Why Do We Need Health Care Reform? Don't Ask George Will

by Wendell Potter — July 3, 2009 - 7:04pm
  • Topics: Pundits, Health, Think Tanks
    • Share/Save Share this

    One of the things I hope to do with my post is to call out misleading statements and statistics, outright lies and illogical assertions by opponents of meaningful health care reform—and to rat out the front groups that insurers and other special interests are funding to kill reform or, failing that, shape it to their benefit.

    I'm starting with a biggie, conservative author and columnist George Will, who suggests in his June 28 column in The Washington Post that, because of the complexity and expense of reforming the American health care system, maybe we would be better off just leaving well enough alone.

    Well enough? For him, maybe. He's got a great gig at the Post and as a TV network pundit, and he has sold lots of books, so he probably doesn't have to worry, as most other Americans do, about being just one layoff away from joining the 50 million other men, women and children in the ranks of the uninsured. And even if the Post gave him a pink slip this afternoon, chances are he has stashed enough away that he can afford to shell out the nearly $13,000 that the average annual premium for decent family coverage costs these days (and that was in 2007).

    The median household income in this country is just about $50,000. I'm betting it has been a few years since Will faced paying more than a fourth of his family's annual income—before taxes—just to cover the health insurance premiums. More and more of us also face paying thousands more of our hard-earned dollars in out-of-pocket expenses before the coverage we pay so dearly for actually kicks in. If Will and other critics of real reform just did a little simple math, they would understand why the number of people without insurance is so high and growing so rapidly, and why at least 25 million more of us are now under-insured.

    After telling us we might live to regret trying to reform our dysfunctional non-system, Will makes this assertion:

    "Most Americans do want different health care: They want 2009 medicine at 1960 prices."

    Yeah, that would be nice, and it sure makes for a great quip, but no one I know expects that. Maybe he knows "most Americans" better than I do, but I doubt it. Instead, I suspect he sees the world in much the same way insurance company executives see it from their spacious offices, the windows of their chauffeur-driven limos and the corporate jets that fly them comfortably over "most Americans." When you're at that altitude, it's hard to get a real fix on what most Americans want, much less what so many of them so desperately need.

    To be fair and perfectly honest, I saw the world that way too for most of the 20 years I worked inside the insurance industry. The more money I made and the more perks I was given, the less I thought about the hardships many people face who are not as privileged. It took seeing thousands of people standing in the rain in long lines to get care in a barn just a few miles from where I grew up to finally get it.

    It is true, as Will notes, that many Americans enrolled in employer-sponsored health insurance plans have been able to rely on their employers to pay the lion's share of the premiums. What is also true, but not mentioned in his column, is that fewer and fewer Americans can get coverage through their employers these days, and that of those who can, most are now having to pay a larger share of the premiums and much higher out-of-pocket expenses.

    According to a recent Wall Street Journal story, the number of small employers offering coverage has dropped from 61 percent to 38 percent since 1993. And the way insurers and employers are dealing with medical inflation is to shift more of the financial burden onto the shoulders of working men and women.

    Insurers and their ideological allies, like Grace Marie Turner of the Galen Institute and Betsy McCauaghey of the Hudson Institute, both of whom Will cites as experts in his column and both of whose organizations are corporate funded, say this is a good thing because, they contend, Americans have been insulated for far too long from the real costs of health care.

    That's easy for someone to say who has never had to file for bankruptcy, as millions of Americans have, because the insurance coverage they were counting on didn't come close to covering their medical bills when they got sick or had an accident. And it's easy for a rich, famous and out-of-touch columnist to callously content that all Americans really want is 2009 medicine at 1960 prices, so let's just call the whole thing off.

    Wendell Potter is the Senior Fellow on Health Care for the Center for Media and Democracy in Madison, Wisconsin.

    Comments

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

    :Govt run doesn't work"

    Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on December 26, 2009 - 7:07pm.

    This item is full of the usual right-wing bullshit. For example:

    "Government can't even run Medicaid or Medicare." Really? Government is doing a great job on both of these programs. Medicare's administrative costs are a fraction of those in the private health care industry. And it provides decent health care for some 40 million U.S. senior citizens, at a fraction of what Big Health Inc. charges.

    "Wake up before we lose every single liberty that our forefathers fought and died for." Irrelevant moralizing. What liberty? To pay ever-increasing health care premiums? To find, just before an expensive operation, that our insurance doesn't cover it? To be refused coverage because we once had a disease that is now cured? If that;s liberty, I'll take government "control."

    Another Misinformation Topic

    Submitted by Kalama-T (not verified) on August 13, 2009 - 12:12am.

    Medicare does, in fact, work and has worked since 1965. It has done a great job of keeping health care costs under control to the tune of about twelve percent under its private industry counterparts. Funding went south when the Bush Administration added Part D with no corresponding method to fund the new drug benefit. They looked good, all the while sticking a huge monkey wrench into the program. One might even speculate it was intentional, if one is to believe that politicos can think that far ahead, which I do not.

    The true dinosaur is employment based group health plans. This practice grew out of the post WW2 economy as a retention tool. Government tax policy encouraged the free ride for good little workers in major industries. Now that we will all be working 39 hours at WalMart, if we're lucky, we should stop believing in the health care fairy and face a stiff dose of reality. We all know it bites.

    Govt Run - Medicare...

    Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on July 18, 2009 - 6:53pm.

    Actually, Medicare, according to my Ayn Rand/Reagan worshipping brother, is a fairly efficient program. So probably not the best example to use in your anti-goverment run health care argument. Even many conservatives agree with that

    "Government" is more accountable than the corporation

    Submitted by Taylor Walsh (not verified) on July 11, 2009 - 10:49am.

    We have the last 30 years' track record of a privately-oriented health care operation, whose evolved financial structure and incentives are so skewed that the provision of care -- which is the point -- is far too uncertain for too many Americans, even those who are covered.

    The market is perfect for defining supply-and-demand for things like bicycles and sporting goods or plumbing services, but not for organizing and delivering health-related skills and resources. It is not appropriate for ensuring the health and well being of an entire nation of citizens. If government is not doing a good job at the tasks we assign it to do, we at least have the power, whether we use it or not, to change it. There is very little power to change what corporations have to do to ensure their continued growth. That is the essential disconnect here and why too many people speak in absolutes while passing in the night. Health care needs to be served by the private market, just like a city hires a contractor to build a library, not controlled by it.

    It is amusing to hear status-quo supporters blast the idea that health decisions will be made by the notorious "government beaurocrats," when they are now made by private sector bean-counters. Maybe that's the choice: publicly accountable beaurocrat vs. privately incentivized employee. Really, we can do a hell of a lot better than that.

    fact check the over reaction, then take a breath

    Submitted by ibisko (not verified) on July 11, 2009 - 4:54am.

    the worlds greatest health care? Based on what?
    You are either not a provider of health care, or have not required significant health care.
    In any event, the design and implementation of a system would determine its utility,
    efficiency and value.
    The so-called "rush' is that chronic disease is preventable or can be attenuated by early intervention .Lose a single Mom, and you now have a cost multiplier.
    What liberties are preserved by restricting procedures and payments by for profit insurance companies?
    health care is provided by providers: Doc, nurses, technicians, counselors, etc. and
    everyone needs some form, so there is no such thing as health "insurance".
    got the feeling you support the military: Single payer.
    you use the internet, which came from the government's Arpanet.
    there is a lot of lip service to sanctity of life, here is an opportunity to put it into action.
    As for veterans, we surely didn't serve to benefit insurance companies,
    nor have family members disallowed, rejected, bankrupt or die prematurely.

    Who says it doesn't work?

    Submitted by Marko (not verified) on July 11, 2009 - 1:45am.

    First of all, nobody is proposing "government-run health care," but "government-run insurance." So you're misleading from the start.

    On what basis do you contend that government-run health insurance won't work? Millions of Americans receive care through Medicare, and most of them are quite happy with it. If they're not, they're free to choose private medical insurance, but most opt for Medicare. And back in the Clinton Administration, when we had people in the government who actually believed in government, the VA ran a very good health care system before the Bush ideologues undermined the system.

    There is a fundamental problem with private medical insurance: Insurers make money by NOT paying claims, and incentives for innovation are to find ways to minimize those payouts, rather than in providing better, more cost-effective care. Thus they cherry-pick customers, raise premiums, deny for pre-existing conditions, etc.. And for all the talk of "bureaucrats" getting between patients and doctors, now we have insurance company bureaucrats doing so.

    I don't even claim private insurance firms are evil; they're simply rational. I support a single-payer system because then that single payer might have an incentive to spend money on public health and preventive care ("you can pay me now...or pay me later"), which many insurers have no incentive to pay now since the savings might accrue to a different insurer. If a private firm can do this, great, but I suspect only the federal government has the ability to create a single risk pool that would make this possible.

    And for those of you who claim government can run things: you probably trust government to fight our wars, so why don't you think they can run health insurance?

    McNamara of Health Care

    Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on July 8, 2009 - 10:12pm.

    I worked for CIGNA for nearly twenty years, most of in the account management field. Apparently Mr. Potter who made quite a bit of money either keeping quiet about what he saw or getting his own hands dirty, was in charge of the communication arm that we used to inform customers of our policies.

    I find it odd that he chose to come forward after he retires comfortably.

    He reminds me of former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara who sent soldiers to their deaths in Viet Nam and only well after he retired did he admit that mistakes were made under his watch.

    If any of Potter's charges are true, then I like the millions of Viet Nam vets who were irate at McNamara's confession feel Wendell Potter let down his fellow CIGNA employees as well as millionas of customers. Donate some of your tained retirement to the uninsured if you feel like making a difference.

    Mr. Potter would not be the

    Submitted by lauren Serven (not verified) on July 11, 2009 - 8:18am.

    Mr. Potter would not be the first "whistle blower" to come out of a corporate closet. Are we to dismiss him because it took him so long to develop a conscience?

    The corporate and political climate in this country has been fouled by greed for so long that even nice people can lose sight of the problems their jobs and careers are causing in society. We are all guilty of this to some degree. Ever think about the cheap labor that makes your clothes or harvests your food. Anyone work for a drug company out there whose products are destroying the livers of countless people everyday.

    I think Mr. Potter has shown a lot of courage by coming forward. And I am sure that he is grappling with his recent realization that the industry that he found employment with all these years is responsible for the deaths of thousands and the financial ruin of countless others. Let the man redeem himself. No one is asking that you throw him a party.

    No, Mr. Potter has had many

    Submitted by Karl Marks (not verified) on July 12, 2009 - 1:36am.

    No, Mr. Potter has had many years to reflect on his role. In fact, he should understand just how the system locked himself and others into reality-denial; he was a reality-deflection agent himself. And yet he is still ambivalent and unwilling to address the larger scope.

    If those plates had been silver-rimmed, would he have accepted his post-retirement job offer? Really, the public morality of Americans is disgusting. They stoop under the encumbrance of their capitalist armor.

    "[E]ven nice people can lose sight of the problems their jobs and careers are causing in society." American's don't "lose sight". They almost never take their blinders off.

    Let down?

    Submitted by Mutternich on July 9, 2009 - 8:56am.

    If any of Potter's charges are true, then I like the millions of Viet Nam vets who were irate at McNamara's confession feel Wendell Potter let down his fellow CIGNA employees as well as millions of customers.

    I notice you're not denying what Potter said.

    If his charges are true, how can you feel let down? If they were true, how could you work there for 20 years without realization dawning at some point? Why weren't you out there blowing the whistle on Cigna's practices as exemplified by that so-and-so Potter, or at least looking for a cleaner job? Seems to me that if anyone let you down, you yourself did.