By Manifesto Joe
I sometimes hate to use the term "unintended consequences," because what comes to mind is those free-market-dogma economists. But sometimes the term is descriptive, and it seems that way now after health care "reform."
I'm staunchly for single-payer, and a new development makes it look more like that was essentially a no-brainer: Corporations are being advised, somewhat subtly, to eventually terminate their health care benefits, cutting employees loose to seek out taxpayer-subsidized health care insurance on their own after the "pools" are available in 2014.
I suppose it wasn't hard to see that one coming. Corporations have a reputation for being amoral money machines, and they didn't acquire that rep for nothing. Tell them any way that they can maximize profits, and they will do it. Walk over someone's grandmother? It's a dirty job; but have faith, they'll find someone who will. If CEO No. 1 won't, rest assured that CEO No. 2 will. It's said to be a legal obligation.
The talk about the end of job-based health care insurance is just beginning. But as soon as it can be done, rest assured that you will see the Fortune 500 forming a line on this one. Here's a link to an early article on this from AP. There are a lot of pros and cons being tossed about now, but just wait ...
Sit back and envision the scenario. Millions upon millions of American workers will be cut loose from their employer-based plans, forced to go with those subsidized plans that will be available starting in 2014. It's just good business, Corporate Rob, the company spokesman, will tell the press. And hey, now we can afford to give our workers a raise instead, so that they can afford to go insurance-shopping on their own.
But then comes the question I and many others have long been asking: Why did we need a middle man in the first place? Private insurers will offer these plans, helped by federal subsidies. Why didn't we just do single-payer in the first place, since it looks like we'll have to go there eventually anyway?
It wasn't, and ultimately won't be, feasible to leave things as they were, with 47 million Americans uninsured. In other countries of the developed world, people have long thought that we were insane to keep on with the status quo as long as we did.
But if it's going to come to this, wouldn't it have been easier just to make Medicare available to everyone, not just people 65 and older?
I can already hear the fretting out there about big government. And I will grant, the federal government doesn't have a reputation for being the most efficient provider of services.
But, insurance companies do? When was the last time you had to deal with one? Oh, I suppose you could call them "efficient," at least when it comes to their own profits. They definitely know how to tell people "no." And then no some more. And no again. And by the way, no. But of course, they never say no to taking people's money.
Now in the works to perhaps hasten this change is the mania to cut the federal deficit. Instead of the obvious -- raising taxes on rich people and big corporations, who have been getting preferential treatment in the system for decades now, anyway -- a certain tax break is being scrutinized.
Tax breaks have long helped employers provide what health insurance benefits that they do. That credit looks to be on the chopping block, with President Obama's deficit commission proposing to limit or eliminate that deduction. Here's a link to the story.
It's like watching the perfect storm forming. In less than a decade, employer-based health insurance may become the exception, not the rule, and millions of workers will be forced to shop for insurance through the "pools." That is, they will do so assuming that the Republican U.S. House and the Tea Party don't find a way to keep Obamacare from being implemented.
I was reluctantly for Obamacare as an alternative to doing nothing. But now the current overhaul looks like it will merely be a sort of midwife for a very troubled pregnancy and delivery.
Single-payer is where this is all headed, and the insurance bastards will fight that to their last breath. When that battle happens, at least the American people may be privileged to see very clearly what this is all about -- the massive profits of a large sector of Corporate America. If it wasn't already clear that these people are nasty little bloodsuckers, it finally will be.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Showing posts with label single-payer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label single-payer. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 16, 2009
Price-Gouging On Drugs: Another Argument For Single-Payer
By Manifesto Joe
For decades, I've heard that one big reason drug companies charge so much for their products is that they need plenty of money for R&D (research and development). Staying on the pharmaceutical cutting edge, the argument goes, is part of what has given America "the greatest health care system in the world." Yeah, it works just great -- for CEOs, stockholders and wealthy people in general.
The difference between what the drug companies are charging and what Americans pay for most other products is astonishing. Duff Wilson, reporting for The New York Times, wrote that drugmakers raised prices on their wares by an average of 9 percent during the past year, according to industry analysts. That compares with a decline of 1.3 percent in the Consumer Price Index. Read the full story here.
That's an awful lot of R&D. (And, it comes just before major legislation is anticipated. Coincidence?) So, what are we consumers getting for it?
Well, for starters, there are the drugs that don't work. Nearly two years ago, a study cast much doubt on the effectiveness of the alleged state-of-the-art cholesterol drug Zetia. Here's a report. And, more recently, a study found that a form of niacin actually had more effect on slowing the buildup of plaque on artery walls than did Zetia or a similar drug, Vytorin. That story was in a lot of newspapers today.
Another thing we consumers seem to be getting is a lot of adverse drug reactions to all these exotic new panaceas. There's now a plethora of lawsuits related to liver damage from Zetia and Vytorin regimens. And, these newer meds are more expensive than the older statin drugs, which are often prescribed in tandem. The drug companies had studies years ago indicating all of the above problems, but they persisted in misrepresenting the drugs because that meant higher profits for them.
For that matter, the statin drugs are bad enough. Three days for my mother on Zocor, and she collapsed and landed in the hospital. Three days on Lipitor for me, and I couldn't remember people's names.
So, all we seem to be getting for all that R&D we pay for are drugs that sometimes don't work, and even when they do, the ADRs can at worst kill you, and at best turn you into a zombie.
The payroll as a source of price-gouging?
On to another classic argument: "Those people have to be paid!" an obvious Limbaugh dittohead exclaimed to me during an drugstore argument back in 1992. She was referring to the assorted technicians, skilled laborers, etc., who work for the drug companies.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the rank-and-file lab workers who were pulling in the seven-figure salaries and bonuses. In 17 years we've learned a lot more about that, so forget about that canard.
The stockholders have to be paid, too, right? (Hmmm)
The third in this unholy trinity of drugmaker arguments is that the stockholders have to get a good return on their investments, otherwise they might not gamble on pharmaceuticals. It's considered a high-stakes, and high-risk, investment.
But recent studies, apparently some from the insurance companies themselves, have said that the insurers' profit margins aren't relatively high -- only around 6 percent. Why, then, am I paying more and more every year for needed medications? As the insurance companies keep jacking up co-payments and changing their preferred drug lists, why don't THEY make more money?
Based on the recent analysis, I think we know who's really raking it in. The insurers are just passing on the costs. And we, the consumers, seem to be getting about the same thing for good stockholder returns as we've been getting for all that "R&D."
The answer? Let's take the profit motive OUT OF MEDICINE.
Back in 1992, the same dittohead I mentioned earlier argued that a government takeover of medicine would inevitably lead to lower quality in health care.
I'm going to write something that might be considered astonishing. If that is the case about a "government takeover," I honestly do not give a rat's ass.
The reasons are simple. I'm not rich, and I've had lifelong health problems. I'm not satisfied with the standard of health care I've gotten for over 53 years now; I can't see how flat-out socialized medicine could make it that much worse, and at least what treatment there was would be guaranteed, pre-existing conditions or none.
If I were rich, being flown to Houston for the finest open-heart surgery would be no problem. But I'm not rich, so what good does all that state-of-the-art do me? I just want something I can afford, and can DEPEND ON.
In a single-payer system, there are probably many drawbacks. We've certainly heard all about them from the greedy interests who are fighting U.S. health care reform. But I've noticed something -- not one of the advanced nations that has single-payer, not even conservative-leaning Australia, is debating a change to an American-style "land of the fee" system. Nor do I hear any beneficiaries of Medicare -- a single-payer system for those 65 and older -- say they are willing to give up what they have.
Single-payer would get the profit motive out of medicine, on many levels, including drug prices. However long it takes to get real reform done, the debate will always take us back to that simple truth.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
For decades, I've heard that one big reason drug companies charge so much for their products is that they need plenty of money for R&D (research and development). Staying on the pharmaceutical cutting edge, the argument goes, is part of what has given America "the greatest health care system in the world." Yeah, it works just great -- for CEOs, stockholders and wealthy people in general.
The difference between what the drug companies are charging and what Americans pay for most other products is astonishing. Duff Wilson, reporting for The New York Times, wrote that drugmakers raised prices on their wares by an average of 9 percent during the past year, according to industry analysts. That compares with a decline of 1.3 percent in the Consumer Price Index. Read the full story here.
That's an awful lot of R&D. (And, it comes just before major legislation is anticipated. Coincidence?) So, what are we consumers getting for it?
Well, for starters, there are the drugs that don't work. Nearly two years ago, a study cast much doubt on the effectiveness of the alleged state-of-the-art cholesterol drug Zetia. Here's a report. And, more recently, a study found that a form of niacin actually had more effect on slowing the buildup of plaque on artery walls than did Zetia or a similar drug, Vytorin. That story was in a lot of newspapers today.
Another thing we consumers seem to be getting is a lot of adverse drug reactions to all these exotic new panaceas. There's now a plethora of lawsuits related to liver damage from Zetia and Vytorin regimens. And, these newer meds are more expensive than the older statin drugs, which are often prescribed in tandem. The drug companies had studies years ago indicating all of the above problems, but they persisted in misrepresenting the drugs because that meant higher profits for them.
For that matter, the statin drugs are bad enough. Three days for my mother on Zocor, and she collapsed and landed in the hospital. Three days on Lipitor for me, and I couldn't remember people's names.
So, all we seem to be getting for all that R&D we pay for are drugs that sometimes don't work, and even when they do, the ADRs can at worst kill you, and at best turn you into a zombie.
The payroll as a source of price-gouging?
On to another classic argument: "Those people have to be paid!" an obvious Limbaugh dittohead exclaimed to me during an drugstore argument back in 1992. She was referring to the assorted technicians, skilled laborers, etc., who work for the drug companies.
Last time I checked, it wasn't the rank-and-file lab workers who were pulling in the seven-figure salaries and bonuses. In 17 years we've learned a lot more about that, so forget about that canard.
The stockholders have to be paid, too, right? (Hmmm)
The third in this unholy trinity of drugmaker arguments is that the stockholders have to get a good return on their investments, otherwise they might not gamble on pharmaceuticals. It's considered a high-stakes, and high-risk, investment.
But recent studies, apparently some from the insurance companies themselves, have said that the insurers' profit margins aren't relatively high -- only around 6 percent. Why, then, am I paying more and more every year for needed medications? As the insurance companies keep jacking up co-payments and changing their preferred drug lists, why don't THEY make more money?
Based on the recent analysis, I think we know who's really raking it in. The insurers are just passing on the costs. And we, the consumers, seem to be getting about the same thing for good stockholder returns as we've been getting for all that "R&D."
The answer? Let's take the profit motive OUT OF MEDICINE.
Back in 1992, the same dittohead I mentioned earlier argued that a government takeover of medicine would inevitably lead to lower quality in health care.
I'm going to write something that might be considered astonishing. If that is the case about a "government takeover," I honestly do not give a rat's ass.
The reasons are simple. I'm not rich, and I've had lifelong health problems. I'm not satisfied with the standard of health care I've gotten for over 53 years now; I can't see how flat-out socialized medicine could make it that much worse, and at least what treatment there was would be guaranteed, pre-existing conditions or none.
If I were rich, being flown to Houston for the finest open-heart surgery would be no problem. But I'm not rich, so what good does all that state-of-the-art do me? I just want something I can afford, and can DEPEND ON.
In a single-payer system, there are probably many drawbacks. We've certainly heard all about them from the greedy interests who are fighting U.S. health care reform. But I've noticed something -- not one of the advanced nations that has single-payer, not even conservative-leaning Australia, is debating a change to an American-style "land of the fee" system. Nor do I hear any beneficiaries of Medicare -- a single-payer system for those 65 and older -- say they are willing to give up what they have.
Single-payer would get the profit motive out of medicine, on many levels, including drug prices. However long it takes to get real reform done, the debate will always take us back to that simple truth.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
