Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kurt_cagle

(534 posts)
26. A Culture of Corporate Dependency
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:26 AM
Nov 2012

The mindset of corporations is to leave no profitable niche untapped, and to create dependencies where none existed before. In the aftermath of World War II, there was a labor shortage as pent up demand caused unemployment to reach its lowest point in history. The jobs involved were generally labor intensive, and many companies employed doctors on staff to handle the frequent injuries such labor entailed. However, doctors are expensive, and they too were in high demand, so many companies began to offer a stipend to cover doctor visits as doctors either went into private practice or started working for the mega-hospitals that also emerged after WWII.

As health care costs began to rise, it made sense to pool funds, since in general disease and injury costs were comparatively rare on an individual basis - the number of people who were sick or injured at any given time was sufficiently low that companies investing into the pool would only tap it when injury did occur, which meant that over time, you ended up developing a tidy profit. What's more, the people being covered were generally men and (a few) women in their prime of life - mid twenties to early sixties, were reasonably affluent, and were usually in good health.

Such pools naturally attracted speculative investors, who realized that if they had control over these buckets of money, they could invest it in other areas. So they bought out the company pools and established themselves as insurance companies, and then began expanding that pool to cover higher and higher risk people via higher deductibles, as well as investing outside of the health care domain entirely.

That's when things began to go south. More than a few insurance companies wracked up losses in other areas through bad bets, and they rose rates to compensate. Health care providers invested in new technology, which had to be amortized, and the pharmaceutical industry, seeing an increasingly captive market, expanded their own R&D while at the same time taking larger amounts off the top for administrative purposes, as did the insurance companies themselves. In the 1970s there was an attempt to reform the industry with Health Maintenance Organizations, but these eventually went from a gateway to being a facilitator of the health care complex. Demographics caused problems as well, as their core pool aged and placed higher and higher demands upon the system. In essence, the health insurance industry ended up building on a Ponzi scheme that sustained itself for about fifty years, but is reaching a point where the number of new investors into the scheme cannot cover the accumulated debt and bad investments of all previous investors.

Today, the system is collapsing, and like so much else that the private enterprise system has created, it has left the mess to be picked up by the taxpayers. Yet the insurance companies don't want to lose the pots of money they have - they simply want the government to pick up those people that are a net loss for them. Since many of those same insurance companies are now partially or totally owned subsidiaries of the giant investment banks, those banks are also vehemently opposed to reform. The pharmaceutical and medical supply companies are generally opposed, since much of the cost of drugs and the like are in effect hidden by what the insurance company does cover, as are costly procedures performed by the hospitals.

I'm not sure where things will end up. My suspicion is that in the end, ObamaCare will end up as the two tier system it is today - individuals will either buy directly into the government pool or into a private insurance pool. Employers will get out of the insurance business altogether.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I think he's right gollygee Nov 2012 #1
I'm hoping the business community will now want to support single payer... OneGrassRoot Nov 2012 #3
That, I hope, will turn out to be the genius of ACA. PeaceNikki Nov 2012 #11
'xactly. ;) n/t OneGrassRoot Nov 2012 #13
It developed during WWII as a way to attract workers when wages were fixed. SharonAnn Nov 2012 #31
This is where he probably would disagree - since he would say that taking healthcare out of the Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #10
There's a big difference between health care and health insurance. yardwork Nov 2012 #28
Because we have an insane for-profit insurance industry? caraher Nov 2012 #2
health care costs brokechris Nov 2012 #14
Very few doctors make $300,000 a year. Most make a lot less than that. yardwork Nov 2012 #29
Not sure where you live, brokechris Nov 2012 #35
Doctor salaries are not the main driver of increased health care costs caraher Nov 2012 #32
I wasn't trying to say that they are a main driver. brokechris Nov 2012 #36
It's a trade-off postulater Nov 2012 #4
I agree - but then you would have to convince them that the cost of increased taxes would not Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #16
I could be totally wrong about this Lindsay Nov 2012 #5
It's an historic consequence of healthcare being an inticement to employment HereSince1628 Nov 2012 #6
exactly...."Doing the right thing." That is also was is also what is missing completely from Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #20
Right, wasn't it a way to get around a wage ceiling? treestar Nov 2012 #27
Yes I believe it was, then it became a "business as usual" alternative to monetary compensation HereSince1628 Nov 2012 #34
before businesses got involved MrYikes Nov 2012 #7
I was taught in college brokechris Nov 2012 #8
They used to do it as a benefit to attract and retain employees. geckosfeet Nov 2012 #9
back in the old days.... madrchsod Nov 2012 #12
yes. And also, a long time ago, you simply paid your "doctor visit" bills - maybe even had a Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #21
He is correct and they should not have to. Plus, why attach healthcare cost to American products?? Coyotl Nov 2012 #15
Not actually true quaker bill Nov 2012 #17
Therein lies the rub - we all know WHAT needs to happen to cure this problem. HughBeaumont Nov 2012 #18
Why not compromise. Why not de-couple routine healthcare from hospitalization? That's Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2012 #23
I like this idea! (nt) brokechris Nov 2012 #38
Because the U.S. MUST be capitalist LWolf Nov 2012 #19
It was once part of a benefits package to get and keep good workers. It also sometimes included juajen Nov 2012 #22
No, the asnwer should have been 100% nationalized HC Puzzledtraveller Nov 2012 #24
The answer is simply-- Who else? Every national system I'm aware of... TreasonousBastard Nov 2012 #25
A Culture of Corporate Dependency kurt_cagle Nov 2012 #26
This will soon, very soon, become the standard view for most businesses riderinthestorm Nov 2012 #30
new health care brokechris Nov 2012 #37
Your friend needs to study the history of post WWII American economics to find the answer. Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #33
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why is it that employers ...»Reply #26