***
You don’t smell this type of fear. This type of fear is measured by the dollars poured into quelling it. The lobbies opposing the public option as part of healthcare reform are spending approximately $1,300,000 every day to spread fear-mongering lies to the American people. Add to that the volunteer efforts of those organized to disrupt congressmen’s local healthcare town meetings with the lies propagated by the multi-million dollar lobbying effort. See:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/05/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5217554.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/04/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5213270.shtml
Who’s behind this disinformation campaign? Those who are raking it in through their control of the multi-faceted American healthcare industry – insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, doctors (AMA), dentists (ADA), nursing homes, et al. It’s the full panoply of interests making money like crazy as components of the vast scope of the healthcare business in this country. All these companies have huge vested financial interests in keeping thing exactly as they are. Sure, they’ll reform a bit here and there as long as they retain control. Why have the insurance companies compromised on preconditions and other reforms? Because they’re gambling everything on defeating the public option.
Keith Olbermann’s special commentary on August 3 included a lengthy list of senators and congressmen, Republicans and Democrats who have received monumental campaign contributions from companies in the healthcare industry. We’re talking millions of dollars for each congressman or senator.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32284299/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/
How many members of Congress will cast a vote for the public benefit and against his personal financial interests? Far too few, as witnessed by those in Congress opposing the public option for healthcare.
Two of the more popular lies are 1) that the government will be killing the elderly; and 2) this is unacceptable socialism leading to a full government takeover of healthcare. In my opinion both are ludicrous and do not merit discussion.
One argument against the public option designed to appeal to those less gullible or ignorant is picturing a typical government bureaucrat sitting at his typical bureaucrat desk between you and your doctors, deciding what sort of care you’re going to get. From that picture sprung the two lies mentioned above. The very idea of a suit in a tower somewhere who doesn’t know you from Adam (or Eve) evaluating your medical care is simply galling, and understandably so.
For that argument you must assume that when you, your doctor or hospital submits a claim to your benevolent insurance company, it is offered up to the medical gods for blessing and then approved as in your best interests as prescribed by your doctors (doctors worried about malpractice suits for “under” practicing). Well, that’s not it at all. Not even close. I mean that is totally not the way it is when your insurance company is asked to pay out on your claim, i.e., pay some of its own money to someone.
The person examining your claim is your average Joe or Josephine, making an average salary for an in-office insurance adjuster. He reviews what you submit against claims-paying guidelines issued by his employer insurance company. He then determines the amount of money the company will pay on your claim. Paying claims takes away from the profit margin, so the less paid out on your claim the better it is for the insurance company as it’s looking to make a buck in the business. On the other hand there’s a government employee with equal training also deciding how much to pay on your claim based on the government’s claims paying guidelines. Contrary to the private company, the government is not looking to make a profit in the healthcare biz.
Which entity through its claims paying guidelines and practices is more likely to pay more, if at all, on your claim – the non-profit or for-profit?
This is a first for American healthcare – the private sector competing with the public sector for customers, featuring the potential of competition in service and efficiency. The previously untouched interlocking and interdependent amalgam which is the American healthcare industry is about to be challenged and it doesn’t like it one bit.
Rachel Maddow explains all this in greater depth. Please take a few minutes to learn how it works.
[N.B. The cost of a public option is a separate issue, more of a “how to” question. The initial question is whether a public option should exist in the first place. It is this issue which is fraught with greed and self interest in Congress and the entire healthcare industry.]
***
No comments:
Post a Comment