by Deb Cupples | Kudos to those U.S. Senators who support a public, non-profit health-insurance option: among them, John Rockefeller and Chuck Shumer.
Unfortunately, too many other senators oppose the public option: i.e., want to deprive us Americans of the freedom to choose less-expensive health insurance. The Washington Post reports:
"A key Senate panel twice beat back efforts Tuesday to create a government-run insurance plan, dealing a crippling blow to the hopes of liberals seeking to expand the federal role in health coverage as a cornerstone of reform."In a signal moment in the increasingly fractious debate over reforming the nation's sprawling health-care system, Senate Finance Committee members rejected two amendments to create a public option on votes of 15 to 8 and 13 to 10.
"Supporters vowed to press on, expressing confidence that backing will grow as lawmakers consider the implications of relying on private insurers to bring about the far-reaching reform that many in Congress envision. Controlling the costs of health care is one of the primary goals of the push for change, and many Democrats believe that only the government has the clout to drive down premiums while ridding the system of costly inefficiencies."
How can anyone keep a straight face while arguing that we can rely on private insurance companies to control costs? Anecdotal evidence suggests that putting faith in the folks running insurance companies is like believing in Santa Clause.
A primary purpose of private, for profit companies is to make a profit. A recent health care report states:
"Profits at 10 of the country’s largest publicly-traded health insurance companies
rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007, from $2.4 billion to $12.9 billion, according to U.S.
Securities and exchange Commission filings.
"In 2007 alone the chief executive officers at these companies collected combined total
compensation
of $118.6 million—an average of $11.9 million each. That is 468 times
more than the $25,434 an average American worker made that year." (HCAN report)
Who pays for those profits? Those of us who pay insurance premiums.
Adding to our costs are the executives and managers who run private insurance companies. Execs, who play an indirect roll in setting their personal compensation packages, tend to prefer pocketing more (as opposed to less) pay.
For a tiny glimpse of how much of our money flows into executives' personal pockets, check out the table below:
Compensation for Top 5 (or 4) Insurance Company Execs (2006-2007)
["m" is short for million]
|
|
2006 |
2007 |
2-year Total |
% Change |
|
Aetna |
. $35.7 m . |
. $40.1 m . |
$75.8 m |
+ 12.3% |
|
CIGNA |
$32.9 m |
$43.5 m |
$76.4 m |
n/a |
|
Humana |
$14.9 m |
$22.4 m | $37.3 m |
+ 50.3% |
|
MetLife |
$41.3 m |
$45.9 m |
$87.2 m |
+ 11.1% |
|
WellPoint.... |
$45.5 m |
$33.2 m |
$78.7 m |
n/a |
|
Totals |
$170.3 m |
$185.1 m |
$355.4 m |
|
Table Notes:
1. Data is from the companies' 2008 proxy statements.
2. Compensation figures were rounded off.
3. CIGNA's and WellPoint's 2008 proxies listed only the top 4 execs for 2006, which is why I could not calculate the increase for those two companies.
Bottom line: every dollar that goes toward insurance company profits or executive pay is one less dollar for us consumers to spend on actual health care goods and services. Period.
Frankly, I can find better ways to spend my money than on making a relative few corporate executives and shareholders richer. New car, anyone?
Memeorandum has commentary.
* Insurance Companies Get Away with Overbilling Medicare
* Contractor Fraud: Driving up Healthcare Costs?
* Death by Hospital (infection)
*
* Cash-Conscious Doctors Against Single-Payer Health Coverage
* Drug Companies Scammed Taxpayers, Cancer Patients, Others
.
Comments