General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHealth Secretary Goes Begging to Insurance Companies
via truthdig:
Health Secretary Goes Begging to Insurance Companies
Posted on May 10, 2013
This is incredibly sad, outrageous or corrupt, depending on where you sit, but it is being reported that Kathleen Sebelius has been asking health insurers to help fund the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
As secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, its Sebelius job to midwife the new health care law into being, but the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the former Kansas governor will need five to 10 times more money than Congress allocated to get the job done. Lawmakers have so far refused to spend more on Obamacares implementation, the states arent helping much and HHS has already diverted funds from elsewhere in its budget.
Conflicts of interest abound. How is the secretary supposed to regulate insurers if she depends on them for funding? Even if the money isnt going to HHS, but the nonprofits helping to launch Obamacare, is she allowed to ask in the first place? According to The Washington Post, there are strict circumstances under which Cabinet secretaries can, as private citizens, fundraise for causes they champion. However its difficult to imagine such solicitations, if true (the Post report is based on an anonymous source), dont cross some ethical boundary. .....................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/health_secretary_goes_begging_to_insurance_companies_20130510/
eridani
(51,907 posts)--we can pivot to single payer with the cost controls of global budgeting.
cali
(114,904 posts)it has the potential to be a disaster for the public.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)bornskeptic
(1,330 posts)Why would you think that Congress would be more willing to provide money for single payer?
Occulus
(20,599 posts)The solution sort of suggests itself, doesn't it?
bornskeptic
(1,330 posts)The Defense Department Budget is about $700 billion, while our healthcare spending is around $2.8 trillion, and for that amount millions of Americans don't have access to the healthcare they need. The government already spends about $1 trillion of the $2.8 trillion, so it would have to come up with almost $2 trillion more to cover the rest of us. That could be from some combination of taxes, borrowing, and premiums, but the providers would still have to be paid.
Occulus
(20,599 posts)This solution eliminates the insurance companies and all their annual profits, seizing them if necessary, and assuming they are put out of business, excepting electives, which would be all they would be legally allowed to provide. I didn't make that clear.
bornskeptic
(1,330 posts)still would need to come up with the money to pay the bills. If you eliminate the insurance companies, the government will have to hire undreds of thousands of people to process claims. Actually, insurance company profits make up less than 1% of US healthcare costs. If you want to save big money, you have to look at providers, including drug companies, medical equipment manufacturers, and home healthcare providers. Then maybe we could do something about the exorbitant cost of medical school education, which require doctors to charge excessive fees to have any hope of erasing their educational debt. There are plenty of arguments that can be made for single payer, but it's not a magic elixir that will cure all the ills of our bizarrely contorted healthcare system. To get back to the original point, the Republican Congress wouldn't provide funding for single payer either.
DiverDave
(4,887 posts)math challenged much?
Dependency upon for-profit insurers contributes to the U.S. having the most expensive health care system in the world, consuming nearly 20% of the nation's GDP
http://healthcareprovider.info/forprofit/
eridani
(51,907 posts)Not one single dime of that is being spent on actual health care. Single payer funding assumes that all premiums now going to insurance companies would be diverted to health care expenditures. We pay twice per capita what other industrialized countries pay for worse outcomes. As Kucinich once said "We are already paying for universal health care. We just aren't getting it."
stlsaxman
(9,236 posts)given a choice- i'd buy-in to Medicare in a heartbeat.
bornskeptic
(1,330 posts)That's about what Medicare costs per enrollee. Of course, if you wanted to have a limit on out of pocket costs, you'd have to pay about $200 more each month for a Medigap plan. Surely you don't think that "buying in to Medicare" means geting in for the 13% of total cost which most seniors have to pay.
stlsaxman
(9,236 posts)how do they eat?
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)person on huffpo last night saying his company was offered lower health plan premiums by two insurers. He used that to negotiate with his current carrier and was saved 58k. The problem is the message. Congress is killing this the same way they're killing the economy and we can't let it happen. If the average American knew how much they'd be saving, they'd get motivated. Not only that, if we lay down on this can you imagine what else the health industry will come up with?
Response to marmar (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
eridani
(51,907 posts)The center left opposition proposed a single payer plan that got very popular, so the conservatives stole a march on them and implemented it first.
I doubt very much that the Repukes here have that much common sense.
Response to eridani (Reply #4)
Name removed Message auto-removed
eridani
(51,907 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I think about half the political stories on DU make me want to say "No one could have predicted" in an ironic way because so many of them are as predictable as gravity if you have been paying attention to politics for a while.
I like a term I first read on Krugman's blog: Hoocoodanode?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hoocoodanode
ProSense
(116,464 posts)..."incredibly" misleading. This entire story is being pushed by Republicans who are pissed that the law's implementation is on track.
To solicit funds from health-care executives to help pay for the implementation of the Presidents $2.6 trillion health spending law is absurd, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said in a statement. I will be seeking more information from the Administration about these actions to help better understand whether there are conflicts of interest and if it violated federal law.
<...>
HHS spokesman Jason Young added that a special section in the Public Health Service Act allows the secretary to support and encourage others to support nonprofit groups working to provide health information and conduct other public-health activities.
<...>
Many of Sebeliuss calls have gone to current supporters of Enroll America, the most prominent nonprofit group working on the health care laws implementation, an HHS official said. Its president, Anne Filipic, joined the group in January after serving as the White Houses deputy director for public engagement.
We all have a lot of work to do between now and the Marketplace opening in October, Filipic said in a statement. Thats why its so important that the public, private and non-profit sectors are coming together to educate consumers about the opportunities that will be available to them later this year. Secretary Sebelius recognizes how important the work Enroll America is doing and were thrilled to be working with her.
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/10/budget-request-denied-sebelius-turns-to-health-executives-to-finance-obamacare/
http://www.enrollamerica.org/
There is nothing "corrupt" about pushing to increase awareness of and working to fully implement the law. Why would anyone object to making people more about the new health care law?
flamingdem
(39,321 posts)I thought that was Republican propaganda..
eridani
(51,907 posts)--that could better be spent on real health care instead. One billion dollars in the state of California alone. In MA, health care bankruptcies are still 50% of all bankruptcies. Why would anyone think that's a good thing?