11
Businesses should let go of health care
Commentator Matt Miller
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
KAI RYSSDAL: President Obama restated the obvious in Rome today. Asked about the prospects for health care reform, the president said it's going to take tough negotiations. There will be extended discussions about costs and services.
But commentator Matt Miller says that if a deal is finally reached, most of us will still be getting our coverage through our employers. Because that's what business wants.
Matt Miller: America's unique employer-based health care system is rooted in another century. When health care was cheap, U.S. firms faced little global competition and fending off socialism was a Cold War priority. Today, though, despite radically changed circumstances, corporate America remains in a time warp. Business resists the idea of government assuring a basic health benefit that might supplant its own role.
When you ask business leaders why this is the case, all you hear are sloppy arguments. Some say they need to offer health benefits to recruit talent. But if government assured a basic benefit, companies could still lure talent with extra offerings, as they do with extra pensions atop Social Security.
Others say that if the government steps up, business will end up paying more for health care but won't be able to control it. But our employer-based system already delivers the costliest health care on the planet. And business won't pay as much if the powerful business lobby makes permanently lowering business's contribution to health costs its aim, rather than fighting off government altogether.
Steve Byrd, Safeway's CEO, says that if government picked up the tab we'd lose cost cutting innovations -- like lower premiums for workers who hit the gym or quit smoking -- that some companies feel are essential. On that logic, Safeway ought to be running its own schools for employees, too, and raising its own army to protect them. That can't be right. So what's really going on in the corporate mind?
Common sense suggest only one answer: corporate America's reflexive anti-government ideology now stands in the way of its self-interest. This reflex is not new. Business originally resisted child labor laws, the Federal Reserve, the SEC, Social Security, the Marshall Plan, national parks, federal aid to education and Medicare. The list is endless and embarrassing.
There's still time for business to come to its senses before it signs up for another few decades of back-breaking health care duties when it has better things to do, like competing with China and India. As the health care endgame is negotiated, business has to realize that when it comes to its huge role in America's welfare state, it's okay and sensible, to let go.
Ryssdal: Matt Miller is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. His most recent book is called "The Tyranny of Dead Ideas."
Pages
Pray tell, Kim Doyle, how can you be so pro-government?
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.
The National Parks System costs us taxpayers millions a year when most of us cannot enjoy it.
And as for federal aid to education, I hope you are not referring to even more money the broken public school system.
Every social program run by our federal government is a case study of waste and inefficiency.
To Kim Doyle:
Having lived in Canada, I can tell you that you want to keep the federal government out of medicine as far as you can. I've waited for months in Ontario to get a simple procedure when I could have had the same thing in the US in a matter of days.
And the Canadian diagnostic equipment? It's frequently bought second hand from US medical facilities.
I agree, Kim, that we should be getting more for our tax dollars, but medical care is the last thing I want.
The ideas presented by Mr. Miller are rather lame. He cites Safeway running their own education system and army. They couldn't do any worse than the $200 toilet seat defense departement and high dollar, low performing US education system. Then he goes on to say business opposed Federal Reserve, SEC, Social Security, Medicare, ... Does anyone think these entities perfom well? Bernie Madoff duped the SEC. Social Security is a giant Ponzi scheme that is going bankrupt. The Federal Reserve largely caused the housing bubble.
If you could provide some data that shows any governemnt run program is the pinnacle of efficiency, I would gladly consider your healthcare argument more valid.
The Center for American Progress ... is a Washington, DC-based liberal think tank created and led by President and Chief Executive Officer John D. Podesta, the head of Barack Obama's presidential transition team after the 2008 election and former Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton. In 2009 CAP's Progressive Media project emerged as a major communications war room on behalf of Obama's domestic and foreign policy agenda and CAP became a strong advocate for escalation in Afghanistan. Progressive Media is run through the Center for American Project Action Fund, the more political 501(c)4 arm of CAP. It coordindates closely with the Common Purpose Project, an effort to create message discipline among the pro-Obama organizations, with a direct tie to the White House. Source Watch If the above is true, why don't you more clearly inform us about the intent of the commentator?
We do need universal health coverage but a private component is still needed and large employers can and do play a positive role in assuring better health.
One of the largest costs to our system is chronic illness. Medicare does a poor job of assuring that patients with Diabetes, hypertension, congestive heart failure asthma amongst other chronic illnesses, are taking their medications, getting appropriate follow-up and generally monitoring their own health.
Employers, such as Safeway, have the ability to set up programs with the health insurer to monitor the employees health.
I see nothing in the present proposals for a public plan to manage chronic disease.
A Modern Modest Proposal
Who to believe is an important question
in this era of the ongoing Great Recession.
The US needs universal health care,
every other civilized nation has a system.
(Maybe we’re not civilized; that’s the problem.)
The Health Care/ Insurance business is against
it saying it smacks of “socialized medicine.â€
traditionally anything an industry is against,
like stopping air pollution, we voters should be for.
Here’s a list of what business, historically, has been not-for:
child labor laws; the Federal Reserve; the Security
exchange Commission (SEC); Social Security;
the Marshall Plan; national parks; federal aid to education;
medicare; women in the workforce; equal pay for equal work.
It is an endless litany of being wrong.
Finally, our Congress (Senators, Representatives)
have the best health care package of anyone
and they carry that into retirement with them.
We all pay for them, do they care for us?
Can they be sensitive to the needs of some one
bleeding out with no way to pay for even an emergency?
Tell them how we feel every day, continuously;
make them pay. Let’s get something for our taxes.
Other than another war.
Kim Doyle
"On that logic, Safeway ought to be running its own schools for employees, too"
A private firm running its own school? How horrible! Only the government can run schools (into the ground).
That is a very embarrassing list. Imagine opposing the Federal Reserve, which helped usher in the Great Depression, the SEC, which has been utterly impotent in fighting corporate fraud, and Social Security, a program that forces Americans to "invest" and faces a funding crisis. Wow, how could one oppose such grand additions to our democracy?
The only solution is a government take-over. Wow! If Mr. Miller studied history instead of just generalized comments he might realize that Health care in the US was very cost effective and inexpensive compared to the rest of the world until the Hill-Burton Act of 1964 creating Medicaid and Medicare. Since then, the costs have steadily outpaced inflation. Let’s offer real solutions that might actually contain costs.
Currently, healthcare is like toy shopping, you and your doctor decide what you like, and someone else pays. That is not the free market. The government can help. By creating a mandatory exchange of information among all insurers and a ranking of doctors and hospitals by procedures, consumers would be better equipped to make informed decisions. Unlike Mr. Miller, I do not underestimate the population's ability to think and make what appear to be complicated decisions. This combined with several ways to put people in direct payment for everyday (not catastrophic costs) would have an immediate impact and promote healthier living while not costing more.
Have you seen the numbers? The proposed bill would cost $91,000 per year per new insured person. I cannot find a plan that costs that much on the market, today. BTW, it still only cover 1/3 of the under or uninsured! BTW, please, do not confuse a lack of insurance with no healthcare. They are two different issues, just ask Temple Hospital in Philadelphia or Grady ion Atlanta.
I just want to thank Marketplace and Mr. Miller for putting this absolutely correct and wonderfully worded piece on the air.
Businesses are so protective of anything that they control that it does not matter whether that control makes sense or not. Employer insurance was never a good system, since it limits insurance to employees and if they pay extra their families. It also forces people to accept the insurers that the company has selected and it leaves some employees out if they do not meet company minimums.
We need a national health insurance system that covers all Americans.
Thank you,
Troy
Pages
