DrRich has now read large portions of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” i.e., Obamacare. He finds in it the very essence of Progressivism.  To understand Obamacare, then, we must understand the basics of Progressive thought.

DrRich has always found American Progressives to be a bit enigmatic. He has found much of their behavior to be persistently, almost defiantly, illogical and counterproductive to the rights Americans hold dear, rights which Progressives themselves also insist they revere – in particular, our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

As long as 20 years ago, DrRich had developed a sneaking suspicion that Progressives, their protests to the contrary notwithstanding, never really bought into the “inalienable” thing. On this point, he concluded, they were prevaricators. Since by then it was beginning to look like the Progressives were going to be running things for a while, it occurred to DrRich that it would be a good idea to understand what they really think, and what their agenda really was. And so, after much time and study and contemplation, DrRich developed his theory of Progressive thought, which he is now pleased to share with his readers so that they, in turn, might better understand Obamacare.

The Roots of Progressivism

When DrRich began his study of Progressives he did not quite know where to begin. So he decided to proceed, like Descartes before him, from the simplest and most irreducible of truths. Namely, that Progressives are really, really smart – or think they are. We know this because all the professors in all the best Ivy League schools are Progressives.

From this simple truth we can deduce that, whatever it is that Progressives are actually up to, it must have its roots in the writings of The Philosopher.

And sure enough, it was not at all difficult to discover the roots of Progressivism within the teachings of Aristotle.

Aristotle tells us that man is innately a political animal, an animal with an inherent propensity to gather into increasingly complex communities. The essence of man, according to Aristotle, is society.

The formation of complex societies is what defines mankind; it is what differentiates man from the rest of the animal kingdom. Hence, because man is defined by society, society is inherently on a higher plane of importance than the individual. Individuals are entirely beholden to and dependent upon and subservient to the society to which they belong. Indeed, they are defined as individuals by their place within that society. Without society, a man is just an ape (with a persistently infantile face).

In this sense, “socialism” is reduced quite simply to a philosophy in which society – the collective – takes precedence over the individual. Furthermore, the precedence of the collective over the individual is not something we can simply choose to accept or reject; it is the very essence of mankind. It is nature. It is just the way it is.

So, as you can see, Aristotle nailed Progressivism.

Clearly, while the name “progressivism” has only been around for a century or so (and we will shortly see from whence the name came), its roots are a very old idea. This idea, in fact, was the normal way of looking at the relationship between individuals and society until just a few hundred years ago, when humanists began to cautiously explore the radical notion that individuals (rather than the collective) constitute the fundamental unit of humanity. The new humanist heresy – which declared the primacy of the individual – was for a long time called “liberalism” (a term whose meaning has, recently, drastically changed, and is now a synonym for what had always been its opposite). Classical liberalism reached its zenith, DrRich thinks, a mere two and a half centuries after its painful birth, with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

But to Progressives, classical liberalism has always been an aberration. Despite what America’s founding documents might say, society takes precedence over the individual. It takes this precedence by way of the very essence of mankind, as was taught by The Philosopher, and so it cannot be otherwise.

The Progressive Program

The Progressive Program – the thing that makes Progressives progressive – is to develop the perfect society. This program is not optional; it is dictated by the nature of mankind.

Since society is what defines mankind, it follows, as the night follows the day, that the program of mankind, the purpose, the work, the essence of mankind, is to create the perfect society.

The perfect society has two basic requirements. First, it must meet all the basic needs of the individuals within that society (such as food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, and health), without which individuals will always be tempted to engage in the counterproductive behavior of striving for things. Second, the social order must be of such a nature that it can persist, theoretically forever, without fundamental change. Indeed, the very notion of perfection implies that any change, of any type, is bad, since it will necessarily constitute a movement away from perfection.

The perfect society therefore requires complete stability. This would include (at a minimum) a stable population size, the preservation of natural resources and the earth’s environment (indeed, when one hears the word “sustainability,” one is listening to Progressive gospel), the careful management of the economy, and the careful control – if not suppression – of unplanned innovations. This latter refers both to material (or scientific) innovations, and innovations of thought, either of which will always threaten hard-won societal stability.

The perfection of society is the paramount work of mankind, so any method which may help in achieving this perfection is to be embraced; none discounted out of hand. The only considerations one must make in choosing methods of action are: Is this method practicable? And: Is this method more likely to be successful, or counterproductive? These two questions fully define Progressive ethics.

So that’s DrRich’s theory of Progressivism and the Progressive Program. While it is only a theory, DrRich hereby asserts that his formulation is correct.

He makes this assertion for the purpose of advancing the debate and inviting argument. If any of his readers have a better explanation of Progressivism, one that more successfully fits the facts and explains the otherwise difficult-to-explain behaviors we’ve seen from Progressives in recent years, why, DrRich will be delighted to hear it. If it is convincing, DrRich will cheerfully abandon his own theory and adopt yours.

But to accomplish this feat, your theory of Progressivism will have to offer a more successful explanation of the following Progressive behavioral phenomena than DrRich’s theory does:

Individuals and Groups Within Progressivism

While Progressivism by definition places individuals in a subservient position to society, this is not to say that individuals are merely interchangeable cogs in a great machine, or entirely analogous to worker bees in a hive. DrRich’s prior sarcasms aside, Progressive society is not the Borg.

Indeed, individuals within a Progressive society are differentiatable, and can be publicly celebrated or castigated as individuals. But to a great extent the potential worth of an individual is pre-determined by the group to which the individual belongs. Group identity in Progressive society is critically important, as it provides the only feasible means by which the leadership of Progressive societies can attempt to control and direct individual behaviors.

(Group identity is so critically important to Progressive thought that it has been given a special name – “Diversity” – and has been designated as the Cardinal Virtue, from which all the other, subsidiary, virtues – faith, hope, charity and the like – must necessarily spring.)

And so, to stand out as individuals, individuals must stand out as a member of their group, and the manner in which they stand out must fundamentally reflect the assigned essence of their group. So, for instance, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are celebrated individuals, whose accomplishments nicely reflect their assigned group identities. In contrast, Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell are not celebrated by Progressives, and indeed are castigated as abominations, because their individual accomplishments do not reflect their assigned group identities.

Therefore, while individuals within Progressive societies can achieve a certain level of importance, individual importance is merely of tertiary concern, rather than primary or even secondary concern. Individuals can become officially “important” only if their importance reflects the essence of their assigned group; and the importance of the assigned group (the secondary concern), in turn, is proportional to its ability to advance the Progressive Program in general (which, of course, is the primary concern).

While individuals have the potential of rising to a state of importance within Progressivism, the vast majority of individuals will never actually do so. The great masses of individuals will be regarded by society as featureless members of their group, and will be treated accordingly. And the status of a particular group is always subject to change, given the extant needs of the leadership class. Certain groups (e.g. labor unions) may be exulted by the leadership, while others (e.g. the elderly, the white males, or the fat) will be devalued. Yet other groups (e.g. illegal aliens) may be celebrated by the leadership at one point in time (when, for instance, it behooves Progressive leaders to acquire voting rights for them before 2012), but then may be dismissed at some other point in time (in 2013, for instance, after the critical votes have been gathered, and now the group just represents large volumes of mouths to feed and healthcare to consume).

Good and Evil In Progressivism

Many Progressive intellectuals are fond of saying there are no absolutes, and so there is no such thing as inherent good and inherent evil. These intellectuals are wrong, even from within the Progressive paradigm. Because the Progressive Program – which, again, is to achieve a perfect society – is the innate agenda for mankind, there indeed exists a standard by which one can determine good and evil.

“Good” is anything which advances the Progressive Program; and “evil” is anything which threatens it.

Anyone who doubts the existence of good and evil within the Progressive Program need only observe the scores of behaviors and figures of speech which are condemned as unrelentingly evil by Progressives, with all the certainty and fervor of a Jonathan Edwards.

Accordingly, individuals who hinder the Progressive Program are a danger to mankind’s very essence. They are evil, and must be rehabilitated or eliminated.

Progressivism and the Leadership Class

Despite its lip service to the contrary, Progressivism is not egalitarian, even in theory.

The duty of mankind is to strive for the perfect society. The chief tool by which mankind is to achieve this program is man’s intellect and logic. It is axiomatic that only a minority of people will have the intellect and logic necessary to direct the program of mankind. Therefore, Progressivism fundamentally relies on an elite corps of individuals to guide our progress toward a perfect society. The perfect society will not just happen, it must be engineered by those who are gifted enough to lead.

The lack of egalitarianism in Progressive thought is illustrated by the special treatment accorded to the elite corps. The leadership class must be nurtured and valued by society. Furthermore, it must be given special privileges which others in society do not have. Because their work is so critical to the essential program, the elite must be removed from worry over the mundane necessities of life. That is, providing the leadership class with certain luxuries and privileges, and even freedom from having to follow all the rules that apply to the masses, is therefore not hypocrisy, but is an essential good. It redounds to the benefit of the Program.

Anyone who has not noticed recent glaring examples of this “different standard” for the Progressive elite should consider activating their “durable power of attorney” forthwith, so that a more alert individual can manage their affairs.

Progressivism and the Unwashed Masses

It goes without saying that, if left to their own devices, the populace would devolve into some primitive societal arrangement (such as capitalism) in which individuals would spend all their time striving to improve their own individual situations, even at the expense of others.

This means that the great unwashed masses must be “managed.”

Ideally, the best way to manage the population is through education, and so all efforts must be made – through formal education and by controlling the public media – to indoctrinate the population to the great benefits of the Progressive agenda, to the natural duty and obligation of all men and women to work within society to realize the Progressive Program, and to the inherent evil of all the alternatives. Since education will never be sufficient, the unwashed masses may need to be controlled through pacification (i.e., attempting to meet all their basic needs, so as to eliminate their impulse to strive). If this fails, they must be controlled through coersion, intimidation, peer-pressure, or (as a last resort or to serve as an object lesson) violence.

Fundamentally, the Progressive Program relies on all members of the great unwashed to subsume their own individual needs to the needs of the collective. That is, the Progressive Program requires a fundamental change in human nature. This change will never be forthcoming, and so Progressives are apparently doomed to be frustrated in their efforts. (However, as we will see shortly, Progressives ultimately have the answer to this problem, as well.)

So, despite their frequent hymns of praise to the worthiness of the common man, Progressives invariably develop an underlying contempt toward the unwashed masses. It is not difficult to spot this contempt if one is alert to it.

Progressivism and Politics

Under the Progressive Program, just like Aristotle says, mankind is essentially a political animal. In fact, the Progressive Program can only be achieved by political action. This means that politics – and to be clearer, political control – is the fundamental work of Progressives. Without politics, without political control, there is nothing. To lose political power is oblivion.

This attitude toward politics is in stark contrast to the attitude of conservatives, for whom government (and therefore politics) is merely a necessary evil, with which one must occasionally contend, when it cannot be avoided, as a part of life. For most conservatives politics is an afterthought.

For Progressives, politics is everything, the essence of human behavior. And it is worth any cost, any desperate measure, to maintain political control. Indeed, to fail to lie, cheat and steal in order to keep political control would be unethical.

Progressivism and Religion

Progressives have a natural adversity to organized religion. For one thing, religions tend to give a higher priority to some supernatural entity (and worse, to an afterlife), than to mankind’s “true” imperative, which is to achieve a perfect society right here on earth. However, since religious leaders can be readily coerced to serve the needs of the state (and always have been), this is not an insurmountable problem.

The real difficulty with organized religion is that the major ones stress the importance of the individual (since individual salvation, or individual enlightenment, is the major theme of the big religions). Under progressivism the inherent importance of individuals is necessarily subsumed by the importance of the collective, so by focusing the ultimate meaning of life on the individual, traditional religions become a major threat to Progressivism.

Apparently realizing that abolishing religion is far too difficult a task, Progressives have adopted the long-term strategy of infiltrating and co-opting religious establishments, and by means of introducing new ideas – such as group salvation, and the concept of social justice as a religious imperative – rendering religion, this “opiate of the masses,” less incompatible with the Progressive Program.

Progressivism and Eugenics

Since World War II, the enthusiasm with which Progressives publicly embrace the idea of eugenics has become muted. But eugenics is, in fact, inherently bound to Progressivism. One way or another, a perfect society will require far more perfect citizens than we have today. Indeed, the seething contempt with which Progrssives regard the current genetic pool that comprises the unwashed masses is often difficult for them to suppress.

To a large extent, modern Progressivism was born as an offshoot of Darwinism. The idea that society could be perfected, and the idea that mankind could be perfected, were two sides of the same notion. And early Progressives unabashedly embraced both of these ideas, such that the idea of “culling the herd” became extraordinarily attractive to them – and they said so. Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Bertrand Russell, H. G. Wells, and Margaret Sanger (the founder, as it happens, of Planned Parenthood) are only the most well-known Progressives who extolled the idea of eugenics.

But public support of eugenics among Progressives has become quite subdued, ever since the Nazis committed their atrocities explicitly in the name of achieving societal perfection.

One can argue, of course, whether the recent Progressive support of such activities as late-term abortions, or creating human embryos for experimentation, are partially aimed at desensitizing the public for future efforts to “guide” a more favorable genetic makeup for the population. Either way, DrRich reminds his readers of the history of Progressivism in this regard, and of the inherent attractiveness of eugenics to the Progressive Program, and urges them to remain alert.

Progressivism and Environmentalism

Radical environmentalism and the Progressive Program are not perfectly compatible. But they are close.

Radical environmentalists believe that humanity is a plague upon Planet Earth. Everything man has done since the day he first learned to cultivate crops (and thus for the first time became a different kind of animal) has been bad. And anything which delays, halts or reverses the sins mankind has perpetrated upon sacred Gaia, since that day he first departed from Nature, is a good thing. So the radical environmentalists are in favor of strong central governments which will control the behaviors of individuals (and which might ultimately drastically reduce or eliminate the human population).

Progressives are certainly on board with controlling man’s effect on the environment, but (in most cases) they are not in favor of returning mankind to a hunter/gatherer condition (since most Progressives do not view this condition as the embodiment of a perfect society). Rather, they view the environmental movement – in particular, the Global Warming Theory – as a good way to get the populace to give them the power they need to carry out their Progressive Program. So Progressives have completely embraced the Global Warming Theory as a means to their own political end. Accordingly they have declared man-made global warming to be settled science, and they suppress any efforts to study it further.

DrRich is very sorry about this. He suspects that global warming is happening, and concedes that human behavior may be playing a role, and is saddened that this scientific question has been absorbed into the Progressive agenda in such a way that we are not allowed to find out what’s really going on.

Progressivism and the Great American Experiment

Unlike any other nation in the history of mankind, the United States was not founded because of geography, race, religion or ethnicity. It was founded on an idea. It was founded on the still-radical idea that individual autonomy – the individual’s God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – is the chief Fact of humankind, and that the only legitimate role of government is to create an environment in which individuals can enjoy those rights to the fullest extent possible.

One can see immediately that the Great American Experiment – which awards primacy to individual autonomy – is fundamentally incompatible with Progressivism. But because a majority of Americans still like the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Progressives need to play their cards close to their chests. They need to proceed carefully – but relentlessly.

By slowly re-interpreting the Constitution, and slowly addicting a critical mass of Americans to an array of government programs, Progressives are certain they will ultimately prevail. They have been at it for over 100 years, and have come a long way. DrRich cannot tell whether or not we have already passed the Event Horizon, the point beyond which restoring the Great American Experiment will become impossible. But we are at least very close.

In fact, one plausible theory for President Obama’s headlong pursuit of programs and policies which anger the majority of Americans, and which gravely and immanently threaten the political control which is the center of the Progressive universe, is that he sees America as being at the very cusp of that Event Horizon, and believes that one last, small push will gain it, and make the Progressive Program irreversible, whatever might happen in the next election or two.

Progressivism and Healthcare

DrRich does not need to say much about Progressivism and healthcare right now. Many of the posts in this blog have pertained to this very question, as, undoubtedly, will many more.

But to really understand the current American healthcare system, and to understand Obamacare (the future American healthcare system), it is necessary to understand Progressivism. DrRich sincerely hopes that this current post will help a few of his readers understand, if not Progressive thought itself, at least DrRich’s conceptualization of it.

In a remarkable article that somehow* was accepted for publication in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the White House offered some friendly advice to American PCPs who may be wondering how Obamacare will affect them. That advice, to summarize, is: “We are the Borg. Prepare to be assimilated.”
______
* DrRich is forced to wonder whether yet another group of medical editors is auditioning for the death panels.
______

The article was written by Ezekiel Emanuel from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, and Nancy-Ann M. De Parle, who is Mr. Obama’s Czar of Healthcare Reform. (A third author was from the McKinsey Group.) After reminding physicians of their moral obligation to the collective, the White House authors rhapsodized about all of the wonderful changes inherent in Obamacare that will help physicians to realize this obligation.

There’s actually no need to read the entire article, assuming you heard any of the 400 speeches President Obama delivered in his unsuccessful attempt to convince the public that his healthcare reforms ought to displace the holy writ as The Good News. The meat of the article, if you’re a physician, appears at the end:

These reforms will unleash forces that favor integration across the continuum of care. Some organizing function will need to be developed to track quality measures, account for and manage shared financial incentives, and oversee care coordination….These coordinating functions, to the extent that they currently exist, traditionally have been managed by hospitals or health plans….As physicians organize themselves into increasing larger groups — patient-centered medical home practices and accountable care organizations — they are, out of necessity, investing in information technology tools that are becoming both cheaper and more capable and investing in the acquisition or development of management skills that could provide these organizing functions efficiently for physicians groups….For physicians, this means a profession that is more rewarding, more productive, and better able to realize its moral ideal.

DrRich translates this message thusly: “Physicians! You have been neglecting your moral obligation to the collective, in favor of your archaic devotion to the individual patient. Under Obamacare you will need to join organizations which are devoted to the collective goals of Obamacare, and which therefore will guarantee the proper moral ideals. You must function not as individual decisionmakers, but as integrated cogs in a vast healthcare continuum, which will stretch from the centralized bastion of gleaming moral authority (from which we pen this message) all the way down to the humble tip of your stethoscope. You will be rewarded for your cooperation, or suffer for your resistance (resistance, of course, being futile).  So rejoice for the health of the collective, and for your own well-being, and prepare to be assimilated.”

Ostensibly this message is for all American physicians, but it was submitted to the Annals of Internal Medicine for a reason. The Annals is the journal of record for doctors who practice internal medicine, and who comprise the largest group of PCPs. The White House in this article is speaking directly to American PCPs.

This is because PCPs pose the greatest short-term threat to Obamacare.

Most medical specialists have already been “assimilated.” Because they require lots of expensive stuff to practice their specialties – things like gamma cameras, operating suites, catheterization laboratories, hordes of highly trained medical technicians, &c. – it is very difficult for most specialists to function as independent operators. If you want medical specialists to follow the rules, all you have to do is make following the rules a requirement for keeping their access to all the technology and the complex infrastructure they need to practice their specialties.

Only PCPs can fairly readily make themselves independent from the collective.  And more and more PCPs are choosing to do so.

The White House does not like this.  The Annals article, DrRich thinks, is the administration’s first official attempt to curtail the PCPs’ fledgling independence movement. The threat is veiled – the article instead appeals to the PCPs purported moral obligation to the collective, and emphasizes the rewards that will follow when PCPs allow themselves to be assimilated into the Borg.

So this first attempt, for the most part, is merely creepy. The next step will not be as benign.

DrRich urges his PCP friends to take heed. If you have any thought of striking out on your own, and starting a direct pay practice – thus reasserting your profession’s real moral obligation, which is to your patients – you had better act now, before it becomes a federal crime to do so.

It’s the dog days of what seems to have been an unusually hot summer (though DrRich does not know whether it has been sufficiently warm to affect the global cooling trend we’ve been in for the past decade), and as is all too common at this time of year, we are seeing extraordinarily heartbreaking stories, (like this one), about healthy, robust young athletes dying suddenly on the practice fields.

Most of these tragic sudden deaths are due to a heart condition called hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy often does not produce any symptoms prior to causing sudden death. But it can be easily diagnosed, before exercise-induced sudden death occurs, by screening young athletes with electocardiograms (ECGs) and echocardiography.

A couple of summers ago, the New York Times wrote about such an athletic screening program at the University of Tennessee. Based on the U of T’s results, “Cardiologists and other heart experts say that the screenings could help save the lives of the 125 American athletes younger than 35 who die each year of sudden cardiac death.”

The reason this routine cardiac screening is not widely used is because of the expense. Making the very conservative assumption that 1 million young Americans participate in athletic competition each year, and that (as the Times reports) the average cost of screening is $1000, then screening would cost us about $8 million to save one life. That’s pretty a steep cost-effectiveness challenge by any standard.

But Dr. Douglas Zipes (the perennial New York Times expert on matters cardiac) speaks for many of us when he says, “If it were my son playing ball, I would like him to have an echo, even though it is cost inefficient.”

In truth, the cost-effectiveness analysis here presents a problem only because the kind of screening being used is judged to be a medical service, and thus ought to be paid for through some centralized pool of money (whether the pool is controlled by insurance conglomerates or the government).

If we were to do a similar cost-effectiveness analysis on seat belts, smoke alarms, motorcycle helmets, or carbon monoxide detectors, we would reach a similar conclusion: Yes, those several hundred preventable deaths from house fires are indeed a tragedy, but we simply can’t afford to pay for smoke alarms for all those millions of American families, just to save those relatively few lives.

The difference, obviously, is that we don’t expect smoke alarms to be paid for out of public funds. We expect individuals to do their own cost-effectiveness calculation, and decide whether to buy smoke alarms from their own resources. Individuals tend to place a much higher value on their own lives than the value assigned to their lives by society (the self-assessed value of one’s own worth often approaching infinity), and therefore many people indeed find the cost-effectiveness calculation to come out in their favor. Thus, buying smoke alarms seems a reasonable investment for many individuals.

If Dr. Zipes wants his son screened by echo, by all means have it done. I agree it would be entirely worthwhile. But don’t ask me to pay for it.

It is especially noteworthy that the technology exists to place cheap, portable echocardiogram machines in the office of every primary care doctor, and every primary care doctor could be easily trained in less than an hour to rapidly screen athletes for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. For probably less than $100, parents like Dr. Zipes could have their children screened with this kind of limited echo and an ECG at the same time they’re getting their flu shots.

But we can’t do this because a) professional groups like the American College of Cardiology will do everything they can to block the democratization of guild-based procedures like the echocardiogram (start-up companies that have developed such tiny, easy-to-operate echo machines have been very disappointed with the response of the cardiology community), and b) such screening is a medical service, and it’s generally acknowledged to be a travesty to expect (or, as DrRich points out, to allow) individuals to pay for any medical service themselves.

And if such obstacles result in the sudden deaths of a hundred or so young athletes each year (most of whom, by the way, are participating in pick-up or intramural sports, rather than the semi-pro variety we watch on TV every March), well, it’s too bad there’s nothing we can do about it.

Fighting the Obesity Paradox With A New Obesity Creed

In Part I of this important and insightful meditation, we saw the many reasons why it is so critically important for anyone who supports Obamacare to stand foursquare behind the demonization of the obese.

But unfortunately, the vitally important anti-obesity platform of Obamacare is under assault. The fat-is-bad firmament – created by the concentrated exertions of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the National Institutes of Health, the fashion and beauty industries, sundry weight-loss conglomerates, the popular media, and countless other engines of public opinion – is threatened by a growing body of evidence, created by a few misguided scientists, which suggests that obesity may not be quite as bad a thing as we are all led to believe. Like an expanding pool of molten rock hidden just beneath an apparently placid landscape, this expanding evidence poses a threat to the anti-obesity movement, and therefore to Obamacare. It must be dealt with.

And we need to deal with this threat now, while it is still relatively hidden, and before it bursts through to the surface where it would do much damage. Fortunately – in contrast to an actual volcano – we have the tools to tamp the threat down before it becomes manifest.

Before DrRich explains how this can be accomplished, let us take a brief look at some of that counterproductive evidence itself, to illustrate the seriousness of the problem. The evidence that not all obesity is bad for the health, when one begins to look for it, is disturbingly broad and consistent. DrRich will not attempt a comprehensive review of that evidence here, but instead will offer a brief and selective survey, just enough to impart a sense of the threat we are dealing with:

1) We must begin by noting that a substantial part of the “obesity epidemic” that has become manifest over the past decade can be accounted for by a change in the definition of obesity. When the CDC changed that definition in 1997, as many as 30 million Americans who had been of normal weight suddenly found themselves to be obese, or at least overweight, and all without gaining a pound. Enemies of the anti-obesity movement will not be above exploiting this inconvenient truth to their own ends.

2) In 2002, a report in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology examined almost 10,000 consecutive patients who had angioplasty and/or stenting for coronary artery disease, and found that those who were overweight or obese had fewer complications and a lower 1-year mortality than those who were thin or of normal weight. Several more recent studies claim to have shown the same thing.

3) A 2007 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that overweight people who were physically fit had a lower risk of death than normal-weight people who were sedentary.

4) A 2007 report by the National Bureau of Economic Research noted that while Americans were growing fatter, other changes in health behavior (such as reduced smoking and better management of cholesterol and hypertension) more than offset any increase in health risk posed by the population’s increase in obesity.

5) In 2009, a meta-analysis in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology concluded that while obesity itself increases the risk of heart disease, obese people who develop that heart disease have significantly better survival than thin or normal-weight people who develop the same kind of heart disease.

Some cardiologists have already termed this growing line of evidence, i.e., the general observation that at least in some situations obese cardiac patients fare better than thin ones, as “The Obesity Paradox.” Anyone who understands the importance of the anti-obesity movement to Obamacare should be alarmed.

Just on the face of it, we can see that while such evidence could easily be painted by our enemies as “a little fat is OK,” the opposite is actually true. As we all know, the chief aim of healthcare reform (despite all the palaver about providing universal access and improving quality) is to reduce costs. So what could be worse than a condition like obesity, which a) increases the incidence of heart disease, but b) once heart disease develops, prevents an early (and relatively inexpensive) demise. The actual incidence of a disease, of course, is pretty neutral to our goal of reducing healthcare costs. What is important is the expense and duration of the disease once it develops. (Indeed, to reduce long-term healthcare costs, a very prevalent disease that kills very quickly would be just about ideal.) Since few medical conditions are more expensive to manage chronically than heart disease, the best thing for our healthcare system and our society would be for those who develop heart disease to just go ahead and make a rapid departure from the scene. So in this light, what this recent evidence shows is that obesity – because it increases the incidence of non-fatal (i.e., chronic) heart disease – is much worse than we believed.

Beyond these obvious cost implications of the “Obesity Paradox” (the general idea that obesity may not be as dangerous as we have thought), is the much deeper problem that any new science that undermines the anti-obesity movement threatens to undermine a major pillar of Obamacare. DrRich described this important aspect of the anti-obesity movement at length in his prior post, but to summarize: Successful anathematization of the obese will establish an important precedent that is needed by our central authorities as they set out to restrict, control and tax the human behaviors they decide may cause an increase in healthcare expenditures (which is to say, nearly all other human behaviors). While establishing this precedent would certainly be possible with some group other than the obese, so much effort and time has been invested in dehumanizing fat people that it would be more than a shame to have to abandon that huge investment, and start all over to demonize some other subset of our population.

Thus, what is needed is a means of suppressing a more general awareness of the Obesity Paradox. It is fortunate, therefore, that we have at hand a very serviceable model for achieving this end.

That model, as DrRich has pointed out, is Man-Made Global Warming. By the simple expediency of issuing a formal declaration that Man-Made Global Warming is real and is too important to argue about, all further debate over global warming (whether it is occurring, and more importantly, whether it is man-made) has been cut off; those who persist in challenging it have been decreed as outliers, heretics and kooks. To so effectively stifle further scientific scrutiny, a great council of hand-picked environmental scientists was assembled to review the body of admitted evidence on global warming, and to formally divide that evidence into orthodoxy and heresy, and to declare the era of scientific revelation on the matter to be ended, and the science settled.  And while the extensive document that council produced itself contains much that would make one question the actual magnitude of global warming, and especially whether it is actually man-made, the Executive Summary (a sort of catechism produced for general consumption by the Global Warming hierarchy) nicely provides us with what we really need to know, and accordingly is the only part of the document that is ever reported or discussed publicly or in polite company. In this manner, and with the full cooperation of the media, Man-Made Global Warming has been rendered a done deal.

DrRich merely points out that if further scientific exposition and debate of global warming can be officially cut off, apparently (and remarkably) with the blessing of the scientists themselves, then the same can certainly be accomplished with obesity.

It would be a simple matter to assemble another great, Council-of-Nicaea-like body of respected and unassailable experts on obesity and preventive medicine – from government, academia, sympathetic consumer groups, and the numerous industries whose success depends on the existence of lots of fat people desperately wanting to lose weight – to ruminate over all the evidence, and produce their own sacred document declaring, once and for all, that obesity is very, very bad (and so is anyone who says otherwise); and further, that it is morally wrong to waste any more time or money studying whether obesity is a health hazard, and hereafter the only permissible research will be aimed at studying how to prevent and treat it.

That should do it.

Selling such an Obesity Creed should be even easier than selling global warming. Fat people, unlike the ostensibly rising seas and melting ice caps, are all around us, and are readily visible to everyone. Many times each day our encounters with them will induce real and visceral reactions – our pity over their personal health plights, our disgust over their manifest inability to exhibit any self control whatsoever, and our indignation that their obvious gluttony and sloth is costing us so much money. Obesity as a threat to humanity will be a much more concrete, much less abstract, tool for focusing a general righteous anger than global warming can ever be.

So how to combat the growing problem of the Obesity Paradox is not the issue – we can combat it by promulgating an Obesity Creed. The issue is to recognize that there is indeed a threat to the anti-obesity movement, that the threat comes in the form of an expanding body of scientific evidence, and that time is of the essence. If we are to have the Obamacare our leaders visualize for us, we need to recognize the threat and deal with it now, while it is still in its early stages, and before it enters the general public consciousness.

DrRich is very pleased to have been able to assist in this matter, and at this critical juncture, to help eliminate a grave threat to Obamacare. But heck, that’s what DrRich is here for.

Why Demonizing Obesity Is So Important

As regular readers will know, DrRich thinks President Obama’s healthcare reform is very bad for America, and in particular, that it threatens the Great American Experiment. At the same time, DrRich is fundamentally an optimist, and finds in Obamacare a thin thread by which some good might result. That thread goes like this:

In practice, Obamacare will become a government-run system of covert healthcare rationing. And DrRich is reasonably confident that in the government’s hands the covert rationing will become so amazingly ham-fisted and inept that even us Americans, distracted as we are by Lady GaGa, performance-enhancing drugs in baseball players, and Shark Week, will finally be forced to notice that there’s actually a whole lot of healthcare rationing going on. And once we are all forced to acknowledge the rationing, perhaps we will insist on trying to figure out how to do it as fairly, efficiently, and effectively as possible. In other words, DrRich clings to the hope that the Obamacare might end up being the cataclysm that precipitates a public discussion of healthcare rationing. And a public discussion of healthcare rationing is critical, since continuing to conduct the rationing covertly will destroy us.

It’s a slim thread, to be sure. But, especially in a new era of hope, one must embrace what hope one can.

Accordingly, DrRich feels obligated to do his part in supporting some of the main pillars of Obamacare (as odious as Obamacare itself may be), whenever they come under attack. And one of those pillars is the proposition that obesity is a scourge on our civilization, and for the good of the whole, those who are guilty of it must be reformed or stamped out.

Obesity, we are assured, is a main cause of heart disease, hypertension, stroke, arthritis, diabetes, (and even, some insist, cancer), and so is largely responsible for the runaway cost of our healthcare. This simple fact alone allows us to – indeed, demands that we – use every public and private intervention at our disposal to fight this great scourge.

The fact of publicly funded healthcare permits us to say to the obese: “Your unsightly obesity is no longer a matter of your individual choice; rather, it is now placed squarely within the realm of legitimate public concern. Since everyone else has to pay for your heart attacks and knee replacements, all those donuts and double cheeseburgers you insist on shoveling into your mouth are no longer your business. All your protestations to the effect that you can’t help it are revealed by simple math (i.e., calories gained = calories consumed minus calories burned) to be sad prevarications. Indeed that same simple formula reveals the true cause of obesity – gluttony and sloth. Like other heretics of an earlier time, you deserve no sympathy nor special considerations, but only a firm – though ultimately compassionate – hand to push you toward the right path, or alternately, toward the just punishment you have brought upon yourselves.”

So clearly, the obese are now become fair game for whatever manipulations our government can devise to cause them to either lose weight, or pay for their sins. The authorities can begin with simple maneuvers – taxing soft drinks and Twinkies, and whatever other foodstuffs they (in their wisdom) deem to be illegitimate sources of calories – but the sky’s the limit. For instance, under the undeniable proposition that it costs more energy to move a fat person from point A to point B, whatever the mode of transportation, the obese could be subjected to a special carbon tax, based on their BMI. The periodic mandatory “weigh-ins” such a tax would require would serve the useful purpose of public humiliation, an important incentive to weight loss.

Further humiliations could be visited upon the fat by designating special isolated areas in the workplace (ideally, an area fully exposed to the elements) for fat people to consume their calories. This latter strategy, of course, is derived from the same restrictions placed on smokers, and can be legitimized by the same sort of logic. That is, the authorities can invoke the prospect of second-hand obesity to induce fear and loathing of the fat, and cause them to become socially isolated. (The “scientific” conclusion that obesity is contagious, i.e., that those who associate with the obese are more likely to become obese themselves, has been proffered by academics employing the same kind of statistical legerdemain used to blame global warming on fat people. It appears to DrRich that obesity has now become so toxic that any paper submitted to medical journals offering a new reason to despise the fat – no matter how absurd – will be cheerfully accepted by the editors, and published with fanfare. These editors, one can only presume, must also be great supporters of Obamacare.) And finally, it goes without saying that the ultimate censure would be simply to withhold healthcare services for medical problems which can be associated with having allowed oneself to become too fat – a strategy that has already been employed by the British healthcare system, which we are urged by Dr. Berwick to employ as a model.

Demonizing the obese and subjecting them to such restrictions, of course, carries with it implications that go far beyond merely inducing the obese to lose weight or causing them to pay more in taxes. It sets an important precedent that will finally allow our central authorities to restrict, control and tax virtually any human behavior they can claim may lead to an increased risk of healthcare expenditures. Such behaviors may include (in addition to obvious things like smoking and alcohol consumption), one’s choice of occupation, participation in sports, hobbies, hours spent or miles traveled on the highways, etc. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of any choice one makes in daily living that does not, in some manner, impact on one’s likelihood of requiring medical services.

Furthermore, successfully demonizing the obese will establish that our society may, whenever it needs to, discriminate against the lower economic classes – which will prove a useful tool when setting future behavioral standards to reduce healthcare spending. (Obesity, rather than starvation, is the chief nutritional problem of the poor in America. This is the the direct result of plentiful and cheap foods that are often loaded with empty calories. Making such foods more expensive – by imposing punitive taxes on them – will disproportionately affect the poor, who still won’t be able to afford the highly nutritious stuff, especially since the price of that good stuff will go much higher as a result. Rendering it permissible to inflict such pain on the poor, in the name of the greater good, will be an immeasurably important precedent to establish.)

In terms of providing strategies for controlling healthcare costs, it is clear that our response to obesity is key. Fighting obesity is a vital pillar of Obamacare.

Accordingly, DrRich is very sorry to report that this anti-obesity pillar may not be nearly as robust as we might hope. Certain clueless medical researchers – ones who have apparently not received the official memo – have been reporting that obesity might not be quite as bad a thing as we have all been saying. So, in the spirit of advancing Obamacare, DrRich will address in his next post some of this counterproductive new research on obesity, and will show how it can be marginalized.

DrRich entered medical school 40 years ago with every intention of becoming a general medical practitioner, and indeed he became one. But after only a year in practice as a generalist, he found himself so frustrated with the frivolous limitations and the superfluous obligations that even then were being externally imposed on these supposedly revered professionals, that DrRich altered course and spent several years re-training to become a cardiac electrophysiologist.

(Electrophysiology is a field of endeavor so arcane as to be mystifying even to other cardiologists. DrRich hoped that the officious regulators and stone-witted insurance clerks would be so confused – and possibly intimidated – by the mysterious doings of electrophysiologists that they would leave him alone. Happily, this ploy worked for almost 15 years.)

Still, DrRich has always held general practitioners (now called PCPs) in the highest regard, if for no other reason than these brave souls – unlike DrRich himself, who cut and ran at his earliest opportunity – have stuck it out.

But, as we all know, the practice of primary care medicine is today in crisis. Today’s PCPs are mostly looking to get out as soon as they can afford to do so, and today’s medical students are avoiding primary care in droves.

But not for the reasons most often claimed.  DrRich’s contention is that doctors are abandoning primary care medicine for reasons that actually have relatively little to do with low pay and high educational debt. The real reasons have much more to do with the fact that primary care medicine has been systematically and purposefully demeaned and diminished, to the point that it has become nearly an untenable choice for most doctors.

Accordingly, every now and then DrRich likes to point out – for the edification of his readers – some of the ways in which this fundamental devaluing of primary care medicine is being accomplished.

And so, here’s another reason it sucks being a PCP:

PCPs whose patients fail to quit smoking are now at risk not only of being publicly labeled as low-quality physicians, but also of being sued.

To see how this works, dear reader, DrRich asks you to place yourself, for a few minutes and for the sake of empathy, in the position of a modern American PCP.

As a PCP, one of the major banes of your existence is the struggle you must make during each and every “patient encounter” to get through a long Pay-for-Performance Checklist (different checklists for different patients, depending on their insurer). Completing these checklists, within the 7.5 minutes that have been graciously allotted to you for such encounters, is of course critical in order to demonstrate to the appropriate healthcare accountants the adequacy of your performance as a modern, high-quality American physician.

One item that invariably appears on each of your mandatory checklists, doctor, has to do with counseling your patient on smoking cessation. It’s likely you may have thought this to be one of the less objectionable mandates you must accomplish during each patient visit. After all, you can get through your well-rehearsed pitch on smoking cessation in 20 seconds or less (unless you are dealing with one of those rare patients who is actually serious about trying to quit), and thereby make up some of the precious time, from your 7.5 minutes, that you have already spent achieving some more challenging check mark (trying, perhaps, to talk a diabetic patient into taking the extraordinary steps necessary to get his hemoglobin A1c down that last 0.5% to target).

So: 20 seconds spent on smoking cessation. Check.

But whoa. Not so fast there, Dr. Welby.

Did you know there are guidelines for physicians on smoking cessation? Did you know that these guidelines were devised under the auspices of the federal government, by a committee of individuals who are anti-smoking zealots (not that there’s anything wrong with that)?

From this latter fact, of course, there are certain things you will already know about these guidelines before you ever see them. You will know that the guidelines must be very long and detailed and tedious, because a) they are federal guidelines, and b) they are devised by people whose one and only mission in life – a mission they clearly believe is far more important than, say, oil spills, terrorism, global warming, jobs, or achieving fine and durable erections upon demand – is to save the world from the scourge of smoking. And now, these zealots have been granted the authority (i.e., the federally-approved authority to generate medical guidelines) to make it your primary mission in life, too.

Now, doctor, have a peek at the actual guidelines, which you can find here. Notice, first, that the federal guidelines for physicians on smoking cessation are 196 pages long. Notice how they step you through the process of counseling, and then step you through each of the measures you must take in order to guarantee that your patient achieves total success. And notice that an early branch point in the process of counseling is the one where the patient informs you whether he/she is willing to go any further with efforts at smoking cessation; and notice further that when the patient concludes that he/she is indeed NOT willing to go any further, thank you very much for your concern, the guidelines do not relieve you of further immediate obligations – no – but instead specify additional interventions you must now, at this moment, embark upon with this unwilling patient, which are “designed to increase their motivation to quit.”

The brash sales techniques required of you by the federally-sanctioned smoking-cessation guidelines would embarrass even a telemarketer, or an annuity salesperson.

This, of course, is all to say: Your 20-second spiel on the evils of smoking just doesn’t cut the mustard, doctor. To really earn that smoking-cessation chit on your P4P checklist, you need to do a lot more than that. The 196 pages of deadly serious federal guidelines detail what that is.

Lest you are tempted to dismiss as an absurdity the expectation that you are actually supposed to cram 2 hours of anti-smoking counseling into a 7.5 minute patient visit, there’s one more thing you ought to know.

One John Banzhaf, Executive Director and Chief Counsel for Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), who bills himself as the “law professor who masterminded litigation against the tobacco industry,” is not taking lightly, doctor, your obvious laxity in following federal guidelines on smoking cessation. Accordingly, some time ago he sent letters to each of the 50 state health commissioners warning them that he will soon begin instigating medical malpractice suits, on behalf of smokers who continue to smoke as the result of their doctor’s refusal to follow federal guidelines to the letter.

Mr. Banzhaf informs the commissioners that “physicians are killing more than 40,000 American smokers each year by failing to follow federal guidelines.” That’s right, doctor, you’re killing them. (Cigarettes don’t kill people; people kill people.) Specifically he invokes your sacred obligation to “warn the smoking patient about the many dangers of smoking and provide effective medical treatment for the majority who wish to quit.” (Emphasis DrRich’s.) That is, it’s your job not just to counsel them and treat them, but also to see that they actually succeed in quitting. If you don’t follow this mandate, you’re killing them. And you must pay.

When the federal government takes the pains necessary to draft detailed management guidelines for physicians, guidelines that, if followed as written, will save tens of thousands of lives each year, then surely society has every right to expect you to follow those guidelines to the letter – and to save those lives.

This is such a brilliant scheme for ending smoking-related death and disability, one must wonder why it hasn’t yet been applied to other intractable medical problems. Just think of all the good that could be accomplished, for instance, by federal guidelines requiring PCPs to assure that each of their patients maintain an optimal body weight, follow an exemplary diet, exercise vigorously for at least an hour a day, maintain unfailingly positive attitudes, and work diligently at their allotted tasks each and every day (secure in the knowledge that adopting right thinking and right behaviors will be invaluable to our dear leaders, as they bravely go forth to assure the good of the whole).

In any case, doctor, consider these anti-smoking guidelines carefully next time you’re putting that little check mark next to “Smoking cessation counseling” on your P4P checklist, and ask yourself: “Have I really done all that I am obligated to do, under the law, to guarantee that this patient has lit up his last smoke?”

Making PCPs responsible for their patient’s personal choices and behaviors, of course, is a time-honored method of covert healthcare rationing. It gives doctors powerful incentives to invent mechanisms for avoiding patients who display obviously unhealthful lifestyles, thus making it relatively inconvenient for these patients to gain access to expensive healthcare services.

But more to the point of this post, it is yet another example of how micromanagement by politicians, activists and bureaucrats has come to infest the practice of primary care medicine, and to relegate PCPs to the diminished role of simply following the checklists continually produced by such as these. If this is what primary care medicine has come to at last, why would you expect anyone who has a choice to take such a career path?

DrRich, for one, does not believe the 10-15% increase in pay hinted at by Obamacare will change the calculus for PCPs very much, and in fact, if it does – given all that is being done to primary care medicine – we should all be very much distressed by the implications.

In this series of articles, DrRich reveals why the insurance industry supported Obamacare, how the industry supported Obamacare, and (most importantly) what that support means to Progressives who pine for a single-payer healthcare system, and to Conservatives who pine for the repeal of Obamacare.

Part I – Another Reason He Should Have Kept the Bust

Part II – Why the Health Insurance Industry Supported Obamacare

Part III – How the Health Insurance Industry Saved Obamacare

Part IV – What It Means That the Health Insurance Industry Saved Obamacare

DrRich has pointed out several times that it is very important to our new healthcare system, as a matter of principle, to be able to discriminate against the obese.

The obese are being carefully groomed as a prototype, as a group whose characteristics (ostensibly, their lack of self-discipline, or their sloth, or their selfishness, or whatever other characteristics we can attribute to them to explain how their unsightly enormity differentiates them from us), will justify “special treatment” in order to serve the overriding good of the whole.

The obese are a useful target for two reasons. First, their sins against humanity are painfully obvious just by looking at them, so it is impossible for them to escape public scorn by blending in to the population, unlike some less obvious sinners such as (say) closet smokers, or pedophiles. And second, since true morbid obesity almost always has a strong genetic component, successfully demonizing the obese eventually will open the door to the demonization of individuals with any one of a host of other genetically mediated medical conditions.

Readers who wonder why this is a big deal need to go back and study the original Progressives, for whom some form of genetic purification was an indispensable step toward achieving societal perfection. This was true not only for notorious eugenicists such as Woodrow Wilson, H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and Margaret Sanger, but also for the kinder, gentler Progressives we generally revere even today, such as Theodore Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and even Mohandas Gandhi.

This sort of thinking fell out of vogue, for obvious reasons, after World War II. So it is no longer cool to talk openly about genetic cleansing.

But discriminating against people who have genetic health disorders (in the name of achieving an optimally efficient healthcare system for the purpose of cost saving) would be a start. And the obese have been selected as the most acceptable prototype for such treatment.

In this light, a recent article in the Public Library of Science Medicine Journal has created something of a problem for the anti-obesity movement. This article compared the lifetime cost of healthcare (beginning at age 20) for obese individuals and for smokers to the lifetime cost for non-smokers who maintained a healthy weight. Naturally, the study concludes that the healthy individuals can expect to live longer than the obese and the smokers (84 years vs. 80 and 77 years, respectively). However, the healthy young people will consume $400,000 in lifetime healthcare costs, vs. only $365,000 for fat people and $321,000 for smokers. (The cost savings in the obese and the smokers arise from their relatively premature deaths.) Therefore, healthy people, over their lifetime, are a bigger drain on the healthcare system than the obese and the smokers.

The reason this study presents a problem  is that it appears to contradict a central axiom of our present program. Specifically, it places in some peril our deeply held conviction that the obesity epidemic is one of the major threats to the stability of our healthcare system.

The added costs which the obesity epidemic poses to our healthcare system has become a touchstone, to the extent that it has become acceptable even in polite circles to openly discriminate against, if not overtly disdain and humiliate, the obese. Mississippi is considering legislation to prevent the obese from eating in restaurants. And in Britain, whose healthcare system has been held up as a model for Americans, doctors themselves are saying that obese patients should be barred from receiving medical services. (Though, in defense of his physician colleagues, DrRich wishes to point out that these same medical humanitarians are also calling for the withholding of medical care from the elderly and smokers – so perhaps they are not being unusually unkind to the fat.)

In light of this, what are we to do with this new study which says that obesity saves money for the healthcare system? Do we reverse course, and embrace this “obesity dividend?” Do we encourage supersizing, and, far from refusing to serve them, offer the overweight free second portions? Do we give them deeply discounted heavy-duty suspensions? Better yet, do we give away free Marlboro starter packs to the fat? (Just think how much money we’d save with obese smokers.)

Thankfully, no.

DrRich has pointed out innumerable times the absurdities we find ourselves promoting when the chief purpose of the healthcare system becomes avoiding costs rather than maximizing health, that is, when its chief job is covert rationing. It is therefore gratifying to say that this is one of those cases where we don’t have to engage in such absurdities. Let’s be plain about it: We don’t need to reevaluate our current vilification of obesity (and smoking) just because people who have these conditions may save us money in the long term.

The reason? We don’t care about the long term.

Who cares that, in 50 or 60 years, today’s healthy 20-year-olds are going to cost us a lot of money? They’re likely to be entirely free to our healthcare system for at least several decades. In contrast, today’s obese and today’s smokers, what with their chronic diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, joint replacements, strokes, lung disease, &c., are costing us a lot of money right now.

If we actually cared about the long term, we’d be doing something about the Social Security and Medicare entitlements we’ve already signed up for, which in a little more than 20 years will require confiscating more than 50% of each American paycheck, just in payroll deductions. (Never mind income tax.) Heck, just looking at their pay stubs will probably cause most of today’s healthy 20-year-olds to die of apoplexy by the time they’re 40. In any case, the entitlements we’re obligated to provide will threaten societal disintegration long before today’s healthy young adults ever need elder care. Consoling yourself with the idea of projected long-term savings when you’re facing such a fiscal catastrophe is like consoling yourself with the idea of beautiful spring alpine flowers when you’re directly in the path of an onrushing avalanche. Projected long-term savings are completely irrelevant.

The obesity dividend is just smoke, and can be safely ignored. For the greater good of our social welfare, we’re far better off doing what we’re doing today – castigating and humiliating the obese into right actions, and if that fails, then (following the example provided by the British healthcare system which Dr. Berwick and others urge us to use as a model) discriminating against them when they need healthcare. Once we’ve established this useful prototype, we can apply it to whatever additional groups we can identify as targets of our collective indignation.

Whatever it takes to avoid confronting the rationing issue head on.

Podcast:

In the past few posts (in particular, here and here), DrRich has shown why the health insurance industry embraced Obamacare, and indeed, took extraordinary steps to assure that Obamacare became the law of the land. This, of course, is especially interesting in light of the common perception that Obamacare constitutes a major defeat for the greedy health insurance industry. But the fact that big health insurance gave critical support to Obamacare is far more than merely interesting. It has major implications both to supporters of Obamacare, especially the ones who hope for an eventual single-payer outcome, and to opponents of Obamacare, many of whom hope to repeal it after the 2010 mid-term elections.

For the health insurance industry to have supported Obamacare, especially in the manner that it did, leads us to three conclusions.

First, while almost nobody realized it at the time, the passage of healthcare reform – in some form or another – turns out to have been inevitable. Quite simply, the insurance industry was telling us in every way they knew how that they just could not tolerate the status quo any longer. And since the insurance industry is critical to maintaining the status quo, then one way or another, the status quo had to end.

Second, the health insurance industry has just succeeded in demonstrating its great and continuing worth to the Progressive agenda, a fact that might make it more difficult than many think for Progressives to achieve their real goal – a single-payer healthcare system. If our Progressive leaders have been paying attention, the health insurance industry has taught them two important lessens in this regard.

The insurance industry has taught them that running the American healthcare system, especially under a covert rationing paradigm, is a messy, ugly and painful job, and further, that it is destined to turn out badly. This, indeed, is the chief lessen that the health insurance industry has learned over the past 15+ years. DrRich believes that many of the Progressives who are now in a position of leadership, and who are on the brink of achieving at long last a primary goal of the Progressive agenda – government control of healthcare – are aware of this fact. So they are probably not quite as self-assured about their ability to achieve healthcare nirvana, for instance, as the insurance executives were in 1994. They can see, from the experience of the insurance industry, that even draconian efforts to covertly ration healthcare are very likely to fail to slow healthcare inflation over the long term.

Furthermore, the insurance industry has taught them, if such a lesson was even necessary, just what a great boon it is to have at one’s disposal a ready villain, especially a villain which assumes the form of a business, and in particular a villain which is satisfied to play its assigned villainous role whenever called upon to do so. When things go south with Obamacare, as things will, it will go a lot easier for our Progressive leaders if they still have the insurance industry – even in a greatly diminished form – to blame. Having a foil to absorb the blame will not solve the problem, of course, but it will buy the Progressives more time, during which they can do what Progressives always do, and institute another round of “tough regulations” to hold the villains in closer check. So keeping the health insurance industry around, rather than going to a single-payer system, will indeed provide a critical level of additional insurance – albeit to our political leaders, and not to patients.

One need only look at the mortgage crisis to see another good example of the great utility of having an evil foil at one’s disposal. As readers may recall, the mortgage crisis resulted when the government instituted a free-wheeling easy-loan policy that defied every known rule of free markets, engaged Fannie and Freddie to make the easy loans, and then recruited private businesses to absorb, distribute and hide the risk. When the excrement predictably hit the fan, the investment banks (which, like the health insurance companies, did indeed behave very badly in response to fundamentally unsound governmnent policies) were offered up as the bad guys. It proved so useful to have serviceable villains during the mortgage crisis that the taxpayers were called upon to bail the villains out lest they disappear, and then, most recently, financial regulations were completely overhauled to make sure the villains will always be there. (DrRich calls this policy “Too Evil to Fail.”) In this way, Fannie and Freddie can continue making unsustainable loans, without ever having to take the blame for the consequences.

In other words, villains who reside in the domain of private enterprise are extremely useful to the Progressive program. The health insurance industry has just graphically demonstrated that it is every bit as helpful to the government’s takeover of healthcare as the investment banks were to the government’s takeover of the housing market. So DrRich, for one, bets that the health insurance industry will have a long – if unhappy – life as a government-regulated public utility, which can be called upon, whenever necessary, to display its fundamentally evil nature, in order to prove yet again that the problem is (even now!) not enough government regulation.

In contrast, once the government assumes full, direct control of healthcare (or any other aspect of the economy), then there will be nobody to blame but the government when things go wrong. (This is not strictly true. All-powerful authorities can always find somebody to blame. Historically, for instance, they often begin with the Jews, though today one must speculate that the obese will also be near the top of the list. DrRich, and, he suspects, most of his American Progressive friends, would much rather submit corporate villains to an *auto de fe* than go once again down this well-trod historical path.)

The role of Court Villain may not be exactly what the health insurance executives had in mind when they saved Obamacare, but since they had no choice in the matter, it will have to serve.

And finally, the third conclusion. Since the health insurance industry has been telling us that they are at the end of their rope, to the point that their best option was selling themselves out to President Obama and his ruthless refomers, then the idea that Obamacare can simply be repealed, or de-funded, or de-featured, or declared unconstitutional, so that we can just go back to the healthcare system we’ve had since 1994, is absurd.

Indeed, even though Obamacare is now law, the health insurance companies are by no means out of the woods. There remains a real question as to whether the provisions of Obamacare will be sufficient for the short-term viability of the health insurance industry.  Most of the provisions of Obamacare – in particular, the individual mandates the insurance companies are relying upon for their One Last Windfall – do not go into effect until 2014.

At least until then, the insurance companies likely will need to keep increasing their annual premiums at astronomical rates in the attempt to remain sufficiently profitable. Can the system sustain such increases until 2014?  Or, will the provisions of Obamacare have to be accelerated? Or, will Obamacare have to be revised, for instance, to add the much reviled (or much desired, depending on your political views) “public option?”

But while Obamacare may need to be accelerated or further radicalized, it cannot just be repealed. For the same reason that healthcare reform was inevitable, we can’t just go back. The insurance industry simply will not tolerate it.

What we all have to remember – and the main point of this series of posts – is that we can’t just get rid of Obamacare and go back to the way things were.  If we think we need to substantially change Obamacare, so as to shed ourselves of the extremely disturbing spectre of government-controlled covert rationing (which will be far more destructive than the insurance-company-controlled covert rationing we’ve painfully endured for 15 years), we’ll need to have another solution in hand.

DrRich, of course, knows such a solution, and he has described it in detail elsewhere.

__

Why Big Health Insurance Supported Obamacare

Part I – Another Reason He Should Have Kept the Bust

Part II – Why the Health Insurance Industry Supported Obamacare

Part III – How the Health Insurance Industry Saved 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:

As we have seen, the fact that the health insurance industry was going to support healthcare reform after the 2008 elections was a foregone conclusion.  The question was: How would the insurance industry support healthcare reform?

When the time came, the support the insurance industry gave to President Obama’s efforts to reform healthcare followed four simple rules:

1) Do not actively oppose Obamacare. In stark contrast to its behavior during the Clinton’s effort to reform healthcare in 1993-94, this time the insurance industry never engaged its vast public relations resources to stifle healthcare reform.  There was no Harry and Louise this time. (Actually, Harry and Louise – the original actors – did make a brief appearance, but now, like the insurance industry itself, they were older, wiser, and sadder, and this time they fully supported the proposed reforms.)

2) Submit quietly to demonization.  A key strategy of the Democrats in passing Obamacare was to remind Americans repeatedly that the for-profit health insurance industry is fundamentally evil.  This strategy was based on the time-honored precept that it is easier to get the unwashed masses to cooperate through hatred than through reason, and so, to gain their cooperation, one must give them something to hate. Obviously, this strategy meant that the health insurance industry had to accept its role as the bad guys in the reform debates without complaint, and without engaging in any serious self-defense.

3) Offer subdued public support to Obamacare. The AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans) issued public statements that cautiously supported President Obama’s healthcare reforms. But its support had to remain subdued and tepid, since Satan can’t be seen leading the hymns.

4) Whenever necessary, rise up and demonstrate to the world just how evil you really are. At the end of the day, this was the most important role the insurance industry played in advancing Obamacare. It was certainly their most active role.

It was not a difficult role to fill. Since 1994 the health insurers had engaged in the sorts of truly evil, inhumane, and reprehensible practices that are naturally engendered by covert healthcare rationing, and that harmed or killed many of their subscribers. The only difficult part was choosing which reprehensible behaviors to feature, and when to do it.

In at least two key moments during the fight over healthcare reform – June, 2009 and February, 2010 – when the proponents of reform felt their momentum lagging, the insurance industry intervened with gratuitous behaviors whose chief function was to remind Americans just how unremittingly wicked and inhumane they really are. In the second case, at least arguably, the insurance industry turned the reform effort from apparent defeat to almost certain victory. Indeed, it is not too much of an exaggeration to assert that, in the end, the health insurance industry saved Obamacare.

June, 2009: Say Hello To My Little Friend

The debate over Obamacare entered a new phase in May and June of 2009.  It was during those months that the opposition to healthcare reform found its voice, and it began to seem as if perhaps the Obama steamroller could really be slowed, if not stopped. People were even beginning to say that many Democrats in Congress, after getting an earful from their constituents when they held their summer town hall meetings, would abandon any idea of supporting President Obama’s healthcare reforms.

Supporters of Obamacare decided it was time to invoke the demons.  So in mid-June, the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations called three health insurers to testify on the practice of rescission, and to face not only indignant Congresspersons, but also some of the people who had been personally harmed by their practices.

“Rescission” is when an insurance company voids subscriber’s health insurance (after happily accepting premiums from that subscriber, often for many years) once they get sick. Under some circumstances, rescission might be justifiable. It is legal and proper to cancel a policy if the subscriber is found to have purposely lied on the insurance application about a prior illness that is material to the current illness.

But health insurance companies for years have actively and aggressively practiced rescission on subscribers whose insurance applications contained inadvertent and non-material inaccuracies.  (Just to put it in perspective, this kind of bad behavior is to be expected under a system of covert healthcare rationing, which again, is rationing by whatever means you can get away with.)

Furthermore, the health insurance industry does not merely engage in occasional unfair rescission practices; it has industrialized the process. It employs health insurance detectives whose job is to comb the prior medical records of subscribers who are newly diagnosed with certain, expensive medical conditions, looking for even trivial discrepancies on insurance applications, which they can inflate to “fraudulent” omissions, thus voiding the policy. These health insurance detectives are paid by commission, according to how much money their efforts can save the company. Many of them find it a very lucrative career.

So, at the cost of perpetrating a bit of inhumanity, rescission can save insurance companies a lot of money.

Consider some of the individuals who testified in Congress along with the insurance companies that day

• A nurse in Texas had her insurance canceled after she was diagnosed with breast cancer because she had failed to reveal that, years before, she had consulted a dermatologist about acne.
• A man (whose surviving sister had to testify) had his insurance canceled before he could begin expensive cancer therapy, because he had not revealed (and indeed he had not known) that a prior CT scan had showed gallstones and an aneurysm – conditions unrelated to his cancer.
• A woman had her insurance canceled – and due to the rescission could not find replacement insurance – because she failed to reveal that, at one time, she had been on medication for irregular menstruation.

During the hearing, the three health insurance executives were caused to listen to these and other incredible stories describing some of the inexcusable pain, suffering and death their unfair rescission practices had caused, and then were forced to listen to withering commentary by stunned Republicans and Democrats on the Subcommittee, whose own investigation had found that the three companies on the docket had retrospectively canceled the policies of 20,000 sick subscribers over the past 5 years.

After these heart-rending testimonies and the blistering attacks from extremely angry congresspersons, the executives were challenged by Chairman Stupak (D-Michigan) to now commit to discontinuing the practice of rescission unless intentional fraud could be shown.

All three replied, in turn, “No.”

Such a reply, in such a setting, almost defies belief. The only possible explanation, in fact, is that the insurance industry was stepping up to the plate, and embracing its assigned role as the Evil One in the great healthcare debate.

Even the most stone-hearted insurance executive can see that canceling the health insurance of a newly-diagnosed cancer patient, because she’d forgotten she’d required acne medicine before the prom 20 years ago, is just a bit unfair. But how did these three executives react? They did not attempt to deny such reprehensible behavior, or to explain it, or to defend it.  They were simply defiant about it.

One is put in mind of Tony “Scarface” Montana, bereft of friends, family, allies and bodyguards (albeit because of his own actions), hopelessly surrounded by an army of heavily-armed assassins, screaming, “Say hello to my little friend!” then launching defiantly into a wild, bloody and spectacular suicide.

One cannot for a moment believe that that Richard A. Collins, chief executive of UnitedHealth’s Golden Rule Insurance Co., Don Hamm, chief executive of Assurant Health, and Brian Sassi, president of consumer business for WellPoint Inc., would have been stupid enough to publicly defy Congress over such an indefensible practice, if doing so was against their own long-term interests.  Appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, they were not auditioning for a remake of Scarface.

This is not how an industry behaves which wants to court the goodwill of Congress at a critical juncture in its life cycle. This is not the strategy of an industry that wants Congress to defy its own party’s President and defeat healthcare reform, or that is begging Congress to give them another chance to figure out how to bring healthcare costs into check. This is not the behavior of any industry that wants to elicit any sort of favorable action from Congress. Indeed, these executives would have seemed more sympathetic and deserving if they had proposed instead to place live puppies on a spit and roast them over an open fire during half-time at the Super Bowl.

There is only one explanation for their astounding public defiance on this matter. Which is, it must have suited their long-term interests.

Recall that at the time of this remarkable hearing, there was growing skepticism about President Obama’s healthcare reform efforts, not only on the part of Republicans, but also on the part of a critical minority of Democrats in Congress. And for the first time since the election, there was some question about whether his reform plan would succeed in gaining sufficient support.

What must the health insurance industry do in the face of this faltering support for its desperate end-game? It must act to bolster Obamacare.

In this light the stark, defiant, public “no” uttered by the three insurance executives makes sense. “Look at us,” they were saying, “See how evil we are! We are utterly devoid of human decency, ethical obligations, or a sense of fair play. If we behave this defiantly when we are in the position of mere supplicants to your eminences, just think how we will behave if you fail to rein us in with new reforms!  Abandon all hope, those of you who rely on us for your healthcare, and behold the congressional dogs that placed us in this position of power over your very lives!”

Given the headwinds the healthcare reform effort was to face during the next nine months, it is difficult to say with any certainty how much good the insurance industry did in June, 2009, when it took such an extraordinary step to remind Americans just how incredibly evil it is. But when the time came to help boost the President’s reform efforts, nobody can deny that the insurance industry stepped up and did its duty.

February, 2010: Raising Obamacare From The Dead

Things looked especially bleak for healthcare reform in early February of 2010.  The incredible, possibly Constitution-defying, machinations Congress employed in its desperate attempt to pass healthcare reform had disgusted a majority of Americans, and momentum was clearly shifting to the opponents of Obamacare. And when Republican Scott Brown incredibly won the Senate seat in Massachusetts, robbing the Democrats of their crucial, filibuster-blocking 60th vote, many thought healthcare reform was dead.

But then out of nowhere, in early February, Wellpoint’s California subsidiary, Anthem Blue Cross, announced it was raising its already-astronomical health insurance premiums by as much as 39%, a move that promised to greatly increase the number of Californians who are uninsured.

The demoralized Democrats in the administration greedily capitalized on this new opportunity.

Kathleen Sebelius immediately fired off a very public letter to the company, demanding that they justify this unconscionable rate increase. And Wellpoint, lustily assuming its assigned role as villain, was delighted to reply, equally publicly.

We’re in a recession, Wellpoint brazenly asserted, and in a recession, like it or not, people exercise their prerogative to drop their health insurance. The only people who don’t drop their health insurance are the sick people, or those who are likely to become sick, which means that our cost per subscriber goes way up. So naturally, we have to increase premiums. By a lot. It’s just business. That’s just the nature of our current, unreformed healthcare system. So choke on it.

Wellpoint was also kind enough to mention (for anyone dense enough to have missed the point) that the need for higher insurance premiums would be nicely mitigated if everybody was mandated by the government to purchase health insurance.

Wellpoint’s anounced premium increase immediately triggered great volumes of delighted outrage by thankful Democrats, who desperately needed a large dose of “evil insurance company” at just that time. Wellpoint’s action reignited the proponents of healthcare reform, who were inspired to remind all Americans that this is what would happen to everyone if healthcare reform failed, and the greedy insurance companies had their way.

Stunned Republicans, seeing their impending victory over Obamacare evaporating before their eyes, could only issue a few lame and uncomfortable attempts to diminish the significance of Wellpoint’s unfortunate action.  But to little avail. The momentum had shifted. At least arguably, it was Wellpoint’s decision to announce an unconscionable rate increase at this extremely critical juncture that put healthcare reform back on the road to adoption.

From a pure business standpoint, there was no good reason for Wellpoint to stir the soup at that moment. Wellpoint is the most financially sound private health insurance company. While its California subsidiary did lose money in 2009, overall the company performed quite well, and reported a very nice profit growth for the year. And with several of its competitors in trouble, Wellpoint stood to do comparatively well for the foreseeable future.

Furthermore, it has since been learned that Wellpoint’s math was bad. An independent actuary working for the California Department of Insurance reported on May 5, 2010 that the company had made “numerous errors” in calculating is rate increases, and further, that Wellpoint could cut its rate hikes substantially, and still meet its required 70% medical-loss ratio threshold.

It stands to reason that if Wellpoint really wanted healthcare reform to go away, they would have first checked their math before announcing seismic rate increases, and then, if such astounding rate increases were really needed, they would have waited a few months – while Obamacare died – before announcing their rate hike.

The last thing they would have done is to throw the reformers a critical lifeline just as they were going under for the last time.

In any case Wellpoint’s action, especially at that moment, seems entirely gratuitous. Wellpoint could only have chosen to do its demon dance, at such an inopportune moment, in order to revive Obamacare during its darkest hour.

And that’s precisely what happened.

In the final post in this series of articles, we will take a look at the implications of the insurance industry’s support of Obamacare, as we who find Obamacare less than desirable contemplate what we ought to do about it.
__

Why Big Health Insurance Supported Obamacare

Part I – Another Reason He Should Have Kept the Bust

Part II – Why the Health Insurance Industry Supported Obamacare

Part IV – What It Means That the Health Insurance Industry Saved 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!