I know that I said this blog was going to be about more than health care, but it seems that those in Washington as well as those in the pocket of the insurance industry don't want to give me a chance to write about anything else. I do have a couple of other very good stories that I am working on and am very excited to publish once I get the chance to get them completed, however the corruption of the private health insurance industry strikes again.
Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana) met with Single Payer advocates today. Senator Baucus is the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and his meeting today comes after he had 13 doctors and nurses arrested about a month ago for speaking out at the Senate committee hearing on health care reform because the Senator failed to allow single payer advocates a seat at the table. In his meeting with them today, the Senator apologized for having the 13 people arrested and stated that he would consider dropping the criminal charges against them, but he would not include single payer advocates in future hearings. This is an outrage. Once again Senator Baucus has shown us where his loyalties lie; not with the majority of the American public and his constituents, but with the insurance companies that contribute to his campaigns. The Senator stated that it is too late to add single payer to the discussions which is absolutely absurd. When is it ever too late for discussion? I urge each and every person reading this, especially those that have the burden of being one of the Senator's constituents, to take action immediately. Call, fax, write, and drop by the office.
To contact Max Baucus and tell him you know how corrupt he is:
Senator Max Baucus
511 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-2651
Fax: 202-224-9412
If you are not a Montana resident, now is the time for action! Contact your congressmen and senators and tell them you will not stand for corruption if they choose to travel the same path as Senator Baucus. I would also urge you to contact Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and encourage him to keep up the good fight. I have already joined a national campaign with the Progressive Democrats of America to remove the Senator from office during the next election cycle and to replace his seat with a Senator that is willing to put a personal agenda aside and perform the duties of the office, meaning representing the interests of "We the People."
I am officially issuing a call to action for anyone that may be reading this: On June 25, 2009, a health care reform rally is scheduled in Washington DC. If you truly want to see health care reform in this nation that will provide a permanent solution to this problem rather than another temporary fix, you should be there. Urge friends, family members, neighbors, and co-workers to attend. Let's swell the ranks with single payer supporters and let Congress know that we refuse to be ignored. Can you afford not to attend?
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
The Far Right Bashes Health Care Activistists Once Again
I was sitting around today trying to decide what I should write about. With so many breaking news stories today, do I write about the bankruptcy of GM? Or maybe the brutal slaying of the abortion doctor in Kansas? How about the annoying way that conservatives throw around the words "socialism" and "fascism" and "communism" without any care as to what the actual definitions of those words are? That last one I can promise will come another day! However as I was watching today's episode of the Glenn Beck show, I became increasingly distraught over the discussion that was being had over health care reform.
The guest on Glenn's show today was Ryan Ellis from the group Americans for Tax Reform. They were discussing the group Health Care for Americans Now (HCAN) and they're pledge to spend $82 million in support of health care reform through grass roots efforts and lobbying among other methods. They cited a Rasmussen poll that cited 70% of American's that currently have health insurance are very happy with their insurance and that a government option would level the playing field and leave everyone unhappy.
What they failed to mention, was a Gallop Poll conducted in November of 2007 that shows an overwhelming 64% of Americans believe that the government is responsible for providing health care to citizens.
HCAN is an organization that is made up of many members from many different organizations. There are many differing view points within this organization. Some advocate for a public option, allowing private and public insurers to exist together and allowing the people to choose between the two. Some are solely advocates of single payer. This part of their segment they managed to get correct. The statement was made however that "differences are being set aside as long as the end result is government control of health care." This is completely false. To adapt a term coined by the not so humble correspondant Bill O'Reilly, the far right smear machine is adapting this trick in an effort to swindle uneducated citizens.
There is one major difference between single payer and socialized medicine (or complete government control). In a single payer system, there is one public fund that collects health care fees, mainly through taxes, and administers payments to the privately run hospitals and physicians. In a situation of socialized medicine, the government does have control of the system. The hospitals are owned by the government and physicians and nurses are government employees. This is the system that exists in Great Britain. Please distinguish between these two entirely different plans.
Another method of fear mongering that was introduced on this segment was that the organizations that make up HCAN are essentially meeting in secret to bring about this reform. Well if public rallies, DNC house parties, and massive letter campaigns to congress is a secret meeting, than what do they define as public? Perhaps if we all met to throw thousands of tea bags in a river to protest wasteful spending then we would be considered showing public dissent?
The real secret meetings are the ones taking place within the walls of the for profit insurance industry. These are the same people that vowed to work with President Obama to lower health care costs and then met to discuss the airing of their ad campaigns that vehemently oppose a public option and that meet in offices behind closed doors and decide how they are going to maximize their profits by minimizing the services that they will cover.
Another outlandish comment that was made during this segment was that the majority of Americans that do not have health insurance, do not have health insurance voluntarily??? If there is polling data to back up this claim, please send it my way and I will gladly eat my words! They state that this is another attempt by the far left to turn us into other countries like France and Canada. Well, let's look at France and Canada. 99% of Canadians prefer their current health care system to the private insurance system that they used to have. And the French, although they pay higher taxes, are well cared for by their government. Why? Well, anyone that is familiar with history will be able to tell you about the violence of the French Revolution. The reality of the matter is, it was not that long ago! The French government fears it's people! It has not forgotten that the purpose of a government is to serve the people it governs. The United States seems to have forgotten that part of our Declaration of Independence that says "...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Another argument made against a public option is that it would drive the Insurance Industry out of business. We can look at our own more recent history to see that the exact opposite is true. When the insurance industry realized how much money it was losing through patient's that had retired and made the move to Medicare, they sprang into action and rolled out their Medicare advantage plans. If a public option existed alongside a private for profit system, we would no doubt see the exact same thing unfold. The private industry would roll out their plans to replace the public option and eventually bankrupt the public fund. They would be able to achieve this by allowing patients to choose a replacement plan. This means the patient would no longer pay into the public fund, they would pay their premium to the insurance company. They would then be subject to all of the same rules and regulations that allow the current private system to put profits before the needs of patients. The insurance companies would have the option of selecting which applicants were eligible for coverage under the replacement plans, much like they do with their current Medicare advantage plans. This would allow the healthy citizens to remain in the private insurance system, while those patients that were ill and in the most need of health care would remain on the public fund. With less people paying into the public fund, and more expenses coming out of the public fund, it would not last for long.
The last meager attempt they used at spreading fear among their viewers was that this was just another attempt at government take over of our every day lives. All I can say to this is "Really?" This is a matter of removing for profit insurance companies and placing people's health care back in their own hands. If this could be true of anything, it would be the current insurance industry. I can't go to the doctor without first checking to make sure it is a participating provider with my health plan. I can't have a procedure done without making sure it doesn't require a referral or authorization. Heaven forbid I need to take a trip to an Emergency Room without first having the chance to look it up online and make sure that it is an in network hospital, and then calling to make sure that the doctors and nurses employed by the facility are also in network.
Apparently however, the wonderful people over at the Fox News network would like us all to take a leaf out of Rick Scott's book. We should listen to this man. We should work for patient rights and leave our current system alone. That's right, we should listen to the man that was forced to step down from the Columbia Health Network in the 90's due to a fraud investigation. We should listen to the man who closed hospitals just to maximize profits, and left doctor's with surgical gloves that didn't fit and were easily torn and nurses that were forced to care for more patients than anyone could handle. If there is one thing I could tell the great people at Fox, it would be this: if you're going to disagree with those of us that truly want to see people's welfare put before profits of executives, please at least get your facts straight and stop trying to scare the uneducated citizens to your side of the room. Where are the facts to back up the mud that you are slinging? I have statistics to back up mine.
The guest on Glenn's show today was Ryan Ellis from the group Americans for Tax Reform. They were discussing the group Health Care for Americans Now (HCAN) and they're pledge to spend $82 million in support of health care reform through grass roots efforts and lobbying among other methods. They cited a Rasmussen poll that cited 70% of American's that currently have health insurance are very happy with their insurance and that a government option would level the playing field and leave everyone unhappy.
What they failed to mention, was a Gallop Poll conducted in November of 2007 that shows an overwhelming 64% of Americans believe that the government is responsible for providing health care to citizens.
HCAN is an organization that is made up of many members from many different organizations. There are many differing view points within this organization. Some advocate for a public option, allowing private and public insurers to exist together and allowing the people to choose between the two. Some are solely advocates of single payer. This part of their segment they managed to get correct. The statement was made however that "differences are being set aside as long as the end result is government control of health care." This is completely false. To adapt a term coined by the not so humble correspondant Bill O'Reilly, the far right smear machine is adapting this trick in an effort to swindle uneducated citizens.
There is one major difference between single payer and socialized medicine (or complete government control). In a single payer system, there is one public fund that collects health care fees, mainly through taxes, and administers payments to the privately run hospitals and physicians. In a situation of socialized medicine, the government does have control of the system. The hospitals are owned by the government and physicians and nurses are government employees. This is the system that exists in Great Britain. Please distinguish between these two entirely different plans.
Another method of fear mongering that was introduced on this segment was that the organizations that make up HCAN are essentially meeting in secret to bring about this reform. Well if public rallies, DNC house parties, and massive letter campaigns to congress is a secret meeting, than what do they define as public? Perhaps if we all met to throw thousands of tea bags in a river to protest wasteful spending then we would be considered showing public dissent?
The real secret meetings are the ones taking place within the walls of the for profit insurance industry. These are the same people that vowed to work with President Obama to lower health care costs and then met to discuss the airing of their ad campaigns that vehemently oppose a public option and that meet in offices behind closed doors and decide how they are going to maximize their profits by minimizing the services that they will cover.
Another outlandish comment that was made during this segment was that the majority of Americans that do not have health insurance, do not have health insurance voluntarily??? If there is polling data to back up this claim, please send it my way and I will gladly eat my words! They state that this is another attempt by the far left to turn us into other countries like France and Canada. Well, let's look at France and Canada. 99% of Canadians prefer their current health care system to the private insurance system that they used to have. And the French, although they pay higher taxes, are well cared for by their government. Why? Well, anyone that is familiar with history will be able to tell you about the violence of the French Revolution. The reality of the matter is, it was not that long ago! The French government fears it's people! It has not forgotten that the purpose of a government is to serve the people it governs. The United States seems to have forgotten that part of our Declaration of Independence that says "...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Another argument made against a public option is that it would drive the Insurance Industry out of business. We can look at our own more recent history to see that the exact opposite is true. When the insurance industry realized how much money it was losing through patient's that had retired and made the move to Medicare, they sprang into action and rolled out their Medicare advantage plans. If a public option existed alongside a private for profit system, we would no doubt see the exact same thing unfold. The private industry would roll out their plans to replace the public option and eventually bankrupt the public fund. They would be able to achieve this by allowing patients to choose a replacement plan. This means the patient would no longer pay into the public fund, they would pay their premium to the insurance company. They would then be subject to all of the same rules and regulations that allow the current private system to put profits before the needs of patients. The insurance companies would have the option of selecting which applicants were eligible for coverage under the replacement plans, much like they do with their current Medicare advantage plans. This would allow the healthy citizens to remain in the private insurance system, while those patients that were ill and in the most need of health care would remain on the public fund. With less people paying into the public fund, and more expenses coming out of the public fund, it would not last for long.
The last meager attempt they used at spreading fear among their viewers was that this was just another attempt at government take over of our every day lives. All I can say to this is "Really?" This is a matter of removing for profit insurance companies and placing people's health care back in their own hands. If this could be true of anything, it would be the current insurance industry. I can't go to the doctor without first checking to make sure it is a participating provider with my health plan. I can't have a procedure done without making sure it doesn't require a referral or authorization. Heaven forbid I need to take a trip to an Emergency Room without first having the chance to look it up online and make sure that it is an in network hospital, and then calling to make sure that the doctors and nurses employed by the facility are also in network.
Apparently however, the wonderful people over at the Fox News network would like us all to take a leaf out of Rick Scott's book. We should listen to this man. We should work for patient rights and leave our current system alone. That's right, we should listen to the man that was forced to step down from the Columbia Health Network in the 90's due to a fraud investigation. We should listen to the man who closed hospitals just to maximize profits, and left doctor's with surgical gloves that didn't fit and were easily torn and nurses that were forced to care for more patients than anyone could handle. If there is one thing I could tell the great people at Fox, it would be this: if you're going to disagree with those of us that truly want to see people's welfare put before profits of executives, please at least get your facts straight and stop trying to scare the uneducated citizens to your side of the room. Where are the facts to back up the mud that you are slinging? I have statistics to back up mine.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Health Care Activists Take to the Streets
Yesterday was declared a national day of action for supporters of Single Payer Health Care Reform by the Healthcare-NOW! organization. People across the country in support of a single payer system took to the streets to rally and educate and show their support of a single payer system. As for yours truly? Well, I was one of them. Dressed in my scrubs, I marched down town carrying my bull horn and bag of petitions and information, arms loaded with signs and met the rest of our crowd to make some noise and draw the attention of citizens to single payer reform since the media has failed to provide coverage of these events.
The question some people might be asking themselves: "What is Single Payer?" Single-Payer is exactly what it's name implies. This system will enable one government agency to collect the money for health care expenses, and then dispense it to physicians and hospitals for the health care costs of the citizens. No deductibles, no co-pays, no out of pocket expenses at all. So why is this such a hot issue right now? As our elected leaders in Washington begin work on reforming our nation's health care system that leaves over 45 million Americans uninsured, and a considerable amount more that are under-insured, the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries have swung into action. These companies know that a single payer system will put them out of business (the insurance companies) and reduce their monopolies on profit (the pharmaceutical companies).
It all comes down to the basic economics of a free market system. Insurance companies are a business. Their primary objective is to turn a profit. They are able to accomplish this by denying care to the consumer. Another way these companies are able to maximize their profits is through the use of "The Network." The way the network functions is really quite simple. The insurance company signs a contract with a health care provider. That provider than becomes "in network" which means the insurance company receives a discount when that provider bills for their services. This doesn't sound too bad, the insurance company gets a reduced rate for services, and the provider is "garunteed" some payment for the services they perform; but there's a catch. The patient's that have insurance through that insurance company are told by the insurer which doctors they are allowed to see, meaning they are only allowed to see doctors that are in the network, eliminating patient choice of physician. They even go as far to say that if the patient chooses to see a physician that is not in the network, they will be responsible for the entire bill. From the physician stand point, they have a win-lose situation. By joining the network, they are ensuring that they will continue to have patient's to see (after all, everyone needs to make a living). However, the physician is then bound by that contract to seek reimbursement from the insurance company only and to accept the contracted discount. The insurance company then uses it's large staff to pick through claims and deny them for any number of reasons. In some cases, they will be denied just for the sake of holding off payment. The provider then has to employ more people to work on insurance follow up and appeals. The claims could also be denied because the provider failed to get a prior authorization from the insurance company to perform the service, or because the diagnosis the provider used was determined to be a pre-existing condition. In some of these cases, the provider has to then discount the service to 0 and receive no reimbursement for their hard work, and in other cases, the patient will receive the full amount of the bill.
Let's take a short look at the repercussions when a patient receives a bill for their medical services. If a patient is uninsured, the provider will sometimes need to discount the cost of the medical procedures by up to 80% just to receive some payment, and in some cases 100% of the bill will be discounted. Don't think that patient just received free care however. As often as this situation occurs, especially in today's economic world where health care costs are sky rocketing which means increased deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance, and other out of pocket expenses, including employer premiums, the number of people uninsured is growing. Employers are finding themselves unable to provide coverage for their employees, and the doctors have no choice but to increase their fees in order to level out the balance sheets from all of the services that they don't receive reimbursement for.
So how would single payer fix this problem? By eliminating for profit insurance companies, single payer would gauruntee affordable coverage for everyone. This coverage would stay in effect even if you lost your job, had a 'pre-existing' condition, or developed a severe illness. Single payer would cover all medically necessary services including preventive care, vision care, dental care, hospital and primary care, as well as emergency services. This would be accomplished by eliminating the wasteful spending that takes place in our current employer based, for profit system through private insurers. How wasteful is the spending? On average, the private insurance industry operates with a 30% overhead. This means that 30 cents of every health care dollar goes to pay employees, administrative costs, and profits. Medicare is an example of a single payer system that operates at roughly a 3% overhead.
So how are these companies doing with their profits during this tough economic time? Here are some statistics from the Daily Kos showing what the CEO's of some of these insurance companies brought home in 2008:
There's nothing wrong with having a free market, but it should not be allowed to exist in an industry that literally has people's lives in their hands. Put your health care back in the exam room between you and your physician, not in the office of a CEO with no medical training. Support Single Payer.
The question some people might be asking themselves: "What is Single Payer?" Single-Payer is exactly what it's name implies. This system will enable one government agency to collect the money for health care expenses, and then dispense it to physicians and hospitals for the health care costs of the citizens. No deductibles, no co-pays, no out of pocket expenses at all. So why is this such a hot issue right now? As our elected leaders in Washington begin work on reforming our nation's health care system that leaves over 45 million Americans uninsured, and a considerable amount more that are under-insured, the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries have swung into action. These companies know that a single payer system will put them out of business (the insurance companies) and reduce their monopolies on profit (the pharmaceutical companies).
It all comes down to the basic economics of a free market system. Insurance companies are a business. Their primary objective is to turn a profit. They are able to accomplish this by denying care to the consumer. Another way these companies are able to maximize their profits is through the use of "The Network." The way the network functions is really quite simple. The insurance company signs a contract with a health care provider. That provider than becomes "in network" which means the insurance company receives a discount when that provider bills for their services. This doesn't sound too bad, the insurance company gets a reduced rate for services, and the provider is "garunteed" some payment for the services they perform; but there's a catch. The patient's that have insurance through that insurance company are told by the insurer which doctors they are allowed to see, meaning they are only allowed to see doctors that are in the network, eliminating patient choice of physician. They even go as far to say that if the patient chooses to see a physician that is not in the network, they will be responsible for the entire bill. From the physician stand point, they have a win-lose situation. By joining the network, they are ensuring that they will continue to have patient's to see (after all, everyone needs to make a living). However, the physician is then bound by that contract to seek reimbursement from the insurance company only and to accept the contracted discount. The insurance company then uses it's large staff to pick through claims and deny them for any number of reasons. In some cases, they will be denied just for the sake of holding off payment. The provider then has to employ more people to work on insurance follow up and appeals. The claims could also be denied because the provider failed to get a prior authorization from the insurance company to perform the service, or because the diagnosis the provider used was determined to be a pre-existing condition. In some of these cases, the provider has to then discount the service to 0 and receive no reimbursement for their hard work, and in other cases, the patient will receive the full amount of the bill.
Let's take a short look at the repercussions when a patient receives a bill for their medical services. If a patient is uninsured, the provider will sometimes need to discount the cost of the medical procedures by up to 80% just to receive some payment, and in some cases 100% of the bill will be discounted. Don't think that patient just received free care however. As often as this situation occurs, especially in today's economic world where health care costs are sky rocketing which means increased deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance, and other out of pocket expenses, including employer premiums, the number of people uninsured is growing. Employers are finding themselves unable to provide coverage for their employees, and the doctors have no choice but to increase their fees in order to level out the balance sheets from all of the services that they don't receive reimbursement for.
So how would single payer fix this problem? By eliminating for profit insurance companies, single payer would gauruntee affordable coverage for everyone. This coverage would stay in effect even if you lost your job, had a 'pre-existing' condition, or developed a severe illness. Single payer would cover all medically necessary services including preventive care, vision care, dental care, hospital and primary care, as well as emergency services. This would be accomplished by eliminating the wasteful spending that takes place in our current employer based, for profit system through private insurers. How wasteful is the spending? On average, the private insurance industry operates with a 30% overhead. This means that 30 cents of every health care dollar goes to pay employees, administrative costs, and profits. Medicare is an example of a single payer system that operates at roughly a 3% overhead.
So how are these companies doing with their profits during this tough economic time? Here are some statistics from the Daily Kos showing what the CEO's of some of these insurance companies brought home in 2008:
- Aetna CEO Ron Williams - $24,300,112.00
- Cigna CEO H. Edward Hanway - $12,236,740.00
- Humana CEO Michael McCallister - $4,764,309.00
- HealthNet CEO Jay Gellert - $4,425,355.00
- United Health Group CEO Stephen Hemsley - $3,241,042.00
There's nothing wrong with having a free market, but it should not be allowed to exist in an industry that literally has people's lives in their hands. Put your health care back in the exam room between you and your physician, not in the office of a CEO with no medical training. Support Single Payer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
