Reply to comment

Another 'Anonymous' expert, I see, though this one took some more time to push some insurance industry talking points as well as attack Mr. Potter. Let's take this as an opportunity to go through some of them, a 'vaccination' against insurance-monger spin, if you will. :^)

"absent from his post is any idea of how he would reform the current system." - this could simply be a lack of understanding; this article is about how the Health Care Industry has put itself in the way of Health Reform and why it has been profitable to do so. Perhaps this writer is unaware that this is PR Watch, a watchdog group that points out false statements and spin, not a health care reform advocacy group. If the writer or anyone else would like to hear Potter's solutions, you can see him discuss this in more depth on his recent "Democracy Now!" interview.

"Does anyone know how Medicare "balances" its fiscal obligations? By reducing payments to physicians and hospitals." - Again, possibly just ignorance on the writer's part. First, let's establish a reasonable context: Medicare has been one of the most functional and efficient programs in the history of the US government. It has been so successful at handling its finances and taking care of its beneficiaries that it has been a cash cow for hundreds of other federal programs that have been dipping into its funds for decades. Having a central, consistent, single payer of benefits has meant enormous savings on the hundreds of billions of dollars of overhead costs that multiple insurance companies now incur and have burdened our healthcare system with, according to GAO findings. Medicare also has consistently higher approval ratings by doctors and other professionals than any private insurance company.

One small part of Medicare's success is the use of negotiated rates, a tactic used far more often by HMOs usual suspects like Kaiser Permanente. In fact, because groups like Kaiser negotiate individually instead of setting a consistent rate for all, insurance companies push the larger burden of costs onto smaller businesses and individuals who do not have the leverage to negotiate more advantageous contracts.

The statements that follow are similarly remarkably ignorant or radically disengenous; of course CPAs and lawyers give discounted services under negotiated contracts. Perhaps the writer has never owned a new car, but my last one came with a year of insurance for oil changes and tune-ups.

Much like the attempted accusation, the writer makes allusions to 'knowing the flaws' in the current system, but doesn't say what they are. The writer says "the profit incentive" can be controlled by oversight, but gives no indication why this would suddenly start working after several decades or why the insurance industry wouldn't fight this just as viciously. As someone who is supposedly an expert, why not add something useful into the discussion, rather than just attacking a known and recognized expert?