Kerry Was On To Something and the Big Three Automakers Get It

[kerrygoddess]

Kerry Was On to Something and the Big Three Automakers Get It
November 24th, 2006 @ 12:47 am

Last week when the Big Three automakers paid a call on George W Bush they wanted to talk about the woes of the auto industry. “Among their complaints,” Scott Lehigh notes in the Boston Globe, “The heavy healthcare costs they shoulder are hindering their ability to compete.” Their idea for a solution didn’t interest Bush much, but Lehigh suggests, “Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should sit up and take notice.” Indeed they should…

And what did they suggest by way of a solution? Something John Kerry proposed during his presidential campaign: a reinsurance arrangement to pay for chronic or catastrophic healthcare costs, thereby effectively taking those cases out of private health-insurance plans.

“One possibility they discussed conceptually was a pool to address the disproportionate costs associated with those who have chronic or serious illnesses,” says Greg Martin, Washington spokesman for GM.

Not that anyone mentioned Kerry’s name in the West Wing confab; that would have been impolitic indeed.

But certainly the Massachusetts senator is the one that nostrum is most associated with.

In his 2004 campaign, Kerry called for having the federal government pay three-quarters of the additional expenses for patients whose healthcare costs exceed $50,000 a year, provided savings from that cost relief helped reduce employee health-insurance premiums.

MORE & LINKS - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4825

[Hekate]

1. That sounds like a version of *my* plan!

Not that anyone important would listen to me in particular, but awhile back I got to thinking that since the Big Three automakers were complaining so bitterly that rising health care/insurance costs were going to drive them overseas, it would be very much to their advantage to approach the president with a plan for universal health care -- to which they would of course pay into as good citizens. Because if Bush and his pals listen to ANYone (so I reasoned), it's to their corporate cronies.

Well, we can only hope the new Democratic congress will take up the cause, since Bush seems to still have his head where the sun don't shine.

Glad it's out there in the zeitgeist -- zeitgeist is probably how I thought of it in the first place.

Hekate

:kick:

[jpwhite]

2. Kerry does have good ideas....

which is why we need him to stay in the Senate. He is not a good enough speaker to run for President. However, he is really smart and I appreciate the ideas that he brings to the table.

James
[email protected]

[global1]

5. Kerry Is Not A Good Enough Speaker? And Your Comparing Him To Who?.....

G.W.*?

[_dynamicdems]

9. Hehe.

People thought speaking like an ignoramus was quaint in 2000 and even in 2004, but I think America has learned a valuable lesson: someone who talks like a dumbass might actually be...a dumbass!

After Dubya, people are going to vote for the candidate who sounds the most intelligent, not the candidate who sounds the most like someone you'd find doing shots and beer in a local bar.

[INdemo]

10. John Kerry just happens to be the best speaker or campaigner of

all the potential candidates.If he decides to run this will carry him to the nomination regardless of what the MSM polls show..
Why all the Kerry bashing so early? The Republicans certainly dont want him as the Democratic nominee because they know they cant steal an election from him a second time.

[Clarkie1]

15. delete. nt

[zann725]

18. Totally agreed...on all points.

Despite all their polls, and purposefully ignoring JK...he DOES have Winning ways. And as to well-spoken ways, one only has to remember the '04 Debates.

[notundecided]

43. Kerry will be back

Cream always rises to the top.

[blm]

13. Right - because NO OTHER Democrat will have 3 lines out of their 1000s of speeches

picked apart by the GOP controlled media the way Kerry does, eh?

[Old and In the Way]

17. "He is not a good enough speaker to run for President."

Have you ever really heard him speak to an audience? Or is that your analysis, based on listening to commentary from Fox News? He is an outstanding public speaker.

[liberal N proud]

3. America will not be able to compete in the world until there is universal health care for ALL!

My salary increase this year was consumed by the increase in the health care premium, the salary increase covered it by 3 bucks. I know that I am not the only one with this situation.

[Sherman A1]

4. Agreed

It is the elephant in the room for every business and worker. We have a contract (UFCW) coming up in June and we already know the issue is health care. Talking with a staunch Republican (one of the guys who delivers to my store) recently and he even agreed that somethings the "free market" just doesn't do well and health care is one of them. This could be THE issue that serves to unite the country simply because it affects everyone of us, every business and touches us all. It is also mainly an economic issue which is easier to bring folks together to discuss and reach compromise upon. The social issues of God, Gays & Guns tend to (rightly or wrongly) have more emotion wrapped up in them and offer less room for people to find reasonable compromise.

[lildreamer316]

6. Isn't it ironic?

That the very thing the liberals have been pushing for years is now going to probably be brought into being by the corporations?
Just a sidenote.

[kerrygoddess]

11. Maybe our corporations

won't be so bad when we start giving them reason to help workers. That would be a plus.

[FormerDittoHead]

8. Yes, how is this "reinsurance" NOT welfare for the insurance companies???

THIS OTHER plan is simple: offload the EXPENSIVE cases to the government, but leave the insurance companies with the PROFITABLE ones!

I liked Kerry's other plan: universal coverage for kids... But I see the real value of that as a means of working out a system for EVERYONE.

Universal is the only way to go, and taking OUT the profits that are skimmed out of the system will make it affordable.

[Vincardog]

12. Bingo right in one. Universal is the only way to go, and taking OUT the profits that are skimmed out

of the system will make it affordable. Why whould some suit make 30% profit on our healthcare?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

16. ban all drug ads. prescription and OTC.

Ban all research intended to double the life of their patents.

[elehhhhna]

14. They already place this stuff with reinsureres. WE NEED SINGLE PAYER.

Period.

We have a choice about the HC crisis-- we can model ourselves after the REST of the civilized world ...Holland, Sweden, etc. and compete with THEM, or continue as we do and compete with the third world.

Our antiquated, partiarchial system of employer-provided HC is a busted-out nightmare. This is the ONLY issue I can think of where the interests of US Biz -- small, medium and large -- align perfectly with the interests of the citizens.

WTH is the problem? HC & Pharma are big, big money contributors, yes...but they have NOWHERE near the clout that ALL OTHER BIZ's combined, plus the electorate, have.

[sandnsea]

19. Reduced rates is part of the package

I'm too tired to remember right now, but there is a mechanism to reduce premiums as well as incentive for preventive care and education. The kids health plan is part of his overall package, he's introducing it separately instead of as one huge package in order to help whoever he can.

For everybody who insists we wait for single payer - well I'm not willing to die for your purist ideologies. You just must not need medical care right now is all I can figure.

[FormerDittoHead]

22. I do agree that single payer will probably not be achieved in one step

Consider the fact that while the gov't (US as in you and I) would be picking up the expenses for the least profitable portion of the 'pie', the private sector would be getting the income from the most profitable portion of the pie (ie: the portion within the system which would help finance the least profitable portion) and I can see how the insurance companies would like this plan even more than you and I.

My point is that while I DO support a plan which would 1) immediately insure kids and 2) provide low cost "catastrophic" insurance availability, esp to protect people's homes, etc, I would NOT support a system which was designed make the failing private insurance system even stronger, ie: more profitable.

The insurance companies, through their greed, GOT us here. I don't want ANY solution to be a "win-win". They've WON enough.

Higher premiums are the result of a FAILING SYSTEM, not because of the lack of some 'initiative' or short term measure, but because we've been lied to over and over again. (like: trial lawyers are driving the cost of insurance up)

My point is that while I don't want to die either, I understand what would be killing me, and it's not the liberals wanting to fix this thing the RIGHT way.

ONE LAST THING and this is VERY controversial. While one BIG expense in medical care is the long term maintenance of what could have been prevented in childhood, the GORILLA IN THE ROOM IS THE COST OF DEATH.

If, as a society, we can GROW UP, maybe we could figure out protocols which would let people with one week to live DIE.

[FormerDittoHead]

27. Follow up to my follow up...

...I would come much closer to the plan IF reduced rates was PART of the package.

[karynnj]

23. The point is that with catastopic insurance handled by the government,

all insurance - whether pasid for by a company or not can go down. The rates have to be able to cover unexpected peaks otherwise. You would be cutting the risk to the insurance company and competition would drive the price down. (Think about it - you will accept a lower return on a less risky stock than on a riskier one - this is the same principle.)

[FormerDittoHead]

26. Apples and oranges and competition ISN'T WORKING.

Apples / oranges: I'm thinking the government (all of us) picking up catastrophic costs should benefit ALL companies. There would be no company-to-company advantage in this.

This would be a good idea, and you'd have a point IF THERE WAS A MANDATE TO PASS ALONG THE SAVINGS but I have seen NOTHING MANDATING that they "pass along" the savings to US.

You're ASSUMING that competition would lower our prices, but HOW? WHEN? HOW LONG FROM NOW?

Let's look at some real life examples of how competition works.

My wife works for a large company. Unlike the *vast* *majority* of people whose company provides insurance, however, we actually have a CHOICE of medical carriers. But even so the choices are not apples to apples, pick which one is cheapest.

There a whole matrix of co-payments, in-plan versus out of plan, doctors visit coverage, required referrals, 80/20 etc. Furthermore, as you may already know, we have to lock ourselves in for a year at a time. We don't have the chance to get unhappy with our choice and then switch at anytime to another company as you can with automobile or homeowners insurance.

I think of phone rates. Phone companies are big, so the analogy is apt.

25 years after divestiture, we now actually have meaningful competition ie: how much per minute of long distance. In the meantime, however, there were any number of SCHEMES - friends and family, how many miles away are you calling (I remember those concentric circle plans), etc. What hours of the day you called, etc. and of course there is QUALITY of service.

The point is that the corporations do their damnest to hide from the consumer their competitiveness.

Now, think about it. If a company really offered a better deal - a cheaper price for the same if not better service, you'd think they could just show that. Here's them, here's us - cheaper. But they don't. Ever wonder WHY? Maybe someday they WILL, but they don't because they're all hiding the same thing - PROFITS.

I'm reminded of the bankruptcy bill a little while ago. Same deal.

Credit card companies' risk would be lower, so the rates would be driven down, right? That's what my do-nothing unopposed Congressman Rob Andrews said when he wrote back to me after he voted for it.

The companies complained that these costs made rates high. With the bankruptcy bill, they argued, the companies could lower their rates. There was no mandate for rates do so in the law, however, but we put our FAITH that they will.

Now, I pay off my cards every month, but I haven't seen credit card rates come down. In fact, one of my cards has gone UP to over 30%!!!!

Rates haven't come down because, basically, corporations take years if not DECADES to let competition get in the way of their profits.

In the long run, my house will be auctioned off and I will have worked all my life with nothing to show for it. In the long run I WILL BE DEAD. In the short run AND the long run, the rich, however, will most DEFINITELY be richer.

[karynnj]

29. This is extremely different than the bankrupcy bill

He is speaking of insurance paid for by businesses (it is also part of his small business proposal). Here the companies selecting insuance HAVE some leverage. Assume insurance company A didn't pass this break along to the company. Then insurance company B would see they can steal this company's business and still make the type of profit their stockholders demand. As long as their is real competion in the insurance market, this will bring down the costs. (The government has to have oversight to insure their IS competition and that no collusion on prices occurs.)

That is why the healthcare consumer groups liked Kerry's 2004 plan better than those of the other candidates and why the big 3 auto makers like it too.

[FormerDittoHead]

30. I agree that a step in the right direction is a good one, HOWEVER...

I appreciate your optimism, but I see this working only for the short term...

I agree, I can see the HR depts having the resources (joke!) to actually analyze the various plans, HOWEVER, there are very, VERY few companies which actually pay for 100% of health care (in fact I know of none). My point is that people are paying for their healthcare now, the companies are the means which let them get GROUP coverage.

I DO agree that this MAY indeed affect some competitive price lowering, but I remain skeptical. I do have a problem in that this does not address very small businesses or individuals, but keeping to the point...

The problem I have is the question: WHERE will the money come from to pay for the catistrophic cases?

It's a problem because the answer is that WE will pay for those cases. We're paying for them NOW, and our insurance is high, so is the result of this plan to be our insurance will go down (A LITTLE or "not go up") BUT OUR TAXES WILL GO UP TO PAY FOR THESE CASES? (this is not a "taxes" are bad argument, it's an economic question)

I'm sorry, but in the end the money will come from SOMEWHERE, and, again, with this plan, I just don't see the high salaries and profits of the insurance companies going DOWN, and THAT, IMO, IS the problem...

[w4rma]

7. This is very good. (nt)

[Morereason]

20. I would take it one step further

I have often wondered.

How about a single payer "catastrophic" plan that covers every American. It would have a $10,000 deductable.

That would leave the Insurance companies with supplimentary plans they could offer to insure the deductable.

A catastrophic plan would be less expensive to pay for universally. Most people would be able to pay back the up to 10k they could go in debt if they did not have insurance. Charities could help out as coming up with 10k for those in need is doable.

The risk to Hospitals of caring for the very ill would be minimal and could be covered if it was not payed back. So no-one would be turned away for not having coverage.

What do folks here think?

[nolabels]

31. I would take it much further

Most health issues are preventable or manageable. The problem is many our society want to get rich off the misfortune of others and health care is no different.

[eridani]

21. Bad idea, really bad

Just continue to subsidize the insurance companies by letting the government take the care of the actual sick people off of their hands. Let them continue their flat-out amoral sociopathic THEFT from the total pool of health insurance dollars by continuing to transfer money from healthy people to the pockets of insurance CEOs and shareholders.

WHY CAN'T HE SEE THAT THIS DEFEATS THE ENTIRE GODDAM PURPOSE OF INSURANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE--NAMELY SPREADING RISKS? That means we need a system where the public takes money from healthy people and applies it entirely (with minimal administrative expenses) to caring for the sick.

Our current system is as utterly stupid as requiring only those people who have fires to bear the entire cost of supporting the fire department. 15% of the population of every age demographic accounts for 85% of health care expenses. The only way to spread those costs is to put the whole damn population in the same risk pool. Everybody pays, because anybody could get expensively sick even though most people won't.

We are already paying for universal health care; we just aren't getting it. EVERYBODY IN!! NOBODY OUT!!

[karynnj]

24. having the government handle the catastrophic costs

does somewhat the same thing - it reduces the risk for all providers of insurance - because the real huge risk is paid by all via the government.

[eridani]

28. Why then should private insurers be allowed to continue to--

--deplete the total pool of health care dollars? If they don't want ALL the risk, they have no right to be in business. If the government takes on all the risk, it should get all the health care dollars.

[MH1]

32. Read it closer, the govt is not taking on ALL the risk.

In fact, in this plan they are taking on the costs that go beyond risk - the catastrophic costs that occur when the risk ceases to be risk and the bad event that was being "risked" has actually happened.

The plan also calls for enforcing lower premiums on the insurance companies. The insurance cos. still bear the risk of someone getting sicker than expected. But they don't have to plan for the astronomical costs, just potential costs up to a ceiling.

When I lived in NJ, there was reinsurance to bring down auto insurance costs. The program works. I don't see why it shouldn't be applied to health insurance.

[eridani]

36. But the whole purpose of private insurance is to eliminate sick people--

--from their insurance pools. It is not just the chronically ill, but anybody with a "pre-existing condition". Why should they be allowed to do this? Let the government do it all. How can we continue to let private insurers drain the pool of health care dollars to pay for playing really expensive games to eliminate risk and diverting huge sums to CEOs and shareholders?

[MH1]

37. How can we continue?

Because the American people don't get it yet, that health care should not be a profit-driven enterprise.

We have two choices at this juncture (well, it's a spectrum, but I'm simplifying):

1) fight a long, long battle for single payer or other universal coverage program, while doing NOTHING in the meantime for those who are suffering NOW;

or

2) while continuing to educate people and hopefully bring them around to single payer, get some relief NOW for as many of those who are suffering NOW as is possible, with the makeup of the Congress as it is.

Kerry is trying to find common ground to help some folks NOW. I appreciate that approach and think it is worthwhile, although I probably agree that single payer is the best ultimate solution.

[eridani]

38. Looks like we're into the old incrementalism vs best practice discussion

I mind the details of the proposal much less than the assumption behind them, namely that massive theft from the health care dollar pool is acceptable. It may well be that incrementalism, in addition to helping some people now, will eventually break the system financially so that single payer will be the only solvent option.

Incrementalism is turning the water taps on harder to make up for the contant water loss from the drainhole. Eventually the taps will be as open as they can get, and all the people who have studiously been ignoring the option of putting in the damn plug will finally have to pay attention to that option.

[MH1]

39. True, but I think incrementalism is how you help people in reality.

I think that we also need to work the "best practice" angle. If we are faced with two choices that are both achievable in the short term, an incremental improvement that helps a few, or a "best practice" solution that really solves it, I think we would all certainly choose the best practice solution. I just don't think we have those choices now, though.

[eridani]

40. We will never have those choices--

--unless we constantly and loudly put them out in front of the public. Accepting temporary incremental solutions is no excuse not to do this.

[williesgirl]

25. Bad idea. Bail out for insurance cos. Just like when they got off the hook w/medicare long ago.

It sure didn't lower anyone else's rates. Just fatten their bonuses etc. Why should the taxpayers pick up the tab for all the expensive insureds? This is nuts.

[MH1]

33. Are you saying that medicare is a bad idea too? n/t

[proudmoddemo]

34. It's even scarier

I've just finished a long journey through the medical system as a young adult. The system is terribly broken. Unnecessary barriers to care are erected by the current system. Low reimbursement rates and high malpractice insurance costs are a really frightening combination.

Last week's Frontline on PBS pointed out the coming nightmare as the baby boom generation ages. Think Katrina, only on a national scale.

I wrote about my favored solution, which is a national baseline PPO, on my blog today (http://healthybagofpolitics.blogspot.com/2006/11/lemon-that-is-american-healthcare.html) But at this point, anything is desperately needed

[MH1]

35. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

But at this point, anything is desperately needed

Yep. I think Kerry is trying to put something together that will actually be able to pass, and help as many people as possible. I am sure if you sat down with him over a beer he would acknowledge that it isn't the ultimate best solution.

I appreciate that approach though. There are people hurting NOW, and this may not help all of them, but it will help some - and more than pushing a program that would have zero chance of passing.

[sendero]

41. Oh I see...

... a plan that is based on the idea of an insuring body who will insure something below it's cost?

Where do you find such a beast? What am I missing here? Oh, I get it, it's supposed to be another government bailout?

Sorry if I find the idea unimpressive. Health care costs are a disaster, but they are a completely predictable disaster, and have been a cost of doing business here for a long time. The Japanese plants in the US presumably have the same constraints to work under, but they build cars people want to buy so it hasnt' killed them.

[karynnj]

42. No, it has to do with the concept of risk

Insurance companies get money (from companies and or individuals) and that money is used to pay the bills of everyone and to make a profit. If you cap the risk for each individual at some point, the amount needed to cover the medical costs and make a profit commensurate with the risk is lower - because BOTH the medical costs and the risk are lower. As these are plans bought by companies and there are multiple companies offering them if legislation includes oversight to insure there is no colusion, the price to the companies will be driven down.

If you look at your own insurance, you will see that even now it is NOT open ended. There is a cap. The reason is that without any cap, the risk would be unbounded and as an insurer covers vast groups of people - this would make providing coverage non-economic.