This will surprise no one:
The largest medical insurers and drug companies spent 41% more on lobbying this year as Congress began debate on an overhaul of health care, which may include a public insurance plan the industries oppose.
The largest medical insurers and drug companies spent 41% more on lobbying this year as Congress began debate on an overhaul of health care, which may include a public insurance plan the industries oppose.
Despite an overall decline in lobbyist spending this year, a USA TODAY review of disclosure reports found 20 of the largest health insurance and drug companies and their trade groups spent nearly $35 million in the first quarter of 2009, up more than $10 million from the same period last year.
Drug and insurance companies support many changes Congress is considering but generally oppose government-run insurance, which President Obama touted Thursday in Green Bay, Wis. Public insurance is facing criticism from business groups and the American Medical Association, which will host Obama on Monday in Chicago.
This is something I talk very little about because I know so little about it. I’ve been spoiled my whole life- under my parents HMO until the Army, great health care in the Army (even had my wisdom teeth pulled while on active, saving a few bucks), then I had the university medical clinic for when I was sick until grad school, and then my job has always provided me with excellent coverage. I don’t know how good my health care is on a scale from best to worst, but I am quite satisfied with it. I know my doctor, I’m content letting med students work on me whenever possible (they have to get experience somewhere!), and my basic attitude is the human body is just supposed to work, you just need to get check-ups every now and then to make sure everything is going as it should. I don’t know if I am missing out, or if there is some gold-plated service somewhere that were I too experience it, I would realize how lousy my health care is. Honestly, I don’t care, and I really don’t understand why everyone can’t have the kind of health care I have, and I would gladly pay more in taxes for everyone to have health care and for the assurance that no matter what my employment situation or age or health, I could have access to health care.
I do know that some of the claims you hear about this sort of stuff are kind of funny and just don’t jibe with my personal experiences. My personal favorite is “Do you want a bureaucrat making your decisions?” In my experience, the bureaucrats have always had a say. I can’t just go schedule an appointment with the ENT doctor if something is wrong, I have to go through my regular doctor first. That is just one example, here is another example (although this smacks of urban legend, but we’ll assume it is correct for now).
Sebastian at ObWi had a good post up yesterday that I thought was useful, and I’m betting that our sense of entitlement and our end of life care is a major source of financial duress. I’m not sure where I am going with this thread, but I do know that I’m just not afraid of the scare tactics going on right now about the public option, and I actually think (as I have stated repeatedly), that we will eventually end up with some form of single payer at some point. Businesses want it, our current patchwork system is unsustainable, etc.
Right now, the problem for those opposing health care reform is that they belong to a group that has no credibility. Just none. I’ve spent my entire adult life listening to companies oppose this legislation or that, the legislation is defeated, and then the pricks move their headquarters and operations overseas for cheaper labor or to avoid paying taxes anyway. I just watched big business gamble away our future, lose, and then scream socialism when anyone told them they couldn’t pay their CEO’s hundreds of millions of dollars. I remember the screaming about the Family Medical Leave Act, that it would bankrupt every business, and that no one would survive, and what I see now is a society in which everyone appreciates the flexibility it affords families with new babies, and no one would even think to try to repeal it.
At any rate in case you were wondering why I never blog about health care, that is why. I just don’t know enough about it.
*** Update ***
And then you have stuff like this:
Eli Lilly & Co. urged doctors to prescribe Zyprexa for elderly patients with dementia, an unapproved use for the antipsychotic, even though the drugmaker had evidence the medicine didn’t work for such patients, according to unsealed internal company documents.
In 1999, four years after Lilly sent study results to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration showing Zyprexa didn’t alleviate dementia symptoms in older patients, it began marketing the drug to those very people, according to documents unsealed in insurer suits against the company for overpayment.
Lovely.
pharniel
I visited my in-laws and my dad and step mom back in April out in Phoenix. Step mom is a PA for a cardiac clinic but spent most of her carrier in the ER or cardiac ward in the local big hospital.
While my father is a bit of a Libritarian these days, my step mother is fairly even keeled.
until you bring up health care.
then she pulls out every scare tactic ever, the VA is terrible, horror stories about going to conferences in Canukistan where everyone there just found out that the positions they were in were all eliminated and they didn’t even know if they had jobs come monday etc. etc. etc.
I’ve had good coverage up until i turned 25 and then mom retired (teacher) and her current coverage blows, and my coverage while being OK is still terrifyingly pitiful compared to what I had.
Thank god I had an appendectimy under my mother’s government paid insurance, as well as braces, wisdom teeth and a host of other ‘quality of life’ surgeries (i.e. under my new plan ‘electives’) that keep me from constantly being sickly.
Punchy
Yeah, but clearly thoz without health care are the lazy deadbeats with cell phones and shoes, so their priorities are all skrewd up, and why shud we help out those irresponsible peeps unwilling to shell out a few $K a month for this?
Cat Lady
Old age care is the black hole of where disappearing medical dollars go. One old age related problem, whatever it is, cascades in every direction. Most elderly folks according to one study I read is on an average of 7 medications. Most of them couldn’t tell you what they are or why they take them, and a diagnosis of dementia really sets you up to be exploited. If you’re an old person without loving attentive family members who are willing to devote energy and time to your well-being, well, good luck with that.
A Mom Anon
What’s sad is all that damned lobbying money could have gone to,well,actual health care. Crazy I know. Imagine if all that ad money and lobbying cash actually went into health and dental care. It couldn’t hurt.
The Saff
I work for a large, multi-national corporation that spent approximately $5.5 billion last year on healthcare for its employees. I belong to an HMO and the coverage is OK (my OB-GYN co-pay went from $15 in 2007 to $25 in 2008). I’m pretty healthy and don’t need any medication except for the occassional Advil for pain.
I’m with you, John, in that I don’t understand all the ins and outs to overhauling health care. But I do believe something needs to be done. The stories of people going bankrupt or being denied care for whatever reason are heartbreaking.
The NY Times Magazine’s cover story last week was about the Obama Administration leading the way on reforming health care. Very interesting.
Bey
@A Mom Anon: Not to mention mental health care. It’s simply criminal how little coverage there is available.
NonyNony
@A Mom Anon:
Actually, no. Most likely it would have been reinvested into something else. Possibly it would have gone to shareholder profits, or maybe “retention bonuses” to the highest paid executives. It certainly wouldn’t have gotten funneled back to pay for health care – that’s not how the business model operates. The business model for an insurance company is pretty much the same as the business model for your average financial investment company, except that they have this funny system of payouts for claims that they have to deal with that financial investment companies don’t need to worry about.
Anyone who thinks that an insurance company’s primary business is providing insurance needs to work for an insurance company for a few years. Paying out claims and collecting premiums is only a tiny sliver of what the company does – the bulk of the company’s effort is in taking the money they get in premiums and investing it to make the company money. Which explains why for the last 20 years our system has been so fucked – the insurance companies have to keep profits consistently high with a system that is dependent on the rise and fall of the market.
kid bitzer
typo in your post, maybe?
“it would bankrupt every business, and that no one would surprise”
s/b
“no one would survive”?
Mousebumples
Rolling Stone had what I considered to be a pretty in-depth report on the whole Zyprexa debacle. (here, for anyone interested in reading more about it)
Bottom line? Prozac was going generic, and Eli Lilly needed something else to bring in the bucks. So, yeah, lying to doctors about efficacy and side effects was totally worth it. [/sarcasm]
So far as the main goal of insurance companies go, I can’t help but wonder how accurate a depiction The Incredibles is, in terms of how insurance companies operate. (for those who aren’t familiar with the movie, Mr. Incredible works for InsuraCare or something like that, and he continually gets in trouble with his supervisor for helping people skirt the loopholes and receive payments from the company.)
Also, one editing/proofreading note –
Should be “to,” I believe.
Fulcanelli
When I left my last salaried job to become self employed my health coverage, which included dental, was $145 a week and that was a middle of the road HMO plan. Pulling almost $600-$725 a month out of your take home pay, month in, month out is no joke. But I’m fortunate to be healthy as a horse, so I never used it. Money well spent? I’m not so sure, and I’m well aware of all the ‘what if’s’…
Now I’m self employed, and my wife and I have no health coverage. I can’t afford $1000 + per month on ‘what if?’. The decision was made for me.
A Mom Anon
@NonyNony:
I know all this,I’m just saying,in a SANE system, that cash might have been plowed back into the actual bidness of la health care. I have a kid with Asperger’s Syndrome(a milder form of autism),trust me,I know insurance companies don’t provide anything beyond the very basic of care. If they had,I might have actually been able to have a career and an education instead of being a full time parent/speech therapist/occupational therapist/educational advocate for my son for the last 15 yrs. (now I can’t find a job to save my life because being a full time mom doesn’t count for shit in the real world,but that’s a rant for another time)
Seanly
Anything opposed by Big Health Care, Big Pharma, Big Anything, etc. is likely to be exactly what we need.
We should be like George Castanza – we should do the opposite of everything these idiots propose. Or if they oppose it, we should run & accept it.
Whatever we do has to address the problems, not just keep all the lobbying groups happy.
Mousebumples
I’d love to see a public option that’s really just a not-for-profit option (i.e. no real government subsidies for the average American), just to see if having a credible public challenger can make the private sector reform. (my guess – not likely, or at least not substantially enough to be significant)
From there, I’d figure the market would take care of the rest. If the public (non-government funded) option is preferred by many, many more individuals due to the theoretical cost savings, the other companies would, presumably, have to increase costs further to maintain their profits with fewer enrolled patients, which would only make their situation more unsustainable. I could see us ending up with a single-payer option eventually through this approach, and it’s the one main viable method of implementing single-payer insurance in the US, as I still can’t help but fear that cries of “socialism” and whatever else will break out should anyone even hint at moving to a single-payer system now.
Ash Can
I’ve lived in a total of four countries, three of which had some form of universal government-funded health care system. Guess what — universal single-payer works. There’s a reason other countries aren’t abandoning their government-run systems to adopt our private-payer model.
DougJ
I’m increasingly pessimistic about health care. I don’t think we’re going to end up with a public option.
Litlebritdifrnt
Personally I would like to take those whiners from the “socialized medicine” countries that whored themselves to the right for their tv ads saying how terrible the healthcare systems was in their country and force them to live here for a year, with no health insurance. Betcha they’d run screaming back home once the year was up (if they lived that long). Bottom line is (I just said this over at RR) more people need to be hammering the line that health insurance and health care costs are crippling both small and large businesses. I heard from a guy who said his boss has to pay $20K per month for 15 or so employees (small business, you know the darling of the right wing), imagine what it would do to his bottom line if he wasn’t facing an annual expenditure of $240K. I think it was Barnicle (or all people) who said when you think about it health care costs are what sunk GM. As for elder care there is a whole army of lawyers/accountants etc., who do nothing but try and plan ahead for the elderly (protecting their assets) so they don’t end up destitute as a result of long term care. I simply think that it is criminal that regular people are not entitled to the benefits that their elected officials enjoy, on the government’s dime. I could go on but I’ll shut up now before the subject sends me into a frothing rage like it usually does.
Marshall
Good grief, whoever said that has obviously never had prescribed care denied by their insurance company. Who do they think you have to deal with then ? The (baroque and labyrinthine) insurance company bureaucracy. Even in oncology (where most tests and treatments do get approved), if the insurance doesn’t want to pay for something, either before or after the treatment, you have a major fight on your hands.
Sometimes I think that they deny things randomly for the same reason that computer companies love product rebates – they know that some people won’t do what’s necessary to get their treatment or their money; thus increasing profits.
The Other Steve
Good point on the FMLA. My wife is into her six week FMLA leave. Her first six weeks were paid by her employer, this six weeks are unpaid.
I can’t imagine sending him to daycare at six weeks.
The Grand Panjandrum
I too have been fortunate in my life to have always had access to good healthcare. My father was a career military man so we always had free care growing up. When I graduated from high school and became a proud member of the Uncle Sam Ain’t Released Me Yet club I was again covered by that same plan. After leaving the club I was covered by the clinic at my college (and Uncle paid me to go to college! Of course that was back when a little over a hundred bucks a month would pay for books and tuition and my savings could make up the little bit of difference for living expenses) and during grad school I had a teaching assistance then a reaseach fellowship that provided access to medical care. When I finished I got my first job that provided me with FREE health insurance. FREE. It was very good coverage. And now that I’ve made a few bucks and saved my money I have the wherewithal to keep my medical coverage and not have it effect my standard of living. I have been very LUCKY. Yes it was luck and I took advantage of it.
I, too, would not mind paying extra taxes to make sure that every person is covered. But we have some players on the field who just don’t quite get it. Doctors, pharma, and medical instrumentation companies should all be able to make a profit. That is not the problem. The problem is we have a system that is two tiered. For those of us with insurance, or the financial means, or both, we are able to take preventative steps to stay reasonably healthy. For those people who have no access to health insurance because they can’t afford it they are in crisis management mode. They don’t go to the doctor until they are VERY ill and generally the outcomes are not as good as those for people have insurance.
Insurance is not the panacea, because some people just hate going to the doctor and wait until it’s too late, e.g. Warren Zevon, but a public plan that is affordable would be a good start.
The New Yorker had a great piece in the June 2009 issue about one of the myriad reasons healthcare can be so expensive depending on where you live:
The piece is thoroughly researched, well sourced with plenty of examples of just what is going wrong in that little town. If you take this as an example as one of the problems in our healthcare system you can see why the AMA came out against publicly funded healthcare in any form. But then the AMA was against Medicare 45+ years ago. It should also be noted that the AMA only represents a small minority of MD’s who practice medicine today.
The Grand Panjandrum
@Litlebritdifrnt: Well said! And please, Rage On!
Litlebritdifrnt
@The Grand Panjandrum:
Thanks! I think what angers me the most is the out and out lies that the people opposed to national health care come out with about the care in other countries. Last year my mum was on a cruise, she started feeling bad at the latter end of it and after it ended rather than make the trek back up North immediately she checked into a hospital in the South. She has a history of heart problems by the way. She was immediately admitted and immediately taken to surgery where she had stents put into her arteries. No waiting lists, nothing, she was treated immediately, and of course best part no stopping at the cashier’s desk on the way out. She also has a private health insurance policy for when she needs it. A couple of years ago she needed knee surgery, they told her she would have to wait 6 weeks before it could be done (which would have been during another planned cruise :)) So she decided to go private and had it done in a week. Fact is SHE HAS A CHOICE! The liars never point that out (and don’t get me started on that fucking liar Limbaugh on this subject.)
d-pressd
I might be one of few readers who has taken Zyprexa. I can tell you that it is powerful even when it works right. The side effects if it doesn’t are worse so. My legs stopped working right. I couldn’t stay awake while walking or cooking. Etc.
Par for the course, though. Anti-psychotics are an “all in” kind of medicine.
But what a shit thing to do to pressure doctors to prescribe it, often without the proper psychiatric background, to vulnerable fragile people for weak reasons. That stuff isn’t ginger beer and playing lobbying and marketing games with it is fucking low.
John: long-time reader, first-time poster. Love your show.
SpotWeld
Is the main reason that a gov’t system would have less overhead, becaue it wouldn’t “need” to hire lobbyists?
Ed in NJ
A quick Google search confirms the story in Bob Cesca’s blog you reference. Far from being an urban legend, you can see for yourself what Allena Hanson is dealing with:
Bear Mauls Woman
South of I-10
I work for one of the fabled small businesses, a law firm with approximately 30 employees. My boss has paid 100% of our premiums for health insurance until this year, now he is paying what he did last year and we are paying the difference. He has played with the plan every year trying to keep it somewhat affordable, higher deductibles, etc. Right now I have a $2800 deductible, then 80/20 to $3500, then 100% after that. We have an attorney who is in her early 40’s (and one of the bravest women I know) who is fighting stage IV breast cancer. She is going to be on chemo for the rest of her life. We also have a couple of older ladies who are on blood pressure/cholesterol meds. Our rates have increased between 20% and 30% every year of the 10 years I have been here. It is absolutely ridiculous. Shouldn’t a health insurance company be non-profit anyway? I am not very optimistic about how this is going to turn out, but I hope something is done.
jhaygood
The major issue is that none of us really know what kind of coverage we have until it’s too late. It works great for you now because you aren’t in need of expensive care – that’s where the rubber meets the road. The current stats are something like 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical issues, and something like 70% of those HAD health insurance.
Health care is too important to leave to a profit oriented private sector – like the police or the military or whatever. Profit and health insurance don’t mix well…
Shygetz
Given the obvious and blatant buying of votes that has been perhaps not more prevalent, but at least more visible the last few years, has anyone here started to rethink their opinion on campaign finance reform and publicly funded elections? I think it’s disgusting that you can publicly and openly bribe elected officials, and it’s okay–hell, it’s an expected part of your business model! I want to get private money out of public politics…I think a lot of our problems would clear themselves up once that happened.
WereBear
It’s entirely possible I will feel differently when my own time comes. At this point, I can only speak as a person with older relatives.
The whole ethical issue of keeping people alive past all Quality of Life points offends me morally; not financially.
Everyone I know is horrified at the thought of becoming a wheelchair bound, mumbling, screaming, person in diapers at the end of their life; and yet there seems to be no reliable mechanism by which anyone can avoid that fate.
Ignoring these issues only makes them worse.
Yes, I know it’s an uncomfortable whiff of “killing off Grandma,” but my own grandmother has been speaking out about her view for decades, which is remarkably similar to my own; when I’m not having fun any more, it’s time to go.
Yet I’ve seen people sitting in nice nursing homes, as these things go; terrified, in pain, beyond the hope of medical care, because it’s mental, not physical, and no one knows how to make it go away.
I’ve seen people released to hospice home care, provided round the clock by the family (and I took some shifts) for someone with terminal cancer; barely conscious, disoriented, unhappy and disturbed… for months.
If we did this to someone on purpose, it would be heinous. We let it happen to those we love deeply… and it’s normal.
There’s just something wrong with that.
jibeaux
Ah, marketing things to the demented that they don’t need and don’t help. Good to hear that pharma has exactly the same ethical boundaries as Nigerian scammers (aren’t those guys known for trying to get lists of people prescribed Alzheimer’s meds?)
D-Chance.
All I know is… it seems every other ad, especially during news hours, is for some new drug with endless lists of “patients may experience….” side effects. At times, it seems like they make up a full quarter of all the ads. Used to be, pharma would hit the docs’ offices and drop several samples, a few pens and maybe a coffee mug or labeled golf ball or two; now, the swag is much more high-brow and they have the end users calling and begging for the drugs after watching it on their boob tubes.
And, btw, if this proposed governmental insurance is just optional, and government is so inadequate and inefficient and ineffective, why the worry? After all, free market and all that… the few (the already sick and elderly who can’t qualify for regular insurances) who do get it won’t have any effect on the industry. My guess is that the howling you’re hearing from pharma and the insurance industry is due to them knowing the curtains will be pulled and their little cabal exposed to a bit too much sunlight.
R-Jud
@The Other Steve:
It ain’t much easier to imagine at twelve weeks, either.
PurpleGirl
Several commenters have asked or mentioned insurance companies being non-profit. Well, a number of them once were. The Blue Cross-Blue Shield companies were non-profit. Axa Insurance was a mutual, which while not non-profit was owned by the policy owners. Somewhere in the last fifteen years, upper management and boards of directors got the idea that they’d make more money and supposedly be able to do more things if they became for-profit. (Yeah, they looked at the profit and salary levels at the for-profits and liked what they saw.) So began the conversion of these organizations to for-profit corporations. And government at all levels allowed it because they saw taxes that they supposedly would get from the new companies and bought the line that the could do more, and besides with the profit they made selling their first stock offerings, the former non-profits would endow foundations which could give benefits from their endowments….. blah, blah, blah.
I’m not saying that non-profit status wouldn’t be good, but that we once had them and they were taken away by greed.
slightly_peeved
It’s good to see that Sebastian’s no longer blaming high drug costs for the discrepancy in costs between the US and public healthcare systems. When I used to frequent ObWi, I remember him claiming that drug costs were a bigger part of the picture.
I don’t see why he’s claiming that overuse of the system by the middle-class would be a reason for the US system to be more expensive; in single-payer systems, everyone can overuse the system, and we don’t even have to go through the paperwork the US middle class needs to. And I didn’t think that many people enjoy checkups; unless Anne Hathaway decides to give up acting and become a doctor in Australia, I’m not going to be visiting the doctor any more than I absolutely need to.
I believe Brachiator was asking for some more comprehensive info on public health systems in the last Health Care thread, so rather than post it there, I’ll post it here:
The Australian Health Care System – an Outline
Australia: selected healthcare delivery and financing statistics – May 2004
Sorry to again be blathering on about my country again, but these documents provide a quite detailed description of the delivery and funding of a public/private hybrid system. Interestingly, the system that Noam Chomsky likes (don’t know why in particular). Being a 15-page government report, it’s a bit of a slog, but it gives a fuller description of a public healthcare system than most bloggers involved in this debate have ever read.
The stats are quite useful too; Australia at the time of the study spent 14% of its health budget on pharmaceuticals, reinforcing Sebastian’s point on the role of drug costs. Also note that the government heavily subsidizes drug costs; Australians don’t get cheap drugs just by gouging drug companies, much as some in the US claim. R&D is factored into the cost of healthcare; it and administrative costs take up only 5% of the healthcare bill.
In terms of cost control, the only major change in healthcare funding methods in Australia has been the introduction of the medicare levy, a 1.5% addition to income tax for incomes over a particular threshold. I believe this levy is reduced for people who own private health insurance. The majority of public healthcare funding comes out of general taxation revenue. The increasing cost of healthcare has been addressed by a mixture of cost-cutting measures, increases in the medicare levy, and increases in the cost of private insurance. The relative percentage of healthcare paid for by federal taxes, state taxes, and private expenditure stayed fairly constant over the time this data was collected.
One bugaboo of public healthcare system is the “funding shortfalls” that the NHS and French systems have experienced; it has to be borne in mind that the US system has had even greater cost increases over the same time period. The reason the funding blowouts in the UK and France are publicised is because it’s the government that has to raise taxes and/or reduce facilities for everyone at once, as opposed to individual insurance companies denying care or increasing prices. Add up how much the cost of private insurance in the US has gone up over recent years, or how much care such companies have denied, and it would come out similar to the funding shortfalls of systems such as the NHS; the overall cost of healthcare in the US wouldn’t have gone up so much otherwise.
Fear of funding shortfalls in countries with universal health care is like complaints about poorer care in such countries; people notice the problems and complain because they expect the government to do better. People in the US don’t complain because they don’t expect private companies to listen, and they don’t expect any better.
When my mother was diagnosed with cancer, ending up like this was one of her greatest fears; I’m very glad that when the end finally came, it came over only a couple of days.
That being said, this happens in Australia, and round the world too; Terry Schiavo-like cases have happened in Italy and other places. Universal health care keeps people alive too.
slightly_peeved
For most HMOs, don’t you have to go to an approved doctor or an approved hospital, and then get approval for each specific treatment? From what I’ve heard, such approval can also be revoked. And each HMO has different approved doctors and hospitals, and different records for each patient, and different views on treatments.
In single-payer systems, the government approves a set of treatments for a condition, for every single patient who has that condition. Every doctor is approved to diagnose it; every hospital is approved to treat it. Once it’s established that you have a particular condition, the question of “approved treatment” disappears; the doctor will recommend whatever government-approved treatment for that condition best suits your particular symptoms and background (much like doctors in the US would, but with less uncertainty over payment), and the government will pay for it – no questions asked, maybe one or two signatures required.
That’s where you lose overhead. (Sorry for double posting).
Zak44
I’ve long felt that one of the biggest barriers to reform is the simple fact that too many people are making too much money off the system we have now. (Not that I believe medical professionals should be paid like serfs; just that they don’t have to be obscenely rich.)
At any rate, this recent New Yorker article, written by a physician, makes a strong case for that opinion.
“The Cost Conundrum”
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?yrail
Rumor has it that Obama is passing around copies of the piece to his health policy team.
jcricket
Headline: Teenagers chafe against restrictions parents argue are necessary for safety. Film at 11.
Seriously, when will the fracking politicians learn that of course the insurance industry, oil industry, big Pharma, supplement manufacturers, banks, food producers, etc. will argue against any and all restrictions placed upon them. They’ve been successful with this approach in the past, and have never paid a price, although we certainly have.
It’s not the government’s job to listen to these petulant, whiney asshats. It’s the government’s job to understand what the “right thing” is to do, explain that to the people, and pass laws accordingly. Industry opposition and corporate destruction isn’t the goal, but they have never, ever, ever had the country’s best interest at heart, so it’s time we legislate accordingly. If a company can’t “profit” under rules that protect all of us from global financial meltdown, healthcare bankruptcy, environmental destruction, etc. – then they don’t deserve to exist because their profits are an illusion, built by stealing money from all of us as we pay the true costs down the road.
South of I-10
@R-Jud: I had to bring the little one at 8 weeks and it totally sucked. I cried half the morning at work.
jcricket
Whenever any major society-changing piece of legislation has been considered, the industry or interest-group “negatively” affected by the new law has said “the sky is falling”. When the army or schools were integrated, when women were given the right to vote, when we passed social security & medicare, etc.
Healthcare reform will be no different. And like the stimulus, there is no benefit from watering down the legislation any more than is necessary to get a sliver of votes from the few moderate Republicans. In fact, I’d argue having Republicans be against healthcare reform (which is how it will end up being seen) is quite possibly, a positive. The public plan must in there, and it must have teeth (i.e. not be like Medicare Part D).
Richard
As of June 1, my contribution for health insurance at my job went from $60 a month to $240 – for less coverage.
If I can just last for another year and a half, I can hop on that “single-payer” system called Medicare.
pcbedamned
Sorry if this is off topic re: health care, but a couple of the comments are regarding maternity leave, are they not? How long do Americans get for actual mat leave, and what portion of it is paid?
iluvsummr
@Ed in NJ: Awful story. Crap, I also have Anthem Blue Cross. Had a horrible experience with Kaiser Permanente New York when I was insured under my mom’s HMO plan (admitted to the ER in Philly for anaphylactic shock while a student – Kaiser wanted to know why I didn’t travel to NY for treatment. I guess a dead patient is a cheap one). My current employer only offers Blue Cross (HMO and PPO) and Kaiser plans. Naturally, I avoid Kaiser like the plague (although I’ve heard Kaiser care on the west coast is much better than on the east coast). Had Blue Cross Blue Shield in MA and they were excellent when I needed surgery (I had a $20 co-pay and that was it).
CalD
If memory serves, health care, pharmaceutical and insurance industries spent over $70 million on PR alone — a healthy portion of it trashing the Clintons directly — to kill healthcare reform last time around. That’s exclusive of lobbying expenses or coincident Clinton-bashing expenditures by VRWC (Arkansas Project, etc.) fellow travelers. Wonder what that works out to in 2009 dollars?
Written Off
My youngest went to daycare at 6 weeks. It is very hard, but I loved the women who took care of him and that made it easier. Also, the daycare was located close to my office, so I could drop by anytime I had a few minutes.
I think I have quality healthcare through my job-everything was easy during my pregnancy and delivery and all, but I also had medicaid back up so I never saw a bill I had to pay from the whole thing. This year, our premiums went up 70%! My non-profit employer could not afford to increase the portion they pay, so we had to find alternate plans. Here is the kicker, my healthcare premiums (including the employer part) are included in my gross income. Even with almost $400/month of money I’ll never get my hands on, my family is only $60/month over the income limit for medicaid. Thus, I have health insurance at the expense of my children having it.
Maude
@d-pressd:
I’m so sorry. Zyprexa has been prescribed for many different off label reasons. One thing that shrinks like is that it sedates people. Makes their days easier.
I hope that you are off it and okay.
oh really
On the plus side, it was great to see the AMA do what they have always done — oppose any plan that has any chance of providing affordable, comprehensive health coverage to all Americans, while claiming that it can and should be done through private insurance. One wonders why, if they can do it, private insurers have failed so miserably to provide coverage for everyone.
The truth is, I fear, the AMA doesn’t care at all if there are 40, 50, or 100 million uninsured Americans, as long as there are enough people with enough coverage or money to enable doctors (especially some of the specialties) to afford their vacation homes and live in a style to which most Americans will never become accustomed.
The AMA is part of the problem.
REN
Grassley said in an interview the other day that if there was a public option in the plan that too many people would sign up for it. Well,duh. The reason couldn’t be that people think that an impersonal company whose profit is at stake, would’nt make decisions in their best interests?
What scares health insurance companies about the public option is exactly that. They know that people will like it and find it cheaper and are desperate to stop that from happening.They also know that their ability to arbritarily deny claims will come to an end.
Any plan that would force this outcome is the only type of plan that will ultimately solve this problem long term. If ,as government statistics indicate,we have 50 million uninsured and up to 100 million underinsured, how is a for profit plan going to help? Nor will this type of plan do anything to help out with, or prevent in the future,problems like those GM is facing with legacy costs. It also does not help with portability which Obama is apparently insistent about.
If todays politicians can’t get their arms around numbers like 50 million and get something accomplished ,I have little doubt that we will never solve this problem, and the haves will have and the have nots will not,as always.
Thad
Urban Legend? Aside from the bear attack the referenced
story could be my girlfriend… or millions of other Americans
betrayed by the insurance industry. Yes it does happen. A lot.
Be very very greatful if it hasn’t happened to you (yet).
R-Jud
@pcbedamned, comment 40:
Ha ha ha ha ha!
No, seriously: there is no universal, national right to parental leave in the USA. If you work for a big company, you may be entitled to 12 weeks job-protected leave under the Family & Medical Leave Act. Some companies will pay you for part of that.
That’s it.
Most women I know started hoarding sick days when they found out they were pregnant so they could get more paid time. Me, I’m self-employed, so once we decided we wanted a baby, I saved up until I’d aside three months’ pay for my leave.
pcbedamned
@R-Jud
Glad I could give you your laugh for the day :)
In fairness of full disclosure, I am a Canadian Conservative. In my Country, I would be considered pretty right-wing, but I gotta say, the right in your Country has seriously gone off the rails lately!!! In Canada, you get 6 months paid leave to be with your newborn, and even men can take Paternity Leave! I do not understand the people in your Country who are so against Health Care Reform. For all of the ‘horrible stories’ from Canada, the UK, etc, I am sure that there are just as many, if not more, from the US. At least I and my fellow Countrymen never have to worry about losing everything if we fall ill. I have no issues with my health care, and I find it more than adequate. The stories from the right are highly exaggerated, if not outright lies. What makes people so close minded?!? I have tried to explain to many US wingers personal positive experiences with Canadian Health Care, only to be – I am sure you know. The arrogance and lack of empathy for others in your Country by many just makes me sad.
Blue Raven
I haven’t been as rooked by the insurance industry as some, but I have my own stories of annoyance. Biggest one yet is when I was diagnosed with ADHD. I’d only been under the company insurance policy for about two months when I visited a shrink about my lifelong struggles with daydreaming, rapid-onset job boredom, and distractibility. Took him about 15 minutes of “this is my life” stories to realize he was hearing a classic case of inattentive type and prescribed me my brainsaver (Strattera). The medication, they’d cover. The shrink visit took three months of “are you SURE you never talked to a professional about this before” and “dear professional, are you SURE she never talked to a professional about this before” before they’d admit it wasn’t a pre-existing condition under their definition despite the fact it’s not the sort of thing that spontaneously appears in the mind of a 38-year-old woman. Thank the gods I was outside the pre-existing condition window when the co-morbid depression was diagnosed or we’d have gone through it again.
Jager
I have a relatively rare, genetic eye condition called Fuchs Endothelia Dystrophy. In short the cornea retains water and your vision is blurry (like looking through a glass of water) the fix is a cornea transplant. I had my right eye done in ’95, the left still needs to be done and should have been done in 97 or 98. My company changed insurance companies in ’96 and all of a sudden I had an uncovered pre-existing condition. I changed jobs in 04 and of course I still can’t get coverage from my new insurance company because of the pre-existing condition. The eye with the transplant is 20-30, the left pretty much useless…I’m holding on for Medi-Care. I’m sure if the graft in my right eye developed problems I would be stuck with a “pre-existing condition” and would have to learn to make brooms for a living!
InflatableCommenter
@DougJ:
You are downright inspiring, Doug.
I can imagine you in the late 18th century.
“I am increasingly pessimistic about revolution. I just don’t think we are going to end up independent of the king.”
I have a great idea. Why don’t we both work and donate our asses off this summer to support reforms, and see what happens?
Just a suggestion.
InflatableCommenter
@Jager:
Thanks for sharing that story.
This is the kind of situation that voters need to be made aware of when they hear the big-money lobbyists talk about proposed reforms ‘destroying the best healthcare system in the world.”
No, sorry, that’s a lie. The best system in the world does not systematically deny healthcare access to people who need it. That’s only the “best system” when “best” means “best for the corporations making big bucks off the system.”
I am really lucky, I have world class insurance. As a result, the bad day I had four years ago cost me about $1k instead of the staggering six figures’ worth of invoices I saw in my mail shortly thereafter. I’d have been broke trying to pay those bills. Is that the best system in the world, when millions of people are one bad x-ray, one bad lab test, one bad car accident, one bad fall, one bad biopsy away from medical and financial ruin?
Not in my book, it isn’t.
Yes, our stories are anecdotal …. but they’re also typical of the risks being faced by somewhere around a fourth to a third of Americans right now.
Don
I’m curious when “it will harm business” became an argument in and of itself, absent other support.
I say this as a middle of the road guy who leans fiscally conservative, but what an absolutely moronic and offensive argument to make against any change. You know what else harmed business? Banning child labor. Outlawing sweatshops. Ending slavery.
It’s mind-boggling to me that the current Republican party, many of whom LOVE the expression “freedom isn’t free” can simply write-off something merely because it involves sacrifice. It’s such massive cognitive dissonance to ask people to make sacrifices and then shrug something off as un-doable merely because it has a cost.
You know what else has a cost and impedes business? Saying that you need to keep a pharmacist or nurse on staff who doesn’t want to do day to day perfectly legal things because they disapprove of the morality. That cost seems to be okay. Why isn’t making sure that inner-city kids don’t die of pneumonia not worth that cost?
lapsed catholic
I have intractable epilepsy of unknown origin. An EEG showed something, on the right, but that’s all we know.
My doctor then scheduled me for magnetoencephalography. This is sort of like an MRI, but it measures the tiny magnetic fields that your neurons generate.
The insurance company refused to cover it. Too expensive. I have to get brain surgery instead, where they cut a door through your skull and plant wires across your brain.
Magnetoencephalography is disappearing because the manufacturer of the MEG machines can’t get any patients.