Share

Barack Obama vs. Harriet and Louise

by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
President Barack Obama has proposed an optional public health insurance plan to provide real competition to existing private health insurance plans. (Photo: Getty)

    It may not be as exciting as the Thrilla in Manila, but its outcome will have far more impact on the lives of tens of millions of families across the country. The story is straightforward. President Obama had stepped up to challenge the insurance industry in order to reform the health care system in the United States.

    Specifically, he is proposing to create a public health insurance plan, like Medicare, that people would have the option to buy into. Ideally, this would ensure that everyone had a good health insurance option available to them and provide real competition to the existing private plans.

    For the private insurers, competition is the crux of the problem. Insurers don't want to have to compete with a well-run public plan. That's not how they make money. The most effective route for a private insurer to make money is to avoid insuring people who get sick, not by providing good care for those who need it.

    If workers and their employers had the option to buy into a well-run public plan, instead of dealing with the Aetna, Cigna and United Health types, tens of millions would take advantage of this option. In spite of the industry's propaganda, the public sector actually provides health insurance more efficiently than the private sector.

    Medicare's administrative costs are equal to about 2 percent of what it pays out to providers. For private insurers the ratio over expenses to payments is typically over 15 percent. Blue Cross of North Carolina, which was prepared to take the lead in bashing President Obama's plan, boasts that its ratio is now under 20 percent. This compares to an expense to payout ratio of more than 25 percent earlier in the decade.

    It is easy to see why private insurers have such high costs. Their top executives boast paychecks that run into the millions or even tens of millions of dollars. They have large marketing and advertising costs, and don't forget the dividends to shareholders. It is understandable that they would be upset about competing with a public plan that doesn't have these expenses.

    The competition with a public plan would hit insurance industry profits in two ways. First, fewer customers means less profit. If 20 to 30 percent of the industry's customers migrated to a public plan, profits will drop by 20 to 30 percent, other things being equal.

    But, it gets worse. In order to avoid losing even more customers, the private insurers will almost certainly have to lower their profit margins. As a result, they are likely to make less money even on the customers they are able to keep. The net effect could be a 50 percent, 60 percent - possibly even 70 percent - drop in profits. For the folks who profit by not paying for care, you're talking about an economic disaster.

    The insurers are not about to take this threat to their profits quietly. They could lose hundreds of billions in profits over the next decade if they face competition from a robust public plan. They will get Harriet and Louise bulked up on steroids for this one, pushing every crazy scare story in the world. At the same time, they will be making promises (i.e. bribing) and threatening every member of Congress within their reach.

    They will also enlist allies. The axis of evil in this story includes the pharmaceutical industry, the hospital lobby and highly paid medical specialists, all of whom worry that a successful public plan could reduce the size of their trough. As it stands, these providers are able to charge prices that are hugely out of line with what their counterparts receive elsewhere in the world.

    If the US computer industry were like the US health care industry, we would be paying $1,000 for a bottom-end computer. Fortunately, we have competition in computers, so it's easy to find computers that sell for less than $400, but the health care industry does not want people in the United States to benefit from the same sort of competition in health care.

    So, get ready for the show. Win or lose, the boys and girls in the insurance industry can be counted on for a real serious fight. But, the millionaires in the health industry are hugely out-numbered by the hundreds of millions who will benefit from serious health care reform. As Mohammed Ali might have said about the health insurance executives: "they too ugly to be champion."

  

»


Dean Baker is the Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. CEPR's Jobs Byte is published each month upon release of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' employment report.

Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Too much money & power

Too much money & power against public run health care. Obama will capitulate, as he has been doing consistently. The Democrats will vote against it to keep their pockets full. The public won't support it after being brainwashed by the incredible marketing campaign. The Best Democracy Money Can Buy!?

So what's the matter with

So what's the matter with universal, single-pay health coverage?

Ha, Ha - Harriet and Louise

Ha, Ha - Harriet and Louise would be a same-sex couple and what we're up against is a Harry-and-Louise makeover. Sadly, same-sex couples probably won't receive the same treatment as mixed-gender couples even if we ever see the public plan option!

Managing a private company

Managing a private company is easy - you just cut off the people who cannot afford you. In government, you can't. The people who cannot afford you are the ones who need you the most.

Dean, You stated, "The most

Dean, You stated, "The most effective route for a private insurer to make money is to avoid insuring people who get sick, not by providing good care for those who need it." That language, which is inaccurate, is part of the problem in the discussion about what the private insurers do. No private insurance company "provides" care to anyone, nor does Medicare. All they do is pay (or avoid paying) claims. Good care, if provided, is done by doctors, other health professionals, and hospitals. The discussion should be about the most efficient and effective way to pay claims for health care recommended by the insured and his/her doctor. There is no question that the most expensive and least efficient claims-payers are the private insurance companies, evidenced by the fact that no other trading partners in the world use the American model to pay claims (those other countries that use private insurance companies to pay claims prohibit those companies from making a profit, i.e. Germany) and that Medicare, the largest insurance company in the United States, can effectively and efficiently pay claims for less than 3% of revenues. In the US the claims-paying process is often used by private insurers to deny care of the insured after recommended by the personal physician. All this "debate" should be about is the most efficient, effective and least costly way to pay claims. All the rest of the discussions is Harry & Louise smokescreens.

Sad to say but I agree with

Sad to say but I agree with Stacey.

Democracy is Dead. The

Democracy is Dead. The public oppinion is massaged with biased TV and missing choices. The USA is worse than most third world countries in regard to open discussion and informed citizens. Keep them stupid....Manipulate the 5% "UNDECIDED" into whatever is required to win. The rest are uncritical Block Voters. Slick System, it got the populace stupid, sick and depressed. "Now eat the pills from the Doctor and feel better." Get the Monkeys out of Congress. Greedy smut is running the lives of 400 Million people. And the most amazing is nobody cares or thinks it can be changed. Long live Capitalism! Not. When will common sense get it's place in leadership circles and replace the absolute phobic reactions of Congress members. It bugs me really how absolutely nothing is changing.

I totally agree with Stacey.

I totally agree with Stacey. I work with physicians who say that, in the end, the only cost effective delivery system is single payer. The the American Medical Assn. AGAIN voted with their pocket book against a public plan. How is it that so few opponents can carry so much weight in opposition to what all polls say is the preference of the citizens of the U.S.? from an RN in Denver

I hope the analogy holds

I hope the analogy holds true... big health care is too ugly to win this battle. We Americans have been manipulated through fear tactics for so many years I am concerned about the outcome of this monumental struggle of the haves and the have not. My fingers are crossed.

i think dean was thinking of

i think dean was thinking of Thelma and Louise. but 15% cost savings won't get us there. and if the government is insuring all the people with "prior conditions" we won't even get that. the answer is for all the companies currently providing employee health benefits to turn over the money directly to the government and let the government manage the bids/contracts with the insurance companies. a combination of competition and contract management oversight ought to start costs down. then ... but that would be telling. June 1 New Yorker has an article about health care costs. you will be surprised.

I think this has been

I think this has been rehashed so many times that it's pretty clear single-payer would be a far better solution. I think it's also clear that we effectively really have a one-party system in the US (one party with heads as Ralph Nader is fond of saying) so single-payer is out. What Dean Baker doesn't address that worries me a great deal is that we'll wind up with a public/private "solution" that is really aimed at destroying Medicare. If the playing field is not level, that is, if the private plans are allowed to continue as they do now, then they'll insure all the healthy folks and leave Medicare too deal with the sick and dying. So the cost of Medicare will grow disproportionately compared to the private plans eventually making Medicare an easy target for "cutting government waste". It seems to me that the only way a public/private solution can work is if private plans are required to accept anyone who applies (just like the public/Medicare option). That would level the field. Call me cynical, but I can't see The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, as Stacey calls it, doing this either. BTW, anyone interested in agitating for single-payer might want to visit http://www.singlepayeraction.org/ .

Single payer is a must. But

Single payer is a must. But the entrenched Power Elite will fight tooth and nail. Sadly, there continues to be way to large a segment of the populace that consistently votes against their own self interest. And, of course, the Power Elite will not disappear if and when govt sponsored single payer comes about. But they will recalibrate and YOU will continue to get shafted because you will let your guard down and they will skillfully and quietly regain control. Dr. H's corollary to "Those who fail to learn from history...": "No one ever learns from history, so they will repeat it." Let's hope for at least a short term of improved cost-benefit.

I hate to be as cynical as

I hate to be as cynical as Stacey Pea, but she's/he's got a good point. Even if Obama doesn't capitulate, the spineless Dems, especially in the Senate, have been bought and paid for by the healthcare and health insurance, pharmaceutical, hospital and medical equipment cabal. Question is, will they stay bought, if enough of their voting constituents put enough pressure for a single-payer system? The "public option" plan will work, only if the reform package prohibits the for-profits from cherry-picking the risk pool to shunt the high-risk/pre-existing conditions people into the public plan, while retaining the low-risk, young-and-healthy members for themselves. Obama should kick the AMA to the curb, since they have no legitimate stake in who pays them. If they were true to their professional status, they'd be backing the push for sustainable reforms which would provide quality healthcare to ALL citizens. Instead, they seem to care most about their cash-flows, bottom lines, and "sacred" prerogatives; i. e., their country club memberships, fancy homes and cars, private schools for their kids, and general upper-middle/lower-upper class lifestyles.

I agree with Ed Goldman -

I agree with Ed Goldman - health insurance is not the same as health care. What we need is health care for all - all insurance companies do anymore is get in the way of delivering treatment to people who need it.

Hey America paid billions a

Hey America paid billions a year and patients were denied when we needed it most. It was a scam that couldnt last. The game is over. Maybe now health insurance will actually mean insurance and not forever debt

When the government only

When the government only takes 3% of what it pays out, does that mean what was paid for promoted health? Some of what was paid for may have promoted health. An unwillingness to look at what happens to low-income people and whether health is promoted sufficiently to justify extending this kind of care to everyone is something missing from the conversation. The numbers of people who die from illegal drugs are less than the numbers of people who die from legal ones. Does that mean we should all take illegal ones? Maybe public options would end up shedding better light on outcomes research. One large health-maintenance organization has done outcomes research for years and is now opening up some of this research in libraries available to the public. These libraries will compete with government-funded libraries. I have read that ER physicians who treat illegal drug overdoses do not look for government information on treatment but rather look to private organizations who specialize in this. I don't think one government insurer is the right number. I think we need one in each state, and state insurers should compete. If I'm a wild-eyed West Coast herbalist, I want to carry my wild-eyed card with me if I go to Massachusetts to visit my son. Surely there are acupuncturists and herbalists in Massachusetts, just not as many as out here in wu-wu land.

There will be no real

There will be no real change, because we have the best government money can buy. AMA lobby money.

Dean, You are brilliant and

Dean, You are brilliant and right on track on most of the issues. Health care, however, is not one of them. We do not need competition among for profit insurers in America. We need a publicly financed system that does not try to make a buck selling us policies and which pays providers so that they have to compete for patients, who have prepaid into this system a proportion of their income. That is the only way to go. Everybody does it except for us. The evidence for it and against "our way" is simply overwhelming. Yet we are no less smart than others (or are we?). We need health care for all, not health insurance. We need expanded and improved Medicare, with everybody in and nobody out. And we need it now. As to how economists can contribute, htey could crunch the numbers for meaningful comparisons: not between hospital X or Y within the United States ("a la Gawande"), but between the best of our hospitals and the best of somebody else's hospital elsewhere (e.g. Japan, Germany, UK), where administrative overhead and prices are a fraction of ours. Those are the numbers we need.