A Warning Label for the New Health Care Bill

Friday, 19 March 2010 17:00

Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)

othing that's legislated is perfect and in my view the good that will come from passing health care legislation outweighs the bad, but be warned: the pending House bill (that will go to the Senate for a "reconciliation" vote) does not repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurers, nor does it contain a public insurance option. It thereby will allow health insurers to continue to consolidate into even larger entities, gain as much market power as they can, and charge ever higher prices. Yet Americans will be required to buy health insurance from them. Assuming the bill becomes law, this dissonance spells trouble. It will have to be addressed before 2014, when the bill takes effect.

Open Article On Originating Site

Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written twelve books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet," and his most recent book, "Supercapitalism." His "Marketplace" commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.

Comments

+10 # Guest 2010-03-19 20:20

This warning label is true, which is why we have to continue working beyond this legislation to improve the health care system.
The current debate is only marginally about health care. It is, more importantly, a simple power struggle. Those who favor health care reform must win this particular power struggle if we ever hope to break the corpporate stranglehold on health care, then move forward.

+10 # Guest 2010-03-19 23:50

Think about it folks! The bill is essentially welfare for the insurance industry! Woopee! Taxpayers' money being used to support them and better yet, to pay them this welfare on a guaranteed basis! And at whatever rate the decide to charge! What a sweet deal! I wonder how they managed to obtain it.

+7 # Guest 2010-03-20 05:31

Quoting

Think about it folks! The bill is essentially welfare for the insurance industry! Woopee! Taxpayers' money being used to support them and better yet, to pay them this welfare on a guaranteed basis! And at whatever rate the decide to charge! What a sweet deal! I wonder how they managed to obtain it.

Because Max Baucas and other sleaze bags made millions from from the insurance lobby. Isn't that public knowledge yet?

0 # Guest 2010-03-21 16:49

NO. It's not public knowledge.
the problem here is that what is 'public knowledge' is mostly coming from a right wing dominated media and other sleaze bags.

+7 # Guest 2010-03-20 06:02

Well, corporations are persons, according to the Supreme Court, with (so far) all the rights that entails except voting (can that be far behind?). Hardly surprising, then, that Health Care Reform has become Health Insurance Industry Profit Protection.

+8 # Guest 2010-03-20 10:19

Since corporations are people now, made more firmly so by our puppet supreme court, we should be able to try KBR and Blackwater/XE for murder and rape, because parts of their corporate body murdered and raped people. As people go, KBR and Blackwater are total dicks, in my opinion, and deserve to be punished. But how do you incarcerate or execute an entire corporation?

0 # Guest 2010-03-22 10:53

Quoting

Since corporations are people now, made more firmly so by our puppet supreme court, we should be able to try KBR and Blackwater/XE for murder and rape, because parts of their corporate body murdered and raped people. As people go, KBR and Blackwater are total dicks, in my opinion, and deserve to be punished. But how do you incarcerate or execute an entire corporation?

How? Revoke their charter. Fat chance for that to actually happen but that's how you execute a corporation.

+1 # Guest 2010-03-20 08:07

But the big picture is the Obama Administration is not stimied dead. They failed to reform, but they have coalesced the blue dogs long enough to show movement. Even a strategic retreat is better than sitting still to be massacred by those who would kill all government.

0 # Guest 2010-03-20 08:14

The big picture is the Democrats are not stimied. A tactical concession to corporations still leaves room for maneuver. That's better than no movement which validates the claim that government cannot do anything.

0 # tarantilla 2010-03-20 10:07

You are so right. I wrote a comment about this but who knows if they will print it. You can profit by buying stocks in HMO's, etc. First the banks, now the insurance companies. Is this a great country or what?

+4 # Guest 2010-03-20 02:54

Requiring Americans to purchase insurance from profit making companies is unconstitutiona l on the face of it. Early on someone will file suit on this and it may take several years to get to the Supreme Court but I feel certain the court will rule for the people in this case.7kyxs

+4 # Guest 2010-03-20 05:28

Quoting

Requiring Americans to purchase insurance from profit making companies is unconstitutiona l on the face of it. Early on someone will file suit on this and it may take several years to get to the Supreme Court but I feel certain the court will rule for the people in this case.7kyxs

I no faith in the supreme court. They rule consistently with elected officials. Big corporations and government have the same goal. To separate Americans from what little savings they have or in some cases keep them in debt. Why is the finance "reform" bill as lame (and industry lobbied) as this health care bill? Because they have the same goal. I am amused that politicians that want our support can't explain where costs are being lowered. They simply use the term "affordable". Which makes me nervous coming from the mouth of a multi-millionaire!

-1 # Guest 2010-03-20 06:24

ted mohr:

You can;t drive a car without proof of auto insurance can you?

+3 # Guest 2010-03-20 07:26

No, but you can own one without proof of auto insurance, can't you?

0 # Guest 2010-03-20 10:49

Illogical argument.

+1 # Guest 2010-03-22 11:57

Following your logic: You aren't allowed to drive without liability insurance and thus you shouldn't be allowed to live without health insurance...is that about it?

+2 # Guest 2010-03-20 17:16

Reggie, the purpose of required auto insurance (at least in the state of Texas) is to protect the other driver (liability insurance) and not necessarily the holder of the policy (unless you see it as protection from a law suit to claim damaged should you cause an accident).

Health insurance (for those who can currently afford it) is supposed to protect the holder of the policy in case of illness.

Unfortunately, it quite often does not even do that.

0 # Guest 2010-03-21 08:09

insurance, the real rulers of America

+1 # Guest 2010-03-22 09:48

Chuck's reply gets at part of the Constitutional differences in these two different types of legislation. 1) The use of the public roads implies a contract between the driver and the state; this contract necessitates insurance to cover the risk created by that use. NB: using a car on a PRIVATE ROAD does not ever require a license. 2) This insurance reform bill is created by the Federal Government, not the State. The Fed Gov is supposed to be one of limited powers that are expressed in the Constitution. The Fed Gov has no expressed power to force people to buy private insurance. I would argue that is a violation of the 5th Amendment.

+5 # Guest 2010-03-20 09:31

The Supreme Court will never rule against anything that benefits corporations. It doesn't matter what the Constitution says because they will twist logic to fit whatever result they desire. We are screwed. Our only purpose is to serve the corporations.

+4 # Guest 2010-03-20 02:57

It would seem logical that a "public option" that would actually be a buy in to the government programs now in place and lauded by recipients and republicans as untouchable, with a defined marginal profit for the government, in the 5% range would be of use. The cost spread over a ever growing group should be less expensive than the corporate insures, the profit could go back to help defray the cost of non paying, senior recipient's of the government program and the corporate companies could still offer balloons and whistles that would draw off those able to afford them.
Anyone who thinks put upon by buying into some type of insurance that would help the least affluent of our citizens the right to life I hear so much about, can opt out with a signature that they will be responsible for there health care pay as you go or for the rest of your life if they can negotiate terms acceptable prior to treatment.

0 # Guest 2010-03-23 12:10

Reports are that included in the uninsured who will now be covered are between 7 million and 11 million illegal aliens. I for one, do not want to have to pay for persons who are in this country illegally.

+3 # Guest 2010-03-20 05:38

There is both danger and opportunity in this "health care" bill. We need to recognize it is more about funding than health care and certainly nothing about wellness. Without a meaningful public option and continued anti-trust shielding there is no incentive for insurance companies to rein in costs. They will, in typical unrestarined market fashion, stick it to the consumers. Sen. Reid has said something to the progressive caucus about re-visiting the public option in the near future. It's probably a long shot, but certainly pushing for repeal of anti-trust exemption may well be feasible and provide a check on unrestrained power and greed. Given the public antipathy toward the insurance companies and how it will get worse as they jack up rates, perhaps that could pass. Of course now that the Supreme Court has turned the elections over to corporations even modest anti-trust reform may be a pipe dream.

+2 # Guest 2010-03-20 06:23

This has been a contentious issue for most of us on either side of the debate and as time passes the good, bad and the ugly aspects of reform will surface.

There is one overriding consideration that compels me to give a nod to the passage of this legislation and that happens to be the numbers of average, working Americans who'll lose everything, even life in many cases with nothing done at all.

They screamed and hollered against Medicare and Social Security, and before that they screamed and hollered against civil rights and voting rights ... in a perfect world big sweeping legislation is done in one fell swoop, this is not a perfect world.

+3 # Guest 2010-03-20 06:30

Everyone seems to be saying, "Let's get this Bill passed, and then we can improve upon it." This is better than Fantasy Island. Let's wake up to reality folks. If this Bill passes, and I fear that it will if someone like Kucinich is willing to cave in on it, then this will be the best that you're going to get folks, if you want to call it that. Come Nov, whether or not this Bill gets passed, the Dems will be losing seats in Congress because they jerked around playing with the Repubs for 15 months, Repubs who had absolutely no intentions of voting for this Bill from the get-go to a man (or woman), no matter what. This Bill, as a result of raping & stripping it of virtually every decent provision, not the least being a strong & robust public option, allegedly because of the Repubs, will now be passed without the need or support of the Repubs, not only without any of those decent & needed provisions being put back, but stripped of even more needed provisions.

+1 # Guest 2010-03-20 06:56

Getting this bill "fixed" will take generations. It's a really wobbly stone to build on and many will suffer.

+3 # Guest 2010-03-20 08:02

Thank you yet again Mr. Reich. I wish I could ask him a simple question: *Mr. Reich, if you were a congressman, would you vote yes?" I think he would. (If he would not, that would certainly make me think twice.)

And, I agree with Jim Ryan.

Too many concessions were made with nothing in return. But it is too late to fix that now.

Without the public option, this bill will only work on the margins. However, this has become a power struggle and like the Presidential election, a vote for the status quo versus change.

-1 # LeeMG 2010-03-20 08:35

The big question is whether the Obama administration and the Democrats can do ANYTHING. A failure in tactics that gave profiteers on pain a again is not the end of the war. If this bill is killed, there is no chance for change. Those who say government cannot work will win.

+1 # Guest 2010-03-20 10:55

It's confusing to me why the dems feel the need to give concessions to the repubs when they've made it abundantly clear THEY'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR THE BILL. Congressional dems need some backbone. Stand up! Certainly, this bill will need more work, but we have to start somewhere. Ridiculous that it's so complicated. Also ridiculous there's no public option to keep those greedy insurance companies in check. Hopefully, someday . . .

-1 # Guest 2010-03-20 09:24

I think the bad in this bill outweighs the good. A strong public option would have balanced this out, but now we know it was Obama who blocked a public option all along. We know a public option could pass the House and Senate now via reconciliation if Obama would allow it. But he cares more about parasitic corporations than about people. Oh wait, I forgot, corporations are people. Actually, they are our mortal enemies. They live by taking our money and then killing us. Anyone who supports them, like Obama, is an enemy of real people.

+2 # tarantilla 2010-03-20 09:53

This is so right. The current bill is a health insurance bill, not a health care bill. It gives HMO's, insurance companies, and Rx companies the right to steal directly from the federal government, instead of people. The only way for people to benefit, at least in the short term(if the bill passes) is to buy stock in these companies.

+2 # Guest 2010-03-20 10:03

The big question is whether a new administration come 2013 can undue the damage our Congress and this administration will do. My sense is that we are doomed for the long run and the price will be high in terms of our society.

0 # Guest 2010-03-20 11:10

I am so incredibly embarrassed to keep reading from intellectually "gifted" people about this "health care" legislation.
This has nothing to do with "health care". This has every thing to do with health insurance. Patients will still receive he same health care (good, bad or indifferent) that is mandated by the bureaucrats who have no clue what health care is.
Now I want to know who will run the new program and where I can get my cut of the pie. There is gold in that thar legislation.

0 # Guest 2010-03-20 12:59

Prescription drugs can get a "Black Box Warning" that must be put on the Package Insert and appears in the Physician's Desk Reference (PDR).
Another WARNING LABEL for the new health care bill concerns its provisions affecting actual delivery of health care.
Government-determined "Best Practices" were voluntary in the House Bill but mandated in the Senate Bill.
Centrally controlled and planned medical care will have to be modified. Watching the decline of the Soviet Union, we saw where central planning goes.
The idea, incorporated in the bill, of a "Roster of Shame" for doctors who do not do "Best Practices" is a double-edged sword.
It will punish doctors who practice above and beyond the standard care as well as doctors who don't reach up to the standard care.
We have a lot of work ahead.

+3 # Guest 2010-03-20 13:59

Of course the biggest flaw in the bill is the absence of a public option. But why blame that primarily on Obama? The entire GOP, plus the blue dog Democrats, have done everything in their power to block the public option from day one. They are entirely in the pockets of the big corporate insurers, and care not a whit for the welfare of the citizens. So blame them first! They are corporatists and obstructionists of the first order.

0 # Guest 2010-03-20 15:45

The more differing opinions I read about this issue, the more I begin to doubt the integrity of the american citizen.
This is a health care bill in a very limited sense only. For the most part the government will assume a deciding role in our lives, overriding peoples will. The worst part in it is the funding of it with Medicare money and mostly for the benefit of illegal aliens.
This has nothing to do with America anymore. It is a total 'New World Order'.

0 # Guest 2010-03-21 03:15

Conservatives nibble at the edges of law all the time. That is how they have been trying to neutralize Rowe v. Wade and other progressive causes- nibbling at civil rights. With this law in place, those of us who want to take the profit motive out of health care will be better able to nibble at the industry's power- Not as well as we would have with a public option. I have always supported single payer but doubted it would get anywhere and it didn't. This bill will give us some leverage.

0 # drwhite48 2010-03-22 11:59

So there it is. Remove the "profit motive". O.K., maybe we should remove the "profit motive" for all types of public service jobs. We'll start with the Congress. Level all their salaries. Say 500% of the national poverty level, and keep it there until all eternity. No more "profit" wage increases for them. No more profit increases for fire departments, police departments, any of that greedy stuff. Next remove profit from all industry. Our cars are good enough as they are. Our homes and all the stuff in them is as good as it will get. If we need better, government will tell us so. We have good enough medicines for now, no need for profits to put into research. Profits, who needs them? Take your minimum wages and shut up.

+1 # Guest 2010-03-21 06:57

The answer is with the people, not with government. Stop paying exorbitant insurance premiums. This will cause the rich to have to pay even more for health coverage. Then they, the major donors to candidates, will speak to their elected reps. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be fined ($699) for not having health care, and potentially jailed, where we will receive free public health care. If we the people stop collaborating with the puppet masters, they will get the message.

0 # Guest 2010-03-21 12:50

Given the struggle to pass this bill in its current form any hope of changing it to include a public option by 2014 is doomed to failure. The only hope is to throw it out and propose the 'right' one. The really sad thing is that Obama could have probably pushed this through if he had found the same courage he is displaying now 6 months ago.

0 # Guest 2010-03-21 13:29

All the hand wringing and back slapping accomplishes little. The progressive movement needs to organise the same way that the civil rights movement did. Then they need to put relentless pressure on Washington. A real revolt is required with national marches and strikes such as you see in old europe. Will this happen. No.

0 # Guest 2010-03-22 11:10

Why is America incapable of learning from others? There are in existence several good and some excellent national health systems. (Please note that I did not say health insurance systems! Insurance companies contribute absolutely nothing to the health care processes, and do interfere to the detriment of patients and they make the process much more costly. But this is the Corporate owned and operated America, so what did anyone expect?) Perhaps this will be the first step to improvement, but I have my doubts. Pink elephant said it; Americans are now so accustomed to their misuse that they are incapable of rebelling.
I long ago mourned the death of my nation. Meanwhile where will we make war next? War is costly for us -- but necessary to our masters.

0 # Guest 2010-03-24 08:50

The very imperfection of the new health care law is what makes it potentially so valuable politically to Democrats. Here's an agenda for realizing this. http://ericlaursen.infoshop.org/blogs-mu/

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.