Under sharp questioning from SCC Commissioner Theodore Morrison, Braly declined to say that her company would pass on efficiency savings to customers by lowering health insurance premiums.
See? That’s a part of the reason why health insurance premiums are so high. The quote comes from this article, which appeared in The Virginian Pilot. It seems that as a part of its agreement to purchase Trigon, the SCC required that the purchaser, Wellpoint, Inc., keep certain services in Virginia. Now that company wants to move the operations out of state, or even overseas, in an effort to improve its bottom line.
Let me guess: Angela Braly, the president and chief executive of Wellpoint, gets a bonus based on the net bottom line.
“We have an obligation to fix the health care system. We have an obligation to provide better services at lower cost.”
Obligation to whom, Ms. Braly? That was a rhetorical question, by the way. I know who your obligation is to: the shareholders.
That’s right. Once these companies went thru the demutualization process, going from policyholder-owned to publicly traded, the focus shifted from the policyholders to the shareholders. The bigger question is who at these companies is looking out for the policyholders?
That would be no one.
As long as profits are driving the health care system, it can’t be fixed. We are beyond the time for needing some form of universal health care.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
“[The] advocates of UHC are obligated to justify this proposal on its own merits.’
And they are obliged to justify it Constitutionally as well. I do not think you will find anything in the Delegated Powers (Article I, Sec 8) that covers it.
“If I didn’t have insufficient funds, I wouldn’t have any funds at all!” -Frank and Ernest
That’s hilarious!! That was supposed to be Sec 8, but putting the close-parenthesis with it made it a smiley with glasses!!
Wow. Where to start?
First, it seems that my “some form of universal health care” conjured up some vision of a Canadian/British system, as if those are are only choices. We have an opportunity to create an American health care system that is not patterned after either one of these – or like any of the others. Did anybody ever think of that?
Secondly, I find it amazing that some of you essentially are placing the blame for the lack of health insurance on the people themselves. Last time I looked, small businesses (less than 50 employees) accounted for a large percentage of the jobs in this country. And guess who is most likely to not offer health insurance benefits? Small businesses. And why? The cost.
Further, unless I missed it, no one addressed the issue that I raised about the shift by health insurance companies from being policyholder-owned to shareholder-owned, the result being that the companies are motivated solely by the net bottom line.
The increasing number of uninsured Americans costs all of us money – in higher premiums, in higher health care costs, in lost productivity. At what point do we say “enough” and try something else?
“It appears that the people who are “shafted” by the current system have insufficient funds, bad insurance, or no insurance.”
Once again, Tom’s missing the point. You can have good insurance today, and there’s no guarantee it will be around tomorrow, when you get sick and most need it. That defies basic assumptions as to the very definition of insurance. I just hope he doesn’t learn this the hard way.
vjp – Based upon past experience, we assumed the worst.
It seems to me we are burdened with some unsupported assumptions.
Why are employers obligated to provide health care insurance? What has your place of employment got to do with it? When few companies decided to offer health insurance as fringe benefit, others copied it, and the government locked it in place with tax benefits. Why are you so certain that was a good idea?
Companies are always motivated by the bottom line. In spite of the tax benefits, some companies do not want to accept obligations that have nothing whatsoever to do with their core business. Small companies, in particular, consider doing so a bad a business practice.
Why is providing health insurance an obligation of the state? Where is providing health coverage in the charter of government? We rightly expect government to regulate trade? How does that translate to the government taking over a trade?
To survive, any institution must have a revenue source that exceeds expenses. That includes government, and the people who run government are often motivated by power. Given a choice, would you rather someone overcharge you or steal your freedom?
Anon E. Mouse – Did you notice how vjp just ignored your reference to the Constitution. Because it presents such a significant obstacle, the implementation of socialist programs requires that Constitution be a “living document”. This attitude towards the Law has far reaching consequences. For example, if the law is alive, how can you trust any promises of strong checks and accountability being a core part of any UHC program.
All – Massachusetts just required its residents to buy health insurance (here). Although this program does leverage Federal dollars, the program is basically a Massachusetts program.
This country has fifty laboratories for reckless experimentation. We do not need to take UHC nationwide. Before we consider taking UHC nationwide, why don’t we wait and see how such programs work in Massachusetts and other states?
VAB – Nobodies insurance is any better than what they can afford. All the government can do is regulate insurance so that insurance companies are honest about what they offer. The government cannot make us all rich so that we can all afford the best insurance.
When I was young, life insurance was not a problem. It was cheap. As I have grown older, the cost of my life insurance has gone up. Is it hard to understand why?
Many of us expect our health care coverage to cover every medical expense. Such policies are not really insurance. The intent of insurance to provide coverage for catastrophes. When you go to the doctor for a cold or stitches on you hand, you do not need insurance. On the other hand, if you are having heart bypass surgery…..
If you have a hard time finding affordable health care coverage you can afford, temper you expectations and get yourself a policy that provides coverage for catastrophic expenses. That will be significantly less expensive, and it is what you really need. In fact, I know people who have plenty of money, and that is what they have. They understand the economics involved; that is why they have plenty of money.
alteroffreedom
This comes from Robert Bell, Pesident /CEO of THe University Health Network, Toronto regarding “Sicko”:
Micheal Moore “exaggerates the performance of the Cnadian health system-there is no doubt that too many patients sit waiting in emerdency waiting for admission to scarce hospital beds” and the lower costs of the health system result in a “restriction of supply with sub-optimal access to services.
WOW.
2003 1.2 million in Canada did not have regular doctor because they could not gain access to one. These people are 3.5 times a liely to visit an emergency room for access should something happen no matter how basic.
*Didn’t our national controller say that we spend more on Healthcare as a Government then we do on Social Security and National Defense combined. 45% of healthcare is funded by the government already. In 2004 we spent combined private and public as a nation 2.2 trillion dollars for healthcare costs.
*
So some of you folks like the British National system of health care? In Britain students who are socially motivated are encouraged to go to Medical school and after graduating will make very low salaries. Those who want to MAKE MONEY go to business schools and go into banking. Thus, the market rewards the Best and Brightest for money management skills while the altruists go to Med. School. Result: plenty of dumb but earnest doctors in Britain.
In the USA we want the BEST and BRIGHTEST taking care of us in our hospitals. So we let the free market pay these folks what they deserve.
So you like the British System of rationed health care. In 1983, I visited a friend in Swindon, England. He was 45. He had developed cancer. He went to the National System doctors who told him to go home and die….He was too old to qualify for treatment. He didn’t like that “treatment”. So he went to a private hospital in Britain. Got the needed treatment at a high cost and is alive today.
Think twice about what you ask for. You just may get it.
It is for just that reason that Clinton’s plan would have outlawed going to a private doctor. We can’t have the rich getting good care in the People’s Republic of Amerika!
“The government cannot make us all rich so that we can all afford the best insurance.”
Tom, whether you grasp this or not, it really has little to nothing to do with what you can afford. When you become disabled, the private health insurers drop you off a cliff. You won’t have your current good coverage. Unless, of course, you’re a “self-made” government employee, with good health insurance that’s paid with tax dollars. Which, ironically, seems to be the majority of your tiny minority of people who don’t care about those in private enterprise who can’t get health care under the current system.
It doesn’t matter how much money you have; if you’re disabled, you will eventually be stuck with poor coverage or no coverage. As Mouse pointed out earlier, insurers cover a particular time period, not an event or disease or occurrence, as with other forms of insurance. Insurers lower their risk by dropping people or denying coverage or denying claims or providing poor service or providing prohibitively expensive insurance to those who are disabled and will make claims. So, no, you do not have an understanding of the economics involved. In fact, you have a profound misunderstanding of the economics involved.
As for the Constitutionality of government-sponsored health care, I have already had this conversation with Mouse:
https://blog.vivianpaige.com/2007/05/21/massive-misery/#comments
http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html
And from the Virginia Constitution:
Government instituted for common benefit. — That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
Va. Constitution Va. Con. Art. 1 § 3 (1971)
There is no question as to the legality of government-sponsored health insurance. There has not been any question about its legality since 1937. Period.
While we are at it, what authority does the government have to provide YOU with taxpayer-funded health insurance in your government job? I’m not finding it in my copy of the Constitution. Just how obtusely literal do you want to get?
Mordant Traditionalist – Medicare does a generally excellent job of meeting the needs of its enrollees (which are a pretty demanding population, I think everyone will grant). And it does it with administrative overhead which is a fraction of that required by private insurers. It’s worth googling for details – I certainly don’t expect anyone to take my word for it here.
Googootz, you sound more than a little removed from the realities of salaries and expectations in the UK. Again, google is your friend.
VAB, thanks for keeping this up. You’ve more patience than I.
Finally, Vivian is right – the solutions certainly aren’t limited to a single payer system modeled on Canada or the UK. Germany offers an interesting starting point, for example. My overriding priority is universal availability of *health care* (not JUST emergency care). At present, and after consideration and examination (and experience with) several models, I think that a single payer system is most likely to achieve that goal. But I’m not wedded to it, and it’s certainly not more important than universal coverage itself.
Wow….rough crowd tonight..;-)
All I have to say is when the president of the SEIU- the Service Employee’s International Union AND the CEO of WALMART can hold a joint event AND AGREE…YES….AGREE….that…Universal Healthcare should at LEAST be put on the table….AND…when the conservative CEO of Safeway supermarkets advocates for this….we need to put the blue and red aside and give it a look…. (my source is the Cathy Lewis show from 2 weeks ago)
AND…while we are on the topic of student loans…as someone who is paying for college with these…let’s thank (NOT) Let-them-eat-cake-Thelma Drake for voting AGAINST cutting the interest rates for students such as myself and instead keeping the over 19BILLION DOLLAR PLUS subsidy to lenders. Ok- let’s keep the corporate welfare, while NOT cutting interest rates to a reasonable rate for students. Sorry Thelma, guess struggling students and recent grads can’t make big enough PAC contributions, eh?
Anyway- hate Michael Moore or love him- the lesson we all can take from Sicko is that it’s time to have a dialogue about healthcare.
VAB – Has nothing to do with what you can afford? That is not entirely true. If you have the money, it depends upon what you are willing to pay for.
Isn’t the health insurance industry already heavily regulated and funded by our government? All our current problems have existed for years. Just because we throw more money at the problem and label some wondrous solution UHC, why do you think the profit motive will go away? Do you think our officials in government will somehow become more moral?
Wherever there is a pot of money, people grab for it. When politicians control the pot, they use it to sell political favors. Our elected leaders respond to organized political interest groups. The folks that make up any particular industry form the strongest interest groups with respect to their industry. That is why the rules that governed the insurance industry generally get written to keep insurance industry executives and stockholders as happy as possible.
When dealing with any interest group, the interests of private citizens are best served by dividing the greedy into small relatively powerless groups. Yet because we have made our health insurance dependent upon our employers, we have done the exact opposite. That, for example, is why when you lose your job insurers find it relatively easy to “drop you off a cliff”. Neither your employer nor the insurance industry want to pay the bill.
Instead of demanding government solutions, please consider the possibility that less government involvement might help the situation. When we buy insurance, government is suppose to regulate the industry so that the industry is up front about what they are selling. You should know up front, for example, the implications of becoming disabled and what you can do about it.
Government is also suppose to prevent monopolistic practices. Yet tying your insurance to your employer limits your choices. Instead of you, your employer becomes your medical insurer’s customer. Given who chose your insurer, who do you think your policy will benefit?
To solve such problems, we must begin by going back to first principles. Any solution that involve robbing Peter to pay Paul is unethical. That is why socialist solutions do not work well. In order to implement them, we have to hire people who are willing to rob Peter for us. Such people are also willing to rob us.
VAB – I am a beltway bandit. My company chose and partly funds my insurance. To paraphrase an old saw, when in Rome, one must make the best of it.
VAB — I have no problem with the STATES providing such health-care. Their constitutions generally allow it, because they are generally exclusive (what the state CANNOT do) as opposed to inclusive (what the federal government CAN do). The states may do whatever is not prohibited by their constitutions, and the federal government can only do those things that are allowed by their constitutions.
Yes, we did discuss this before. I encourage others to read it. You lost. Despite your claim of “four semesters of Constitutional Law,” you were unable to argue, for yourself, what clause in the Constitution allows such expenditures by the federal government.
Health care should remain in the States (as should education) where it belongs. Massachusetts, with Gov. Romney, is leading the way.