I have an honest question about Health Care I've racked my brain but I can't come up with

[John Q. Citizen]

an example.

Oregon Senator Ron Wydon (on the Senate Finance Committee) is emerging as a deal maker in the health care reform debate. He wants to dump the public option and do reform with private health insurance companies as the only payment providers.
Here is a link to the article from The Hill.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/wyden-is-winning-over-the-gop-on-healthcare-2009-05-18.html

Anyway, in the story they quote him saying:

"Democrats, he said, know the private sector must play “a significant role” to preserve innovation and cannot be saddled with price controls."

So here is my question; Can anyone name any innovation that private health insurance companies have come up with that deliver more health care for consumers for less money? Or better outcome health care for less money? Or more people covered for less money?

I can't think of any innovations that the health insurance industry has ever come up with that could conceivable be called progress as far as the consumer or the care providers (doctors, nurses,) are concerned. So that's why I'm asking for some help here.

The Senate Finance Committee staffers are coming to Montana on the 26th, 27, and the 28th, of May and doing listening sessions on health care reform, I may use my time to ask them about this. Any body have any good examples?

[uponit7771]

1. I work in one of the most right wing work places in Texas and EVEN THEY want a public

...option because they recognize the insurance companies are horrible.

The fact that dem\reThugs haven't caught on is beyond ...wow....jus

[avaistheone1]

15. Thank you. I have been saying this along. The little people regardless

of whether they are Republican or Democrat want a single payer universal health system.

The polls have been showing this for years now and the numbers in favor only continue to grow.

[asp64064]

36. Healthcare is Nothing More Than a RICO Enterprise

Fighting 8 years for affordable healthcare. Never going to happen until we clean the scum out of Washington, The Courts and The DOJ. Everything you need to know about healthcare corruption and the officials involved. Just read the record! http://www.medicalsupplychain.com/news.htm

[Thrill]

2. There MUST be a Public Option

If we can't get that with 60 votes, I don't know what to say about this party

[LooseWilly]

3. I think that's a false conclusion, on Wydon's part.

I think that the if "the private sector must play “a significant role” to preserve innovation and cannot be saddled with price controls." is a distortion. It seems to me that, if there is a public option which can reduce prices to "health care consumers"... then it is up to the private sector to provide the innovation to remain competitive... or else they can go bankrupt and the public option system can hire their experts.
A public option wouldn't, as far as I can see, establish price controls... it would optimize pricing in the same "economies of scale" manner that Walmart currently tries to do with their products. Are government officials (such as Wydon) trying to say that HMOs need to be protected from the possibilities of the marketplace (leaving many people without health insurance), but that supermarkets and department stores don't deserve the same consideration?

Government protections for HMOs will not preserve whatever (fictional, from my point of view) innovations that private health care companies are supposedly providing us with. Hell, even the Republicans make the argument against government protections in the market place... except for their donors' protections, of course.

[Doremus]

6. Excellent.

A well thought out, logical response that kicks the stool out from under the free marketeers' entire argument.

Hell, what am I saying. It shatters the stool and incinerates the little pieces. :thumbsup:

[LooseWilly]

10. Glad to be of service...

[dflprincess]

4. Perhaps Wydon was referring to innovation in campaign financing

not to mention finding innovative ways to collect premiums while not living up to their side of the contract.

Meanwhile they have made a move toward "best evidence" medicine which means they do their best to avoid paying for any treatment that may be new (even if FDA approved) if it only works for a small portion of the population. That would seem to squelch actual innovation.

BTW - any word on how many bribes Wydon has accepted from them?

[PassingFair]

22. LOL

Here's what I heard:

Wanna buy some healthcare?
I got your healthcare right here...

[zulchzulu]

5. So Senators (who have government-run healthcare) don't want Americans to have the same thing?

Of course we, the taxpayers, pay for the government-run healthcare that Senators and members of Congress (and millions of Federal workers) get.

It runs well. They have great coverage. We pay for it. It's run by the government.

So whenever ANY Senator tries to derail healthcare that is the SAME AS THEIR COVERAGE, they need to be poltically obliterated. Period. Game. Set. Match.

[Orangepeel]

9. senators and members of congress have insurance from private companies

IMO, that's not relevant to whether a public option or single payer is the best option for the country. But, just so people are clear, advocating for health coverage that is the same thing that federal employees get is advocating for taxpayer subsidies of private insurance companies.

Federal employees do have great coverage, but it is health insurance, with premiums subsidized by their employer (the taxpayer). It isn't government run. It is just like health insurance from any other large employer. There's no public option, unless they are over 65 and then they could have Medicare if they wanted. John Kerry uses Blue Cross (he said so in one of the 2004 debates).

[John Q. Citizen]

18. Yes, it's a common misconception. Now the VA is the largest single payer system in the world.

But It's not a fee for service system, like they have in Canada. It's closer to a health service model like England uses.

[Thothmes]

31. Is it larger than the DOD medical program for

active duty and retirees?

[Thothmes]

33. Actually it is closer to the model of the USSR

All facilities are publically owned, all service providers (doctors, nurses, aids, lab techs) are either government employees or under contract to the government, and there is no charge to the individual for the services provided. I do not think this is a bad arrangement.

[mkultra]

7. well, the idea may be based in possible cost reductions

right now, prices are high and insurance companies are really the problem. They cause prices to be high while driving own quality of care. The reason for this, imho, is that they are non-competitive. Let me explain:

while there are several companies one could choose from, most people purchase insurance offered by their employer so that the entire company can get some kind of cost break. While some companies offer a "choice", the choice almost always boils down to low/medium/high coverage with respective costs. This is not really competition as several companies don't compete in the same tier.

The options provided to the employees are usually chosen based on rebates back to the employer or board member cross cooperation. The result of which is that the companies and the insurers benefit while the employee gets ONE choice. The end result is zero competition.


True competition, such as letting people selected from several companies paid by the government could create competition thus lower overall costs. This could only work if the insurers where well regulated.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. I understand what you are saying but how is competition innovative? And

in Canada, for instance, with one single payer that covers almost all health care procedures, they are paying 50% less than we are per capita even when any supplement insurance (private room, extended cosmetic dental, travelers health insurance.)

So even if competition lowered costs between private competing companies, how is that innovation, and does it lower the cost more than a single payer system does?

My guess would be no, because if they could do that, they would have done it already in Canada. And we must also factor in the cost of regulation and enforcement. Also, what happens if the company goes bankrupt? Do we double pay through taxes) for covering their future obligations they can no longer meet?

Anyway, I can't see any of that as "innovation,' in the sense that anybody created something new that then could be used and adapted to another situation.

[mkultra]

16. well, im really weak on healthcare topics so i can only guess

essentially, competition in any industry naturally creates innovation. I would find it hard to believe that any innovation has been created thus far as no competition exists. I thin, though, that his quote was saying that competition should be harnessed to find innovation.

as for regulation and loss, i would hope that any competitive advantages would offset expenses. Like i mentioned, i don't really know health care but my general opinion of insurers is that they are bloated pig like profit mongers. Seems like there must be rooms for major cuts in their budgets.

As for Canada, who knows? I understand that they cap the costs of certain drugs and procedures by law. This was the cause of the giant "dont order your meds from Canada" debacle in congress.

[John Q. Citizen]

19. There is competition between insurers some places in this country. But there is competition

between doughnut shops. So competition of itself isn't an innovation. Competition wasn't invented by insurance companies.

I just can't think of any innovation unless we are talking about commercials or a catchy sales brochure. But that's not innovation.


And if they are regulated, then there will probably be a way to compare apples to apples. In fact more likely than competition will probably be price fixing.

[mkultra]

29. competition itself is not innovation.

I think what hes saying here is that competition leads to innovation. This statement, taking at face value, has been proven true time and time again in free markets.

[John Q. Citizen]

30. That is dogma. Competition also leads to price fixing. But what has the health inurance Co innovated

[mkultra]

38. like i said

There is very little competition in health insurance on the consumer level.
It may dogma but it is repeatably testable and true. The problem with pure competition is the negative side effects. Regulation is always required as the eventual goal of competition is monopoly which is counter to the positive effects that can be gained by competition.

[Dragonfli]

8. Sorry - I can't think of any innovations they have come up with unless...

you consider negative innovations such as "creative" denial of care.

Their business is most easily compared to protection rackets.

If you know any organized crime figures they may be able to better supply a list of innovative thought the insurers have applied to better separate those they "protect" from their money.

How does one judge the innovations of a parasite?

[QC]

11. They've come up with excellent ways to let people die.

Isn't that enough for you?

[Hieronymus]

13. Wydon apparently has taken a lot of money from insurance companies....

bought and paid for.

[QC]

14. He is also widely believed to be one of the dumbest people in the entire congress.

That would explain a lot.

[John Q. Citizen]

17. Not according to the article in The Hill. A few other Senators talk about him as if he's an expert

on Health Care and he's very good friends with Obama.

Did you read the article?

[QC]

21. For years, Wyden has had a reputation for being more ambitious than bright.

He's also a sellout to the timber industry, and, for that matter, every other interest willing to give him a few bucks.

He's not progressive hero, and it's hardly surprising that he is trying to kill the public option.

[vaberella]

20. "preserve innovation" Is my problem.

I don't know what sort of innovation they have done to preserve. If any big business in health care have to really talk about "preserving innovation" it would be Big Pharma or the health care providers. However, when one looks at India and their pharmaceutical industry of generic drugs---innovation is who can make the same drug at cheaper prices and cheaper costs.

So he's full of shit. Is Wyndon a Dem? What one doesn't want is crowding out to happen to fast because it will negatively impact the set up. You want it to happen but over time. Fool them into thinking their safe while really you're leeching the blood out of them.

I don't know what Wyndon is talking about. I'd argue his quote.

[harun]

23. I think his definition of "Innovation" is "ability to loot".

Listen carefully to the points these politicians keep bringing up. I have never heard them brought up by a regular citizen, even the most right wing ones. Hell even the batshit crazies don't bring up crap like that. It is straight from a few lobbyists. Not even the employees of the for-profit insurers bring up stuff like this because they know better than anyone that having insurance really doesn't mean they are going to pay for what you think they are going to pay.

[snowdays]

24. Seems Wyden has Obama's ear by playing hoops.......

In any case, the Republicans like his plan.




http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/wyden-is-winning-over-the-gop-on-healthcare-2009-05-18.html

........Republicans are so impressed with Wyden’s bill that some are convinced he represents President Obama’s best chance for getting major healthcare reform signed into law this Congress.

And while Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy (Mass.) and Max Baucus (Mont.) may chair the committees charged with shepherding the bill through the Senate, Wyden, a 6-foot-4 former college basketball player, has his own advantage: a standing invitation to play hoops with the president at the White House, which may come in handy when hashing out the final details behind the scenes.

For Wyden, the key to passing lasting healthcare reform is finding a legislative solution that can win at least 70 votes in the Senate — and he’s not shy about letting Democrats know that means dropping thoughts of a government-run public plan for the entire nation.

To make his case, he has met individually with more than 80 Senate colleagues to discuss his proposals. He has envisioned his role as neutral broker so vividly that during the height of the Democratic presidential primary, Wyden refused to back either Obama or then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Wyden counts among his closest friends Sens. Bob Bennett (R-Utah), who is a confidant of Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who is widely respected and has a knack for persuading colleagues to support compromises.

Bennett has signed on as the chief GOP co-sponsor of Wyden’s bill and has persuaded two other members of the Senate Republican leadership to join him: Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) and Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.)...............

[snowdays]

25. Whow. I think this issue--of How to reform is becoming very scary indeed.

In this article --it plays Wyden's influence up. Is it credible? I do not know but if you read the entire article, he sure does seems to be influencing many Senators--especially the Republicans. damm.

[DrToast]

26. I found it interesting that Ezra Klein prefers the Wyden plan

He thinks it's better than what Obama proposed during the campaign.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=05&year=2009&base_name=the_liberal_criticism_of_wyden

[John Q. Citizen]

28. Klien's problem with the Obama plan is the same as mine. When we subsidize private insurance

companies and drug companies, then they have lots of incentive to charge as much as they can get away with, and to keep costs going up as fast as possible.

As he correctly points out in the article you linked to, this is one of the advantages of single payer. It does control costs.

He is also correct that the Obama plan completely avoids the question of how we pay for bloating a bloated system even more. So in some ways he is right.

The Obama plan's "secret paln" that it will eventually lead to a single payer system that will then eventually control costs is the only reason otherwise good logical people support it.

Those same good logical people would take a single payer plan over the Obama plan if they thought it was politically feasible to get one passed.

So that's what we are faced with. Functionality VS political reality. And it's the exact opposite of what Obama promised when he pledged to judge proposed solutions on "does it work" instead of on ideology. Because the Obama plan is only on the table due to ideology.

[newinnm]

27. I think he is being intellectually honest.

But..I think he is wrong. I lived in Oregon for 10 years so Im a little familiar with the health care landscape there. Oregon was able to expand their medicaid program to cover more people by developing the Oregon Health Plan. It was a givernment managed single payer system that was utizlied for low income Oregonians. At first when there was plenty of money in the states coffers, the program worked fine. However, when the state started suffering from a decrease in tax revenues they had to start rationing what the plan would cover and what it wouldnt and no Im not talking about viagra, breat implants etc... So I think he is just reacting to his experience in his state.

Where I think he is wrong is on the assumption that it cant work. If funded correctly it can work. We just have to be willing to increase taxes to where they need to be. I believe we should have a 2%% across the board tax increase to anyone making over 60,000 a year to fund our healthcare. There is no free lunch and this running talking about taxing soft drinks etc...is shit. Lets fund it right and get it done.


nnnm

[NC_Nurse]

32. He sounds more like a deal-breaker to me. Totally in the tank for the

insurance industry. Thanks for nothing, Ron.

[annabanana]

34. "cannot be saddled with price controls." . . . . .

That's it isn't it. We have to figure out how to control the cost of healthcare in this Country, because it threatens to overwhelm all our future budgets. .BUT

We have to do it without saddling the insurance industry with price controls.

Someone please explain to me how this oxymoronic situations works itself out?

[HopeOverFear]

35. Surely Wydon would like single-payer better

Oh, wait...

[slinkerwink]

37. where are they going to be in Montana? Event details?