Why Big Health Insurance Supported Obamacare, Part II

Podcast:

 

 Why the Health Insurance Industry Supported Obamacare [14:52m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (15)

The fact that the health insurance industry supported Obamacare from the very beginning was entirely missed by the mainstream press. This is perhaps understandable, since a) the mainstream press does not understand the dynamics of the healthcare system, and b) during the Obamacare drama, the health insurance companies had been assigned, and had graciously accepted, their vital role as the Forces of Evil. To the famously credulous members of the mainstream press, it was easy to imagine that the insurers were actually among the opposition.

But the insurance industry supported Obamacare from the start – and even before the start. During the Presidential race of 2008, for instance, managed care companies donated far more money to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton than to any Republican candidate, even though both of these Democratic candidates publicly castigated the insurance companies for producing most of the problems in American healthcare, and promised to institute reforms that would drastically cramp their style and reduce their profits.

Why would the insurance industry support the very candidates whose chief healthcare strategy was to demonize them? Quite simply, it was because the insurance industry had nowhere else to go.

By the time Mr. Obama became president, the once proud, self-confident, and even arrogant American health insurance industry had been completely humbled. Like the old Soviet Union twenty years earlier, it still may have looked formidable from the outside, but it was really an empty shell.  The industry had run out its string; it was entirely bereft of ideas. Its business model was completely broken, and it desperately needed an exit strategy. And it was due to the need to find a serviceable exit strategy that the industry supported Obamacare.

To understand what landed the insurance industry in this sad state of affairs, it is necessary to review its recent history.

The Rise of the For-Profit HMOs

When the Clintons set out to reform the American healthcare system in 1993, the health insurance industry initially claimed to support them. The Clintons had promised them a vast new market – the millions of heretofore uninsured Americans whose premiums would be paid, presumably, by the government.

But the alliance fell apart the moment the insurance industry began reading the massive tome of regulations the Clintons finally produced, and found in it much they didn’t like. Chiefly, they they didn’t like the parts that ceded full control of their industry to the government. So Big Health Insurance immediately turned against the Clintons, and spent millions of dollars introducing us to Harry and Louise (a “typical” American husband and wife who were viewed in numerous TV commercials discovering various appalling provisions of the Clinton plan). In the end, when the Clinton’s reform plan went down to ignominious defeat, the powerful health insurance industry, appropriately, got most of the credit.

Most of us Americans were happy at the time that the Clintons’ plan had been defeated, but during the debate over healthcare reform we had become convinced that the old way of doing healthcare wasn’t any good either. The healthcare system, we all knew by now, was bankrupting us.  And something needed to be done about it. But with the Clinton plan off the table, what were our options?

In the ashes of the Clintons’ failed effort, the health insurers saw their golden opportunity.  And they presented the American people with a savior. The savior was, of course, them.

The insurance industry made its pitch in a new guise which we Americans had never seen before. For the big fee-for-service insurance companies had transformed themselves into HMOs, and had fully assimilated the language of managed care. These were not the touchy-feely, non-profit HMOs that had been puttering around in the healthcare system for a decade or so.  These were meat-and-potatoes, for-profit HMOs, run for the most part by hard-nosed business executives, and newly formulated for a new era of American healthcare.

And here is what they said: “Citizens! We all – employers, patients, physicians, hospitals, manufacturers and insurers – have just dodged a bullet. Thanks to us, the frightening socialist reforms of the Clintons have been soundly defeated. But where does this leave us? We stand now between Scylla and Charybdis, between the specter of nationalized healthcare on one hand, and the continued profligacy of traditional fee-for-service medicine on the other. And we cannot countenance either. But here,” they continued, “is a third way. A painless way, based on the sound principles of managed care, open markets, and free enterprise. Let healthcare become a business like any other business, and the market forces will find ways not only to cut costs but also to improve quality, and with no government intervention.”

The offer, in other words, was to turn healthcare over to the business professionals now running the New Model HMOs, who were cocky with the certainty that they could harness the efficiencies of the marketplace to control costs, make a big profit at the same time, and be feted as saviors to boot. Because we’re Americans and we know the benefits of capitalism, and because the other choices we faced looked even worse, we all said, “Go for it.”

This change led to the most rapid transformation the American healthcare system has ever seen, and within a few short years, the majority of Americans were enrolled in HMOs, or some other species of corporate managed care.

So HMO executives set out to control the cost of American healthcare, and to make a spectacular profit doing it. And for a few years, they seemed successful. Healthcare inflation slowed dramatically in the late 1990s, and HMO profits soared.

But it was all an illusion.

The Fall of the For-Profit HMOs

The initial impressive profitability of New Model HMOs was due to the one-time reduction in cost you always get when you implement efficiencies of scale (made possible by merging enterprises), and by instituting the new standardization techniques favored by managed care theory. These steps reduced the cost of healthcare for a while, but the underlying rate of healthcare inflation (which is mostly caused by new medical technologies and an aging population, neither of which are cured by managed care) was pretty much unchanged. So by the early 2000s, when these one-time cost reductions had been fully realized, healthcare inflation was right back on the same unsustainable trajectory it had been on before.

Unfortunately for the HMOs, the big profits they enjoyed throughout the 1990s could not last. Their rapidly expanding valuations were attributable not to their efficient management of healthcare, but instead, to the frenzy of mergers that rapidly ensued, and to the acquisition and privatization of not-for-profit public assets for a tiny fraction of their true value.

So not long after the turn of the century the for-profit managed care companies were getting very nervous. For the very first time in their history, HMOs were faced with the prospect of having to earn their profits, profits sufficient to satisfy their shareholders, by actually managing the healthcare of sick people. This is something they had never accomplished before, and, by the time the election of 2008 approached, they knew they never would.

By that time they had tried everything. Beginning in 1994, filled with confidence and enthusiasm and cheered on (initially, at least) by the public and by public officials alike, the health insurance companies had more than 15 years of more-or-less unfettered freedom to institute any efficiencies it wanted to. In the ensuing years insurance companies tried all kinds of legitimate ideas for reducing healthcare costs, such as managed care, gatekeepers, clinical pathways, disease management programs, pay for performance, wellness programs, medical homes, and even a ruthless consolidation of the industry to achieve “efficiencies of scale.”

They also tried every sneaky and underhanded idea they could think of for reducing costs, like cherry-picking the healthy patients, treating chronically ill patients like pariahs so they would go away, making access to specialty care as inconvenient as possible, forcing doctors to sign “gag clauses” to prevent them from telling their patients about certain treatment options, browbeating primary care physicians into zombie-like compliance with handed-down care directives, refusing to cover expensive-but-effective medical services, and canceling the policies of tens of thousands of patients after they get sick, based on trumped-up technicalities. Indeed, they tried everything short of dispatching teams of Ninjas in the dark of night to slaughter their most expensive subscribers in their beds.  And finally, when all else failed, they instituted huge and unsustainable annual increases in premiums, to the point of driving their customers out of the market. (This latter move, of course, was an open acknowledgment that the industry had entered its death spiral.)

All these efforts were to little avail. The cost of healthcare continued to skyrocket, entirely unabated. And by 2009, when President Obama began his push for healthcare reform, the insurance companies knew they had no prospect of long-term profitability. Their business model was no longer viable, and, while telling soothing stories to avoid shareholder panic, they were urgently casting about for an exit strategy.

A drowning man will cling to any piece of flotsam that comes his way.  What the insurance industry found floating by was Obamacare.

What Health Insurers  Get From Obamacare

In return for its support in the healthcare reform battle, President Obama offered the insurance industry the graceful exit strategy it so desperately needed.  Under Obamacare, for at least a few years the insurers hope to get One Last Windfall – namely, profits from the influx of previously-uninsured Americans whose premiums will be paid – or at least subsidized – by taxpayers.  Here, the insurers are relying on the likelihood that the inflow of new premiums will, for a year or two at least, greatly outweigh the outflow of money they will have to spend caring for these new subscribers. Obviously, they will use every trick in their well-worn book to stave off expenditures for these new subscribers for as long as they can, but if they actually knew how to avoid paying healthcare costs indefinitely, they wouldn’t be seeking a government bail-out today. In any case, an inflow of new subscribers will be a very temporary source of profit for insurers. Hence, at best it is One Last Windfall.

What happens to the insurers after they exhaust this last windfall is still up in the air. Obamacare may, of course, eventually transition to a single-payer system, an outcome which many conservatives desperately fear, and many liberals fervently desire. In this case, there may very well be some final compensatory buy-out (or a buy-off) for the insurance companies. But more likely, the insurance companies under Obamacare will continue to exist essentially as public utilities. That is, they will exist as companies chartered by the government, which administer healthcare under the direction of the government, with the products they may offer, the prices they may charge, the profits they may keep, and the losses they may incur, determined solely by the government.  It’s not glorious, but it’s a living.

And it’s much better than where they would have ended up without Obamacare. Which is why they supported it from the start.

Now that we know why the insurance industry supported Obamacare, in the next post we will explore how the industry, at no small cost to its own public image, supported the President when it counted most.

__

Why Big Health Insurance Supported Obamacare

Part I – Another Reason He Should Have Kept the Bust

________________________________

Now, read the whole story.

DrRich explains it all in, Fixing American Healthcare – Wonkonians, Gekkonians and the Grand Unification Theory of Healthcare.

Now on Kindle!

Why Big Health Insurance Supported Obamacare, Part I

Podcast:

 

 Another Reason He Should Have Kept the Bust [7:53m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (33)

When President Obama moved into the White House in January of 2009, he found in the Oval Office a bust of Sir Winston Churchill, a gift from Great Britain to the United States during the Reagan presidency, a gift meant to symbolize the close ties between our two nations. The new President quickly decided he did not want to look at it. And, as one of the first acts of his presidency (before advancing his Stimulus Package, or pushing healthcare reform, or even inviting Andy Stern to dinner), he had that bust placed into a crate, packed with sawdust, and shipped by the afternoon mail right back to England.

DrRich can think of several reasons why it might have been a better idea, instead of beginning his reign with a completely gratuitous insult to America’s longest and best and most-needed ally, for President Obama to quietly have had the bust moved to the White House basement, where Sir Winston could have spent the next four to eight years contemplating all those other now-obsolete or embarrassing diplomatic trinkets, such as the gold plate from the Shah of Iran, and the fine old portrait of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos.

And here’s one of them.

Despite the fact that President Obama was elected by a wide margin, and that he brought with him a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a large majority in the House, and that he had loyal, powerful and dogged leaders in each chamber of Congress who completely supported his agenda, and that the major American media was largely behind him all the way, the passage of the Obamacare legislation was very hard-fought, and a very close thing. Its ultimate passage was a major victory for the President, and a great tribute to his persistence. In fact, DrRich believes that President Obama has not received nearly enough credit for the utter doggedness and persistence he displayed in the face of the terrible headwinds he sometimes encountered while passing his healthcare reform agenda.

Indeed, during this arduous process, he was almost Churchillian in his steadfastness.

So, had he kept it, President Obama might now gaze upon bust of Churchill and see not the man who had campaigned against people of color in order to keep the British Empire together, but rather, a man who, not unlike himself, had almost single-handedly saved western civilization from the forces of evil.

But there is another striking similarity between these two men, aside from the remarkable singlemindedness they displayed under pressure, which is: neither of them could have succeeded alone. Their iron will, their persistence, their personal courage, and their (too often weak-kneed) support from political allies would not have carried the day, had it not been for the assistance of a powerful, if silent, partner.

In 1940-41, when Winston Churchill stood virtually alone against the Nazi onslaught, and with dwindling resources and a badly beaten military tried to face down a powerful enemy, he utterly relied on the support – often tacit, rarely public, only occasionally material, but always firm and unwavering – of Franklin Roosevelt. And no matter how bleak things looked, Churchill always believed that, one way or another, in the end President Roosevelt and the great might of the United States would provide a way to final victory.

Similarly, when the President’s initially smooth path to healthcare reform was suddenly interrupted by a blitzkrieg of contentious town hall meetings, followed closely by the formation of the vociferously anti-Obamacare Tea Party movement, followed next by the surprising victory of Chris Christie for the governorship of New Jersey, and capped by the stunning ascension of Scott Brown to the Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy, an event that appeared to leave the prospects for healthcare reform so bleak that a week later the issue was barely raised in the State of the Union address, and that caused even the sympathetic press and some of his fellow Democrats to declare the prospects for healthcare reform to be dead, President Obama had to reach deep within himself to find the resolve for one last push. And in that dark moment he, too, was able to draw courage from the tacit, rarely public, only occasionally material, but strong and unwavering support of his own silent partner.

That silent partner, of course, was the American health insurance industry.

And as was the case with Sir Winston, in the moment of greatest crisis President Obama’s own silent partner threw itself into the fight with great abandon, and ultimately enabled a final victory.

Why the health insurance industry supported Obamacare, and how it did so, should be of more than mere casual interest to Americans. It has major implications for anyone who favors repealing Obamacare or major parts of it, or de-funding it, or declaring it unconstitutional. Anyone who is approaching the 2010 mid-term elections thinking that we can just get rid of Obamacare and go back to the way things were – or even to a substantial modification of the way things were – had better understand what just happened.

So in his next few posts, DrRich will examine the role that the American health insurance industry played in the passage of Obamacare, and what the recent behavior of that industry implies as we decide what we should – and can – do next.

__

Why Big Health Insurance Supported Obamacare

Part II – Why the Health Insurance Industry Supported Obamacare
________________________________

Now, read the whole story.

DrRich explains it all in, Fixing American Healthcare – Wonkonians, Gekkonians and the Grand Unification Theory of Healthcare.

Now on Kindle!

Podcast:

 

 Global Warming and the Importance of Bias in Scientific Progress [14:59m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (75)

DrRich is relieved to learn that the world’s most famous global warming experts have now been exonerated by three separate formal reviews. Dr. Michael Mann from Penn State University was cleared by a review conducted by Penn State University. Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), was cleared by a review conducted by the University of East Anglia, and also by a four-member “independent panel,” one of whose members was Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, a personage who had been on the faculty of East Anglia’s School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years, and who (prior to being placed on the “independent panel”) had been a vocal defender of Dr. Jones’ actions regarding Climategate.

Right-wing global-warming-deniers, of course, have decried the results of these reviews as a “whitewash,” pointing out, among other things, that Penn State and East Anglia both continue to receive tens of millions of dollars in federal “research” funds so they can continue to prove that global warming a) exists, and b) is man-made, thus suggesting that these institutions were determined to acquit their star grantsmen of scientific misconduct no matter what the objective findings. This kind of whitewash, they say, not only supports the global warming “hoax,” but even worse, further undermines the integrity of the scientific process upon which so much of modern society so utterly relies.

Of course, if right-wingers are correct, then reversing modern society and putting us all back in the glorious horse-and-buggy days is the very goal of the global warming mavens. (DrRich, a student of history, is well aware of how difficult it must have been 110 years ago to walk the streets of New York City without ending up splattered with dung to your knees, and he wonders what life would be like today, navigating the highways and byways of America, if all 300 million of us were relegated again to modes of transportation that defecate nearly continuously.)

It must be admitted, by anyone who has perused some of the leaked e-mails sent and received by Dr. Jones (making it doubtful that any of the three review panels had actually done so), that from any really objective viewpoint the global warming experts had engaged in some very questionable behaviors, which appear to have been aimed at advancing their theories, and suppressing any opposition, by any means at their disposal. The e-mails depict Jones and prominent colleagues discussing how to “tweak” climate change data in order to hide such embarrassing climatic phenomena as the Medieval warming period, “the little ice age” that followed it, and the global cooling we’ve been seeing over the past decade. Including these historical temperature fluctuations in their data would make their famous hockey stick graph look less like a hockey stick, and more like the random profile of a mountain range. (And once Al Gore won an Oscar for showing slides of the hockey stick, that was not an option.) They also collaborated to “control” the peer-review process so that only the “right” peers would be doing the reviewing, and the “wrong” peers would be cut off altogether. And, as a final deft touch, they all shared electronic high-fives when a noted global warming skeptic died unexpectedly.

Then, of course, just a few days after the embarrassing e-mail leak, the CRU was forced to admit (thanks to Britain’s Freedom of Information act) that they had, apparently intentionally, destroyed all the raw temperature data upon which their elaborate computer models were based. (They say they ran out of space to store it, apparently failing to recall the many forms of magnetic storage readily available to scientists today). The destruction of this data utterly precludes other scientists from checking, and attempting to reproduce, the critical predictive model upon which the theory of man-made global warming largely rests.

Oops.

This inconvenient truth renders their climate change model a black box. It places the rest of us in the position of having to “just trust” the global warming experts, upon whose work (for instance) President Obama bases his proposal for a fundamental change in our economy, our way of life, and our foundational political philosophy.

So it is perhaps somewhat understandable that right-wingers object so vociferously to the alleged “whitewash.” Their general complaint seems to be that the scientific process should always be pristinely unbiased, and that the gross bias so clearly displayed by global warming experts in this case not only corrupts the case for global warming, but also corrupts the scientific process itself, to the extent that every scientist in the world should be screaming for the heads of the miscreants, and indeed, must do so, to salvage the very legitimacy of science.

DrRich is sympathetic to the argument that the implications of Climategate are troublesome, but not because the climatologists have behaved in a terribly biased way. Biased thinking within a scientific debate is not only common practice, but also it is a critically important part of the process. Raw contention between very biased scientists with very different viewpoints is how we get scientific progress in the first place. DrRich is not even disturbed that the currently-entrenched global warming experts have used their position of relative strength to suppress the upstarts who dared to oppose them. That’s also pretty much standard behavior in the academy, and it, too, serves a useful purpose.

Rather, what’s troublesome about the global warming controversy is that outside authorities of incredible power have taken an extraordinarily strong position in the scientific debate, and have lent their massive influence to one particular side. Whenever this sort of thing happens, the “winner” of the scientific contest is often not determined by superior scientific merit, but by other factors.

Scientific progress works like this: A new theory is conceptualized to explain some phenomenon, usually by a whippersnapper of one variety or another. The entrenched experts, whose careers, reputations, social status, incomes, and sexual fulfillment are based on the old conception, find the new theory to be absurdly wrong (or in some cases heretical), and probably dangerous. Since preserving the “truth” is the highest calling of all, the experts engage in every device they can muster (from “controlling” the peer-review process to burning heretics at the stake) to see that the truth (as they define it) prevails.

To the uninitiated – and certainly to the upstart whippersnappers – this process seems primitive and unkind. But actually it is quite useful and practical, and in the long term is very beneficial to mankind. For most of the new theories thought up by whippersnappers are, in fact, garbage. In order to break through the imposing barriers of bias constructed by the entrenched experts, the novices really have to believe in what they are espousing, and their new theory, ultimately, has to actually offer some substantial improvement over the currently accepted one. The whippersnapper, if very lucky, finally becomes the foundation of a new generation of experts – and the process begins all over again. Hence, science progresses. The process is geared toward the gradual discovery of truth, and not toward the nurturing and vindication of whippersnappers. And eventually, truth always does prevail – and often it does so within just a few generations.

In the short term, of course, this process can look very messy and unfair. It is certainly subject to great bias. In fact, we take pains to set up the accepted experts with lots of grant money, prestige, titles, &c. precisely to make sure they’ll do everything they can to preserve the status quo. We do this so that when the paradigm actually shifts, it shifts because the merits of the new paradigm are sufficient to overcome all the bias – and not because of a whim. This process keeps science – and society – from being whipsawed this way and that.

Where the process breaks down is when a powerful outside influence – say, a religion or a government – firmly takes a side in the scientific debate. For example, just ask any of the would-be astronomers from the time of the pre-Renaissance Popes how well the scientific process of competing biases worked out for them.

It seems apparent, to DrRich at least, that  most of the world’s governments, including ours, find that the bias of the global warming experts very nicely aligns with the historical bias of governments, which is to say, accruing ever more power over the endeavors of the people.  It may possibly be for this reason that governments have thrown in – body and soul – with this side of the debate, to the extent that “global warming” has now become largely sacrosanct. Man-made global warming is officially deemed (like the 2011 U.S. Budget) to be  “settled science,” and is beyond reasonable question. No new scientific evidence to the contrary is admissible. Competing viewpoints are, in fact, heretical. And even when gross evidence of academic misbehavior on the part of global warming experts is revealed, that evidence is excused, paved over and ignored.

This mindset is the only one that fully explains the tone and the content of the Climategate e-mails, and the subsequent exoneration of the climate scientists who wrote them.

Most readers, DrRich expects, agree with him to this point. (For, how could it be otherwise?)  But, you may be asking, what does any of this have to do with healthcare, or more specifically, with healthcare rationing?

As we enter into a new era of healthcare, where medical decisions will be taken out of the hands of imperfect physicians and entrusted to panels of federally-sanctioned (and thus pretty much infallible) experts, who will analyze the available data and construct the guidelines of behavior by which all physicians will henceforth be judged, we ought to keep the problem of unbalanced bias in mind.

Today we have a healthcare system in which competing interests, and their competing biases, battle for prominence. The process is messy, ugly and often unfair, but with long-term results that are generally reasonably favorable. Or at least, the damage is generally contained.  But we are headed toward a healthcare system in which only one great interest – that of our government, with its overwhelming bias toward cutting the cost of healthcare – will predominate.

A great fallacy under which many of us labor is that the government has no strong biases, and that a process overseen by the government will be inherently far more “fair” than a process that incorporates the biases of for-profit enterprises. But in truth, the government is the biggest, meanest, special interest of all. And like all sovereign authorities, this one is not only able to, but is expected to get the results it deems necessary by the measured application of violence.

For those who believe any government, anywhere, which has total control over any human enterprise can still behave fairly, DrRich begs you to please have another look at history. When we allow government (and its agents) to have the only say over medical decisions, then those medical decisions will be made with all the robust, open-minded, free, give-and-take exchange of ideas we are seeing from the global warming experts today. And while medical progress – like progress in general – cannot be forever halted, it will become as sclerotic as the scientific progress enjoyed by those pre-Renaissance astronomers.

The scientific process will always be biased. Where we invite serious damage is where we admit only one form of bias, and forcibly stifle all the rest. It’s bad for climate science, and it will be bad for healthcare.
________________________________

Now, read the whole story.

DrRich explains it all in, Fixing American Healthcare – Wonkonians, Gekkonians and the Grand Unification Theory of Healthcare.

Now on Kindle!

Richard N. Fogoros, M.D. (DrRich) is a former professor of medicine and a longtime practitioner, researcher and author in the fields of cardiology and cardiac electrophysiology. He currently makes his living as a consultant in research and development with biomedical companies, and as a writer.

In addition to all the fine prose you’ll find here on the Covert Rationing Blog, you can revel in even more of DrRich’s stuff at the Heart Disease site at About.com (which is a New York Times Company, making DrRich one of the few conservative Americans who wishes the NYT great success), and on the “parent” website of this blog, The Grand Unification Theory of Healthcare.

His award-winning book, Fixing American Healthcare – Wonkonians, Gekkonians and the Grand Unification Theory of Healthcare (Publish or Perish DBS, Pittsburgh, 2007), is quite entertaining (for a policy book), has won lots of accolades – and would still be worth reading if President Obama hadn’t come along and solved all our healthcare difficulties with a flick of his pen.

You can reach DrRich by e-mail here:  drrich at covertrationingblog.com

Now that President Obama’s healthcare reform has become the law of the land, it is time for us to prepare ourselves for the real fight. Namely, will individual Americans ultimately be restrained, by law or by subterfuge, from using their own resources to pay for their own medical care?  This notion is not as far-fetched as you might think. In this series of posts, DrRich explores this question, and demonstrates just how far we’ve already come in limiting the healthcare prerogatives of individuals.

Limiting Individual Prerogatives:

Part 1: The Real Fight Is Just Beginning

Part 2: Hillary Started It

Part 3: Breaking the Doctor-Patient Relationship

Part 4: Medicare Already Does It

(A Heartfelt Plea To Certain Authors Of The Health Care Renewal Blog)

Podcast:

 

 Defending the Anti-Obesity Movement, Again [12:35m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (53)

The other day, President Obama gave a commencement speech in which he pointed out one of the downsides of living in a new age of electronic communication:

“Meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t rank all that high on the truth meter. . . .[I]nformation becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment. All of this is not only putting new pressures on you; it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.”

In other words, too much information can be bad (since it can be untruthful, and places pressure on our country and democracy). Clearly implied in this statement is the idea that something ought to be done about all that extraneous information out there. Presumably, disinterested truth-tellers in our unbiased government bureaucracies ought to sort out fact from fiction, and take the necessary steps to get rid of the fiction. This is not the first time the White House has offered to monitor the utterings of wrong-thinking Americans, and to do what is needed to correct their misapprehensions. Rather, it is simply another reinforcement of a consistent theme under our current administration.

We had best take it seriously.

And so, it is with some reluctance that DrRich finds it necessary at this time to perform an intervention. He does so with the kindest of motives, namely, to protect two people he greatly admires from finding themselves on the wrong side of a Federal disinformation bust.

DrRich speaks, of course, of Dr. Roy Poses and his colleague MedInformaticsMD (who had best not rely on an easily-decoded pseudonym for protection), two of the principle authors of the excellent Health Care Renewal blog. Both of these highly respected physicians and bloggers have posted articles this week which are critical of individuals who have spoken out against obese Americans.

Dr. Poses started it, pointing out that certain high-profile executives who have made recent public statements decrying obesity, and ridiculing (and offering to discriminate against) the obese, are pontificating on an issue about which they have no professional expertise.

MedInformaticsMD upped the ante by referring to these same executives as obesity bigots, and pointing out (rather colorfully) that such a person “talks stupidly and discriminatorily out of his anal orifice about how much people put in the other end of their GI tracts.”

Now, DrRich does not know how likely it is that Federal truth-tellers will stumble across these offensive posts. Given the stuff DrRich himself has said about healthcare reform and our government, he hopes it is unlikely indeed.

But Gentlemen of the HCR blog! Whereas DrRich habitually employs enough irony in his writings that most stone-witted bureaucrats (he hopes!) will have trouble discerning what he actually thinks, your prose is uncomfortably straightforward, and leaves no room for interpretation. If they find it, you are screwed.

And so, DrRich begs you to allow him an opportunity to set you straight on American obesity, and the importance of the anti-obesity movement.

To understand this, one must understand the underlying premise: Under any soup-to-nuts universal healthcare system (which, DrRich submits, is the ultimate goal), our central authorities, in the name of controlling costs, have got to be able to restrict, control and tax virtually any human behavior they can claim may lead to an increased risk of healthcare expenditures – which, really, encompasses virtually any human behavior you can think of.

Such power on the part of our central authorities will feel “unnatural” to many if not most Americans, if not developed judiciously. And so, it makes sense to develop such power – to set precedents which, once set, will be impossible to stop – by demonizing the obese, and making it not only OK, but imperative, for the government to control their unutterably selfish behavior, and, failing that, to punish them.

It is not difficult to demonize the obese. In literature and films the obese have long been portrayed as unreasonably jolly, slovenly and lazy, or just plain evil. (Hello, Newman!) Nobody likes to sit next to them on airplanes or buses. They block the aisles at the grocery store (their favorite haunts), and they reduce miles-per-gallon (and cause excessive tire wear) when they ride in our cars. On humid days, they sweat (and thus smell) more than you and I. So, with rare exceptions (and it is unfortunate that you two Gentlemen comprise one of these), nobody complains when the obese are criticized and attacked.

Given the current hypersensitivity to anything smacking of criticism of various races, ethnic groups, professions, political movements, sexual orientations, immigration status, victims of certain diseases, and scores of other categories of Americans, the obese present us with a refreshingly – and indeed the only – safe target. As the authors of the HCR blog point out, prominent and respected figures feel no compunction whatsoever against making the most offensive public statements against the obese, and when they do they receive (with rare exceptions such as provided by you HRC Gentlemen) applause rather than condemnation.

Obesity is a condition which is immediately visible to all – and from a great distance – and which immediately labels one as being selfish and lazy, and, now, as entirely unconcerned that their bad behavior is costing the rest of us our healthcare dollars, and thus, potentially our lives. Hating the obese has become nearly a patriotic imperative.

Fully government-funded and government-controlled healthcare (by whatever subterfuge we finally get there) permits – nay, demands! – that we declare to the obese that their unsightly physiques are no longer a matter of personal choice, but are now a matter of legitimate public concern. The choices they are making – that is, their gluttony, sloth and all other manner of self-indulgence – are placing unwanted and unsustainable demands on us purer, svelter, fellow-citizens, not to mention placing us in danger of not receiving the healthcare which we (in contrast) actually deserve.

It is already far too late, Gentlemen, to appeal to mere reasonableness, rationality, or, especially civility.  We are well past that stage. Observe: It has become acceptable to write, and accept for publication, “scientific” papers claiming that the obese are the chief cause of global warming. Observe again: It has become acceptable to write, and accept for publication, “scientific” papers claiming that obesity is contagious, and that – never mind associating with the obese themselves – it is risky associating with the very friends of the obese. (That is, even those who like, or tolerate, fat people are to be shunned.)

By their own selfish actions, actions which threaten the collective far more than merely themselves, the obese have become fair game for whatever manipulations our government can devise to cause them to either lose weight, or pay for their sins. Such maneuvers may begin with simple taxes on foodstuffs favored by the obese, but the sky’s the limit. A special “carbon tax” based on their BMI would be legitimate, for instance, since it will always cost a lot of energy to move a fat person from point A to point B, whatever the mode of transportation. The periodic mandatory public “weigh-ins” such a tax would justify would serve the useful purpose of public humiliation, an important incentive to weight loss. And it goes without saying that the ultimate censure – already employed in more enlightened cultures such as Great Britain – would be simply to withhold certain healthcare services if one is deemed too fat.

Demonizing the obese provides several important precedents to our central authorities. That it sets an important precedent – and establishes the mechanisms and techniques – for controlling the private behaviors of American citizens is obvious. But it also allows us to place the blame for a medical condition, which largely depends on genetic predisposition, solely on the chosen behavior of its victims. Discriminating against those who have genetically-mediated conditions thus becomes possible.

Discriminating against obesity also sets a precedent for discriminating against the lower economic classes (since obesity, rather than starvation, is the chief nutritional problem of the poor in America). This will prove a useful tool when we set future behavioral standards to reduce healthcare spending, since so much of that spending is for the economically disadvantaged.

And so, Gentlemen of the HRC blog, it ought to be painfully clear that successfully demonizing the obese is a vital pillar of our new healthcare system. And when you express the unfortunate ideas the two of you have published this week (namely, that discrimination against the obese is somehow unhelpful), you are placing a large target on yourselves, and on your otherwise excellent blog. (And by extension, you may be placing more innocent blogs, like this one,  under more official scrutiny than might be comfortable.)

DrRich sincerely hopes you will take these comments in the communal spirit in which they are intended.

Podcast:

 

 More Evidence that Pay for Performance is Working [8:47m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (37)

DrRich has long praised Pay For Performance as a particularly effective tool for covertly rationing healthcare.

Traditionally, pay-for-performance efforts (modeled after time-honored techniques used on trained seals), produce checklists of approved “activities,” which physicians of quality will always perform when engaged in a “patient encounter.” By examining filled-out checklists, the payers (both health insurance companies and the government) can thus determine which doctors are of sufficiently high quality to deserve their full reimbursement allotment, and which doctors are of substandard quality, and therefore deserve at least to have a portion of their reimbursement withheld, and possibly to be sent away for “re-education,” or to have their names published on a potentially embarrassing list.

When these pay-for-performance checklists are combined with the need to see one patient every 7.5 minutes, thus leaving no time for the discussion of health problems (or other issues) that the payers have not seen fit to include on their checklists, pay-for-performance becomes a very serviceable addition to the covert rationing armamentarium. Which brings us to the latest good news about the success of pay-for-performance.

This week, at Digestive Disease Week (the year’s major scientific gathering of gastroenterologists), doctors from Johns Hopkins will present a paper demonstrating that pay-for-performance reimbursement schemes create financial incentives for surgeons to shun obese patients.

Under this species of pay-for-performance, surgeons are “rewarded” (i.e., not punished) for meeting specified quality standards which have to do with certain patient outcomes. (For pay-for-performance to occasionally equate quality with outcomes is a particularly useful formulation, since expressing reservations about such pay-for-performance measures immediately brands one as being against good medical outcomes, in the same way that being concerned about illegal immigration brands one as being against immigrants, or having reservations about certain of President Obama’s policies brands one as being a racist.)

The Johns Hopkins researchers have found that performing surgical procedures on obese patients results in substantially more complications than performing the same surgical procedures on non-obese patients. For instance, fat people had 27% more complications after gall bladder surgery, and 11% more complications after appendectomy, than thinner people. They also had substantially longer hospital stays, and generated much larger medical bills. The researchers conclude that surgeons (some of whom are literate and understand rudimentary statistics, and therefore not only have access to this kind of information, but are also capable of processing it to at least some extent) can only conclude that, in order to maintain a viable surgical practice, they will need to avoid operating on obese patients. At the very least, they will need to avoid doing elective surgery on fat people, waiting instead until they are in extremis, and require emergency surgery (since at least some effort is made to “adjust” the expected outcomes in these situations).

This result, of course, is similar to the result DrRich reported some time ago regarding the publication of Physician Report Cards. Namely, thanks to publicly-available report cards, cardiologists in the state of New York have been more reluctant than cardiologists in other states to aggressively treat patients with severe heart attacks, and as a result (while the report cards are cleaner) the mortality of these patients is higher in New York.

And the situation with surgeons being quite similar (i.e., doctors being incented to avoid treating higher-risk patients, for fear of being punished because of an unavoidably higher rate of complications), DrRich feels quite confident in offering his surgical friends the same advice he offered the New York cardiologists. Namely, he suggests the Designated Driver strategy.

The Designated Driver strategy requires the Chief of Surgery (ideally, an imposing and feared figure) to approach a promising young surgeon who is just entering practice after the end of a very long course of training, and saying, “Son, you are going to have a brief but spectacular career. You are going to be our Designated Driver.”

For an extraordinary annual salary and immediate vesting in a generous pension plan, this young surgeon is going to have the honor of being the one who gets all the high-risk surgical cases for the group. He will agree to do this as long as it is feasible, that is, as long as he’s not run out of practice because his pay-for performance reports, or his physician report card, have become so abysmally bad. With careful management, and with his colleagues tossing him a few “easy” cases now and then in order to extend his longevity, he may be able to survive as a surgeon for five or ten years (longer, for instance, than the average NFL player), after which he can enjoy a lucrative retirement, or simply change careers. (There are obviously other approaches for conducting the Designated Driver strategy, for instance, as a way for surgeons nearing retirement age to go out in a blaze of glory. But you get the idea.)

The Designator Driver strategy is a win-win for everyone except the government – so surely it will eventually become illegal. But what doctors have to realize, when practicing medicine in a healthcare system driven by the covert rationing imperative, is that one either gives in to the bizarre incentives created by programs like pay-for-performance (which will cause measurable harm to their patients), or one fights back guerrilla-style, striking where one can, and changing tactics as the enemy adjusts.

To the government, however, such guerrilla activities amount to a mere nuisance, an annoyance which (like the poor and the uninsured) will always be with us. Looking at the big picture, our government will doubtless rejoice to hear the Johns Hopkins research results. The Feds will be particularly pleased to learn that their pay-for-performance efforts are achieving both of the desired effects (i.e., reducing the volume of elective surgical procedures, and advancing prospects for demonizing and discriminating against the obese.

Say what you will about pay-for-performance. It’s working.

Podcast:

 

 Breaking the Doctor-Patient Relationship (Limiting Individual Prerogatives, Part 3) [20:54m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (14)

____________

Part 1 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

Part 2 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

____________

The thing about Progressives is that the characteristic which makes them most endearing (and, which makes them most attractive to the unaware), is the very characteristic which makes them the most dangerous.

Fundamentally, Progressives believe in the perfectibility of mankind, or at least, of society. Indeed, they have discovered the very Program which will lead to the perfect society, a society which will maximize the good of the whole. Their vision is so compelling, and their ends so utterly and undeniably right, that it becomes legitimate for them to engage in whatever means are necessary to achieve it. (Indeed, for those who have been paying attention, “By Whatever Means Necessary” appears to have supplanted “Hope and Change” as the catchphrase of our current political leaders.)

The thing that always trips up Progressives (and their more revolutionary cousins, the Communists), is, of course, human nature. In order for their Program to work, it is necessary for each individual to behave in the prescribed fashion. And, at the end of the day, a substantial proportion of the population (any population) will insist on striving for their own individual benefit, rather than (as the Program requires) for the benefit of the collective.

The major competing system of societal organization – capitalism – recognizes this facet of human nature (i.e., the essential imperfectability of mankind, as manifested by the non-suppressibility of self-interest), and attempts to channel it into relatively productive and non-destructive (but still competitive and individually-directed) behaviors that limit the damage, and maximize the public good to a reasonable degree.

In contrast, Progressives attempt to change human nature to fit their inherently superior Program.

The fact that you cannot change human nature to fit the Program is what makes them dangerous. Their initial wide-eyed optimism that us folks will just “get it,” once they explain it to us, invariably evolves to an essential contempt for our limited intellectual capacity. This contempt justifies all manner of prevarications, to fool us into going along. Even in societies where the tyranny of correct-thinking has gone so far as to elicit the cooperation of the people at the point of a gun (rather than through the preferred methods of “education” or misdirection), the achievement of the predicted perfect society is invariably prevented by the recalcitrance of human nature. (The final realization that not even an all-powerful central authority can make people behave in the prescribed way always produces a nearly psychotic frustration that – in virtually every Communist country – has led to atrocities against various subsets of the recalcitrant people.)

DrRich does not believe there will ever be pogroms in the United States.

But this does not mean that the Progressives will always be kind and gentle as they attempt to achieve their goals. As DrRich sees it, in the U.S. the Progressives have clearly evolved to the “contempt for the masses” phase of their Program, a phase which justifies all manner of techniques – just this side of violence – to get us all to cooperate. Currently they are intent on demonizing their opponents as being racist, stupid, uneducated, selfish, overly dependent on outmoded supernatural beings, violent, and (of course) obese. This demonization is quite useful, since there is obviously no need to address any actual ideas put forth by such as these, even if they were capable of the feat of “ideas.”

Healthcare is, at present, the chief battleground in the war between Progressives vs. non-Progressives in the U.S., and the outcome of this battle will likely determine the success or failure of the entire Progressive Program. And the most fundamental (and emblematic) aspect of this battle is over what to do about the “doctor-patient relationship.”

The classic doctor-patient relationship was a celebration of the primacy of individual rights. And, for over 2000 years (at least since the advent of the Hippocratic Oath) guaranteeing the sanctity of that relationship was the basis of all medical ethics.

Until very recently doctors, patients, philosophers and ethicists recognized that, when you are sick, you are no more capable of navigating a complex and hostile healthcare system than are accused felons a complex and hostile legal system, and you are no less in peril if you run afoul of that system. And, just as the felon has a right to a personal advocate, a professional whose job is to protect his individual interests against the conflicting aims of the “system,” so does the patient. That is (quaint conventional wisdom held), when you are sick, you should be entitled to at least the same protections as when you rob a convenience store. And the doctor-patient relationship was supposed to guarantee you that right.

This is why, throughout the ages, the basic precepts of medical ethics were aimed at guaranteeing the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship. Fundamentally, these ethical precepts required the physician to place the needs of his or her individual patient above all other considerations.

It should be clear to everyone that, under either our “old” healthcare system or the one that Obamacare promises us, this formulation of the doctor-patient relationship cannot be allowed to stand. Neither the insurance executives nor government officials can allow spending decisions – that is, decisions on how to spend their money – to be made by individual patients (and their personal advocates). For this reason, the classic doctor-patient relationship had to go.

And so, in 2002, official medical ethics was formally amended to require physicians (while still giving lip service to their obligation to individual patients) to strive for a “just distribution of healthcare resources.” That is, official medical ethics now makes it ethical for physicians to ration healthcare, covertly, at the bedside – and indeed, makes it unethical for them to fail to do so.

The New Ethics has been enthusiastically supported by medical ethicists worldwide (a field which now seems to be dominated by utilitarians), and worse, has been embraced by all the world’s major medical professional organizations. DrRich has not embraced the New Ethics (on the grounds that it places individual patients at great peril, and destroys the profession of medicine), and neither have many (possibly a majority) of older physicians. But it has been taught in medical schools around the world for over a decade, and in another decade it is likely that the vast majority of practicing physicians will accept as a matter of course that their primary obligation is to control healthcare costs, and only secondarily to try to meet the needs of their individual patients.

The plan, therefore, is for Obamacare to provide physicians with directives from expert panels on which medical services to supply to which patients and when, and for the New Ethics to allow physicians who go along with such directives to live with themselves. The feasibility of this plan depends entirely on physicians acceding to the program.

So, incentives are being put in place to “help” doctors cooperate. Quality measures will be implemented, with “quality” being defined as doctors doing what they’re told, and reimbursement will be tied to one’s quality rating. Possibly more persuasive will be the fact that the Feds can construe the failure to follow handed-down rules, regulations and guidelines, at any time, as a federal crime. (Even doctors who don’t mind being labeled as “substandard quality” – perhaps even considering the label as a badge of honor – will mind going to jail.)

But by whatever means necessary, the happiness of the government is to be the doctor’s first consideration, and not the happiness of their individual patients. The classic doctor-patient relationship is being terminated with extreme prejudice.

To see just how important it is to destroy the doctor-patient relationship, one merely has to observe what is happening to primary care doctors who have the audacity to leave the system, and set up a direct-pay medical practice.

Part of the problem, to be sure, was caused by these doctors themselves. The first few to do so unabashedly catered to rich patients, and to attract the rich, referred to themselves as “concierge” practitioners. This name (and its elitist connotations) have been forcibly affixed to all direct-pay practitioners, even as this style of practice has evolved into a much more democratic form. Today, more and more doctors are starting direct-pay practices (in which patients pay the doctors out of their own pockets) which are easily affordable to anyone who can afford a cell phone or cable TV contract.

While many direct-pay practices offer patients certain benefits they can usually not get from primary care doctors who remain in the approved system (such as phone and e-mail access, same-day appointments, appointments lasting as long as necessary instead of the allotted 7.5 minutes, etc.), the fundamental benefit, to both the patient and the doctor, is that it restores the classic doctor-patient relationship. The physician’s primary obligation is no longer to the 3rd-party overlord, or to the Progressive ideal of social justice, but to the patient.

And while critics (who abound) attack direct-pay practitioners for their elitism, laziness, and greed, their real issue is that direct-pay practitioners are acting as if their primary duty is to their individual patients, and not to the needs of society. This latter fault simply cannot be tolerated.

Having gained nearly complete control over the behavior of primary care practitioners, it is critical for Progressives – in making sure that practice by handed-down “guidelines” is not simply the only legal way to practice, but also the only ethical way to practice – to shut the door to any alternative forms of primary care. Direct-pay practitioners are a menace because they threaten to raise the expectations of both doctors and patients. Perhaps, doctors and patients might tell themselves, there really is a way to maintain individual autonomy within the healthcare system.

The attacks on direct-pay practitioners have followed the usual scheme Progressives follow when they discover a faction they need to suppress. First, they were ridiculed. “For a Retainer, Lavish Care by ‘Boutique Doctors,’” said a headline in the New York Times in 2005. Then, they were demonized, widely attacked for their elitism, laziness, greed, and lack of fundamental medical ethics. In this latter effort, it was not difficult to find fellow physicians – generally, from the medical organizations which promulgated the New Ethics – to lead the attacks. There are countless examples. DrRich will give just two.

Anthony DeMaria, then President of the American College of Cardiology, criticized the practice of direct-pay medicine in an article in the JACC in 2005, saying, “Personally, I do not mind if people acquire yachts or personal trainers if they have enough money, nor would I object if they secured a physician at their beck and call. However, unlike yachts, health care is not discretionary, and everyone should be entitled to the same quality.” As a matter of social justice, direct-pay physicians improve healthcare quality for only some patients, and so have no place in the healthcare system.

In an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Troyen A. Brennan (M.D., J.D., and M.P.H., so we know we’re in trouble) really gets to the point. Referring to direct-pay practices as “luxury primary care,” he notes that “traditional medical ethics is rather poorly equipped to address issues related to luxury primary care.” That is, while “traditional” medical ethics always places the individual patient first, that kind of thinking is now outmoded. “(M)ost ethicists now agree that the financial structure of health care is an important subject for ethical consideration. Access to health care, in particular, is a salient ethical issue.” Direct-pay practitioners threaten (by their elitism and the limited size of their practices), to limit access to primary care, and thus are in fundamental violation of medical ethics.

The argument here, for those who missed it (advanced by fellow physicians no less), is that, of the two competing ethical precepts now established by New Medical Ethics (i.e., the physician’s obligation to the individual patient vs. the physician’s obligation to society), clear primacy is to be given to the physician’s obligation to society. Physicians must (like it or not) participate in covert bedside healthcare rationing. Physicians who take the only path remaining to them that allows them to make the individual patient their primary obligation are to be castigated as ethically deficient.

When ridicule and demonization fail to suppress their opposition, Progressive dogma indicates it’s time to resort to force. The first pass in this regard, of course, is always to render the opposition illegal. (Actual violence is reserved for criminals who persist in their misbehavior, despite more polite efforts to get them to behave lawfully.)

Making direct-pay medical practice illegal has not been accomplished yet, but clear efforts have been made in this regard. Noting with alarm the rise of direct-pay primary care, numerous Congresspersons have issued statements of concern, suggesting that perhaps Congress should look into the propriety of such activities.

Indeed, the first step by Congress has already been taken. In 2003, as part of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, Congress directed the GAO to study and report on the effect of direct-pay practices on Medicare patients. The GAO did so in 2005, and a fair paraphrase of its report is as follows: “The practice of direct-pay medicine is not currently a threat to Medicare patients, because the direct-pay movement is not large enough yet to have an impact. If it does begin to have an impact on Medicare patients, action will have to be taken.” That is, direct-pay medicine was considered OK in 2005 not because it was inherently an ethical and legal form of medical practice, but simply because there were not enough practitioners at that time to significantly affect Medicare patients. The clear implication is that Congress stands ready to pass laws outlawing – or, at least, severely limiting – direct-pay practices, as soon as those practices begin to “impact” the system.

Certain state governments are not waiting for Congress to ban direct-pay practices. The state of Maryland (and a few others) have taken the creative position that, because many direct-pay practices work on a retainer basis, they meet the definition of a health insurance company. And as a health insurance company, to be considered legal entities, they have to have millions of dollars set aside to pay for unforeseen “claims.” (Interestingly, this same argument was not applied to Maryland lawyers, who also often work on a retainer model.) According to the Baltimore Sun, the state’s stance in this regard has already successfully caused several primary care physicians to abandon their plans to become retainer practitioners.

Less devious (but more draconian) than the state of Maryland is the state of Massachusetts (whose universal healthcare system, we’ve all heard, is a preview of Obamacare circa 2015). A bill is under consideration in the Massachusetts Senate (Bill 2170) which requires doctors, as a condition of their licensure, to accept payment rates as determined by the government. If it passes, it will be the first actual legislation in the U.S. to ban direct-pay medicine, if only by making it completely impracticable. (Thanks to Dr. Wes for pointing out this important development.)

Since medical licensing is controlled by the various states, of course, it would take 50 bills like the one in Massachusetts to really get rid of direct-pay healthcare. But there are other ways for the Feds to accomplish the same thing. Now that the federal government directly controls all student loans, for instance, it would be a simple matter to make those loans contingent on agreeing to become primary care doctors working strictly within the government controlled system, or to offer loan forgiveness for doctors who agree to do so, or to rescind favorable re-payment conditions (retroactively, and decades after the fact, if necessary) for doctors who go to a direct-pay model later in life.

DrRich does not really know how the Progressives will actually place the final nail in the coffin of the doctor-patient relationship. All he knows is that they have – well, more than the desire – the deep and abiding need to kill that relationship, once and for all. Unless we the people decide we ought to stop them, this is going to happen.

____________

Part 4 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

Podcast:

 

 Hillary Started It (Limiting Individual Prerogatives, Part 2) [15:16m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (4)

__________

Part 1 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

__________

Have you ever wondered where Obamacare came from? From where, exactly, did those 2700 pages of undecipherable prose arise?

It is clear that our Congresspersons never read it, let alone wrote it. At the President’s “Health Care Summit” in late February it seemed pretty plain, to DrRich at least, that the only people in the room who had read the bill carefully were Republican Congresspersons Ryan and Cantor. The proponents of the bill stuck to generalities, platitudes, and vignettes about recycling dead people’s dentures. When Ryan and Cantor used their knowledge of the bill to question the President about its details, they were admonished to stop using “props.” The President was not just being mean; he needed to avoid getting into the details because he himself had only a broad general idea of what the bill actually said. This is not a slam at the President; the bill is designed to be fundamentally indeterminate in its meaning, so that the regulators who will later translate it into rules, regulations and guidelines, under which healthcare providers can then be prosecuted, can at that time interpret it as directed. This is what Nancy Pelosi meant when she said, a few days later, that Congress would have to pass the bill so that we all could find out what was in it. (This also explains why none of our legislators read it – except for those pesky Republicans, who were only trying to make trouble. What’s the point in reading a long, boring document whose actual meaning will only be sorted out later?)

So, DrRich asks again, where did this bill – whose actual meaning was elusive even to the President and the legislators who were promoting it – come from? Who actually put the words to the page, and crafted this remarkable piece of legislation?

We may never know the name(s) of the person (people) who held the pen(s) which scratched out the actual words, any more than we will ever know the real names of the individuals who wrote the gospels of Matthew and Luke. But, just as New Testament scholars have been able to trace these two gospels to a common prior source – the so-called “Q document” – it is not difficult for anyone with a smattering of interest in the art of legislative exegesis to trace the source document for our new healthcare law.

The Q Document for President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, was, of course, Hillary Clinton’s Health Security Act, which went down to ignominious defeat in 1994.

DrRich, who is rapidly developing an expertise in forensic diplomatics, and having spent significant time examining aspects of the Obamacare bill, decided to go back in time, and re-examine Hillary’s original proposal for fundamentally transforming the American healthcare system.

While Hillary’s Health Security Act was widely castigated by contemporaries as being a vast monstrosity of bureaucratic legerdemain, filled with complexity and labyrinthine passages that attempted to hide its true meaning, DrRich, after spending some time with Obamacare, found Hillarycare to be a model of legislative brevity and clarity. In fact, DrRich believes, its very straightforwardness is what killed it.

For instance, Hillarycare is only 1368 pages in length. How could they be so concise?

Even more remarkably, Hillarycare spells out pretty plainly what it actually means to do. For instance, in the Obamacare bill, in order for a reader to assemble the information that the  Independent Medicare Advisory Board is actually to be called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, and that its “advisory opinions” which are to be submitted to Congress for “consideration” are actually formal dictates which must be followed to the letter, and that it can inflict its cost-cutting mandates to all of healthcare and not just to government programs, one must jump around to numerous distant sections in the 2700-page document. In the Hillarycare bill, in stark contrast, the analogous National Health Board (which, like the Immutables, was to have been the Supreme Court of Healthcare, beyond which there was to be no appeal, no revision, and no repeal) is presented in an entirely straightforward way, and all in one place.

And now, having immersed himself once again, however briefly, in the relatively refreshing model of clarity and precision that was Hillarycare, DrRich is convinced that the people who actually wrote the Obamacare bill (and may God keep these invaluable masters of legislative poetry safe, as we will be needing them), simply began with Hillary’s old Health Security Act, disassembled it into various bits, padded each bit with a little more than twice its weight in verbiage, and reassembled the pieces in some nearly random fashion, puzzle-like, into the exceedingly difficult-to-read document that became Obamacare.

That is, Hillarycare is demonstrably the Q document to Obamacare.

Obamacare’s debt to Hillarycare is obvious. Hillarycare included individual mandates requiring everyone to have government-approved health insurance; it reduced private health insurers to government-directed utilities, whose products, rates, and profits were to be controlled by the feds; and it created omnicient and omnipotent panels which were to hand down dictates to let doctors know what services they may or may not provide and under what circumstances.

DrRich, therefore, formally advances the thesis that if you want to understand what Obamacare is actually getting at – what with its inherent and intentional obscurity, obscurity designed with care to provide its proponents with plausible deniability – simply examine the much more straightforward model from which it was derived, namely, Hillarycare.

And this brings us, finally, to the theme of this current series of posts. For Hillarycare strictly limited, in practice, the ability of individuals to spend their own money on their own healthcare.

In this instance even Hillarycare had to be a bit obtuse. For, as DrRich’s critics have pointed out to him so very many times, Americans are jealous of their own personal liberties, and are not likely to simply tolerate a frontal assault on their right to guard their health with their own resources. And of course DrRich agrees with this idea. Indeed, the fact that Hillarycare was insufficiently obtuse on this matter had a lot to do with why it ultimately failed to become law.

The attempt at limiting individual prerogatives under Hillarycare was, to be sure, devious (though not devious enough to fool people). So it began with a straightforward statement declaring that it was not doing what it was actually trying to do: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting…an individual from purchasing any health care services.”

Now first of all, for readers who persist in thinking that restrictive language like this, when it appears in federal legislation, actually means anything in particular, let DrRich disabuse you of that notion with two examples. 1) The legislation that created Medicare contains the following language: “Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine, or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer, or employee, or any institution, agency or person providing health care services.” (Section 1801, Medicare Act, 1965). 2) Obamacare contains language that prohibits healthcare rationing.

In any case, after making this broad promise in favor of individual liberty, Hillarycare went on to limit individual liberties. It attempted to do this in the Fraud and Abuse section of the proposed law, which sought to dry up most of private medical practice, and criminalize the rest. It provided for strict governmental controls over the fees that could be charged by fee-for-service doctors or private practitioners. And if the feds decided that a private doctor’s fees were too high, they could charge him/her with bribe-taking, a serious federal crime under the new law. Indeed, Hillarycare attempted to make illegal most of the ways patients could go outside the approved system to get “extra” healthcare. Criminal penalties could accrue to both the doctor and patient. According to Paul Craig Roberts, writing in the Washington Times in December, 1993, “Mr. Clinton’s plan turns normal patient advocacy into a federal criminal offense. For example, a doctor who wants an earlier date for surgery for a needful patient can be accused of using wrongful influence and accepting a bribe and sentenced, along with the patient, to 15 years in prison.”

While none of this got much publicity in the general media in 1993-1994 (which goes to show that things really haven’t changed that much), you can be sure that doctors were aware of it. That Hillarycare would make it so very easy to inadvertently commit a federal crime – which would lead to massive fines, loss of license, and jail – was, in fact, one of the main reasons most physicians were so violently opposed to it.

The point DrRich is trying to make here is to demonstrate just how deeply reformers feel the need to control the behavior of physicians (and through physicians, the behavior of patients) in order to gain the control they need over individuals, and just how far they are willing to go to this end. It was partly because the Clintons showed their hand in this regard that their healthcare plan failed.

DrRich will now make two final points, and then end this already-too-long post. First, while Hillarycare failed to become law, many of the over-the-top anti-fraud provisions within Hillarycare actually became the law of the land a few years later, in the HIPAA legislation. DrRich has discussed this in detail in his book, and demonstrated how, during the rest of the Clinton administration, the healthcare police worked diligently to let doctors know that their careers, life savings, and physical freedom were dependent on making the happiness of the government – and not of their patients – their chief concern. This activity stopped during the Bush presidency, and has not yet picked up again under President Obama. But the infrastructure is in place already for an unusually effective coercion of doctors, in order to keep them from providing services, and thus to keep patients from buying those services, that the government does not like. There was, in fact, no need to add this infrastructure to the Obamacare legislation. The only thing that’s necessary is for the government to decide (as it did for a few years during the 1990s) that it’s time to take off the gloves.

And second, the intent of the people who brought us Hillarycare – the same people, in philosophy if not in person, who brought us Obamacare – ought to be very plain to all of us. We know their mindset. They may not have gotten away with limiting individual prerogatives in 1994 – but they certainly tried to.

And while it is true that Americans greatly value their liberty, and will chafe at overt restrictions on their ability to use their own resources for the sake of their own health, DrRich reiterates that actually preventing these restrictions will depend on our continued vigilance, and our willingness to stop the people who so plainly want to stifle our individual prerogatives, for the sake of the control they must have.
____________
Part 3 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

Part 4 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

Podcast:

 

 The Real Fight is Just Beginning (Limiting Individual Prerogatives, Part 1) [12:52m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (5)

Unlike many of those who actually supported President Obama’s healthcare reform, DrRich always remained confident (even during the darkest days, such as right after the Scott Brown election) that Obamacare would pass.

DrRich’s confidence stemmed from the simple fact that the health insurance industry required this outcome. That industry, having clearly reached the end of its life-cycle and having nowhere else to turn, desperately needed the government to provide it with a graceful exit strategy. And Obamacare, which promised to convert the health insurance industry into a public utility, was as good a deal as they were going to get. And so, while the President and his supporters traveled the land, painting insurers as the very embodiment of all healthcare evil, with sundry hapless victims of insurance industry atrocities in tow (for demonstration purposes), we Americans were treated to the spectacle of the insurers themselves not only declining to defend themselves, but actively adding fuel to the fire whenever necessary to keep reform moving along, and gratefully embracing their assigned role as the villains of the set piece. And in the end we got the healthcare reform the insurers desperately needed.

So, dear readers, now that this thing has finally come to pass, it is time to prepare ourselves for the real fight, the fight whose outcome is actually in question, and which will determine not merely what kind of healthcare system we will finally end up with, but more importantly, what kind of society we will be. That question, of course, is whether individual Americans ultimately will be restrained from using their own resources to provide for their own medical care.

DrRich has said many times that this was to be our real battle. And whenever he has said this, loyal (but misguided) readers have questioned his sanity – or at least, his judgment. There is simply no reason (these critics insist) for our leaders to attempt to prevent individuals from buying some of their own healthcare with their own money. There is nothing in the bill (they go on) that explicitly does so. And besides (they offer as a clincher), we’re Americans, and even our clueless political leaders know that we’d never stand for it. The very notion that our government would try such a thing amounts to simple paranoia.

DrRich sincerely hopes his critics are right, and that his fear over such a restriction to our personal liberties is just one more manifestation of his paranoid psychosis. For, if his critics are right, not only do we have drugs for that, but also DrRich would be allowed to buy them.

DrRich is sorry to say, however, that if we Americans are to suffer no restrictions on our ability to purchase healthcare services with our own money (and, ultimately, on our ability to expend any individual resources for any individual benefit), this outcome will likely result solely from enough of us remaining vigilant, and vigorously fighting oppressive efforts whenever we find them. It will not result from our complacency, or from placing our trust in the beneficence, the common sense, or the respect for fundamental American precepts, of our political leaders.

This will truly be a momentous fight. Its outcome will determine, to a very great extent, what kind of country we will be, and more importantly, whether the Great American Experiment – arguably the greatest secular endeavor in human history – will continue, or will end in a whimper.

In this and in the next few posts, DrRich will attempt to explain himself by addressing three specific questions. 1) Why must individual prerogatives be restrained in our new healthcare system? 2) What evidence do we have that such restraining efforts are already in the works? 3) How have such restraining efforts already become ingrained in our current, pre-reform healthcare system?

Why Individual Prerogatives Must Be Restrained

It is natural and unavoidable for universal healthcare systems to strive to limit individual prerogatives.*

These healthcare systems are “universal” in two senses. First, they attempt to cover all people. Second, almost by definition they cover “all” healthcare services. Under America’s new healthcare law, for instance, our new health insurance utilities (formerly health insurance companies) are required to issue policies (which every American must have) that cover everything. “Qualified” health plans under our new law MUST cover (as laid out in Section 1302): ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment, prescription drugs, rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices, laboratory services, preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management, pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

Fundamentally, this “universality of features” reflects a particular philosophy. The central authority is telling the individual that “everything” will be taken care of for them, from soup to nuts. So no need to worry your pretty little heads. But, as always when the central authority assumes all responsibility for providing some aspect of security (in this case, healthcare security), it also assumes all control.

It is important for the government to control all healthcare spending not only because it is the natural state of governments to continually accrue all the power they can (see: Thomas Jefferson), but also because, in the case of healthcare, controlling all expenditures is essential for the purpose of covert rationing.

Allowing individuals to spend their own money fundamentally undermines such a system. It implies that the central authority is actually not supplying all useful healthcare services (when, by definition, it is), and thus implies that the government may be doing some kind of rationing. When one is dedicated to rationing covertly, such an implication cannot be permitted.

Perhaps more importantly, when individuals are allowed to purchase “extra” healthcare, that’s a graphic admission to the unwashed masses that there is extra healthcare to be had. That is, it raises expectations for everybody, and these higher expectations make it that much more difficult for the central authority to pull its covert rationing strings.

(The official reason the central authority will always give for restricting individual prerogatives is one of “fairness.” Allowing the rich to go outside the system would create an unfair, two-tiered healthcare system, etc., etc. But the real reason is that individual healthcare spending undermines the government’s control, and that control is essential for covert rationing.)

The critical importance of controlling the expectations of the masses is nicely illustrated by some of the problems being experienced by the British and the Canadian healthcare systems. In both of these systems, the very visible progress that has been made in the American healthcare system – new drugs, new techniques and new technology – has created new demands and new expectations among Canadian and British citizens. Essentially, seeing what was possible, enough of the population demanded better care that something had to change.

The inability of these universal healthcare systems to ignore such increased expectations has led to an acceleration in expenditures, and even to loosening up the restrictions on individuals. (Both of these universal systems started out, as a simple matter of course, by strictly forbidding individuals from purchasing “extra” healthcare with their own funds.)

Some of DrRich’s critics have argued that such “loosening up” shows that any restrictions on individuals simply will not stand – so we don’t really have anything to worry about. For, if such restrictions cannot be maintained in Canada or Great Britain, how will they ever be maintained in the U.S.? Perhaps. But DrRich suggests that, to the contrary, the fact that restrictions on individuals in Canada and Great Britain systems had to be revised simply illustrates the critical necessity, in any universal healthcare system, of managing expectations. For a failure to manage expectations, obviously, leads to a loss of control. Had it not been for the very visible example of American healthcare to show them what was possible, citizens of Canada and Great Britain quite possibly never would have agitated for “more.” As it is, thanks to the unfortunate example of high-cost healthcare their citizens saw in the U.S., British and Canadian officials were simply unable to manage the expectations of their citizenry.

Now that we too will soon have mandated universal healthcare (much to the relief, no doubt, of Canadian and British healthcare bureaucrats), it will become critically important for our government to manage the expectations of American citizens. Since American healthcare bureaucrats won’t have an annoying external healthcare system to worry about, continually displaying more effective, and more expensive, healthcare options,the job will be somewhat easier for them than it was for their counterparts in Canada and England. For American bureaucrats, managing public expectations will mainly mean restraining individual American citizens from going outside the system, and buying extra healthcare with their own money. This makes restricting individual prerogatives in the U.S. critical, even more critical than it was in our cousin nations. And we should not be surprised if our bureaucrats employ some very devious and even draconian maneuvers to do so.

DrRich believes that they will pull out all the stops to restrict individuals. Whatever methods they employ will, of course, be conducted only for the best of reasons – to have the fairest healthcare system possible, to have the most ethical healthcare system we can devise, and to protect misled Americans from throwing their hard-earned money away on unproven medical services. Whatever the reasons they might offer, their attempt to restrict individual prerogatives will become deadly serious, because doing so is absolutely essential to their real aims.

Covert rationing demands it.

*This is the case in practice, but not necessarily in theory. In his book, DrRich proposed a kind of universal healthcare system in which each American would be provided with catastrophic universal health insurance (which would operate under a system of open and transparent rationing), and in which Americans would then be expected to buy their more routine healthcare, as well as any non-covered healthcare they might want, themselves. (Poor Americans would be subsidized to do so.) But a system like DrRich’s encourages – even demands – individual responsibility, and is therefore philosophically objectionable.

__________
Part 2 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

Part 3 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

Part 4 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives