SENSE AND NONSENSE—THE TRUTH ABOUT HEALTH CARE REFORM
From the editor: There are two topics on my mind this month—health care and war. I will save my perspective on the death of Robert S. McNamara and war until the next issue. Having just lost a life-long friend to cancer and learned that another friend whom I consider “my brother” is fighting prostate cancer, and having undergone two recent relatively minor procedures for coronary heart disease (clogged arteries) myself in recent months, health care occupies a prime placement on my personal “plate” of social issues that require effective political action.
The absolutely necessary component of any health care reform legislation is a “public plan option.” As this newsletter is being written, our so-called “leaders” in the Senate are caving in to big-moneyed interests such as Wal-Mart, the American Medical Association (AMA), Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), and the American Hospital Association (AHA).
Our esteemed fraternity of senators is situated in posh offices enjoying iron-clad comprehensive health care coverage and welcoming lobbyists from the “revolving door” pool of ex-government appointees and ex-politicians led by people such as Richard K. Armey, former House majority leader from Texas.
The Washington Post reports in an article by Dan Eggen and Kimberly Kindy, published July 6, 2009, that the “nation’s largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress.”
The Post also reports that the health-care industry is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. Following are important and informational excerpts from the article:
“A June 10 meeting between aides to Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and health-care lobbyists included two former Baucus chiefs of staff: David Castagnetti, whose clients include PhRMA and America’s Health Insurance Plans, and Jeffrey Forbes, who represents PhRMA, Amgen, Genentech, Merck, and others…
“Also inside the closed committee hearing room that day was Richard Tarplin, a veteran of both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Senate, where he worked for Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), one of the leaders in fashioning reform legislation this year. Tarplin now represents the American Medical Association as head of his own lobbying firm, Tarplin Strategies…
“Overall, health-care companies and their representatives spent more than $126 million on lobbying in the first quarter, leading all other industries, according to CRP [the Center for Responsive Politics] and Senate data. PhRMA led the pack in spending and employs 49 former government staff members among its 136 lobbyists, according to The Post’s analysis. Dozens of other former insiders are employed as lobbyists by Pfizer, Eli Lilly, the AMA and the American Hospital Association, each of which spent at least $3.5 million on lobbying from January through March [2009].
“The aim of the lobbying blitz is simple: to minimize the damage to insurers, hospitals and other major sectors while maximizing the potential of up to 46 million uninsured Americans as new customers. Although many firms have vowed to help cut costs, major players such as PhRMA, America’s Health Insurance Plans and others remain opposed to the public-insurance option, a key proposal that President Obama has endorsed.
“Several major Democratic bills include such a plan, but Baucus’s committee -- which is acting as the central broker in the debate -- has not committed to the idea. Instead, the Finance Committee has focused recently on private-insurance cooperatives and other proposals seen as more palatable to the insurance industry and centrist Democrats. More than 50 former employees of the committee or its members lobby on behalf of the health-care industry, records show.”
The key players in this tidal wave against effective health care reform are as follows:
Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chair of the Senate Finance Committee. He was just re-elected to the Senate last year. His contact numbers are 202-224-2651 (tel.) and 202-224-0515 (fax);
Kent Conrad (D-ND), chair of the Senate Budget Committee. He will be up for re-election in 2012. His contact numbers are 202-224-2043 (tel.) and 202-224-7776 (fax);
Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), ranking republican member of the Senate Finance Committee. He is up for re-election in 2010. His contact numbers are 202-224-3744 (tel.) and 202-224-0620 (fax);
Edward M. Kennedy (D.MA). His contact numbers are 202-224-4543 (tel.) and 202-202-224-2417 (fax).
When you contact some of these men, do not be dismayed by their response. Baucus and Grassley are against a public option and Conrad is author of the idea of private health cooperatives. They should hear the other side anyway. Also, please contact the U.S. senators from your own state and insist upon a public-insurance option. Any health care reform without such an option will be reform in name only.
The Compass Newsletter
A SAMPLE LETTER TO POLITICIANS
From Fred Bender of Santa Fe: -- Following is an actual letter sent June 19, 2009, by Compass Society member Fred Bender, to his U.S. Congressman before the House approved their version of health-care reform, which does include a public-insurance option.
“Dear Congressman Luhan,
“The American College of Physicians (ACP) has endorsed single payer national health insurance as ‘one pathway’ to universal coverage. In their Dec. 2007 announcement, Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine said: ‘There’s really only one choice for universal health care at a cost we can afford, and that’s single payer, Medicare for All. There is simply no way to cover everyone in a pluralistic system and control costs.’
“Health care must be universal. If the Congress does not have the political will to consider single-payer then health care reform must include a public option. This is the only way our uninsured and under-insured can be brought into a universal delivery system practically and with affordable economics.
“Current private insurance industry administrative costs are cited in the range of 17 to 35 percent of total cost compared to about 3 percent for Medicare. This does not consider the peripheral costs to doctors, hospitals and consumers of the complex, fragmented private insurance system.
“The private, for-profit, health care industry requires systemic reform to justify its claim that it can provide superior cost-benefit performance to an expanded Medicare. The public option will provide a benchmark against which private industry performance can be measured.
“Please support the public option.
“Thank you,
Fred Bender”
A STARTLING STATISTIC
From the Colorado Center on Law & Policy: -- Compass Society member Lynn Gilbert of Boulder, Colo. forwarded the following fact published by both The Washington Post and the Colorado Center on Law & Policy:
“Common Cause finds that powerful health industry groups have spent $1.4 million a day this year lobbying Congress. To give you an idea about the scale, that equals $2,600 per day per member of Congress. Compare that to the $1,880 it takes in Colorado to cover a child on Medicaid FOR A YEAR.”
AETNA, A CASE OF LEGAL OBFUSCATION BY A PRIVATE INSURER
From the New York Times: -- Following are excerpts from a New York Times article written by Reed Abelson and published June 30, 2009. The article documents how people are often pushed into personal bankruptcy due to medical expenses. The article uses the case history of Lawrence and Claire Yurdin as its prime example. The article even prompted a letter from Senator Charles Grassley to Aetna Chief Executive Office, Ronald A. Williams, asking for an explanation of its policies. The Times article follows.
“Health Insurance is supposed to offer protection -- both medically and financially. But as it turns out, an estimated three-quarters of people who are pushed into personal bankruptcy by medical problems actually had insurance when they got sick or were injured…
“One of them is Lawrence Yurdin, a 64-year-old computer specialist. Although the brochure on his Aetna policy seemed to indicate it covered up to $150,000 a year in hospital care, the fine print excluded nearly all of the treatment he received at an Austin, Tex., hospital.
“He and his wife, Claire, filed for bankruptcy last December, as his unpaid medical bills approached $200,000…
“At St. David’s Medical Center in Austin, where he went for two separate heart procedures last year, the hospital’s admitting office looked at Mr. Yurdin’s coverage and talked to Aetna. St. David’s estimated that his share of the payments would be only a few thousand dollars per procedure.
“He and the hospital say they were surprised to eventually learn that the $150,000 hospital coverage in the Aetna policy was mainly for room and board. Coverage was capped at $10,000 for ‘other hospital services’ [emphasis added], which turned out to include nearly all routine hospital care -- the expenses incurred in the operating room, for example, and the cost of any medication he received.
“In other words, Aetna would have paid for Mr. Yurdin to stay in the hospital for more than five months -- as long as he did not need an operation or any lab tests or drugs while he was there.”
The article goes on to report that another private insurer, UnitedHealth, “drew criticism last year for selling policies with sharply limited coverage through AARP, the advocacy group for older people. One of the plans capped reimbursement for an operation at $5,000, for example…After Senator Grassley began investigating its sales practices, UnitedHealth agreed to stop offering the limited AARP plans.”
Copyright © 2009, The Compass Society
My apologies. The introductory paragraph to the second article in the July issue of The Compass erroneously states that the U.S. has passed a health care reform bill that contains a "public option." This is entirely my error in reporting even though it introduces the sample letter to Congress from Compass Society member Fred Bender. Mr. Bender is in no way responsible for the error. The House passed historic legislation on climate change June 25, 2009, but it has not passed health reform legislation. The "Blue Dog Democrats" seem to be balking on health reform. "Blue Dogs" are not centrists as they claim. In my opinion, they are hypocritical fiscal conservatives who were silent as we spent $10 billion every month in Iraq and certainly did not protest as Bush slashed taxes for the super rich in this country.
Maynard Chapman
Editor, The Compass
Posted by: Maynard Chapman | July 13, 2009 at 10:24 AM