« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Democrats Created this Mess, Mr. President

Facing growing public skepticism and falling approval ratings as a result of his push for nationalized health care, President Obama told a group in Virginia last week that he didn’t want, “the folks who had created the [health care] mess to do a lot of talking, I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.”  It was a remark meant to rally the base to Obama’s side, and shore up his flagging poll numbers on the issue.  Obama may have thought he was chiding Republicans in making the comment.  But even a cursory look at the “mess” in the American health care system shows that on the issue of who is responsible, the president’s remark is as wrong as it was arrogant.

Health care experts across the spectrum can agree that there are three main problems with the health insurance industry in America today:  community rating, which forbids insurance companies from charging premiums based on an individual consumer’s health status; the practice of defensive medicine, under which doctors order numerous costly and often unnecessary tests to cover themselves against the possibility of malpractice lawsuits; and employer-based coverage.  Each of these problems, which together contribute most to the “mess” in health care delivery, were all either brought into existence, or are perpetuated by Democrats.

Employer-based coverage came about during World War II as a consequence of the National War Labor Board’s decision to institute wage and price freezes in an attempt to prevent production shortages due to labor unrest or inflation.  The NWLB exempted fringe benefits like pension plans and health insurance from the freeze, meaning employers could compete for the dwindling pool of skilled workers by offering ever-increasing health insurance coverage.  Workers grew accustomed to receiving health benefits as a condition of their employment, and the system of employer-provided health benefits became an American institution.

Although the NWLB decision may have sprung from the best of intentions at a time of war, it grew from the progressive tendency toward control.  The consequence for today’s health care debate is that generations of Americans were separated from the cost of the medical care they received.  As costs grew, and businesses were forced to cut back on benefits while increasing the employee’s cost share, workers began to feel the increase in costs for the first time.  Two of the main drivers of those cost increases have been the practice of defensive medicine, and community rating.

Doctors know that every test they fail to order could be the one that leads to an expensive malpractice lawsuit.  So they order test after test after test, providing themselves cover from the trial lawyers, and ratcheting up the cost of routine care.  According to a study by the American Medical Association (.pdf), which has now signed on to President Obama’s efforts to take over the system, the federal Department of Health and Human Services put the cost of defensive medicine at between $70 and $126 billion in 2003.  That number is almost certainly higher today.

Now consider that former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, one of the strongest proponents of nationalized health care, appeared on This Week with George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday trumpeting Congressional Budget Office numbers putting the cost of the current House bill at $60 billion per year.  Simply getting a handle on defensive medicine by controlling the trial lawyers could save better than two times the cost of the Democrats’ “reform.”  If Democrats were serious about getting costs under control, they would jump on curbing malpractice lawsuits.

But Republican attempts to reign in the trial lawyers have been resisted for years by Democrats in Congress and the White House.  Trial lawyers are a huge source of campaign cash for Democratic politicians, and they are not about to bite the hand that feeds them.  Patients, the uninsured, and true health care reform will just have to wait while Democrats continue milking their cash cow.  When it comes to finding the mess-makers in health care, President Obama need look no further than Democrats and their trial lawyer friends.

Where Democrats have tried their hand at regulation, they have only managed to make the health care mess bigger.  Community rating is a system dreamed up by state regulators that was designed to fix perceived inequities in the health insurance industry.  Democrats at the state level didn’t like the fact that health insurance plans were priced according to risk.  Sicker people who were more likely to use insurance were charged more for comparable coverage than healthier ones.

In a misguided attempt to level the playing field, community rating regulations forbade insurance companies from charging rates based on risk.  Now, smokers pay the same rate as non-smokers.  Exercisers pay the same as non-exercisers.  This is despite the demonstrable fact that smokers and the overweight tend to have worse health outcomes, and so require more health care services.  Insurance companies must make up the relative loss they take on these policies, with the result that everyone’s rates go up.

With the exception of New Hampshire and perhaps Pennsylvania, the list of states that mandate some form of community rating on health insurers reads like a list of the bluest of the blue states:  Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington.  These states, long controlled by liberal Democrats, were present at the creation of skyrocketing health insurance rates.

And since Democrats at the federal level forbid a true nationwide market in health care coverage by limiting the pool of available plans by the state the consumer lives in, consumers must buy plans that meet their state’s minimum standards, no matter whether they need or intend to ever use the covered services.  This increases costs and limits choice.  That seems to be just the way Democrats want it, as they have beaten back every Republican effort to open up the health care market to allow consumers to purchase plans from other states based on need rather than minimums.  Maybe the president should have addressed these Democrats when he spoke of silencing those who have created the health care “mess.”

Congress now plans to bring community rating to the federal level, at President Obama’s urging.    At his recent town hall meeting in New Hampshire, President Obama alluded to this component of his plan when he told the audience, “Under the reform we’re proposing, insurance companies will be prohibited from denying coverage because of a person’s medical history.  Period.”   That means that insurance rates could not be based on a consumer’s health status.  The Wall Street Journal says this proposal, “blows up the individual insurance market, by making it far more expensive for young, healthy or low-risk consumers to join pools—if they join at all.”

President Obama wants to silence the critics of his health care nationalization because he is losing the debate, fair and square.  Americans have empowered themselves with information and questions for the president and their representatives.  So far, the proponents of change have been unable to provide satisfactory answers.  Rather than try to cast blame, and ignore the clear history of the health care problems he claims to want to solve, the president should pull back his health care plans and listen to Americans’ concerns.

If he did so, his poll numbers would instantly improve and he would be able to design a health care reform that addresses actual, not perceived problems.  But if the President is more interested in assigning responsibility for the current situation, he should convene a meeting of his fellow Democrats and tell them to stop using health care insurance and delivery as a laboratory to test out their misguided social experiments.  Or else, he should tell them to clean up their own mess.

Cross posted at Acticons.

COMMENTS

  • Praying

    How come it is, that when you purchase automobile or homeowner’s insurance, you pay according to risk, but not in health insurance? I have never understood this! If you have a driving record rife with speeding tickets or at-fault accidents, you will pay more (if indeed you can even find someone to insure you!). I no more want to pay for the guy who is 50 lbs. overweight and smokes a pack of cigarettes a day than I want to pay for the speeding driver down the road. This seems like a no-brainer to me! It was good of you, too, to point out that the DEMS were the ones who came up with the tying of health insurance to your employer, and the resistance of DEMS to any kind of tort reform. Herein lie the three biggest areas of our “health care system” that need reform!!

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      Dems took over Congress in 2007.

    • itdiehard

      however, the non-smoker normal weight person will get better care. The question is will this be applied to at risk behaviors…

    • DFLer

      How come it is, that when you purchase automobile or homeowner?s insurance, you pay according to risk, but not in health insurance?

      Most driving risk is caused by the driver, so risky drivers who get in a lot of accidents should pay more for car insurance. But there’s a lot of health risk that isn’t caused by the “driver,” like whether or not you get pancreatic cancer or Lyme disease.

      If you conditioned health insurance premiums on whether the “driver” consumed health care, it wouldn’t really be insurance any more because it wouldn’t pool risk and diffuse costs. It would concentrate costs on the unhealthiest (like older people).

      You’re right that this causes some “moral hazard” by keeping premiums low for people who smoke, eat too much and spend too much time on the couch watching football. But they’re not the only ones consuming a lot of health care.

      Babies. Bathwater. Etc.

      • skorrent1

        The likelihood of your car getting clobbered by an unlicensed, uninsured illegal alien corresponds to becoming ill through no fault of your own. You get charged for uninsured motorist insurance.

        If you wait to get life insurance ’til you’re old, you pay a higher premium. The main thing is, you get to choose! That’s good! You should have the same choice in medical insurance. If you wait to get covered until you’re ill, whose fault is that?

        • http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawfish/ reelman

          MY POLITICAL PREDICTIONS?MARK IT

          Sadly (and terrifyingly) the radical kook Obama surrounded by secular socialist kooks Reid and Pelosi will soon affect America in ALL the ways we (with any sense and sense of history) fear.
          The moonbats and loony left know their stars will never be better aligned?heck, even Chavez wants to help Obama. The kook secular socialist angry haters of American values must strike with all force before the 2010 elections. They know voters are terrified of all this kook secular socialism?and madder by the week as the lies pile up, the excuses pile us, the denials pile up, the gov-meant hiring piles up and the debt piles up?while nearly a sixth of the country is jobless and retirement plans are still far from regaining that 30% hit.

          That means a monster Health Care bill with over 50 new panels, boards and commissions (HB 3200 has them now) plus more triggers for takeovers than a pistol factory. Did I mention trillions more in debt? History teaches us the ?gov-meant selling price? is always 3-9x the true cost in just a couple years. The Cap and Tax will be the next toxic enema for Uncle Sam. Talk Radio and The Net will lose freedoms.

          ALL their major bills will be rammed thru?even if special rule changes or taking the 51 vote path are needed.
          These radicals are not the compromising kind but the angry arrogant clueless breed that never learns or displays any common sense.
          They just want the power and to heck with the results down the road. Its all rainbow dust and happy unicorns to the modern lefty.
          You just don?t really really understand how wonderful their secular socialist society will be. Ask the Castro and Chavez praisers.

          Voters got a sample of the congressional arrogance of the modern democrat this summer. Its only the beginning. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
          The rage will rise to heights not seen in generations as the biased media struggles to change the constant dirty diapers from this group of political thugs. That is the same media that looked the other way in 2008 as a known marxist surrounded by same was allowed a free pass.
          That stain is permanent.

          Just as the economy starts struggling to its wobbly feet the nation will be hammered with many new taxes in 2010.
          By next summer all this major mischief will come to pass and set the stage for the greatest voter turnout in history.
          J. Carter Obama and his fellow travelers will have the omnipresent ?ghost of economy past? haunting them for Halloween 2010.
          (These are my instincts, I hope to be very wrong)

          http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawfish

  • Big Apple Infidel

    Fauxbama’s comments presuppose the idea that there were no Democrats in government over the last 40 years.

  • ellisclarke

    American citizens already have the best health care insurance programs in the world and more than 90% are satisfied with the coverage available to them. People from around the Globe come to America for health care, not the other way around.

    So, why the need to DISMANTLE this world envied and renowned coverage? Is it to cover the 15 to 20 million non Americans that live in the country illegally for political reason? Is it to cover the 2 to 3 million who do not have and can not afford health care coverage for political reasons? Or, is it so Government and political parties can further control your life style and have unelected bureaucrats and czars make the decisions for us based on political party preferences and voting habits?

    At present there is NO statement in any proposed dismantling health reform that specifically states that NON-CITIZENS will NOT be entitled to this socialized universal health care government program. WHY?

    Obama socialized universal health care and government run program, is a complete dismantling of the best health care system in the world. Other than an attempt to further control of our lives and give coverage to 15 to 20 million illegal residents it makes no sense.

    Wake up people, these Senators and House Members with their respective political parties are not looking out for our interests, but rather the interest of 15 to 20 million illegal residents. This is yet another example of UN-AMERICAN!

    • Praying

      which means, that they would use our tax dollars to pay for the wanton destruction of the unborn. It happens, I know, but I sure as heck don’t support it, and do not want to pay for it!

  • muffin

    on Fox News that the dems might have an ace in the hole. They will offer tort reform (who knows what that will entail) to get this monstrosity passed. Don’t know if it will come about, but just repeating what I heard.

  • muffin

    This is why for so many years now we have not contributed one dime to United Way. They fund abortions, but not with our money! We have chosen other charities to receive our hard earned money.

    • Old_Crow

      I no longer support them in any manner. The dems use the full-time United Way employees to help run campaign events and often give campaign operatives high level United Way jobs between election cycles. United Way has become like ACORN.

  • mallcopsaysno

    Health care experts across the spectrum can agree that there are three main problems with the health insurance industry in America today

    4. Your health insurance provider refuses you life-saving treatment because it costs too much or, even more shameful, dumps you for some phantom undisclosed pre-condition just when you require care.

    • Martin Knight
  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    …that remembers the liberal outcry against HMOs as uncaring, evil business empires that only cared about cutting costs and limiting care to improve their bottom line?

    Yet here we are, with those same liberals wanting to create what amounts to a Government HMO that will do exactly that which they railed against in the name of caring.

    I quit trying to replace the needle on my irony meter with this bunch of idiots in Washington.

  • PostalMed

    I’ll agree with you on 2 of 3 of the items on your problem list.

    Employment-based insurance must end, sooner rather than later. Once employees (patients) own their own policies, portability is assured, and the insurance companies will have to work to keep patients and not employers happy.

    Tort reform is a must as well. Here in Texas, our tort reform in 2003 has stabilized and even reduced medical malpractice costs, and the number of suits filed has significantly decreased. I haven’t seen data on whether defensive medicine practices have changed yet. I would suspect not, as old habits die hard.

    I disagree with you on community rating, however. The problem is not the community rating, but the size of the community. As long as insurance companies can define what a community is, and defines it as, for example, the 100, 350, or 5000 persons working at the local factory, community rating will significantly increase the premium costs for more-health-conscious individuals. But increase the size of the community, say to the entitre 306 million population of the US, and the percentage increase in any one person’s premium goes way down.

    Being alllowed to buy insurance across state lines does not help reduce premium costs if you do not have nationwide community rating. Do you think that under the current system that XYZ Insurance Co. is going to sell you that cheaper policy at Iowa rates while you’re living in New Jersey? No, they will re-rate you under New Jersey considerations and the cost savings will be minimal or non-existent.

    As an aside, does anyone else but me see the hidden dange in interstate insurance sales? That it will ultimately require some kind of Federal Insurance regulatory agency that will supersede the regulatory authority of state agencies, thus further eroding our 10th Amendment rights?

    As a conservative, I understand the objections to the concept of having one’s insurance rates increase to pay for the medical care that people refusing to alter self-destructive lifestyle choices will require. But basing premiums on individual health rating alone will lead to a lot of sick, disabled, and older people not being able to afford insurance coverage. And we are all paying for the care these risk-takers require now anyway, through the hidden mechanisms of taxes and higher medical care bills.

    There is no perfect system. Personally, I find a system of nationwide community rating to be the least objectionable. Know that you may pay more when you are younger, but you will benefit when you are older; think of it as a down payment on your future healthcare.

    ObamaCare may call for community rating, but not nationwide community rating. And it doesn’t really matter that it calls for any kind of insurance rating since it is a back door to a single-payer, government-controlled system. (Setting the corporate fine for not providing insurance at only 8% of payroll is the key indicator of this.)

    H.R. 3200 needs to suffer a first-term abortion. Keep those faxes and emails to Congress going at full steam ahead.

  • http://www.rmforbes.net rmforbes

    Tort reform will not reduce healthcare cost significantly, at least it didn’t for Texas. Doctor’s malpratice insurance premiums didn’t go down either. As a small business owner with my premiums almost doubling this year, I believe something must be done to change the profit structure of the insurance corporations. When the economy took a dive last year my profits pretty much dried up but I still had to honor my contracts at the price set. Publically held corporations on the other hand are required by law to protect profit margins at all cost to protect common stock prices and dividends. Even with the current economic downturn many of the largest healthcare insurance companies have recorded record profits. Unfortunately, they have done so by raising most premium rates and denying coverage to normally covered procedures. I can’t get away with doing business that way, why should they?

    • izoneguy

      But it is important to start:

      http://www.tortreform.com/

      A lefty lawyer spin:

      http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2007/10/texas-tort-reform-and-new-york-times.html

      Total Disciplinary Actions:
      2002: 187
      2003: 277
      2004: 256
      2005: 304
      2006: 335
      2007: 311
      2008: 351

      What he fails to mention is the population of Texas is exploding.
      Texas population – 24,326,974 – Jul 2008

      Medical Board issues 672 physician licenses while reducing licensure processing time; disciplines 50 physicians
      http://www.tmb.state.tx.us/news/press/2008/021508a.php

      _________________________________________________

      MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAPS WORK

      http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/10/05/medical-malpractice-caps-work/

      The New York Times reluctantly reports that tort reform in Texas has produced precisely the results its advocates predicted:

      Four years after Texas voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting awards in medical malpractice lawsuits, doctors are responding as supporters predicted, arriving from all parts of the country to swell the ranks of specialists at Texas hospitals ?

      This does not mean, as many opponents of tort reform claim, that patients have no recourse in legitimate malpractice cases. Plaintiffs can recover economic losses of up to $1.6 million and non-economic losses of $250,000 from as many as three separate providers.

      If our masters in Washington would take a few minutes off from demagoguing SCHIP and pass serious malpractice reform on a national level, the distribution of medical providers would track patient demand rather than local legal climate, and the inflationary effects of defensive medicine would be significantly reduced.
      _________________________________________________

      More Doctors in Texas After Malpractice Caps

      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/us/05doctors.html?ex=1349323200&en=fa11e751e6cc98af&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
      _________________________________________________

      After Texas Caps Malpractice, Docs Move In

      http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2007/10/05/after-texas-caps-malpractice-docs-move-in/

      __________________________________________________

      • http://www.rmforbes.net rmforbes

        Malpractice Caps are insurance reform not tort reform.

        You made my point for me, thanks