California Medical Association, December 23, 2019

Cottage Hospital System has initiated a contract termination with Anthem Blue Cross that affects three hospitals in the central Santa Barbara area. If the two parties fail to come to an agreement by the end of the year, the contract will terminate effective January 1, 2020.

The California Medical Association (CMA) is very concerned that if the termination becomes effective, Anthem may not be meeting geographic access standards and patients will be forced to travel long distances to receive services at in-network facilities. CMA has asked the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) to closely monitor the situation, given the potential disruption to patient care.

As a result of the pending termination, Anthem is requiring its contracted physicians who only have privileges at Cottage hospitals to obtain privileges other in-network facilities. Physicians who do not do so will have their Anthem contracts terminated, which will further impact access to care in the Santa Barbara area.

Based on the list of alternative hospitals Anthem listed in its notice to physicians, it appears that most patients will not have access to an in-network Anthem facility within DMHC’s geographic access standards… There is a high probability that many of Anthem’s contracted physicians will not be able to travel the distance to treat Anthem patients.

CMA is also concerned that this termination is happening after the Covered California enrollment period just closed. Unless Anthem was proactively disclosing to prospective enrollees that these three facilities would not be in-network, patients who enrolled with the plan expecting the Cottage Hospital System to be available in their network will be blindsided.

It remains to be seen whether the two parties will come to terms before the contract termination becomes effective. CMA will provide additional information on this situation as it becomes available.

https://www.cmadocs.org…

---

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future was formed to oppose Medicare for All. Amongst its members are America’s Health Insurance Plans, representing the insurers, and the American Hospital Association, representing the hospitals. The American Medical Association was a member but dropped out after its own members demonstrated shifting support towards Medicare for All. Patients are not represented.

Not surprising, this dispute is between insurers and hospitals, both opposed to Medicare for All. The dispute places at risk care of the patients and the ability of physicians to provide that care.

The conclusion is obvious: Let’s dump our current system that allows insurers and hospitals to negatively impact patient care because of a dispute over money, and replace it with a system that ensures care will always be there when needed: a single payer model of Medicare for All. Above all, that benefits patients; the physicians are becoming ever more supportive; the hospitals will do fine after they replace their administrators who may not be dedicated to public service; and the insurers… we’ll find them jobs that will benefit society instead of harming us.

Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.

The End of New Deal Liberalism

By William Greider
The Nation, January 5, 2011

We have reached a pivotal moment in government and politics, and it feels like the last, groaning spasms of New Deal liberalism. When the party of activist government, faced with an epic crisis, will not use government’s extensive powers to reverse the economic disorders and heal deepening social deterioration, then it must be the end of the line for the governing ideology inherited from Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson.

Political events of the past two years have delivered a more profound and devastating message: American democracy has been conclusively conquered by American capitalism. Government has been disabled or captured by the formidable powers of private enterprise and concentrated wealth. Self-governing rights that representative democracy conferred on citizens are now usurped by the overbearing demands of corporate and financial interests. Collectively, the corporate sector has its arms around both political parties, the financing of political careers, the production of the policy agendas and propaganda of influential think tanks, and control of most major media.

What the capitalist system wants is more—more wealth, more freedom to do whatever it wishes. This has always been its instinct, unless government intervened to stop it. The objective now is to destroy any remaining forms of government interference, except of course for business subsidies and protections. Many elected representatives are implicitly enlisted in the cause.

A lot of Americans seem to know this; at least they sense that the structural reality of government and politics is not on their side. When the choice comes down to society or capitalism, society regularly loses. First attention is devoted to the economic priorities of the largest, most powerful institutions of business and finance. The bias comes naturally to Republicans, the party of money and private enterprise, but on the big structural questions business-first also defines Democrats, formerly the party of working people. Despite partisan rhetoric, the two parties are more alike than they acknowledge.

In these terms, the administration of Barack Obama has been a crushing disappointment for those of us who hoped he would be different. It turns out Obama is a more conventional and limited politician than advertised, more right-of-center than his soaring rhetoric suggested. Most Congressional Democrats, likewise, proved weak and incoherent, unreliable defenders of their supposed values or most loyal constituencies. They call it pragmatism. I call it surrender.

Obama’s maladroit tax compromise with Republicans was more destructive than creative. He acceded to the trickle-down doctrine of regressive taxation and skipped lightly over the fact that he was contributing further to stark injustices. Ordinary Americans will again be made to pay, one way or another, for the damage others did to society. Obama agrees that this is offensive but argues, This is politics, get over it. His brand of realism teaches people to disregard what he says. Look instead at what he does.

With overwhelming majorities in Congress and economic crisis tearing up the country in 2009, incumbent Democrats opted for self-protection first, party principles later. Their Senate leaders allowed naysayers to determine the lowest common denominator for reform—halfway measures designed not to overly disturb powerful corporate-financial interests, and therefore not able to repair the social destruction those interests had wrought. Senate Democrats say they didn’t have the votes. Imagine what Mitch McConnell would have done if he were their leader: Take no prisoners. Force party dissenters to get in line and punish those who don’t. Block even the most pedestrian opposition proposals.

Democrats are not used to governing aggressively. They haven’t done so for decades, and they may no longer believe in it. For many years, incumbent Democrats survived by managing a precarious straddle between the forces of organized money and the disorganized people they claim to represent. The split was usually lopsided in favor of the money guys, but one could believe that the reform spirit would come alive once they were back in power with a Democratic president. That wishful assumption is now defunct.

Obama’s timid economic strategy can be described as successful only if the standard of success is robust corporate profits, rising stock prices and the notorious year-end bonuses of Wall Street. Again and again, Obama hesitated to take the bolder steps that would have made differences in social conditions. Now it is clear that the bleeding afflictions experienced by the overwhelming majority of citizens will not be substantively addressed because Democrats, both president and Congress, have chosen to collaborate in the conservative cause of deficit reduction: cut spending, shrink government, block any healing initiatives that cost real money.

Republicans, armed with strong conviction, are resurgent with what amounts to ideological nihilism. Leave aside their obvious hypocrisies on fiscal rectitude and free markets. Their single-minded objective is to destroy what remains of government’s capacity to intervene in or restrain the private sector on behalf of the common welfare. Many of government’s old tools and programs are already gone, gutted by deregulation, crippled by corporate capture of the regulatory agencies originally intended to curb private-sector abuses and starved by inadequate funding. The right wants smaller government for the people, but not for corporate capitalism. It will fight to preserve the protections, privileges and subsidies that flow to the private sector.

---

Once again, Republicans are mounting an assault on liberalism’s crown jewel, Social Security, only this time they might succeed, because the Democratic president is collaborating with them. The deficit hysteria aimed at Social Security is fraudulent (as Obama’s own experts acknowledge), but the president has already gravely weakened the program’s solvency with his payroll-tax holiday, which undercuts financing for future benefits. Obama promises the gimmick won’t be repeated, but if employment is still weak a year from now, he may well cave. The GOP will accuse him of damaging the economy by approving a “tax increase” on all workers. Senate Democrats are preparing their own proposal to cut Social Security as a counter to the GOP’s extreme version. In the end, they can split the difference and celebrate another great compromise.

This is capitulation posing as moderation. Obama has set himself up to make many more “compromises” in the coming months; each time, he will doubtless use the left as a convenient foil. Disparaging “purist” liberals is his way of assuring so-called independents that he stood up to the allegedly far-out demands of his own electoral base. This is a ludicrous ploy, given the weakness of the left. It cynically assumes ordinary people not engaged in politics are too dim to grasp what he’s doing. I suspect Obama is mistaken. I asked an old friend what she makes of the current mess in Washington. “Whatever the issue, the rich guys win,” she responded. Lots of people understand this—it is the essence of the country’s historic predicament.

To get a rough glimpse of what the corporate state looks like, study the Federal Reserve’s list of banking, finance and business firms that received the $3.3 trillion the central bank dispensed in low-interest loans during the financial crisis (this valuable information is revealed only because reform legislators like Senator Bernie Sanders fought for disclosure). If you were not on the list of recipients, you know your place in this new order.

The power shift did not start with Obama, but his tenure confirms and completes it. The corporates began their systematic drive to dismantle liberal governance back in the 1970s, and the Democratic Party was soon trying to appease them, its retreat whipped along by Ronald Reagan’s popular appeal and top-down tax cutting. So long as Democrats were out of power, they could continue to stand up for liberal objectives and assail the destructive behavior of business and finance (though their rhetoric was more consistent than their voting record). Once back in control of government, they lowered their voices and sued for peace. Beholden to corporate America for campaign contributions, the Democrats cut deals with banks and businesses and usually gave them what they demanded, so corporate interests would not veto progressive legislation.

Obama has been distinctively candid about this. He admires the “savvy businessmen” atop the pinnacle of corporate power. He seeks “partnership” with them. The old economic conflicts, like labor versus capital, are regarded as passé by the “new Democrats” now governing. The business of America is business. Government should act as steward and servant, not master.

This deferential attitude is reflected in all of Obama’s major reform legislation, not to mention in the people he brought into government. In the financial rescue, Obama, like George W. Bush before him, funneled billions to the troubled bankers without demanding any public obligations in return. On healthcare, he cut deals with insurance and drug companies and played cute by allowing the public option, which would have provided real competition to healthcare monopolists, to be killed. On financial reform, Obama’s Treasury lieutenants and a majority of the Congressional Dems killed off the most important measures, which would have cut Wall Street megabanks down to tolerable size.

Society faces dreadful prospects and profound transformation. When both parties are aligned with corporate power, who will stand up for the people? Who will protect them from the insatiable appetites of capitalist enterprise and help them get through the hard passage ahead? One thing we know for sure from history: there is no natural limit to what capitalism will seek in terms of power and profit. If government does not stand up and apply the brakes, society is defenseless.

Strangely enough, this new reality brings us back to the future, posing fundamental questions about the relationship between capitalism and democracy that citizens and reformers asked 100 years ago. Only this time, the nation is no longer an ascendant economic power. It faces hard adjustments as general prosperity recedes and the broad middle class that labor and liberalism helped create is breaking apart.

My bleak analysis is not the end of the story. Change is hard to visualize now, given the awesome power of the status quo and the collapse of once-trusted political institutions. But change will come, for better or worse. One key dynamic of the twentieth century was the long-running contest for dominance between democracy and capitalism. The balance of power shifted back and forth several times, driven by two basic forces that neither corporate lobbyists nor timid politicians could control: the calamitous events that disrupted the social order, such as war and depression, and the power of citizens mobilized in reaction to those events. In those terms, both political parties are still highly vulnerable—as twentieth-century history repeatedly demonstrated, society cannot survive the burdens of an unfettered corporate order.

People are given different ideological labels, but Americans are not as opposed to “big government” as facile generalizations suggest. On many issues, there is overwhelming consensus that media and pundits ignore (check the polls, if you doubt this). Americans of all ages will fight to defend social protections—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, among others. People are skeptical to hostile about the excessive power of corporations. People want government to be more aggressive in many areas—like sending some of the financial malefactors to prison.

One vivid example was the angry citizen at a town hall meeting who shouted at his Congressman: “Keep your government hands off my Medicare!” I heard a grassroots leader on the radio explain that basically the Tea Party people “want government that works for them.” Don’t we all? In the next few years, both parties will try to define this sentiment. If they adhere to the corporate agenda, they are bound to get in trouble, and the ranks of insurgent citizens will grow. Nobody can know where popular rebellion might lead, right or left, but my own stubborn optimism hangs by that thread.

Whatever people on the left may call themselves, they have a special burden in this situation because they are deeply committed to the idea that government should be the trustworthy agent of the many, not the powerful few. Many of us believe further (as the socialists taught) that the economy should serve the people, not the other way around.

The current crisis requires people to go back to their roots and re-examine their convictions—now that they can no longer count automatically on the helping hand of government or the Democratic Party. Obama’s unfortunate “hostage” metaphor led Saturday Night Live to joke that the president was himself experiencing the “Stockholm syndrome”—identifying with his conservative captors. Many progressive groups, including organized labor, suffer a similar dependency. They will not be able to think clearly about the future of the country until they get greater distance from the Democratic Party.

I suggest three steps for progressives to recover an influential role in politics. First, develop a guerrilla sensibility that recognizes the weakness of the left. There’s no need to resign from electoral politics, but dedicated lefties should stake out a role of principled resistance. In the 1960s uncompromising right-wingers became known as “ankle biters” in Republican ranks, insisting on what were considered impossible goals and opposing moderate and liberal party leaders, sometimes with hopeless candidates. They spent twenty years in the wilderness but built a cadre of activists whose convictions eventually gained power.

Where are the left-wing ankle biters who might change the Democratic Party? It takes a bit of arrogance to imagine that your activities can change the country, but, paradoxically, it also requires a sense of humility. Above all, it forces people to ask themselves what they truly believe the country needs—and then stand up for those convictions any way they can. Concretely, that may lead someone to run for city council or US senator. Or field principled opponents to challenge feckless Democrats in primaries (that’s what the Tea Party did to Republicans, with impressive results). Or activist agitators may simply reach out to young people and recruit kindred spirits for righteous work that requires long-term commitment.

Second, people of liberal persuasion should “go back to school” and learn the new economic realities. In my experience, many on the left do not really understand the internal dynamics of capitalism—why it is productive, why it does so much damage (many assumed government and politicians would do the hard thinking for them). We need a fundamental re-examination of capitalism and the relationship between the state and the private sphere. This will not be done by business-financed think tanks. We have to do it for ourselves.

A century ago the populist rebellion organized farmer cooperatives, started dozens of newspapers and sent out lecturers to spread the word. Socialists and the labor movement did much the same. Modern Americans cannot depend on the Democratic Party or philanthropy to sponsor small-d democracy. We have to do it. But we have resources and modern tools—including the Internet—those earlier insurgents lacked.

The New Deal order broke down for good reasons—the economic system changed, and government did not adjust to new realities or challenge the counterattack from the right in the 1970s. The structure of economic life has changed again—most dramatically by globalization—yet the government and political parties are largely clueless about how to deal with the destruction of manufacturing and the loss of millions of jobs. Government itself has been weakened in the process, but politicians are too intimidated to talk about restoring its powers. The public expresses another broad consensus on the need to confront “free trade” and change it in the national interest—another instance of public opinion not seeming to count, since it opposes the corporate agenda.

Reformers today face conditions similar to what the Populists and Progressives faced: monopoly capitalism, a labor movement suppressed with government’s direct assistance, Wall Street’s “money trust” on top, the corporate state feeding off government while ignoring immoral social conditions. The working class, meanwhile, is regaining its identity, as millions are being dispossessed of middle-class status while millions of others struggle at the bottom. Working people are poised to become the new center of a reinvigorated democracy, though it is not clear at this stage whether they will side with the left or the right. Understanding all these forces can lead to the new governing agenda society desperately needs.

Finally, left-liberals need to start listening and learning—talking up close to ordinary Americans, including people who are not obvious allies. We should look for viable connections with those who are alienated and unorganized, maybe even ideologically hostile. The Tea Party crowd got one big thing right: the political divide is not Republicans against Democrats but governing elites against the people. A similar division exists within business and banking, where the real hostages are the smaller, community-scale firms imperiled by the big boys getting the gravy from Washington. We have more in common with small-business owners and Tea Party insurgents than the top-down commentary suggests.

Somewhere in all these activities, people can find fulfilling purpose again and gradually build a new politics. Don’t wait for Barack Obama to send instructions. And don’t count on necessarily making much difference, at least not right away. The music in democracy starts with people who take themselves seriously. They first discover they have changed themselves, then decide they can change others.

https://www.thenation.com…

---

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

A decade after William Greider wrote this article, it becomes more obvious that his lesson for us is not so much about the political personalities and their respective political affiliations, rather it is about the need for the people to put the music in democracy.

Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.

By Thomas C. Buchmueller, Helen G. Levy, Robert G. Valletta
National Bureau of Economic Research, December 2019

Abstract

We examine how a key provision of the Affordable Care Act–the expansion of Medicaid eligibility–affected health insurance coverage, access to care, and labor market transitions of unemployed workers. Comparing trends in states that implemented the Medicaid expansion to those that did not, we find that the ACA Medicaid expansion substantially increased insurance coverage and improved access to health care among unemployed workers. We then test whether this strengthening of the safety net affected transitions from unemployment to employment or out of the labor force. We find no meaningful statistical evidence in support of moral hazard effects that reduce job finding or labor force attachment.

https://www.nber.org…

---

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

It seems that a positive bit of news, however seemingly mundane, would be appropriate for the Holiday Season.

One argument often made by opponents of health financing reform is that insurance function creates moral hazard – individuals are willing to accept greater risks when other parties bear the costs.

One example is that low-income individuals who receive health care coverage under Medicaid supposedly are less compelled to seek or maintain gainful employment. This study shows that the strengthening of the Medicaid safety net under the Affordable Care Act in states that implemented Medicaid expansion did not produce moral hazard effects that reduce job finding or labor force attachment.

A lesson here is that it is a mistake to advance policy solutions strictly designed to avoid moral hazard when the task at hand should be to ensure that everyone has affordable access to essential health care services.

It would be nice if we could return from the Holidays in a spirit where we are ready to all work together to achieve such a goal. Even Scrooge could be swayed.

Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.

The political establishment loves the center. But it’s the radicals who end up writing history.

By John F. Harris
Politico Magazine, November 7, 2019

Washington journalists these days are having many conversations with Democratic operatives and veterans of previous administrations that go something like this:

This is insane. Our party has a death wish. We are going to blow this election and give the country four more years of Donald Trump.

These downbeat Democrats are talking generally about what they regard as their party’s dangerous lurch to the left in the 2020 campaign. Most often these days they are talking specifically about Elizabeth Warren.

The right has been fulminating for decades about liberal bias in the media. More recently the left, including Bernie Sanders, has inveighed against capitalist bias caused by corporate ownership of news organizations.

Meanwhile, a quarter-century covering national politics has convinced me that the more pervasive force shaping coverage of Washington and elections is what might be thought of as centrist bias, flowing from reporters and sources alike.

I am not terribly self-conscious about my predispositions to see politics and governance a certain way. These wouldn’t be my predispositions if I didn’t think they had something going for them. But the recognition of bias imposes an obligation to push against default thinking and explore the possibility that it is wrong.

Here’s the main reason it might be wrong: The most consequential history is usually not driven by the center.

It is clear that Warren, who has so far run the most disruptive and effective campaign of the Democratic race, is ready to divide the country and her party over the proposition that a much more aggressive role for government is needed to bring business to heel and protect individuals and the global climate from the predations of a free market. Sanders has won a corps of devoted backers animated by the same disdain for centrism.

I’m not saying that familiar Democratic voices like Rahm Emanuel (“Someone needs to say it: Medicare for All is a pipedream”) or Bill Galston (her new plan may be “the longest suicide note in recorded history”) or Steve Rattner (“a Warren presidency is a terrifying prospect”) are wrong. I am asking how they are so sure they are right.

Fundamental societal change comes from people burning with grievances, obsessed with remedies, ready to demolish old power arrangements to achieve their ends.

John Harris was formerly political editor at The Washington Post and then founding editor of Politico.

https://www.politico.com…

---

How ‘Centrist Bias’ Hurts Sanders and Warren; The media has a bigger problem than liberal bias.

By David Leonhardt
The New York Times, December 22, 2019

John F. Harris is about as mainstream as the mainstream media gets.

Last month, Harris wrote a column that I can’t get out of my head. In it, he argued that political journalism suffers from “centrist bias.” As he explained, “This bias is marked by an instinctual suspicion of anything suggesting ideological zealotry, an admiration for difference-splitting, a conviction that politics should be a tidier and more rational process than it usually is.”

The bias caused much of the media to underestimate Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Donald Trump in 2016. It also helps explain the negative tone running through a lot of the coverage of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders this year.

Centrist bias, as I see it, confuses the idea of centrism (which is very much an ideology) with objectivity and fairness. It’s an understandable confusion, because American politics is dominated by the two major parties, one on the left and one on the right. And the overwhelming majority of journalists at so-called mainstream outlets — national magazines, newspapers, public radio, the non-Fox television networks — really are doing their best to treat both parties fairly.

In doing so, however, they often make an honest mistake: They equate balance with the midpoint between the two parties’ ideologies. Over the years, many press critics have pointed out one weakness of this approach: false equivalence, the refusal to consider the possibility that one side of an argument is simply (or mostly) right.

But that’s not the only problem. There’s also the possibility that both political parties have been wrong about something and that the solution, rather than being roughly halfway between their answers, is different from what either has been proposing.

This seemingly radical possibility turns out to be quite common, as the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. — author of the classic book, “The Vital Center,” no less — pointed out. The abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, labor rights, the New Deal, civil rights for black Americans, Reagan’s laissez-faire revolution and same-sex marriage all started outside the boundaries of what either party favored. “The most consequential history,” Harris wrote, “is usually not driven by the center.”

Political and economic journalism too often assumes otherwise and treats the center as inherently sensible. This year’s Democratic presidential campaign has been a good case study. The skeptical questions posed to the more moderate Democrats are frequently about style or tactics: Are you too old? Too young? Too rich? Too far behind in the polls?

The skeptical questions for the more progressive candidates, Sanders and Warren, often challenge the substance of their ideas: Are you too radical? Are you being realistic? And, by golly, how would you pay for it all?

As regular readers know, I’m a moderate on Medicare, immigration and college debt, among other subjects. John Harris, for his part, confesses to “a pretty strong bout” of centrist bias.

But maybe that’s why we recognize it and pine for more objective coverage. Not every policy question posed to Democrats needs to have a conservative assumption, and not every question posed to Republicans needs to have a liberal one. If Warren and Sanders are going to be asked whether their solutions go too far, Joe Biden should be asked whether his solutions are too timid: Mr. Vice President, many economists believe that inequality is bad for an economy, so are you doing enough to attack inequality?

Once you start thinking about centrist bias, you recognize a lot of it. It helps explain why the 2016 presidential debates focused more on the budget deficit, a topic of centrist zealotry, than climate change, almost certainly a bigger threat. (Well-funded deficit advocacy plays a role too.) Centrist bias also helps explain the credulousness of early coverage during the Iraq and Vietnam wars. Both Democrats and Republicans, after all, largely supported each war.

The world is more surprising and complicated than centrist bias imagines it to be. Sometimes, people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are right. Even when they’re not, they deserve the same skepticism that other politicians do — no less, no more.

https://www.nytimes.com…

---

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

With our highly polarized politics there is often a tendency for the mainstream media to try to be fair in covering both sides of the issues, often resulting in a “centrist bias” in the reporting. Health care is a case in point.

One view is to minimize the role of government and rely more heavily on markets to ensure that health care is affordable and accessible for all, placing much of the responsibility on the individual. Another view is to place the role of financing health care in the hands of our government, funding the system through equitable taxes, ensuring affordability and accessibility of health care for all. Since these are often considered to be extreme views, the media seeks to report on centrist solutions that meet in the middle.

So what is the centrist position in health care reform? Use public policies, such as Medicaid and community health centers, for those who cannot pay for their care or the insurance to cover it, and depend on private health plans for those who can. However, there is a dispute between the sides over trying to fill in the voids with Medicare, including private Medicare Advantage plans, with subsidies for private plans offered in the ACA exchanges, and now with whether or not a competing, Medicare-like public option should be offered.

So do we really have two extreme views which require centrist solutions? Many decades ago, Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow demonstrated to us that markets do not work in health care. So that is an extreme view. What about universal public insurance? That has been shown to work in many nations. So that is not an extreme view. Trying to craft a centrist program by combining a market-based program that does not work with a public insurance program that does work inevitably results in a fragmented, dysfunctional system – precisely what we now have.

Those supporting mere tweaking of the current system have a centrist bias, but, as John Harris states, “The most consequential history is usually not driven by the center.” An extreme position may be bad, as with a nation that supports regime change through war while rejecting diplomacy. But it can be good, as with the many nations that have elected to implement some form or other of a national health program, as opposed to leaving patients at the mercy of the markets.

There may be some disagreement as to the precise model preferred for a national health program, but since we would be starting with an agreement to abandon false centrist solutions we should move forward with the most efficient, effective, and equitable model out there – a single payer model of an improved Medicare that covered everyone. A national health service model would also be an option but would likely be rejected as being too disruptive.

Regardless, we need to remain acutely aware of centrist bias and reject it for what it is – a mechanism of smothering the reform that we desperately need.

Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.

Not ordinary Democrats or independents — just insurance companies, lobbyists, and old-line politicians.

By Jim Hightower
Other Words, December 11, 2019

We might expect that corporate billionaires and Koch-funded Republican right-wingers would be howl-at-the-moon opponents of a wealth tax, Medicare-for-All, and other big progressive ideas to help improve the circumstances of America’s workaday majority.

But Democrats, too? Unfortunately, yes. Not grassroots activists, but a gaggle of don’t-rock-the-corporate-boat, fraidy-cat elected Democrats.

These naysayers are the party’s old-line politicians, lobbyists, and other insider elites who are now screeching that Democratic candidates must back off those big proposals.

Why? Because, they squawk, being so bold, so progressive, so — well, so Democratic — will scare voters. As one meekly put it: “When you say Medicare for All, it’s a risk. It makes people afraid.”

Excuse me, but in my speeches and writings I say “Medicare for All” a lot — and far from cowering, people stand up and cheer.

In fact, the New York Times just reported that 81 percent of Democrats (and two-thirds of independents) support Medicare for All. Even apple pie doesn’t score that high! It’s simply a lie that the people are “afraid” of the idea of everyone getting public-financed health care.

So who really fears it? Three special-interest groups: Insurance company profiteers, Big Pharma price gougers, and the political insiders hooked on funding from those corporations.

Not only is it a pusillanimous fabrication to claim that the people oppose any changes stronger than corporate minimalism, it’s also political folly. If the Democratic Party won’t stand up for the transformative structural changes that America’s middle and low-income majority clearly wants and needs, why would those people stand up for Democrats?

As the 2016 presidential election taught us so painfully, a whole lot of the working class Democrats the Party counts on won’t.

https://otherwords.org…

---

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

Many would-be political pundits are now saying that if we support single payer Medicare for All, then Trump will be reelected president. Talk about a non sequitur. Yet the media is promulgating this concept, causing some to react by saying that we need to preserve choice of private health plans – as if plans that take away health care choices through restricted provider networks and cost sharing financial barriers would be preferred over a Medicare for All program that really does provide free choice by eliminating networks and cost sharing barriers.

Jim Hightower has it right. We need to stand up and start shouting, lest these pundits drown out our message.

Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.

Congressional Budget Office, December 2019

Share of Total Income Received by Each Income Group

To assess the direct distributional effects of federal fiscal policies, CBO projected each quintile’s share of total income both before and after means-tested transfers and taxes. Income shares are one measure of income inequality: When the share of income received by the top income group grows, income inequality tends to rise. CBO’s projections reflect such a pattern:

• The highest quintile’s share of income before transfers and taxes is projected to increase by 0.7 percentage points between 2016 and 2021, from 54.4 percent to 55.1 percent (see Figure 3 – at link).
• Within that quintile, the growth of shares of total income before transfers and taxes varies in CBO’s projections. For example, for households in the 81st to 90th percentiles, the share decreases by 0.1 percentage points, from 14.9 percent to 14.8 percent. But for households in the top 1 percent, the share rises by 0.6 percentage points, from 15.8 percent to 16.4 percent.
• By contrast, the share of income before taxes and transfers received by the other four quintiles does not grow. The middle three quintiles’ shares decline over the five-year period in CBO’s projections. The lowest quintile’s share remains roughly unchanged at 3.8 percent.

Because higher-income households receive a smaller share of their income in the form of transfers and pay a larger share of their income in taxes, shares of income after transfers and taxes are more evenly distributed than shares of income before transfers and taxes. Nevertheless, in CBO’s projections, the highest quintile’s share of income after transfers and taxes increases even more over the 2016–2021 period than its share of income before transfers and taxes:

• The highest quintile’s share of income after transfers and taxes rises by 1.2 percentage points, from 47.6 percent in 2016 to 48.8 percent in 2021.
• Most of that increase is attributable to households in the top 1 percent, whose share rises by 0.9 percentage points, from 12.5 percent to 13.4 percent.

By contrast, the share of income after transfers and taxes of each of the other quintiles declines over the period.

Projected Changes in Income Inequality

If the distributions of income, means-tested transfers, and federal taxes follow CBO’s projections, income inequality will be greater in 2021 than it was in 2016.

A standard composite measure of income inequality is the Gini coefficient, which summarizes an entire distribution in a single number that ranges from zero to one. A value of zero indicates complete equality (for example, if each household received the same amount of income), and a value of one indicates complete inequality (for example, if a single household received all the income). Thus, a Gini coefficient that increases over time indicates rising income inequality.

Income inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient increased from 1979 to 2016, and CBO projects that it will be higher in 2021. That increase reflects the accelerated growth of household income that is projected to occur at the top of the distribution. The Gini coefficient for income before taxes and transfers is projected to grow from 0.513 in 2016 to 0.521 in 2021—close to its previous peak, which was recorded in 2012 (see Figure 8 – at link).

The Gini coefficient can also be interpreted as a measure of one-half of the average difference in income between every pair of households in the population, divided by the average income of the total population. For example, the Gini coefficient of 0.513 for 2016 indicates that the average difference in income between pairs of households in that year was equal to 102.6 percent (twice 0.513) of average household income in 2016, or about $70,700 (adjusted to account for differences in household size). Similarly, the Gini coefficient of 0.521 projected for 2021 indicates that the average difference in income between pairs of households would equal 104.2 percent (twice 0.521) of average household income in 2021, or about $77,800 (in 2016 dollars).

In CBO’s projections, inequality increases from 2016 to 2021 even as income grows for all income groups, including those at the bottom of the distribution. That pattern is similar to the one observed during the economic expansion of the mid-1990s, when income grew for households at the bottom of the distribution after a long period of stagnation, while inequality increased because income at the top of the distribution grew more strongly. A similar pattern occurred during the expansion of the mid-2000s.

The Gini coefficient for income after transfers and taxes is lower than the coefficient for income before transfers and taxes because means-tested transfers and federal taxes in the United States are progressive. The degree to which means-tested transfers and federal taxes reduce income equality varies from year to year according to the size and progressivity of the tax and transfer systems. In CBO’s projections, the Gini coefficient for income after transfers and taxes is 0.437 in 2021—0.084 less than the Gini coefficient for income before transfers and taxes (see Figure 9 – at link). That reduction in inequality is smaller than the reduction in 2016, when means-tested transfers and federal taxes reduced the Gini coefficient by 0.090, from 0.513 to 0.423.

https://www.cbo.gov…

---

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

Because of our very high national health expenditures, low- and middle-income individuals and families are unable to afford their proportionate share of health care spending. Fortunately, because we are a wealthy nation, we should be able to pay for health care for everyone by using progressive financing.

The simplest and most equitable method would be to finance the system through progressive taxes, as would be the case with single payer Medicare for All. Since we don’t have such a system now we have had to rely on transfers through various government programs to help finance care for those cannot afford to pay their proportionate share on their own.

This report from the Congressional Budget Office shows how income is distributed amongst households, and it shows how taxes and transfers redistribute income. Then they project the changes they expect in income inequality.

Some important observations:

• The highest quintile’s share of income after transfers and taxes increases even more over the 2016–2021 period than its share of income before transfers and taxes, with most of that going to households in the top 1 percent.
• By contrast, the share of income after transfers and taxes of each of the other quintiles declines over the period.
• Inequality increases from 2016 to 2021 even as income grows for all income groups, including those at the bottom of the distribution.
• The reduction in the projected inequality in 2021 is smaller than the reduction in 2016.

We keep hearing that you can tax all of the income of the wealthy and still we wouldn’t have enough to pay for health care for everyone. Well, first of all, nobody proposes confiscatory taxes on the wealthy. But more importantly, we are already spending $3.8 trillion on health care, and that has been made possible partly because of taxes and transfers already in existence. The amount of additional funds that we will need under single payer Medicare for All is not that great because we will recover hundreds of billions of dollars currently wasted on our profound administrative excesses and on excessive profit margins, especially for pharmaceuticals. If additional funds are required, today’s report shows that we have plenty of leeway at the upper end of the income scale to tap more funds through progressive tax policies. These would be comparatively small adjustments in our tax system that would not in any way impact the lifestyles of the multi-millionaires and billionaires.

Even if we didn’t enact and implement a single payer Medicare for All program, the CBO report still shows that we need more tax policies to correct the excessive maldistribution of income that persists today. There are plenty of potential public programs that could benefit from those revenues, but single payer, improved Medicare for All should be very high on the list.

Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.

By Noam N. Levey
Los Angeles Times, December 17, 2019

Even as soaring insurance deductibles wreak financial havoc on millions of American families, some workers have managed to dodge the affordability crisis.

In Boston, a labor union representing the city’s hotel workers offers its members health coverage with no deductible and family premiums just a tenth of the U.S. average.

This year, workers pay just $16 a month for a single plan and $48 a month for a family plan.

Workers and their families pay nothing out-of-pocket for doctor visits, tests and hospital stays. Even the most expensive specialty drugs cost just $12 per prescription. Generics are $1.

The push by Unite Here, Local 26, to protect Boston hotel workers highlighted the challenges of protecting patients from medical bills, as workers were forced to make difficult choices. But the union’s success — in one of the most expensive healthcare markets in the country — also suggests that Americans may not have to settle for huge deductibles that have put medical care out of reach for millions.

Delivering that peace of mind wasn’t easy. Starting in 2013, when the new health plan debuted, Local 26, which provides coverage for roughly 9,000 union members and their families, had to confront the biggest cause of soaring insurance premiums and deductibles: the high price of U.S. medical care, particularly at hospitals.

It required union members to make a trade-off that many, at first, found unpalatable — giving up access to some of the city’s best known, and most expensive, hospitals.

Local 26, like many unions, had long offered members a health plan, which was largely funded by the hotels that employed its members. Such Taft-Hartley plans, as they are called, are prized by unions, as they typically offer good benefits and have preserved workers’ health protections, even when wages have stagnated.

But Local 26’s plan had a history of struggling, as rising medical costs sapped the plan’s reserves and jeopardized coverage for workers and their families, many of whom are immigrants from Latin America, Africa and East Asia.

In Boston, the 1994 merger of two of the city’s premier academic medical centers — Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital — created a powerhouse known as Partners HealthCare with unparalleled ability to demand high prices.

When Local 26 officials began their research, they were stunned to see that the Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women’s charged two or in some cases even three times as much as other academic medical centers in Boston.

So, Local 26 put the question to a vote: Should members get a narrower network of medical providers and guaranteed wage hikes? Or should they keep access to all Boston hospitals, but give up raises for 2 ½ years to keep the health plan from going bankrupt?

In the end, two-thirds of the membership backed the switch to the new, limited network plan.

It rolled out in late 2013. Workers got a raise the next year.

Just 2% of employers have eliminated hospitals or health systems from their insurance networks, as Local 26 did, according to a nationwide employer survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

https://www.latimes.com…

---

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

It is common to hear that many union members are opposed to Medicare for All because they do not want to give up their health plans (Taft-Hartley plans) gained through years of tough union negotiations. But these plans have required trade-offs, frequently forgoing wage increases. In this instance, the trade-off for Unite Here was agreeing to a narrower provider network, forgoing care at two of Boston’s premier academic medical centers – Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Partners).

As a result of this trade-off, what the workers do see is how small the premiums are that are deducted from their paychecks and how little their out-of-pocket cost sharing is. The trade-off of losing access to Partners hospitals seemed to be worth it. But what they do not see is the employers’ contributions to the plan premiums which are paid for through forgone wage increases.

The union members are losing in two ways. Their benefits are less comprehensive than the benefits included in the single payer model of Medicare for All, including network restrictions not found in Medicare for All. Also, since single payer is funded through progressive taxes, the modest incomes of Unite Here members would result in lower tax payments than they are now paying in forgone wages. It’s just that the difference is not visible to them so they don’t see that it is a much better deal for them – better benefits at a lower cost.

The keepers of the Taft-Hartley trust funds seem to have a disconnect in logic when they oppose single payer reform. They look at the pot of gold they manage, and they seem to think that it has much greater value than the credit appearing in federal balance sheets. Of course, the federal funds are guaranteed by our government whereas the union trust funds, as this article indicates, can have “a history of struggling,” and may not be as secure as they would be in the U.S. Treasury.

But there are individuals within the union movement who clearly understand the superior benefits of single payer Medicare for All who can explain it to the rest of them. Just ask the National Nurses United.

Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.

By Wendell Potter
Twitter, December 16, 2019

Lately I’ve noticed some Democratic politicians defending the current healthcare system by saying it preserves “choice” for Americans. As a former health insurance exec who helped draft this talking point, I need to come clean on its back story, and why it’s wrong and a trap. 1/11

When I worked in the insurance industry, we were instructed to talk about “choice,” based on focus groups and people like Frank Luntz (who wrote the book on how the GOP should communicate with Americans). I used it all the time as an industry flack. But there was a problem. 2/11

As a health insurance PR guy, we knew one of the huge “vulnerabilities” of the current system was LACK of choice. In the current system, you can’t pick your own doc, specialist, or hospital without huge “out of network” bills. So we set out to muddy the issue of “choice.” 3/11

As industry insiders, we also knew most Americans have very little choice of their plan. Your company chooses an insurance provider and you get to pick from a few different plans offered by that one insurer, usually either a high deductible plan or a higher deductible plan. 4/11

Another problem insurers like mine had on the “choice” issue: people with employer-based plans have very little choice to keep it. You can lose it if your company changes it, or you change jobs, or turn 26 or many other ways. This is a problem for defenders of the status quo. 5/11

Knowing we were losing the “choice” argument, my pals in the insurance industry spent millions on lobbying, ads and spin doctors — all designed to gaslight Americans into thinking that reforming the status quo would somehow give them “less choice.” 6/11

An industry front group launched a campaign to achieve this very purpose. Its name: “My Care, My Choice.” Its job: Trick Americans into thinking they currently can choose any plan they want, and that their plan allows them to see any doctor. They’ve spent big in Iowa. 7/11

This isn’t the only time the industry made “choice” a big talking point in its scheme to fight health reform. Soon after Obamacare was passed, it created a front group called the Choice and Competition Coalition, to scare states away from creating exchanges with better plans. 8/11

The difference is, this time *Democrats* are the ones parroting the misleading “choice” talking point. And they’re even using it as a weapon against each other. Back in my insurance PR days, this would have stunned me. I bet my old colleagues are thrilled, and celebrating. 9/11

The truth, of course, is you have little “choice” in healthcare now. Most can’t keep their plan as long as they want, or visit any doctor or hospital. Some reforms, like Medicare For All, *would* let you. In other words, M4A actually offers more choice than the status quo. 10/11

So if a politician tells you they oppose reforming the current healthcare system because they want to preserve “choice,” either they don’t know what they’re talking about – or they’re willfully ignoring the truth. I assure you, the insurance industry is delighted either way. 11/11

https://threadreaderapp.com…

---

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

With the help of the media, the political community opposed to single payer Medicare for All has convinced us that we do not want an undesirable “one-size-fits-all” model of health care reform that takes away our choices. They have countered with an advertising campaign touting “My Care, My Choice” which supposedly protects “patient choice in health care.” In his Twitter thread, former health insurance executive and current health justice advocate Wendell Potter exposes the fraud behind this framing.

Though the private insurance industry claims they are protecting choice in health care, they are not. They are protecting their market of private health plans in which you can choose what health care you are willing to give up by being restricted to networks that limit your choices of physicians and hospitals, limit your affordability of care through high deductibles and other cost sharing, or limit your choice to a plan offered by your employer.

The irony is that the one-size-fits-all plan – single payer Medicare for All – is the plan that does give you your choices of physicians, hospitals and other health care services and products. It is the plan that works for all whereas the My-Care-My-Choice private plans take away many of your choices in health care.

I don’t like to call someone a liar, but when the insurance industry tells you that they are “fighting to protect patient choice in health care,” they are flat out lying. Insurers do not provide health care, and they sharply restrict what health care they will pay for, thus taking away choices in health care.

The Lie of the Year award just went to President Trump for his 80 false statements about the whistle-blower. But I would have voted to grant the award to the private insurers for their claim that they are fighting to protect patient choice in health care when their products are quite specifically designed to take health care choices away from patients.

Let’s renew our fight for single payer Medicare for All – the inclusive size that really does fit all – perfectly.

How about that for a sound bite: “Medicare for All – the inclusive size that really does fit all – perfectly.”

Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.

By Drew Altman, Kaiser Family Foundation
Axios, December 16, 2019

The cost of private health insurance is out of control, compared to Medicare and Medicaid. You see that clearly if you take a long-term view of recently released federal data on health spending.

Why it matters: This is why the health care industry — not just insurers, but also hospitals and drug companies — is so opposed to proposals that would expand the government’s purchasing power. And it’s why some progressives are so determined to curb, or even eliminate, private coverage.

By the numbers: Per capita spending for private insurance has grown by 52.6% over the last 10 years.

• Per-capita spending for Medicare grew by 21.5% over the same period, and Medicaid 12.5%.

Private insurance generally pays higher prices for care than Medicare, which generally pays more than Medicaid.

• There’s a long-running debate about whether public programs deliver efficiency because of their purchasing power, or simply underpay.
• Democrats have proposed a variety of steps to curb health care costs, including cutting payments for out-of-network care, competition from a public insurance plan, and steep payment cuts through Medicare for All.
• Industry opposes most of them.

The bottom line: The industry knows cutting government spending can only go so far. Any effort to rein in health care costs will have to confront the growth in the cost of private insurance.

https://www.axios.com…

---

Comment:

By Don McCanne, M.D.

Other studies have shown that the higher level of health care spending in the United States compared to other nations is due to higher prices and not due to higher utilization. Yet our higher prices are not bringing us better outcomes, on average.

The decade of 2008 to 2018 shows us that the private insurance industry has been far less effective in controlling spending increases than have our government programs – Medicare and Medicaid – in spite of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. But the issues are different for each of these programs.

Medicaid, being a welfare program for low-income individuals and families, has been chronically underfunded primarily because of the lack of a strong political voice for those served by the program. Under a single payer Medicare for All program, this problem of underfunding would be eliminated since Medicaid beneficiaries would be moved into an equitable, universal program that covered everyone.

Although the rate of spending increases per Medicare enrollee over the past decade has been almost twice that of the Medicaid program, it has been less than half the rate for private health insurance. Considering that our national per capita health expenditures are about twice the average of other wealthy nations, it would seem illogical to push Medicare rates up to those of the private insurance sector. We do not have a pressing need to use public funds to pad private profits. Nevertheless, in some instances Medicare payments have been inadequate to ensure the viability of institutions such as rural hospitals, especially those with low volumes or a high percentage of uninsured, indigent patients.

Because Medicare payments often tend to be more modest than those of the private insurers some opponents of single payer are making outrageous claims such as fees for the health care delivery system would have to be cut by 40 percent. First of all, the method of determining payments would not be the same as with the current Medicare program. Hospitals would be paid through global budgets, much as fire departments are. Fee-for-service or capitation rates would be negotiated at a level that would ensure that the capacity of the system is adequate. That is, rather than being compensated at current Medicare rates, the system would be funded under an improved financing infrastructure at rates that would meet legitimate expenses and provide fair margins while avoiding gouging the taxpayers. Besides, reduction in payments that are made possible by reducing administrative overhead waste may be able to be achieved without any reduction in net income.

In looking at the graph you can see that the greatest source of our excessive health care spending is through the private insurers. When you think of what the insurance industry does, you can understand why that might be the case. Their primary business product is administrative services. The more they can sell to us, the more successful is their enterprise. The funds that they hold to pay medical claims are our funds, not theirs, whether they receive them through premiums or through government taxpayer subsidies. The greater the volume, the more administrative services they can sell us. Also, though they distribute about 85 percent of their revenues as medical benefits (medical loss ratio) they keep the other 15 percent or so for the administrative services they are selling us and for profits (or margins for the non-profits). So it is to their advantage to contract with hospitals and physician groups for higher rates since they keep a percentage of the total spent. It is no wonder that the spending curve for private insurers is so much higher than the public insurers who continue to strive for administrative efficiency and are not looking for profits (i.e., no need to shift our taxes from one column (revenues) to another (profits) on our federal budgetary balance sheets).

The private insurers are responsible for much of the excessive spending in our health care system, primarily in two ways. Besides their own profound administrative excesses, for which we pay, they place a tremendous administrative burden on the health care delivery system, for which we also pay. In addition, they have been far less effective in controlling excessive prices (think drugs, or oligopolistic hospital consolidation) than have been the public insurers. For those who challenge this contention, look again at the graph above. The private insurers have to go.

Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.