Jack Lohman's Capital Times Opinion Piece...

Mr. Lohman has used an interesting technique to continue his quest for a government-run statewide equivalent of Medicare.

First, because our political system permits contributions to politicians, and because some of those contributions originate with health care or insurance entities, political corruption is part of the “health care crisis”.

If it is, why do we not tackle political corruption as a separate issue and not throw it into the same basket with health care? Health care in and of itself is far and away a tough enough situation to resolve properly without the added impediment of political corruption tossed into the mix.

Next, he restates his premise that a single payer system of health care would be a windfall for business, the economy of Wisconsin and the citizens who would be the consumers of health care in this brave new world.

Medicare relies upon the private sector insurance companies and health care administrators to pay all its claims. Those costs have been shown to be about 12% of the total claims paid, not 31%. The government cost of operating the system is some 2% to 3% of the total cost. That total administrative cost is about the same as the cost of private sector plans in the state under our free market approach.

“A small payroll tax” of 10% to 15% would be levied on the state’s employers instead of the money currently being spent for the free market version of health care. That would impact the roughly 50% of Wisconsin’s smaller employers that do not currently offer health insurance to employees. A new tax of “just” 10% to 15% would virtually guarantee that those employers would cease operation or move from Wisconsin where that was possible.

The reference to Medicare costing more per capita then would the program Lohman espouses is concerning. He maintains that the state-run program would actually save money over Medicare in that all citizens would be rolled into the pool thus spreading the risk. He ignores the fact that Medicare reimbursements are barely more than $0.50 on each billed dollar. The amount unpaid by Medicare is transferred to the free market programs through increased retail fees at the point-of-care. That alone is a big part of the health care crisis which is largely a health care cost crisis as we’ve argued before.

An alternative would be for those same health care providers to decide whether or not they could continue in business if all reimbursements were now at or below the level of Medicare reimbursements. Another alternative would be for the state to hire the providers of care to take all the egregious “profit” out of the equation. Yet another alternative is for rationing of the then available health care services by the state agency charged with running the health system. Each of those alternatives certainly has a nice ring to them; it’ll be really difficult to decide which to use. Maybe we can have some of each.

And then there is another “small tax” to take away all co-pays, deductibles, dental and vision expense. That would complete the loop. The entitlement mentality that is a large part of the current problem would have become the mentality of us all, and we would’ve driven more jobs out of Wisconsin.

But, we would’ve completely eliminated the insurance industry, all the agents, etc. And that seems a primary goal for effective health care reform from Mr. Lohman’s perspective.

Finally, the argument returns to that of “Business Ethics 101”.

We are finally in agreement: all sides of this debate must be completely honest and ethical because this is far too important a debate to permit it be limited or twisted.

Fixing an Ailing State Health Program...

Maine created Dirigo as the panacea to solve the uninsured problem of its citizens. Dirigo has been, by most counts, a failure having attracted only 13,000 participants.

For the second year in a row, a new bill is coursing its way through the political process that would put another twist on this failed program.

Dirigo would become self-funded and apparently Maine would be its own reinsurer. This is intended to permit the replacement of Anthem that had the audacity to earn a profit of some $3.6 Million from its work on Dirigo.

States have every right to experiment with what their citizens believe ought to work, but they really should be more careful than is the case with some.

Maine will find itself in the health care authorization business. Rationing is the term that comes to mind. Political forces will be pushed and pulled by the heartbreak that illnesses and need for treatment bring. Politicians seem to believe that the supply of money is endless, and will be hard-pressed to save themselves from approving new coverage to gain votes.

Inevitably, there will be budget pressures and those will lead to increased cost-sharing with those covered, or increased taxes, or more stringent rationing…and likely a combination of the three.

Wisconsin needs to take note as it debates the issues involved with health care.

Canadians don't care for Sicko...

…so read the headline for an article written by Peter Howell for the Toronto Star on May 20, 2007.

He stated that Michael Moore took quite a verbal beating during an interview at the Cannes Film Festival where Moore has been touting his latest “documentary”. I quote from his article:

“We Canucks were taking issue with the large liberties Sicko takes with the facts, with its lavish praise for Canada’s government-funded medicare system compared with America’s for-profit alternative.”

“…Sicko makes it seem as if Canada’s socialized medicine is flawless and that Canadians are satisfied with the status quo.”

“Other Canadian journalists spoke of the long wait times Canadians face for health care, much longer than the few minutes Moore suggests in Sicko.”

“Sicko, to be released in North America on June 29, is by turns enlightening and manipulative, humorous and maudlin. It makes many valid and urgent points about the crisis of U.S. health care, but they are blunted by Moore’s habit of playing fast and loose with the facts. Whether it’s a case of the end justifying the means will ultimately be for individual viewers to decide.”

The U.S. health care industry knows this is coming and feels alternately threatened, angered, frightened and somewhat helpless. What can be done to blunt this latest of Moore’s film adventures?

Those who care must become much more knowledgeable about Canadian, British, French and Cuban health care issues and how those systems compare to that of our country. Moore has changed his original tactics and now attempts to cajole, instead of club, folks to get them to see his point of view.

His tactics require that spokespeople for the industry assure that they too change their tactics. They can no longer simply criticize the messenger; they must become sufficiently knowledgeable as to be able to refute the wild claims one-by-one.

We are disadvantaged by the fact that his public relations machine is running at full speed and has been for awhile. We have yet to see the film in its entirety and do not yet understand the nature of his various claims and/or charges. We must begin to act now in order to counter the various “issues” soon after the initial screenings in this country.

Agents certainly understand many of the faults of the current U.S. health care system. They must not be seen as defensive, however, when it is they who have been preaching to the choir for the past decade or better.

Agents simply need to occupy the high ground of truth and reason. The Coalition for Sensible Health Care Solutions is a solid platform on which to build consensus.

Hospitals Threatened by Gov. Doyle...

Governor Doyle has threatened the hospitals in Wisconsin by stating they would receive no Medicaid rate increase unless they accepted his 1% of gross revenue hospital tax proposal.

The Wisconsin Hospital Association is opposed to the tax with a chief reason being their fear that the additional Federal money that would flow into the state as the result of this “tax” would not go entirely to the hospitals. They also stated that the acceptance of the Governor’s proposal in this instance would cause such an approach to become the approach of choice for years to come.

The assessment would generate some $202.5 million in 2008 with only $136.9 million going back to the hospitals, and would generate some $212.7 million in 2009 with $147.3 going back to hospitals.

It seems obvious that the hospitals have every right to be concerned even in the face of the Governor’s threat.

By the way, does anyone have any idea where all this newfound money will come from? Of course. We all pay our taxes to the U.S. and the state; and any hospital shortfalls will be collected from those who use those facilities.

We citizens just seem to have really deep pockets…at least to the Governor!