Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Big Business' Healthcare Solution Ignores Those Who Need It Most

By Bill Scher, TomPaine.com. Posted May 10, 2007.


Business leaders want a break from mounting healthcare costs, but their policy fix would be nothing more than a dressing up of the same failed healthcare system.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Business leaders jumped into the universal healthcare pool this week, as 36 companies formed the Coalition to Advance Healthcare Reform and called for a system where all individuals are required to carry health insurance. The announcement further shifts the center of gravity of the healthcare debate, where opposing health insurance for every American is understood as unreasonable. But that doesn't make the Coalition's emergence an unequivocally healthy development.

The crucial debate now is over what role our government should play to secure affordable, quality coverage for all. The coalition, which includes some insurance and pharmaceutical companies, appears to favor continued restrictions on our government's ability to keep insurance companies honest and serve all the public.

The coalition is not backing a specific plan yet, but it has "core principles" that were laid out by the group's founder, Safeway CEO Steve Burd, in a column for the conservative Washington Times. Their first principle? "Because market forces are largely absent in today's healthcare system, costs are spiraling out of control," writes Burd. "Market forces, if properly introduced, can fix this problem."

Uh, come again? He doesn't see that it's market forces that entice insurance companies to cherry-pick the young and healthy as customers to score an easy profit, leaving millions behind without insurance, leading to higher costs for everybody? This complete misreading of the problem doesn't bode well for any future policy proposal.

The emphasis on "market forces" sends a signal that the coalition wants universal coverage in name only, where our government mandates individuals to get private coverage but does little to reign in the detrimental practices of the insurance industry. Everyone might be covered, so to speak, but for too many, it would be paltry coverage at high cost.

The nominally universal system that the coalition proposes would, of course, be a great deal for the insurance companies. They would get millions of new customers in one fell swoop without having to comply with much new regulation. But for the rest of us, it would be nothing more than a dressing up of the same failed healthcare system. Costs would continue to be squeezed where they shouldn't, leading to a continued rationing of care, and allowed to run rampant elsewhere. The coalition principles give a nod to assistance for low-income families, but that won't necessarily protect them from getting squeezed along with the middle class.

There are better ways to achieve universal coverage that don't depend on market players as insurance companies somehow changing their DNA. There's single-payer, where our government provides health insurance and puts private companies out of business -- though that comes with the major political hurdle of convincing those who are happy with their insurance to switch to a new system.

And there's the new Health Care for America proposal from Yale professor Jacob Hacker, which would create a Medicare-style public plan for all Americans under 65. The public plan would compete with private plans, but on a fair playing field with no cherry-picking. Employers would have to provide good quality coverage or help fund the public plan.

These are the three main visions for universal coverage: a government-managed system completely replacing the private insurance industry, a new public plan that competes with private insurers on a government-regulated fair playing field, or reliance on private insurers to fix a problem largely of their own making.

Business leaders, who are in the best position to understand how the status quo hurts them and the country in a global economy, deserve credit for helping to shift the healthcare debate. But the Coalition to Advance Healthcare Reform will have to rethink some of its "core principles" if it is truly interested in meaningful change.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: healthcare

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Proof that liberals aren't logical...
Posted by: EagleMB on May 10, 2007 1:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that liberals support unions but oppose Burd’s market forces principle is purely illogical. Burd (as someone knowledgeable in business principles) knows that consumers control the market. The author criticizes the plan because insurances companies “cherry pick” the market. However, if market forces are controlled, insurance companies would not be able to cherry pick the market. Let’s analyze:

"Because market forces are largely absent in today's healthcare system, costs are spiraling out of control," writes Burd. "Market forces, if properly introduced, can fix this problem."

What Burd is talking about is promoting competition and controlling the consumption market. Just as unions (when they had leverage) were able to demand better working conditions by suppressing the labor market, Burd knows that businesses can control the insurance industry by suppressing the consumption market. Big business is still the primary consumer of insurance services, and they face pressure to provide health coverage for their employees. If a conglomeration of large corporations force insurance companies to competitively bid for their business the result would be better and cheaper coverage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» This is conservative logic? Posted by: KeepsonTickn
» RE: Allow me to clarify... Posted by: EagleMB
» More Corporate Welfare. Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: More Corporate Welfare. Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: More Corporate Welfare. Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: More Corporate Welfare. Posted by: EagleMB
There is no free market in reality, just a faux "free" market.
Posted by: maxpayne on May 10, 2007 5:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you're being lied to that you're in a capitalistic society even when the choices are cherry-picked against your wishes, what you really have is a RIGGED market. Of course Corporate America will see to it that Big Business, the corrupt and unethical ones anyway, get their "universal healthcare" all the while keeping the shaft on everyone else. Notice that small business gets no say either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Their proposed solution is a license to steal
Posted by: Moonray on May 10, 2007 5:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No wonder Big Biz wants to require people to buy health insurance. The scheme is a license to steal public tax dollars.

In such a system supply-and-demand checks and balances would be neatly side-stepped. Insurors would be able to gouge the public at their leisure -- which is almost the case now -- while enjoying even fewer restraints. More people would be covered, true, but such coverage probably would be inadequate and the costs would be humongous.

Unfortunately, most of our "progressive" Democratic candidates, such as John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, advocate such schemes, which would continue the present rip-off situation.

Don't put up with it. Demand a national single-payer system that keeps insurance companies completely out of the picture. Despite what the critics say, it can be done and it can be efficient.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another govt giveaway
Posted by: jlohman on May 10, 2007 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The insurance/employer bureaucracy is eating 30% of our health care dollars on unnecessary administration, marketing, sales commissions, high executive salaries, gatekeepers to deny care, and shareholder profits. Why in the hell would you expect them not to protect a system that puts billions of dollars into their pocket rather than into direct health care for the patient? And to corrupt our trusty politicians in the process by padding their campaign coffers, all to keep the system broken?

The Medicare system is not perfect, but it is the only US system that works decently and efficiently. For the same dollars we are spending to provide health care to 85% of the population, we could put 100% of the US on Medicare-for-all (see www.healthcare-now.org). For the same 16% of GDP we could have a system that is NOT socialized, does NOT have Canada's with times, and does NOT ration medicine. (Though there could be no better form of rationing than having 15% of the people uninsured and another 15% under-insured.)

So rather than fix this system the politicians are trying everything they can to protect the insurance industry that pads their pockets, including giving tax breaks to Health Savings Accounts that effectively deny care through high deductibles. If you are wealthy and healthy they are great tax shelters, but when forced upon employees they are boat anchors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another govt giveaway Posted by: CatDad
HEALTH INSURANCE FOR ALL IS POSSIBLE
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 10, 2007 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't have affordable health insurance for all because it's more profitable to the insurance business the way it is now. Like the war in Iraq, it's a money maker. Good health care is possible but only if the margin of profit is smaller and too many people are entitled to bonuses in the millions for that to happen. Iraq was allowed to happen because people saw dollar signs. Medical care and the war are out of control. We all saw both coming. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A very good proposal indeed
Posted by: Swedish liberal on May 10, 2007 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is exactly what the US needs, compulsory healthcare with but with private providers.

Sweden’s and the UK single payer system are going to collapse under its own weight. In Sweden in particular we need a completely new healthcare system. The discussion in Sweden is to have a single payer system and both private and public providers. In Sweden we pay 8 % tax on our earnings for healthcare. If I make a comparison with the US system it would in a single payer system in the US need between 15-20 % because of the higher quality of US healthcare. US doctors earn 4-10 times more than their Swedish counterparts and US technology is more expensive, pharmaceutical cost is lower in the US because of competition among the pharmaceutical companies. In Sweden because of the single payer system the Swedish Government is not able to negotiate lower prices.

This proposed system will if it comes to fruition cut healthcare premiums by 40-50 % a very significant saving indeed and at the same time give comprehensive healthcare to all.

The US should never even consider a single payer system, it is not the future. The future is a compulsory system with free choice of levels of cover and providers.

Europe has gone that way and Sweden is about to embark in this direction. Why should the US jump on a sinking ship!

(I do not understand the Cherry picking argument. If you have a corporate plan the insure all, it is only if you have an individual plan that certain risks is avoided. This is solved by making employers liable to have plans and then everybody can be insured.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Same Old, Same Old
Posted by: Gravitas on May 10, 2007 7:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They will just find a way to make the new health care system profitable for the rich at the expense of the rest of us. Like the way everything else is run. I guess the average person likes being a puppet of the oligarchy. As long as we don't take American Idol and the rest of the mindless entertainment away, they just go along to get along.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm just curious. . .
Posted by: NthnBrazil on May 10, 2007 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the latest one of many articles on Universal Health Care that mentions the option of "single-payer, where our government provides health insurance and puts private companies out of business"

I'm wondering how people who support this option square that with the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people who will no longer have gainful employment. What exactly is the assumption there? Collateral damage to fixing the system?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm just curious. . . Posted by: solrev
» That's a lot of absorbing. . . Posted by: NthnBrazil
» Just to clarify. . . Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: Just to clarify. . . Posted by: JSquercia
» gainful employment? Posted by: dkm
» No need to be obtuse Posted by: NthnBrazil
large corporations at least have a choice
Posted by: Trazom on May 10, 2007 8:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To a previous poster who said that large corporations are finally beginning to feel the cost impacts of our health care system, let me just say one word:

Offshoring.

Why do you think there is such a huge push to move jobs overseas? It is simply better business as the average Indian/Chinese/Brazilian (substitute other country) makes a fraction of what the average American makes. Throw in the cost of health care benefits, and it's a no-brainer.

Expect up to 50 million white collar jobs to move overseas in the next 10 years in the name of globalization. This is just more fodder for the corporations to continue this offshore quest. And poor Stanley Johnson with his new mortgage and car payment, well he will take anything he can get.

It will truly be some desperate times for a while. Don't expect Washington to care much though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Market Forces??
Posted by: dkm on May 10, 2007 11:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For those of us who live in a world of reality, evidence trumps theory. For the rest of you, one of these days reality will bite you when you least expect it.

So let's look at the evidence. 1) Which of the industrialized countries has a medical system most imbued with the "free market system?" Obvious answer, the US. 2) Which of the major industrialized countries has the worst medical system based on data such as infant death rates, average life expectancy, etc. Again, the obvious answer is the US. For those of us in the real world, it goes without saying that we need to change the theory. Fantasylanders want to change the data.

So where does the theory go wrong? It goes wrong, among other places, if you assume that buyers and sellers are on a relatively equal footing. Actually, the insurance and "health" providers have the rest of us by the short hairs and they have no qualms about taking advantage of their power. For instance, yesterday there was an article about how hospitals screw uninsured patients over but give deep discounts to insurance programs. Do you really think that insurance companies are any different? Individual policy holders are screwed to the wall, but corporations get discounted rates. Furthermore, insurance companies make their money by NOT paying claims. Do you really think that they have an incentive to help their clients? Sorry, all you neocons who make your living by sucking blood from the rest of us. You cannot make a logical case for private insurance when every other industrialized and some of the nonindustrialized are providing better medical care to their citizens at a lower cost by cutting out the private insurance vultures.

After all, what is the purpose of any insurance company. If you answered, to recompense policy holders in their time of need, see me about some really cheap vacation land I have for sale a mile or so south of Galveston in sight of the beach. If you answered, to make an obscene amount of money for the people who run the company, then you are aware of how our system works. And don't get me started on the marketing and sales budgets for these companies. Why do you think our medical costs are so high?! A single payer would have administrative costs so much lower that we would actually save money overall by dropping private insurance companies and paying for everyone directly.

Then how about the drug companies? Their sales and marketing wings suck up a lot more than their R&D ever thought of doing. As a matter of fact, by "offshoring" the research to universities, the drug companies manage to get a lot of results off the taxpayers' dollar, not their own.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shifting health care costs away from companies and onto the tax payers is ideal
Posted by: ateo on May 11, 2007 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From a business stand point it's win/win. Big business no longer has to subsidize health care for its employees which means even bigger profits. The poor and uninsured get health care coverage.

Who loses? The middle class who currently enjoy subsidized health care plans via their employers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PREVENTION IS THE ONLY WAY OUT
Posted by: drricklippin on May 11, 2007 8:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't kid yourself. The elephant sitting in the middle of the room is medical cost control.

With 77 million US boomers beginning to become eligible for Medicare now we are facing an economic tsunami unless we get real serious fast about cost control in health care.

A high tech expensive disease care system is simply not economically sustainable.

Individual and institutional prevention is our only way out. But it must be implemented fairly and with compassion.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't worry - the wealthy will still get all the care they want
Posted by: nowfifty on May 14, 2007 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In theory, a single payer (gov't universal care) would provide a baseline measure of health care to everyone. Yes, it will be no frills, and yes, there will probably be waits for some services. But those with enough $$$ will purchase health care services over and above what the single payer system provides. The wealthy will not want for the best and fastest health care, whether by purchasing "uni-gap" insurance or purchasing the services outright. The uninsured and unemployed will finally have a level of health care security, the working middle class (who always bear the burden) will likely see a diminshment of services, since universal coverage may impose some restrictions not present in the world of employer-provided health insurance. And the rich stay fat, happy, and healthy. The more things change...Unless by some miracle there is a redistribution of wealth. Well, a girl can dream.

The really smart corporations (those without ties to the health industry) are backing government run universal health care. Why wouldn't they want to unload health insurance costs that constrain their bottom line?

We do not have a health care "system" in this country. We have a pharmaceutical "industry," a hospital "industry," an insurance "industry," etc. And they all operate for profit, not for any warm fuzzies they may get from being in the business of healing sick people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement