WSJ editorial vs. WSJ news pages on insurance lobby opposition to reform
In an August 5 editorial, The Wall Street Journal falsely claimed that the health insurance lobbies are "helping Democrats by keeping quiet" during the health care reform debate, adding that if they "were any quieter, they'd be Trappists." In fact, the insurance industry reportedly significantly increased its spending on lobbying this year, and, as the Journal itself reported in a news article, insurers are "wag[ing] an aggressive campaign against Democrats' proposals to create a public health-insurance plan."
From the Journal's August 5 editorial, "Dems vs. Dems":
The real political news this month isn't Republicans vs. Democrats, and certainly not insurance companies vs. Democrats. If anything, the health-care business lobbies are helping Democrats by keeping quiet and hoping their silence buys their survival as heavily regulated utilities. If the insurance companies were any quieter, they'd be Trappists.
Journal falsely claimed insurance industry "keeping quiet"
The insurance industry reportedly significantly increased its spending on lobbying this year. According to a USA Today review of disclosure reports, "[t]he 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." Specifically, USA Today found that "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." USA Today added, "Drug and insurance companies support many changes Congress is considering but generally oppose government-run insurance." [USA Today; 6/12/09]
WSJ editorial page contradicts WSJ reporting
WSJ reported that the insurers are "wag[ing] an aggressive campaign against" the public option. On July 30, the Journal reported that "insurers are pushing back against several proposals that lawmakers see as favorable to consumers," adding: "[I]nsurers continue to wage an aggressive campaign against Democrats' proposals to create a public health-insurance plan. America's Health Insurance Plans has stationed employees in 30 states who are tracking where local lawmakers hold town-hall meetings." [The Wall Street Journal; 7/30/09]
WSJ
reported that
insurers are sending employees to town halls to "rebut" White House and Dems.
The Journal reported in an article published
the same day as the editorial:
The health-insurance industry said Tuesday it is launching an effort to send insurance-company employees to public meetings nationwide this month to rebut increasing criticism of the industry from the White House and top Democrats. "Attacking our community will not help get anyone covered," said Karen Ignagni, chief executive of lobbying group America's Health Insurance Plans. The group spent $1.9 million lobbying during the second quarter, according to Senate disclosure records. [The Wall Street Journal; 8/5/09]
That's from the Bible, in case any conservatives read this. Matthew 12:25. I realize very few conservatives are Christians, and wish to be helpful.
So let's assess our options. We can do something now, which probably will by somewhat costly, but will take coverage away from the corporate profit-driven vampires, provide insurance to everyone and saving thousands of lives and bankruptcies, and improve the overall health of the citizenry through preventative health care.
Or we can just keep doin' as we've been doin' which enriches the corporatacracy, denies care to millions, under-insures millions, with the costs doubling in the next few years.
So the bottom line is, you're going to pay more anyway. Why not have a better system for your money?
Or are you an apologist for insurance corporation profits?
http://pushingrope.blogspot.com/2009/07/cbo-reports-health-care-reform-will.html
I've seen figures ranging from 15-30% for what the insurance companies take out of the health care system as administrative costs, advertising and profits. Since the government doesn't have to make a profit, those dollars should be available to improve health care.
If everyone has access to health care, they won't be going into emergency rooms for whatever care they can get. Earlier care is cheaper than ER care.
In addition, by disconnecting health insurance from employment, there will be increased liquidity in the job market. People will feel freer to change jobs, since they won't have to worry about losing their insurance AND, employers will be more willing to take on workers because they won't have to worry about the additional costs of health insurance.
The bottom line - to the extent that we can re-route health care costs through the government instead of through profit-making insurance companies - the costs will be reduced. While the costs of providing actual medical care may not fall, they shouldn't rise either - we are already treating everyone - in one form or another. But the costs of PAYING FOR medical care should fall.
As for the 'choices' the current system allegedly provides - most don't have a choice of insurance carriers or what type of coverages they have. That is decided by their employer.
Worried about having a bureaucrat between you and your doctor? You already do - they work for the insurance company and they have a profit motive to deny and delay as much as they can. Insurance companies CAN and DO deny some of the most innovative treatments by labeling them 'experimental'.
Under most insurance plans, you don't even have a free choice of doctors - unless you're willing to pay to see an 'out of plan' doctor. Access to specialists, surgery and other advanced procedures typically requires pre-authorization - you and your doctor have to appeal to a bureaucrat for approval before you can proceed.
With health care portable, that's one more reason to leave a job you hate. Employers may have to suddenly start making conditions and compensation better for employees just to retain them. They'd much rather we were all serfs, working the land for the lord of the manor in chains; figurative chains if not literal ones. Thanks for posting!
Which proves nothing but that you get all your information from Faux Nooz...