What's Good for Blue Cross...
Reading about the significant financial problems General Motors faces, and about the layoffs, plant closings, benefits reductions, and other steps being taken to address them, reminds me yet again of the unmatched power held by insurance companies.
It has been widely reported that a large part of GM's troubles stem from health care costs, which remain huge even after the recent changes negotiated with the United Auto Workers. According to Paul Krugman in today's New York Times (I can't link because it costs $49 a year or the cost of a print subscription to access NYT op-ed columnists), GM spends $1,500 per vehicle on health care, compared to $201 for Toyota here and $97 for auto makers in Japan. This is not just a problem for GM, of course, since nearly all businesses and public entities struggle to come up with the funds to pay ever-rising health care costs.
And that is what I have never understood. Why does everyone -- but especially the largest companies with the most clout as well as the biggest financial stakes -- just take it? Oh, sure, everyone complains, or nibbles around the edges of the problem, but how come dealing with health care costs is not The Number 1 Issue for every chamber of commerce, small business association, trade group, union, and all others affected by the economy (that is, everybody). And why doesn't it stay the The Number 1 Issue until real change occurs? And why isn't all that potential political pressure being brought to bear on our elected representatives. We all pay -- either directly or indirectly -- an astonishingly high amount of money for a system that pleases no one, not employers, not consumers, and not providers. Oh, wait, except for the insurance companies. And keeping them happy seems to be more important than keeping everyone else happy.
I am not a big fan of Hillary Clinton, but I hope she runs for President in 2008 just so she can give the following speech (which, of course, she won't, but one can dream):
"In 1993, upon coming to office, President Clinton made reforming the American health care system his number 1 domestic priority. My husband and I were attacked, ridiculed, portrayed as socialist proponents of the Demon National Health Insurance, and generally battered around enough that we gave up the issue for good. No major reform efforts have occurred since.
"So, now it is 15 years later, and I have a few questions for all those who joined the insurance companies in putting a stop to that effort: How's that health insurance thing working out for you? Have coverage? Your kids? Paying less for what you do have? Have more choices?
"Didn't think so."
The Clintons did not have all the right answers (although I am sure they thought they did, since they always think they do). But at least they were asking the right questions.
It has been widely reported that a large part of GM's troubles stem from health care costs, which remain huge even after the recent changes negotiated with the United Auto Workers. According to Paul Krugman in today's New York Times (I can't link because it costs $49 a year or the cost of a print subscription to access NYT op-ed columnists), GM spends $1,500 per vehicle on health care, compared to $201 for Toyota here and $97 for auto makers in Japan. This is not just a problem for GM, of course, since nearly all businesses and public entities struggle to come up with the funds to pay ever-rising health care costs.
And that is what I have never understood. Why does everyone -- but especially the largest companies with the most clout as well as the biggest financial stakes -- just take it? Oh, sure, everyone complains, or nibbles around the edges of the problem, but how come dealing with health care costs is not The Number 1 Issue for every chamber of commerce, small business association, trade group, union, and all others affected by the economy (that is, everybody). And why doesn't it stay the The Number 1 Issue until real change occurs? And why isn't all that potential political pressure being brought to bear on our elected representatives. We all pay -- either directly or indirectly -- an astonishingly high amount of money for a system that pleases no one, not employers, not consumers, and not providers. Oh, wait, except for the insurance companies. And keeping them happy seems to be more important than keeping everyone else happy.
I am not a big fan of Hillary Clinton, but I hope she runs for President in 2008 just so she can give the following speech (which, of course, she won't, but one can dream):
"In 1993, upon coming to office, President Clinton made reforming the American health care system his number 1 domestic priority. My husband and I were attacked, ridiculed, portrayed as socialist proponents of the Demon National Health Insurance, and generally battered around enough that we gave up the issue for good. No major reform efforts have occurred since.
"So, now it is 15 years later, and I have a few questions for all those who joined the insurance companies in putting a stop to that effort: How's that health insurance thing working out for you? Have coverage? Your kids? Paying less for what you do have? Have more choices?
"Didn't think so."
The Clintons did not have all the right answers (although I am sure they thought they did, since they always think they do). But at least they were asking the right questions.
posted by FCB at 3:34 PM
1 Comments:
Not to mention the ridiculous profits that these health insurance companies post year after year (some of which are alleged to be non-profit entities, with the privleges that come with that status).
Post a Comment
<< Home