FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

What the New York Times Doesn’t Understand About Health Care

On July 29 the New York Times published a story on page one (digital edition) about what the nation should do now that the Republicans have failed to unmake Obamacare and “reform” our health care system.

The headline for the story was: “Consensus is Health Care Law Can Be Fixed – Now the Hard Part.”

The headline alone made it clear that the story was going to be another classic example of insidious insider misdirection. We’ll come back to the idea of consensus, but let’s start with the idea that our current health care system can be “fixed”.

Ridiculous. The system as currently constructed is not good enough and cannot be fixed. No amount of shoring up dysfunctional limbs of an unworkable Okie rig of a system is going to take care of that. Obamacare is better than the racket insurance companies were running before its passage, and still a failure – certainly by the standards of health care delivered in other industrialized nations.

And as for consensus, I guess what the NYT means is the consensus within the D.C. insider world populated by corrupt and realist politicians and the lobbyists representing the corporations that define what will and will not be allowed to happen in D.C. Clearly the NYT is part of this world. The consensus certainly doesn’t extend to the very large and real movement to create a single payer (Medicare for all) health care system in this country. They are not mentioned in the story.

This is the NYT trying to establish the parameters for the debate over what to do about our obviously failing health care system.

So the consensus they claim is a sham, and it’s conclusion – that Obamacare can be fixed – is absurd.

Under Obamacare, a huge percentage of US citizens – I’d estimate that at least a quarter to a third, and soon to be more – are uninsured or under-insured (meaning enrolled in health plans with deductibles and co-pays so high that it dissuades the policy holder from accessing appropriate care for economic reasons). This number will rise quickly in coming years as insurance companies continue to impose rate increases that vastly outstrip wage increases. The NYT cites instances of insurers in several states seeking rate increases of 20% to 50% this year alone.

When a person doesn’t get the care he/she needs when it is needed, more often than not the future cost of care for that person is going to be greater than it would otherwise have been; these costs must be absorbed by the system somewhere (often via emergency room visits)With ; and the eventual cost to the system is greater than it would have been had the policy holder had better benefits. In other words, this way of managing costs through higher up front charges actually costs more in the long run. The entire concept of consumer-driven health care is based on this idea, and it’s a complete crock of shit. If a person has to spend more of her hard earned income on medical care, she will make better choices and not waste scarce health care dollars. WRONG!!

Giving everyone better benefits will reduce the cost of the system over time, not increase it. That is part of the solution. You don’t find the NYT discussing that (even though they cited several examples in the article of people with high deductible plans and high premiums, and one example of someone who chose to forego necessary treatment because they couldn’t afford the co-pays).

Instead, what does the NYT think is the first thing that needs to be done to fix the system? We must stabilize the “very jittery insurance markets”. In other words, for the NYT it’s first and foremost a crisis of uncertainty for insurance companies. Let’s take care of the insurance companies first.

Which brings us to a huge part of the problem with the system: the insurance companies themselves.

The NYT identifies this problem: high prices and lack of choice in many parts of the country.

What they’re saying is that the market has not been able to solve the problem of getting people health care they can afford, even though there is universal demand for it, and even when the government is backing them up with subsidies for low income people. They just can’t find a way to make a profit, so they charge inflated prices or abandon the market altogether (blackmail).

This is because the underlying costs of our health system – the costs of providing care – are too high before the insurance companies get their hands on it and drive up costs even further. They just add 15-20% to the cost right off the top, a little of which is profit but most of which is the added bureaucratic cost required to set up and maintain a ridiculous phony market system for health care that exists in its present form only to create the opportunity for profits.

And in this phony, so-called-free-market system, they don’t even compete. One insurance company does not offer better health care than another. What they offer is different purchasing plans (financing schemes), and the current crisis proves there is little competition on price. They’re just they’re to collect their cut off the top. And the NYT wants to start fixing the system by guaranteeing that they continue to receive that share/profit.

Let’s be clear. The recommended NYT approach is not just concerned about securing the cost of health care. They’re trying to secure the privilege/opportunity for these companies (and their shareholders, meaning mostly people who are already rich) to continue to make a profit off of health care.

Instead of competing, the insurance companies are gaming the system to make their money. Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina admitted to NYT reporters that although they are seeking a 23% rate increase for next year, they “would have sought less than half that amount under more predictable circumstances.” Translation: they’re so worried that they might lose some money next year that they are adding on an extra 10%-plus charge – money they admit they don’t even need except for the unbearable “uncertainty”. And the system tolerates that, because the system really is about allowing for profit rather than just paying the cost of health care. And if it turns out that they don’t lose money next year, o well, they get to pocket the inflated rate increase anyway. Do we have to allow them to keep their overcharges no matter what happens in the so-called market? No, but that’s what the system does. The NYT solution to this: rather than helplessly watch them jack up the prices because they are worried about risk, we should subsidize them more so that they can charge less and still be assured of making a profit. Then we won’t have to worry about them jacking up the prices. Get it?

Of course the real solution is to cut the insurance companies out altogether (Medicare for all), and use the quick 20% savings to shore up the system while figuring out ways to address the underlying problem of the high cost of care: lower drug prices, fewer unnecessary services (defensive medicine, over-prescribing for economic reasons only), more accessible intake providers to get people into appropriate care faster, and many more adjustments that are practical and well known within the industry. Remember, other countries do it better than we do. They spend far less and get better results. We are not so “exceptional” that we’re too stupid to learn from their success. Of course the NYT does not consider this a reasonable possibility.

The NYT looks at the current arrangement and concludes for us that it cannot be fundamentally changed. Why? Take the RX overcharging problem. The NYT says “there is little agreement on the best way to fix the problem.” Why? Because proposals that might help – like allowing the importation of cheaper drugs from overseas (which is just another bandaid anyway) – “are fiercely opposed by the drug industry – a potent lobbying power in Washington.”

So the NYT is willing to admit there is a problem, but the NYT is buying into the notion that we need to return to a fundamentally flawed system that doesn’t work and never will, largely because of the power of lobbyists – meaning corruption – what occurs when the influence of special interest money applied to legislative processes results in decisions that favor those interests and not the citizens of the nation. But the NYT doesn’t recommend reducing the power of lobbyists as part of the solution.

The NYT is willing to accept all this as just the landscape – the background that cannot be changed. They’re willing to accept not only just about everything that is wrong with our health care system, but also everything that is wrong with our system of government (our mis-aptly named democracy), in a tour de force of complicity and so called journalistic neutrality that shrinks from raising even the most basic of the hard questions that need to be addressed.

O, by the way. No, you can’t have a system that makes sense, like Medicare for all. That’s not even under discussion. This is where the NYT wants the national conversation about our health care crisis to be now: we’re not really going to discuss how to fix the health care delivery system; we’re just going to discuss the best way to allow insurance companies to continue to screw you.

(On July 30 the NYT ran the same article again, but changed the headline to: How to Repair the Health Law (It’s Tricky but Not Impossible). I guess they decided that consensus was not really a thing.

More articles by:

Jeff Sher is a journalist specializing in the health care industry. He lives in San Francisco.

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

June 17, 2019
Brian Cloughley
Trump Washington Detests the Belt and Road Initiative
Weekend Edition
June 14, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Michael Hudson
Trump’s Trade Threats are Really Cold War 2.0
Bruce E. Levine
Tom Paine, Christianity, and Modern Psychiatry
Jason Hirthler
Mainstream 101: Supporting Imperialism, Suppressing Socialism
T.J. Coles
How Much Do Humans Pollute? A Breakdown of Industrial, Vehicular and Household C02 Emissions
Andrew Levine
Whither The Trump Paradox?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: In the Land of 10,000 Talkers, All With Broken Tongues
Pete Dolack
Look to U.S. Executive Suites, Not Beijing, For Why Production is Moved
Paul Street
It Can’t Happen Here: From Buzz Windrip and Doremus Jessup to Donald Trump and MSNBC
Rob Urie
Capitalism Versus Democracy
Richard Moser
The Climate Counter-Offensive: Secrecy, Deception and Disarming the Green New Deal
Naman Habtom-Desta
Up in the Air: the Fallacy of Aerial Campaigns
Ramzy Baroud
Kushner as a Colonial Administrator: Let’s Talk About the ‘Israeli Model’
Mark Hand
Residents of Toxic W.Va. Town Keep Hope Alive
John Kendall Hawkins
Alias Anything You Please: a Lifetime of Dylan
Linn Washington Jr.
Bigots in Blue: Philadelphia Police Department is a Home For Hate
David Macaray
UAW Faces Its Moment of Truth
Brian Cloughley
Trump’s Washington Detests the Belt and Road Initiative
Horace G. Campbell
Edward Seaga and the Institutionalization of Thuggery, Violence and Dehumanization in Jamaica
Graham Peebles
Zero Waste: The Global Plastics Crisis
Michael Schwalbe
Oppose Inequality, Not Cops
Ron Jacobs
Scott Noble’s History of Resistance
Olivia Alperstein
The Climate Crisis is Also a Health Emergency
David Rosen
Time to Break Up the 21st Century Tech Trusts
George Wuerthner
The Highest Use of Public Forests: Carbon Storage
Ralph Nader
It is Time to Rediscover Print Newspapers
Nick Licata
How SDS Imploded: an Inside Account
Rachel Smolker – Anne Peterman
The GE American Chestnut: Restoration of a Beloved Species or Trojan Horse for Tree Biotechnology?
Sam Pizzigati
Can Society Survive Without Empathy?
Manuel E. Yepe
China and Russia in Strategic Alliance
Patrick Walker
Green New Deal “Climate Kids” Should Hijack the Impeachment Conversation
Colin Todhunter
Encouraging Illegal Planting of Bt Brinjal in India
Robert Koehler
The Armed Bureaucracy
David Swanson
Anyone Who’d Rather Not be Shot Should Read this Book
Jonathan Power
To St. Petersburg With Love
Marc Levy
How to Tell a Joke in Combat
Thomas Knapp
Pork is Not the Problem
Manuel García, Jr.
Global Warming and Solar Minimum: a Response to Renee Parsons
Jill Richardson
Straight People Don’t Need a Parade
B. R. Gowani
The Indian Subcontinent’s Third Partition
Adolf Alzuphar
Diary: The Black Body in LA
Jonah Raskin
‘69 and All That Weird Shit
Michael Doliner
My Surprise Party
Stephen Cooper
The Fullness of Half Pint
Charles R. Larson
Review: Chris Arnade’s “Dignity: Seeking Respect in Back Row America”
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail