Health Care

"Reform" has come to mean "nightmare." Or "sellout." "Bipartisan" means "We're still afraid of the Republicans."

Susie Madrak notes this about the Massachusetts model, one of the favorites of the Republicans and DINOs in Congress:

The Massachusetts plan is struggling because it's nothing more than an insurance co-op - something that keeps paying the middleman:

Tens of thousands of Massachusetts patients who grapple with some of the most intractable mental health problems - eating disorders, addictions, autism, and post-traumatic stress - should face fewer barriers to treatment under a state law that went into effect July 1. But the cost of the state’s latest healthcare expansion remains an open question. . . .

Insurers’ overall spending in Massachusetts, estimated at about $13 billion a year, will increase by $13 million to $39 million a year because of the new law, according to regulators’ calculations.

But a coalition of employer and insurance groups contends that the costs are likely to be significantly higher. Insurers said that the state’s calculations substantially underestimate the costs. They have not, however, come up with their own estimates.

And they won't, because they don't have any.

Here's part of the problem. Watch the dodge and weave here:



And get this, from BarbinMD at Kos:

But if you have more than a million dollars a day to spend, have a vested interest in stopping real health care reform, and better yet, if you have a past, personal relationship with key lawmakers, pull up a chair:

The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records.

Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), debating whether to adopt a public insurance option opposed by major industry groups ...

A June 10 meeting between aides to Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and health-care lobbyists included two former Baucus chiefs of staff: David Castagnetti, whose clients include PhRMA and America's Health Insurance Plans, and Jeffrey A. Forbes, who represents PhRMA, Amgen, Genentech, Merck and others. Castagnetti did not return a telephone call; Forbes declined to comment.

That goes a long way in explaining why Baucus, one of 60 Democratic Senators, has been fighting so hard against a public option. You know, the one that more than 70% of all Americans support. But Baucus aides "bristle" at the idea that lobbyists are getting any special access or treatment.

It becomes more and more obvious that Washington is intrinsically corrupt. Maybe we need term limits for every elective office.

And Krugman gets it:

Let me start by pointing out something serious health economists have known all along: on general principles, universal health insurance should be eminently affordable.

After all, every other advanced country offers universal coverage, while spending much less on health care than we do. For example, the French health care system covers everyone, offers excellent care and costs barely more than half as much per person as our system.

Y'know, it's not like we have to come up with something entirely new. There are all sorts of models out there, because most developed countries' governments care more about their citizens' welfare than ours does. I mean, I'm not a health-care guru, by any means, but I've been in discussions with Canadians and Brits -- which, by the way, do not have the best systems in place, although those seem to be the ones most often cited by opponents of reform (how strange! but then, that's probably why) -- and noted the commentaries by Chris in Paris at AmericaBlog -- first-hand accounts of how the French system works -- and I can see quite plainly that apologists for the status quo have been doing the usual number -- cooked numbers, ignored facts, and focus on horror stories. (I remember one beef about the waiting time in Canada as it applied to critical procedures, and was told by a Canadian that they can come to the States if a procedure is time-critical, and the Canadian plan will pay for it -- as well as housing for the family members. You didn't hear that from the insurance lobby.)

The problem? I have no confidence in Obama or Congress on this. They're going to listen to the money, not the voters.

I may come back to this. Depends on how pissed off I get.