Washington Post Destroys Insurance Lobby's Propaganda

The Washington Post is often terrible. But credit where it's due: today David Hilzenwrath dives into some industry blather in an article headlined, "Health Insurance Industry Spins Data in Fight Against Public Plan." There's no contrived balance -- it's the kind of reporting that makes for good journalism and a functional democracy:

The industry that helped scuttle health reform 15 years ago with its "Harry and Louise" ads is back, voicing support for a central element of the Obama administration's plans: making sure everyone is covered.

That does not mean the industry is backing the administration. Indeed, the leader of the insurance lobby has sent lawmakers a message: Be careful what you change, because "77 percent of Americans are satisfied with their existing health insurance coverage."

Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), invoked the statistic to argue against the creation of a government-run insurance option. But the polls are not that simple, and her assertion reveals how the industry's effort to defend its turf has led it to cherry-pick the facts.

The poll Ignagni was citing actually undercuts her position: By 72 to 20 percent, Americans favor the creation of a public plan, the June survey by the New York Times and CBS News found. People also said that they thought government would do a better job than private insurers of holding down health-care costs and providing coverage.

In addition, data from a Kaiser Family Foundation poll last year, compiled at the request of The Washington Post, suggest that the people who like their health plans the most are the people who use them the least.

Those who described their health as "excellent" -- people who presumably had relatively little experience pursuing medical care or submitting claims -- were almost twice as likely as those in good, fair or poor health to rate their private health insurance as excellent ...

Insurers argue that a government plan could dominate the market, reducing consumers' options. But in the private market, options are limited by employers who restrict employees' choice of insurers and by insurers who restrict their choice of doctors.

And it continues -- you should read the whole thing.

Also in today's WaPo, Steven Pearlstein poses what I think should be a really obvious question:

Among the range of options for health-care reform, there's one that is sure to raise your taxes, increase your out-of-pocket medical expenses, swell the federal deficit, leave more Americans without insurance and guarantee that wages will remain stagnant.

That's the option of doing nothing, letting things continue to drift as they have for the past two decades as we continue to search in vain for the perfect plan that would let everyone have everything they want and preserve everything they already have while getting someone else to pay for it.

So the next time you hear someone throwing a hissy fit because health reform might raise taxes on some people, or steer people into managed care, or require small businesses to contribute $2 a day for each employee's coverage, just remember to ask yourself: And that's compared with what?

There's been a lot of discussion of how 'we're going to pay for health reform.' It's a fundamentally wrong-headed question. After all, we're not talking about sunk costs -- we're talking about an investment over the next 10 years that would, if done right, ultimately result in very significant and desperately needed savings over the long-haul. So, the question as I see it is: how can we possibly afford not to fix health care?

In 1960, we spent less than 5 percent of GDP on health care. Today, it's up to around 17 percent. Here's where we're projected to go if we leave things as they stand: