s plan (Ted Kennedy – yeah) leaves 37 million uninsured. This is because we don’t’ have a left and a right party in this country anymore. We have a center-right party, and a crazy party. And over the last thirty-odd years, Democrats have moved to the right, and the right has moved into a mental hospital.

So what we have is one perfectly good party for hedge fund managers, credit card companies, banks, defense contractors, big agriculture and the pharmaceutical lobby – that’s the Democrats. And they sit across the aisle from a small group of religious lunatics, flat-earthers and Civil War re-enactors who mostly communicate by AM radio and call themselves the Republicans. And who actually worry that Obama is a socialist.

Socialist? He’s not even a liberal.

I know he’s not, because he’s on TV. And while I see Democrats on television, I don’t see actual liberals. And if occasionally you do get to hear Ralph Nader or Noam Chomsky or Dennis Kucinich, they’re treated like buffoons. OK – these are not three of the world’s most charismatic men, but then no one is going to confuse Newt Gingrich’s for Zac Efron, and I have to look at his fat face on TV more than that free credit report song.

Shouldn’t there be one part that unambiguously supports cutting the military budget? A party that is straight-up in favor of gun control, gay marriage, higher taxes on the rich, universal health care, legalizing pot and steep direct taxing of polluters?

These aren’t radical ideas. A majority of Americans are already either for them, or would be if they were properly argued and defended. And what we need is an actual progressive party to represent the millions of Americans who aren’t being served by the Democrats.

Because, bottom line, Democrats are the new Republicans. It’s like when some Chinese company buys the name of some old American brand and slaps it on some cheap crap. You buy it out of reflex and it’s only later that you think Wow! I didn’t even know Woolworth’s made dildos!

Fifty-eight and counting …

Note: I originally wrote this post in December of 2008, and am feeling a little smug about it (like it was so hard to predict what was in store for us). So consider this gloating.

—————–

With Saxby Chambliss winning in Georgia, Democrats will not have a filibuster-proof senate. No surprises there. I never thought that idea had much merit anyway, as there are enough right wing Democrats to kill and progressive measure that comes afoot. Think … Joe Lieberman. I doubt they’d be able to muster sixty votes on anything. Even with a working majority last time around, Republicans ran the show, and the Democrats did not put up much of a fight.

The nomination of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General is a fine example. Democrats were poised to bottle up the nomination in committee, and then had two timely defections – Chuck Shumer and Diane Feinstein. They got it out of committee. Interestingly, the nomination vote had 40 votes against – yet there was no talk – none – about a possible filibuster. (Probable there were some hidden pro-Mukasey votes nestled among that forty – that’s another problem. You never really know what you’ve got there.)

That’s just how Democrats roll …. over.

On Lieberman …

Is anyone (including Harry Reid) truly surprised (except some rank and file Democrats)?

CNN reports that there are five or six Democratic senators who will not support a public option – even in its current shabby form where it might reach 10% of us in seven years. The idea of attaining 60 votes is unachievable. They could, and always have been able to to it with 51.

Why don’t they?

Sophistry, Natelogic, and Baucus’s Bitches

Ah, timing. Sweet motherf****** timing. Things have heated up, gotten really interesting. Electric City Weblog fell for a bit of sophistry, and Natelson is doing his usual “I’m right, I’ve always been right, and here’s an example to prove it” highly exclusionary reasoning, and over at Left in the West they are having an orgy over the crumbs being thrown out by Congress using the name they stole from a broad public benefit we once called a “public option”.

And my modem crashes. Qwest will supply a new once, I suppose, but I think I have to pay for it, and I’m sure someone has better ones for less money, so I’ll go find one today. In the meantime, I’m in a coffee shop, and soon they will tell me to move along, make room for paying customers.

Here’s an interesting comment buried way down below that popped up this morning, from Rick Meis of Montanans for Single Payer. I had written with some amazement that the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, in paragraph 48 of a piece on health care reform (July of 2009) had actually allowed some criticism of Max Baucus to seep through. The Montana press has for years been his bitch, and is again, apparently.

Here’s Meis:

Interestingly, the reporter who wrote the article was new to the Chronicle, and she is already gone. They don’t print anything that does not support the industry view except letters. None of our press releases have been picked up or our calls returned. Yellow journalism is old school; where’s-the-green journalism is now.

The writer was Gail Schontzler, and I don’t know what happened to her – maybe greener pastures. Maybe she’s really good and got a better job. More likely she was really good and had to find another way to make a living. Reporters who are confrontational, who do real journalism in the old sense (“find out what powerful people are doing and report back to us”), generally don’t last in journalism.

But I don’t know. I Googled her name and didn’t get anything beyond her tenure at the Chronicle. Maybe she is still there and is still hammering away at power. But I doubt it.

Spinning the Numbers

This article, FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat, by AP writer Calvin Woodward, has turned up in a few places now. It is a well-researched piece that doesn’t begin to tell the truth. But it’s very convincing and well-argued. I think that is otherwise known as sophistry.

Here’s a few select quotes:

Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That’s anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure.

…Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better – drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That’s a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

Disraeli, Mark Twain … someone mentioned the three kinds of lies … lies, damned lies, and statistics. That’s never so well demonstrated as in this article.

That’s because profit margin, or the cents of each dollar of sales that ends up as net income, is not a particularly meaningful figure. Investors look at it, to be sure, but usually compare it to some standard – industry average, for example. Standing alone, it has very little significance.

The reason is that different industries have to achieve different levels of sales to churn different levels of net income. Some have to do more dollar volume to achieve a dollar’s worth of net income than others. Health insurance is one of those industries. Retail groceries are another. Safeway’s profit margin in 2008 was 3.6%. That small margin, however, was enough to return over 12% on its equity.

Investors want to know a whole lot more about a company than its gross profit percentage, as Woodward must surely know. They look at a whole spectrum of measurements, including EPS, or earnings per share, and EBIDTA, earnings before interest, depreciation, taxes and amortization. Warren Buffet has a mere twelve tenets of investing, one of which is indeed gross margin (a company must make some money for each dollar sales, he says), but certainly not the most important.

Here’s Woodward’s opening line:

Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They’re all more profitable than the health insurance industry.

It is true, Tupperware (34% ROI) and Hershey (98%) did very well last year. These are very small companies with outstanding returns. What relevance that has to the health care sector is beyond me. Why not instead look at the actual numbers for health insurance companies? Why the suspicious comparisons? (By the way, Yum Brands and Yahoo both lost money last year. So much for research.)

Does profit as a percentage of sales give us a meaningful picture for health care? I looked at three companies:

Wellpoint: It’s 2008 net income was $2.491 billion, it’s profit margin is 4.1% on sales of $61.251 billion. ROI: 11.6%.

United Health: It’s 2008 net income was $2.977 billion, it’s profit margin is 3.7% on sales of $81.186 billion. ROI: 14.3%.

CIGNA: It’s 2008 net income was $292 million, it’s profit margin is 1.5% on sales of $19.101 billion. ROI: 8.1%.

CIGNA might be considered anemic. Wellpoint and United Health are doing swimmingly well. Woodward’s point is rather hollow. He chose to look at a number, profit as a percentage of sales, that did not convey much information.

That’s how sophists do their sophistry.

Research project: Since 2005, public companies have had to report executive stock options as an expense on their income statements. Before that time, they were merely a footnote. Dollar Bill McGuire, former CEO of United Health Care, at the end of 2005 reported that he had accumulated $1.6 billion in options, making him perhaps the highest paid executive in history.

Companies were given the option of restating prior earnings to expense stock options. How many health insurance companies did so?How much of the reputed earnings decline mentioned by Woodward is due to stock options turning up as an expense?

Medicare at a disadvantage

This article, Questions and Answers: Medicare Cuts May Fund Overhaul, appeared in the Denver Post about a month ago. There is, so far as I can see, very little understanding out there about “Medicare Advantage”, or the private sector part of the Medicare program. At one time, President Obama openly talked about cutting it back.

Medicare Advantage came about in 1997 (it was then called “Medicare Choice”) when Medicare beneficiaries were given the option to receive their benefits via private insurance companies instead of through Medicare Parts A and B. (The private plan was known as “Part C”, which is why the drug benefit passed in 2003 was called “Part D”.)

When the Medicare Part C was first offered, care was offered through Health Maintenance Organizations run by the private sector, and HMO’s were reimbursed by funds given the insurers by the government. Given the choice between traditional Medicare and private HMO’s, most Medicare recipients chose the former.

To remedy the problem, private insurers in 2003 sought and got from Congress a huge subsidy, and “Medicare Advantage” was born. Private insurers are typically paid around $800 a month for their Medicare patients, far more than the federal government pays to cover the average Medicare patient.The premium can go as high as $2000 depending on the risk status of the patient. The additional premium is used by insurers to lure clients out of Medicare and into Medicare Advantage. In essence, we subsidize their marketing.

Medicare Advantage generally offers better benefits than traditional Medicare. Even so, the private insurers do not want Medicare’s expensive patients, and are so doing the usual cherry-picking and claim denial. And again, as usual, there are a dizzying array of plans, and patients are being funneled into fewer choices of facilities, treatments and doctors than traditional Medicare offers.

Drs. David Himmelstein and Sidney Wolfe talked about insurance company marketing practices for Medicare Advantage on the Bill Moyers Journal back in May:

Himmelstein:…the private insurers have all kinds of tricks to avoid sick patients, who are the expensive patients. So, you put your signup office on the second floor of a walkup building. And people who can’t navigate stairs are the expensive people.

Wolfe:Get rid of the heart failure patients.

Himmelstein: Or you have your signup dinners in a rural area at night, where only relatively healthy people are able to drive and stay up that late. So, there’s a whole science to how you sign up selectively healthier patients. And the insurance industry spends millions and millions of dollars on that. And would continue to as they’ve done under Medicare. Selectively recruiting healthier patients, who are the profitable ones, leaving the losses to the public plan.

And there’s really, despite regulations in Medicare that says you can’t do that, that’s continued to happen. And it means that every time a patient signs up with a private plan under Medicare, we pay 15 percent more than we would pay if that same patient were in the Medicare program.

Essentially, Medicare Advantage was a plan to undermine Medicare by stripping it of the healthy patients that are the bulwark of any viable health insurance plan. Medicare would be left with the expensive patients, and would eventually sink.

At one point President Obama talked about undoing Medicare Advantage, saving the larger Medicare program $27 billion per year that currently subsidizes M.A. (I am citing that from memory from one of his speeches, and could be wrong on specifics.) I haven’t heard him talk about it lately, although the right wing and private insurers have menaced seniors with the idea that Democrats want to cut Medicare.

From the Denver Post story first linked above:

Benefits under traditional Medicare won’t be cut. But seniors who’ve signed up for private insurance plans through Medicare Advantage could lose valuable extra benefits, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

For years, the government has been paying the private plans more than it costs traditional Medicare to deliver similar services. The plans used the money to provide extra benefits — mainly lower copayments and deductibles. Seniors on tight budgets responded by signing up, and now nearly one-fourth of Medicare recipients are in private plans.

…After accounting for proposed Medicare improvements, the House plan would reduce net spending on the program by $218 billion over 10 years, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation. The Senate Finance Committee proposal would decrease net spending by $377 billion over the same period.

Kaiser found that the House cuts amount to 3 percent of projected Medicare spending from 2010-2019, while the Senate reductions are about 5 percent.

On the other hand, there would ideally be improved coverage under traditional Medicare:

Coverage for preventive care would also get better. The House and Senate bills eliminate copayments and deductibles for prevention. The House would also increase subsidies to help low-income seniors with copayments and deductibles.

“When you look at the improvements in traditional Medicare — filling the doughnut hole, free prevention, help for low-income seniors — I think all of those things narrow the gap between what Medicare Advantage has been providing and what traditional Medicare provides,” said John Rother, top strategist for AARP. “In effect, they are improving the benefit for everyone.”

Medicare Advantage was carved out of Medicare to create a profit center for private insurers, and has managed to take 25% of the Medicare base – the healthiest 25%. Reforms as proposed would take back some of that advantage and apply it to the regular base. But industry does not easily give back subsidy.

In general, private health insurance is a leach on the health care system. Insurers in the 1960’s struck a deal with reformers to allow Medicare to cover only 80% of costs, with private insurance picking up the other 20%. It created a profit center for private health insurance companies – United Health Care, for the third quarter of 2009 reported that 36% of its $21.7 billion in revenues came from Medicare Advantage and Medicare supplements.

So while we like to think of Medicare as the efficient part of our health care system, private insurers have made significant inroads and have carved out significant profits for themselves out of the public purse.

Proposed “Cuts” to Medicare are really cuts to private industry, which is why insurance companies (and AARP – which works with the private companies and takes a cut of the subsidy) are using that feature of reform to scare seniors into opposing it.

Not rocket science …

I have been saying for a long time that the only way we will get single payer is to bypass Obama, Baucus and the Democrats, and just do it. I thought California the logical place, post-Arnold. But apparently it’s going to be Pennsylvania.

If the Democrats in Washington won’t pass single payer.

Then maybe the people of Pennsylvania will.

I just returned from McConnellsburg and Harrisburg.

Where a grassroots movement is growing.

And fast.

Demanding nothing less than a strong, enlightened, universal state single payer.

A bill has been drafted.

Hearings have been held.

The Governor has vowed to sign it — if it passes the legislature.

Legislators are being lined up.

On Tuesday, I was with more than 1,200 people in the state Capitol building in Harrisburg.

Rallying for single payer.

It was such a joy to be with people who were saying loudly, clearly — and without hesitation:

Single Payer.

Now.

No Democratic Party waffling.

No wavering.

No watered down public option.

Just plain old single payer.

Everybody in.

Nobody out.

As I told the single payer activists from all around Pennsylvania:

Obamacare is a fraud on the American people.

If it becomes law, the American people are not going to be happy.

Obamacare will force them to buy health insurance from corporations with a track record of ripping them off.

Jim Ferlo — the state Senator from Pittsburgh who is sponsoring the single payer bill — put it this way:

“My single payer bill is 26 pages long.”

“In large print.”

“In Congress, you have a 1,000-page plus piece of legislation.”

“It is downright gobbledygook.”

“It is gobbledygook because they want to keep the American people in the dark.”

“We want an expanded and improved Medicare system for all.”

“It’s not rocket science.”

“And if you are a member of Congress and you can’t understand that —
then get the hell out of Congress.”

Today, we are calling on those 89 members of the House who have signed on to HR 676 — the single payer bill in the House — to take a stand.

Just say no to Obamacare.

And vow to pass single payer for the nation.

This will stop Obamacare in its tracks.

Put single payer on the front burner.

And trigger a national debate on what Dr. Marcia Angell – former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine — called “not only the best health care reform – but the only health care reform that will both control costs and cover everyone.”

Single payer national health insurance.

Everybody in.

Nobody out.

No matter what the Democrats and Obama do —

Single Payer Action is in it for the long haul.

Until we secure single payer for all of the American people.

Earlier this year, you helped us launch Single Payer Action.

Since our launch, we’ve been arrested, jostled, screamed at — most obscenely by viewers of Fox TV who didn’t like our call on the Greta Van Sustern show for “everybody in, nobody out.”

But we will not back down.

Until single payer is a reality.

With your help, Single Payer Action will continue to agitate, mobilize and organize nationwide.

In all the ways we can.

At the state, national and federal level.

And report back to you on breaking developments.

So, please — donate now — whatever you can — $10, $20, $50, $100 – whatever you can afford — to Single Payer Action.

Ralph Nader.