"Do or Do not. There is no try."

“Revere America”: Another Conduit For A Super-Wealthy Family To Influence Elections

On March 23, 2011 a group called Revere America issued a dire-sounding PRNewswire press release titled, “Americans Fear Loss of Freedom on Anniversary of Health Care Reform Law.” It warned that “a majority” of Americans view health care reform as “a threat to their freedom” and cited a poll by Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies to prove it. The release came well after Revere America had spent $2.5 million on attack ads in the 2010 mid-term elections to defeat Democratic candidates in two states — New York and New Hampshire — who had voted in favor of health care reform. Just prior to the mid-term elections, in the autumn of 2010, Revere America ran a a slew of false and misleading attack ads against the health care reform bill that erroneously called health reform “government-run healthcare” (a Republican and insurance industry buzz-phrase). The ads said that the new law will result in higher costs and longer waits in doctors’ offices. In another false claim aimed at inducing fear, the ads told viewers that “your right to keep your own doctor may be taken away.”

But who, or what, is Revere America? And how did it pull together enough money in less than a year to run a multi-million-dollar attack ad campaign, engage an expensive, professional polling firm and pump their message out on PRNewswire?

“Revere America”: Another Veil for a Wealthy Family

Revere America (RA) is a Delaware-based advocacy organization that sprang up in April, 2010. Like so many similar groups springing up after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, RA is set up in a way that allows it to accept corporate donations, and that keeps it from having to reveal its funders. RA’s titular head at the time of its startup was former New York Governor George Pataki. The group pushes to repeal health reform, also known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which Pataki described a “horrific” and “costly bungle.” Donations to RA are not tax deductible, which would seem to make donating huge sums of money to the group less attractive to large numbers of people if it was a real grassroots group made up of ordinary people.

The Collier’s Hamilton Yacht ClubBut it turns out that Revere America is not made up of ordinary people, and its primary funder isn’t all that concerned about money. According to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and other sources, Revere America’s primary funder is Parker J. Collier of Naples, Florida, the wife of Miles Collier, a wealthy Florida land baron and real estate developer. Ms. Collier has given half a million dollars to the Republican Party of Florida, $60,800 to the Republican National Committee, and gave an overall total of $1,239,014 to Republican interests — and that was just in 2009-2010.

The Collier money flowing towards Republicans and Revere America is old family money. Parker’s husband, Miles Collier, is the grandson of Barron Collier, who bought over a million acres in south Florida in the early 1900s, and after whom Collier County, Florida is named. Through their company, Collier Enterprises, the Colliers develop tony yacht, golf and members-only country clubs in southwest Florida, where the rich play, dine and sail. In recent years, Collier Enterprises has even been developing entire towns in Florida.

Influencing Elections Throughout the U.S.

The Collier’s private, members-only golf clubFor the Colliers, though, it apparently isn’t enough to have all the amenities of uber-wealth. Through Revere America, the family’s apparent political front group, the Colliers have also been using their money to influence elections throughout the rest of the country. They have financially supported far-right Republican candidates not only in New York and New Hampshire, but in many other states, including Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota), Senator Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts), and Republican Sue Lowden in her failed primary bid to gain the Senate nomination in Nevada, to name just a few. The list of Republican candidates RA funded and Democrats they worked to defeat in the 2010 election cycle numbers over 100, with some elections meriting six figure donations — amounts that far exceed what individuals can legally donate to influence an election. 

The professional Republican pollster doing work for RA, Bill McInturff, conducted the message and advertisement testing for the infamous “Harry and Louise” television commercials that helped defeat the Clinton-era health care reform effort. Some of McInturf’s other clients include insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans (the health insurance industry’s lobbying group) and drug maker Pfizer — all of which have a stake in undermining health care reform.

Pataki resigned as RA’s chairman in February, 2011, citing a Florida judge’s ruling the same month that the new health reform law’s federal mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. Pataki cited this ruling, and the House of Representatives’ symbolic vote to repeal health reform, as creating a good time for him to step down, and as proof that RA had been “successfully launched.” RA’s spokesperson and president is now Florida attorney Marianne R.P. Zuk, who is listed in Florida incorporation records as an officer or director for several Collier-owned companies.

Revere America is a “grassroots group” for the uber-wealthy Collier family in the same way that Americans for Prosperity is a “grassroots” group for the uber-wealthy Koch brothers. Such groups are conduits through which the super-rich are increasingly exerting powerful influence over elections nationwide. RA is yet another group that demonstrates the growing trend in which the wealthiest Americans — in the forms of both human beings and corporations — use their money to create fake “grassroots” front groups to hide behind and influence elections across the U.S.

Be on the look out for many more such groups to crop up in the future as the richest one or two percent of U.S. citizens come under increasing pressure to pay their fair share of taxes, and as we move closer to the 2012 elections. 

By: Anne Landman, Center for Media and Democracy, April 8, 2011

April 9, 2011 Posted by | Affordable Care Act, Big Business, Big Pharma, Class Warfare, Conservatives, Corporations, Elections, Freedom, GOP, Health Reform, Ideologues, Individual Mandate, Koch Brothers, Liberty, Pharmaceutical Companies, Politics, Republicans, Right Wing, Wealthy | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mark Pauly, Father of the Individual Mandate: “Either We Have To Have A Mandate Or Make Insurance Free For Everyone”

In 1991, economist Mark Pauly was the lead author of a Health Affairs paper attempting to persuade President George H.W. Bush and his administration to adopt a universal health-care proposal that would keep the government from eventually taking over the sector. “Our view is that excessive government intervention will make matters worse,” wrote Pauly and his co-authors. “Our strategy, therefore, is to design a scheme that limits governmental rules and incentives to the extent necessary to achieve the objectives.”At the heart of that strategy was the individual mandate, which would go on to be promoted by congressional Republicans, the Heritage Foundation, and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney before being adopted by Democrats and becoming a bete noire of conservatives. I spoke to Pauly earlier this afternoon, and an edited transcript of our conversation follows.

Tell me about your involvement in the development of the individual mandate.

I was involved in developing a plan for the George H.W. Bush administration. I wasn’t a member of the administration, but part of a team of academics who believe the administration needed good proposals to look at. We did it because we were concerned about the specter of single payer insurance, which isn’t market-oriented, and we didn’t think was a good idea. One feature was the individual mandate. The purpose of it was to round up the stragglers who wouldn’t be brought in by subsidies. We weren’t focused on bringing in high risks, which is what they’re focused on now. We published the plan in Health Affairs in 1991. The Heritage Foundation was working on something similar at the time.

What was the reaction like after you released it?

There was some interest from Republicans. I don’t recall whether they formally wrote a bill or just floated it as an idea [It did make it into a bill — Ezra], but Democrats in Congress said it was “dead on arrival.” So that was the end of my 15 minutes.

Was the constitutionality of the provision a question, either in your deliberations or after it was released?

I don’t remember that being raised at all. The way it was viewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively, as a tax. You either paid the tax and got insurance that way or went and got it another way. So I’ve been surprised at that argument. But I’m not an expert on the Constitution. My fix would be to simply say raise everyone’s taxes by what a health insurance policy would cost — Congress definitely has the power to do that — and then tell people that if they obtain insurance, they’ll get a tax break of the same amount. So instead of a penalty, it’s a perfectly legal tax break. But this seems to me to angelic pinhead density arguments about whether it’s a payment to do something or not to do something.

That gets to one of the central questions in this argument, which is whether the individual mandate is a penalty for economic inactivity or whether it’s part of a broader system of regulations affecting a market for health care that we’re all participating in, whether we’re buying insurance that day or not.

I see it in the latter way. We thought it was a good idea to do everything possible to encourage people to get insurance. Subsidies will probably pick up the great bulk of the population. But the point of the mandate was that there are a few Evil Knievals who won’t buy it and this would bring them into the system. In our version, the penalty was effectively equal to the premium of a policy. You paid the penalty and you got the insurance. That’s one of my puzzlements here: In the new law, the actual level of the penalty is quite small compared to the price of a policy. It’s only about 20 percent of the cost of a policy.

Do you think the mandate is severable from the larger bill?

I think you could do that. I’d want to take some other things out of the bill, too. But the main part I favor and the part that deals with the uninsured are these subsidies for lower-middle-income people. The great bulk of them would take insurance with those breaks. That won’t go away. The mandate props up community rating, which I’m not a fan of. So I’d throw overboard both the mandate and the community rating. Then I’d add high-risk pools.

You say the mandate was developed as a way to avoid single-payer health care. As I see the evolution of this issue, Richard Nixon countered single-payer with an employer mandate, then Clinton co-opted the employer mandate and Republicans moved to an individual mandate, and then Obama co-opted the individual mandate. But there’s nowhere else to go, as far as I can tell. If the individual mandate dies, it seems to me that the eventual universal coverage solution will rely heavily on government programs — we’ll have single payer in fact even if we don’t have it in name.

I think there’s a slippery slope in that direction. I have mixed feelings about the mechanics of the current bill. Our idea was to have tax credits and very little additional government control over insurance markets, and the legislation has an awful lot of that. I believe you could achieve almost the same reduction of the uninsured with the subsidies and without the mandate. But CBO says that you leave about 40 percent of the uninsured population without coverage in that scenario. If we want to close that gap, then either we have to have a mandate or make insurance free for everyone and run by the government.

Interview By: Ezra Klein and posted in The Washington Post, February 1, 2011

February 2, 2011 Posted by | Affordable Care Act, Individual Mandate | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Be Careful What You Wish For: Repeal of the Affordable Care Act Would Be Harmful to Society and Costly for Our Country

The new Republican leadership of the House of Representatives says repeal of the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is their top priority. The Republicans pushing for repeal, however, conveniently ignore the enormous step backward that repeal would represent for health care in our country, for the income security of our citizens, and for the fiscal health of our government.

The Affordable Care Act is not just a law designed to cover the majority of our nation’s uninsured, moving us into the league of industrialized nations which guarantee universal health coverage for its citizens. The law also takes the crucial first steps toward reining in our runaway health care costs. It ends discriminatory insurance practices that leave many of our citizens one bad gene, or badly timed accident, away from personal bankruptcy. It does so while introducing insurance market competition that will lead to lower health insurance premiums for some, and better coverage for others, in the so-called nongroup insurance market where workers without employer-provided health insurance turn for coverage. The Affordable Care Act does all this while significantly reducing our enormous federal budget deficit over the next 10 years.

Opponents of the new health reform law claim we can have many of the beneficial features documented above while repealing the parts they don’t like. This is a misleading and dangerous assertion. In fact, virtually none of the accomplishments of the new law are possible without the entire law’s infrastructure coming into place. That’s why all of the harms of repeal documented in this issue brief below will take place if the new law were to be scuttled.

To understand the consequences of repealing the Affordable Care Act, we can turn to two sources of objective information. The first is the careful and comprehensive effort put in by the Congressional Budget Office to evaluate the law’s impacts, including their recent report summarizing the effects of repealing the new law. The second is the closest case study we have where major elements of the new federal law are already in place—the state of Massachusetts, which passed a similar reform in early 2006. So let’s now turn to the different harms repeal of the health reform would deliver up to the American people.

Repeal means more uninsured, and worse public health

The first noticeable feature of a world without the new health reform law would be the much higher share of Americans without health insurance coverage. Absent the Affordable Care Act, CBO projects that 54 million people in our country, or almost 20 percent of our nonelderly population, will be uninsured by 2019. The new law will cover 32 million of those uninsured, according to CBO, or about 60 percent, with much of the remainder undocumented immigrants who are ineligible for coverage. This is more than a projection: It is also the same percentage share of the uninsured in Massachusetts who have been covered by that state’s health reform effort.

Clearly, repeal of the new law would have enormous negative consequences for our nation’s public health. Numerous studies document the dire health implications of uninsurance. An earlier study by the Institute of Medicine estimated that, in the year 2000 (when 38 million persons were uninsured), there were 18,000 deaths per year due to uninsurance. This suggests that repealing the Affordable Care Act could lead to 15,000 more deaths per year due to higher lack of insurance.

Repeal means increased financial risk for U.S. households alongside distorted labor markets

The impact of repeal extends well beyond those households who are uninsured. Indeed, repealing the new law would reach any household who faces the risk of losing their employer-sponsored health insurance. This is because the Affordable Care Act will fix the fundamental broken system of nongroup insurance in the United States.

Currently, individuals who do not have access to employer-provided group insurance coverage face a nongroup insurance market that is discriminatory and expensive. In most states individuals can be denied insurance coverage because they are ill or have their pre-existing illnesses excluded from coverage. Individuals who become ill can face personal bankruptcy as a result. Even when nongroup insurance is available, in most states insurance is priced according to individual health, with the oldest and sickest enrollees paying many multiples of younger and healthier enrollees.

There is a fundamental unfairness to a system under which individuals can face financial ruin because they have the wrong genes, or cross the street at the wrong time, but don’t happen to have access to insurance through their employer. Moreover, such a system significantly distorts our labor markets by forcing individuals to stay in jobs that offer health insurance rather than to move to newer and more productive positions where coverage is not available. Millions of U.S. workers are not moving to better jobs for them or starting new businesses because there is nowhere to turn for insurance coverage should they leave their jobs.

The Affordable Care Act would fix this flaw in our system. Insurance companies would no longer be allowed to price discriminate or deny coverage based on health or pre-existing conditions, and price differentials by age would be lowered. Individuals would be free to move to the job of their choice or to become entrepreneurs without fear of facing uninsurance.

Repealing the new health reform law would leave us in a world of broken nongroup insurance markets, with the attendant financial risk for individuals and the continued distortion to our labor markets. Why? Because without the comprehensive framework of the new law, it is incredibly costly to make insurance fairer in nongroup markets.

If insurance companies must charge the same price to people whether they’re sick or healthy, for example, then many healthy people will view this as a “bad deal” and not buy insurance. This results in higher prices because only the sick would buy insurance, chasing even more people out of the market. The result is a “death spiral” that leads only the sick to purchase insurance at very high prices. Several states tried such community rating reforms in their non-group markets over the past two decades, and the results were sharp rises in insurance prices and rapidly shrinking market size. The only way to make insurance market reform feasible is to pair it with large subsidies to purchase insurance and an individual requirement for coverage, as is the case with the Affordable Care Act.

Direct evidence for this point comes from Massachusetts. In the late 1990s the state moved to a nondiscriminatory nongroup market, but without the subsidies and the individual requirement that are central to the Affordable Care Act. The result was a collapse of the state’s nongroup market, so that by 2006 the state had by far the highest nongroup premiums in the nation. In 2006, the state implemented their comprehensive reform, which added to the insurance market reforms extensive low-income subsidies to purchase insurance and an individual requirement for coverage. This resulted in a 40 percent reduction in nongroup premiums in Massachusetts over a period where such premiums were rising by 14 percent nationally. That’s just one reason why the new law is called the Affordable Care Act.

Repeal means a noncompetitive and expensive nongroup insurance market

Another reason the Affordable Care Act works to bring down costs is because without it, a typical health insurance policy is much more expensive in the nongroup market than in the group market, partly because nongroup insurance markets are less competitive than group insurance markets in many states. There is no common marketplace where individuals can compare the prices of all the options that are available to them in the nongroup market. As a result, existing market participants keep prices high and new firms are unable to promote lower costs as a tool of market entry.

The Affordable Care Act addresses this problem in two important ways. The first is by introducing competitive insurance exchanges in every state. Individuals would be able to shop more effectively, comparing their nongroup options in a competitive and transparent environment. This approach has already had a notable success in Massachusetts, where the introduction of the state’s Connector health insurance exchange expanded the use of nongroup insurance and promoted the entry of a major new low-cost insurer into the state’s nongroup insurance market.

Without the Affordable Care Act states are unlikely to be able to establish transformative and competitive exchanges for the purchase of nongroup insurance. Many states have tried over the past 20 years to establish insurance exchanges and they have virtually all either failed or had little impact. This is typically because insurers were afraid that individuals would choose to buy from the exchanges only if they were sick, which meant prices in the exchange were high and demand for exchange products was low. With low demand, exchanges could not establish the economies of scale necessary for success.

The success of exchanges under the new health reform law will be due to the fact that individuals will be both required to purchase insurance and that insurance purchase will be subsidized only through the exchange. This will promote exchanges on a scale necessary to succeed in promoting competition in state insurance markets.

The second way that the Affordable Care Act addresses the high costs of nongroup insurance is through the introduction of new tax credits to make health insurance affordable through the exchange. The typical middle-class family in the United States would now be provided financial support to ensure that they would not have to spend an unfair amount for the insurance they need to protect their family.

The upshot: Repealing the new law would mean returning to an era where individuals can’t effectively compare their insurance options, guaranteeing continued noncompetitive and expensive insurance in this market. And it would mean that individuals would face the full prices in these noncompetitive markets without the necessary tax credits to make insurance affordable. Repeal, in short, would be unfair, ineffective, inefficient, and costly.

Repeal means free riders would continue to exploit the health care system

Another fundamental flaw in our current health care system before passage of the Affordable Care Act was that individuals could “free ride,” remaining uninsured until they need care and then turning to emergency rooms. Emergency rooms are required by law to provide care to all regardless of insurance coverage. The associated uncompensated care costs of treating these individuals amount to a more than $40 billion a year tax on the insured in the United States

The Affordable Care Act ends this free riding by requiring that individuals purchase insurance if it is affordable for them (which it will be for most due to the subsidies described earlier). This personal responsibility requirement, originally the brainchild of Republican experts, would end the unfairness of a system where emergency room health care providers are required to treat everyone but individuals are not in turn required to pay their fair share of the costs of treatment. Repealing the new law would mean returning to a world where individuals can simply wait until they are sick to get treated, passing the costs on to the rest of society that is paying their share.

Repeal means the continued decline of private insurance

There was an enormous erosion of private insurance coverage in the United States over the past decade. Employer-sponsored insurance fell by 15 percent and nongroup insurance has not grown to keep pace. The result today is an increase in both the ranks of the uninsured and the publicly insured.

The Affordable Care Act arrests this decline and promotes private insurance coverage. According to the CBO, the new law will lead to a small erosion in employersponsored insurance coverage, offset by a rise in nongroup insurance coverage that is almost five times as large. Overall, private insurance coverage in the United States will rise by 15 million people due to the Affordable Care Act.

Repeal would provide no cushion for our citizens to offset this rapid decline in employer-sponsored insurance coverage. Fifteen million fewer U.S. residents would have private insurance than without the law. The Affordable Care Act is not a government takeover of the U.S. health system; it is a means of using reformed private nongroup insurance markets to more effectively fight the steady decline in employer-provided group insurance. Repeal means a fundamental retreat from the promise of private health insurance coverage for our citizens.

Repeal means higher and more rapidly growing budget deficits

The Affordable Care Act delivers a unique dose of fiscal responsibility in an era of rapidly growing federal budget deficits. The new law offsets its new spending with even larger reductions in other spending and revenue increases. As a result, CBO estimates that the legislation will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion by 2019, and by more than $1 trillion in the decade after that.

What is not widely appreciated is that deficit reduction due to the new health law will rise over time. The cuts in excessive spending and increases in revenues are back-loaded, not front-loaded as with so many other recent pieces of legislation. This is illustrated by the fact that the most recent CBO estimate shows that repeal would raise the deficit by $230 billion over the next decade. And, because the net budget savings from the new health law will grow over time, repeal would raise the deficit by much larger and ever growing amounts into the future.

Repeal would therefore mean undoing the enormous fiscal benefits of this legislation. Offsetting a more than $100 billion hole in the budget deficit by 2019 would require significant cuts elsewhere in the budget or other increases in revenues. And it seems highly unlikely that Congress would enact spending or revenue changes that would increase so rapidly over time. That means even fixes that offset the short-term costs of repealing the new law would not address the enormous long-term hole it would leave in our budget.

Repeal means a critical step backward on cost control

Reforming insurance markets and covering the uninsured are actually the relatively easy lifts for the new health reform law when compared to the more daunting and fundamental challenge—reducing the rate of growth in health care costs, which threatens to bankrupt our government and our nation. U.S. spending on health care is very high and a source of great concern but it is the growth rate of medical spending, not its level, that ultimately determines our country’s financial well-being. Absent the Affordable Care Act, if current trends persist we will be spending an unsustainable 38 percent of our GDP on health care by 2075 because the growth of health care costs would continue to outstrip the growth rate of the overall economy.

Addressing the rapidly rising costs of medical care, however, faces two daunting barriers. The first is scientific: There is tremendous uncertainty about how to lower health care costs without sacrificing health care quality. There is a broad consensus that there is significant waste in our health care system. But there is little consensus about the best way to address that waste without risking the enormous gains in population health due to health care improvements in recent decades. The second barrier is political: There are major entrenched interests that are threatened by fundamental health care reform and who will strongly oppose any such efforts.

In the face of these barriers, our political process has found it difficult to make progress on significant cost-control efforts over the past several decades. The Affordable Care Act represents the most important step forward in cost control in at least 30 years. The new law pursues many different approaches toward cost control, studying them to see which ones work best. This is through provisions that:

  • Reduce consumer demand for excessive medical care through the “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans.
  • Reduce health care provider payments by appointing a depoliticized board to make up-or-down recommendations to Congress on changes to Medicare’s provider payments.
  • Set up dozens of health care pilot programs to test various approaches to revamping provider-payment incentives and organizational structure.
  • Invest hundreds of millions of dollars in new comparative-effectiveness research.
  • Launch pilot programs to assess the impact of various reorganizations of the medical malpractice process.

None of these approaches is guaranteed to work but together they represent a significant step toward fundamental cost control.

Importantly, they represent steps that are unlikely to happen if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. None of these ideas are new; most have been around for decades. But it was through the overall push for health reform that Congress was able to finally put them in place. Absent such a unifying framework, the barriers which have blocked cost-control efforts in the past will continue to stand in the way of moving forward on cost-control efforts.

Bottom line: Repeal is a dramatic step backward

The debate over repeal of the Affordable Care Act is characterized by enormous misinformation and confusion. Opponents of the legislation exploit this for political gains. A legitimate debate over the Affordable Care Act and the future of health care in America must recognize the fundamental improvements to our health care system put in place by this new law. Repealing would lead to:

  • A society with poorer health and ultimately more deaths from lack of medical care
  • A continued unfair and expensive nongroup insurance market that leads to economic instability, medical bankruptcy, and a less efficient job market where individuals are afraid to move to more productive job opportunities
  • Continued free riding by those who pass billions of dollars in care costs onto the insured
  • A massive decline in private insurance coverage
  • Huge and unsustainable increases in budget deficits reaching trillions of dollars over coming decades
  • A fundamental step backward in our efforts to control the health care costs which threaten to bankrupt our society

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is aptly named. Repeal would mean less health care protection for more and more Americans at higher and higher costs to themselves, their families, and our nation. We simply cannot afford to repeal the new law.

By: Jonathan Gruber, Professor of Health Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the Massachusetts Health Connector Authority: January 19, 2011

January 19, 2011 Posted by | Affordable Care Act | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pool Fools: Republicans Denounce Republican Health Care Plan

As pointed out by Jonathan Chait in his recent article in The New Republic on January 12, 2011, “When you combine the GOP’s intense opposition to Obama with its very weak commitment to any alternative policy architecture, you get this kind of wild, opportunistic flip-flopping”. Reference the following enlightening article by Timothy Noah: 

Of all the arguments Republicans have been waging against Obamacare as the House of Representatives prepares to vote for its repeal, none is harder to take than their criticism of the federally subsidized high-risk pools the law created to provide immediate relief to the uninsured. In May, the House Republican Conference complained that these high-risk pools would be unfair to people currently enrolled in existing state-run risk pools because the latter group was paying higher premiums. In July, the House Republican Conference complained that implementation of this unfair federal program was being delayed. By January, the House Republican leadership was grousing (in a report titled Obamacare: A Budget-Busting, Job-Killing Health Care Law) that costs for this unfair-but-wrongly-delayed program were higher than expected even as participation in this unfair-but-wrongly-delayed-but-too-costly program was lower than it should be.

Republican attacks on Obamacare’s high-risk pools sound a lot like the old joke about the restaurant where the food is terrible—and such small portions! But the contradictory nature of the GOP’s complaints doesn’t rankle half so much as their fundamental hypocrisy. High-risk pools are, in fact, a terrible solution to the health-care crisis. But they happen to be the terrible solution Republicans most favor (along with tax breaks) whenever they’re forced to state their preferred alternative to last year’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. They were the central idea in the health plan proposed by Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., during the 2008 election. They were the central idea in the House leadership’s proposed substitute for the Democratic plan in 2009, and they played a major role in the alternative plan set forth that year by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a medical doctor who became the GOP’s lead opponent to Obamacare. They were the central idea in a 2010 repeal bill introduced in May by Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif., that would have replaced the health reform bill that became law with the 2009 House leadership bill. They’re absent from the current leadership repeal bill, introduced Jan. 5 by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., but only because Cantor’s bill proposes no substitute at all.


Republican health care policies, I noted not quite one year ago (“Pool Party“), typically segregate the healthy majority from the unhealthy minority in order to lower insurance premiums for the healthy. Never mind that that raises insurance premiums sky-high for the unhealthy. High-risk pools are the most efficient way to achieve such segregation and about the least efficient way to pay medical bills here on planet Earth. A health insurance pool consisting entirely of people too sick to qualify for private insurance is like a fire-insurance pool consisting entirely of pyromaniacs. The best that can be said for such groupings is that the hospitalizations (or the fires) probably won’t all happen in the same month. Health insurance high-risk-pool premiums are typically 125 percent to 200 percent above normal premiums, but even so, a government subsidy is typically required to cover costs.

Obamacare introduced new high-risk pools (it calls them the “Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan“) as a temporary bridge to the federally subsidized state insurance exchanges to be created in 2014. Premiums are indeed set below those for existing state-run risk pools and are intended to match what buyers would pay for health insurance in the non-group market (assuming non-group insurers were willing to sign them up, which in many instances they wouldn’t be because of the buyers’ pre-existing conditions). Even so, enrollment has not been high. Medicare’s chief actuary predicted that 375,000 people would sign up in 2010, but as of Nov. 1 only about 8,000 had, including only four in West Virginia, only one in North Dakota, and none at all in the District of Columbia and Vermont. That’s partly because 27 states declined to participate in the program, relying instead on their own risk pools (apparently they worry they’ll get stuck with the higher cost); partly because even Obamacare’s more-highly-subsidized high-risk premiums were relatively expensive (non-group insurance doesn’t come cheap for people with pre-existing conditions); partly because potential customers worried that Congress would eliminate the new high-risk pools by repealing Obamacare; and partly because the Obama administration, no doubt wrestling with the high-risk pools’ fundamental unworkability, didn’t start signing people up until summer.


Conservatives claim the problem is not the inherent contradiction in insurance pools consisting entirely of people who need lots and lots of health care, but rather in poor management by the Obama administration. The American Enterprise Institute’s Thomas P. Miller and the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s James Capretta have argued that the administration ought to narrow eligibility; increase the subsidy; and introduce “more effective incentives and tools for both patients and providers to make higher-value health care decisions,” i.e., pressure doctors and hospitals to lower costs and eliminate unnecessary procedures. But the first solution is preposterous in light of weak enrollment (in fairness, Miller and Capretta wrote before that became apparent); the second solution is perhaps necessary but expensive; and the third is a laudable goal that’s much more difficult to achieve with a sick population than with a healthy one. Taken together, these three solutions betray an extreme myopia about the inherent limitations on high-risk pools to begin with.

The poor performance of Obamacare’s high-risk pools aren’t an argument against Obamacare. They’re an argument in favor of it. High-risk pools are a Band-Aid to stanch a hemorrhage. Democrats don’t kid themselves that the Band-Aid will do much to stop the bleeding, which is why they don’t embrace it as a long-term solution. Republicans ought to stop pretending it can be one.

Original Article By: Timothy Noah-Slate, January 11, 2011

January 16, 2011 Posted by | Health Reform | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


%d bloggers like this: