Human Exceptionalism

Ending Insurance Company Profits Won’t Materially Impact Healthcare Costs

I knew this was true, but it is nice to see someone so close to the Obama Administration, namely Ezekiel Emanuel, say it.  Emanuel used to be the head bioethicist at the NIH and was one of President Obama’s primary advisers on healthcare issues. He is now a professor of bieothics at Penn.

In today’s NYT, Emanuel punctures some hopes–both liberal and conservative–about how to get control of healthcare spending.  He states quite unequivocally that even seizing all health insurance profits would have a very minimal imact.  From “Less than $26 Billion? Don’t Bother:”

According to many on the left, health insurance companies are sleazy and unethical, making obscene profits by charging high prices to sick people, giving physicians and patients the runaround to avoid paying bills, and rescinding policies just when people who paid in good faith get cancer, while their executives often walk away with millions in compensation. Last year, health insurance companies did rack up big profits, but it turns out that the combined profits of the country’s five largest for-profit health insurance companies — United, WellPoint, Aetna, Humana and Cigna — were $11.7 billion, only 0.5 percent of total health care spending. Even confiscating every penny of those profits would add up to less than half of the cost-saving threshold. And even not-for-profit insurance companies need to have an operating margin — a profit by another name. There just isn’t enough money there to make a dent in health care spending.

Exactly right. But isn’t it fun to hate them?  Occupy!

Frankly, I would like to see more non profit companies enter the marketplace, as I think that is a good model for this sector.  And I sure trust private sector management–whether for or non profit–more than public bureaucratic suffocation.

Emanuel also notes that tort reform to protect doctors from malpractice won’t cut that much either, in fact, about the same as confiscating health insurance profits.  I tend to oppose tort reform as a matter of principle.  But I can see some adjustments to protect doctors.  That being said, limiting non economic damages–aka pain and suffering–to a measly $250K is to deny just compensation.  That was the amount California instituted decades ago when a few hundred thousand dollars was real money.

Finally, Emanuel makes the ridiculous assertion that those who want to cut off expensive care are conservative:

Another conservative proposal — to restrict health care spending on exorbitantly expensive patients — would both save less money and cause more harm. The paradigmatic case seems to be infants who are born prematurely and end up in intensive care on breathing machines for months, before requiring feeding tubes, constant nursing care, multiple medications and follow-up procedures for kidneys, heart or other complications. If we just stopped paying for these “million dollar babies,” the argument goes, the health care system could save a fortune.

That’s known as health care rationing and Futile Care Theory–and liberals tend to be its biggest championsThink the New York Times’ stridently hard left editorial page.  In contrast, conservatives–at least social conservatives–oppose that kind of thinking out of hand.  Remember the Baby Joseph case?  Remember Terri Schiavo, who, many liberals said–and I know as I was hip deep in that fight–wasn’t worth the price of maintaining?

Emanuel says he’ll be back next week with ideas that could really work.  I am skeptical that it will be good news.  While I have liked his opposition to assisted suicide, I have noted also that he has suggested age and “quality of life” as potential entry points for rationing, not to mention arguing that we each have a moral duty to be willing to volunteer as human subjects in medical experiments. Beyond that, he is a big supporter of Obamacare.  Yikes!  In any event, I’ll check it out next Sunday and opine here about what he writes.

Most Popular

Elections

The Democrats’ Disastrous CNN LGBT Town Hall

A few days after Donald Trump committed the worst foreign-policy blunder of his presidency by betraying America’s Kurdish allies in northern Syria, former vice president Joe Biden, the elder statesman and co-frontrunner in the Democratic presidential primary, was on a national stage talking to CNN’s primetime ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Fox News Anchor Shepard Smith Resigns

Fox News Channel's chief anchor, Shepard Smith, announced on air Friday that he would be resigning from his post after 23 years with the network. “This is my last newscast here,” said Smith. “Recently, I asked the company to allow me to leave Fox News. After requesting that I stay, they obliged.” He ... Read More
White House

What Is Impeachment For?

W hat is impeachment for? Seems like a simple question. Constitutionally speaking, it also appears to have a simple answer: to cite and remove from power a president guilty of wrongdoing. Aye, there’s the rub. What sort of wrongdoing warrants removal from power? I’d wager that the flames of ... Read More
NR Webathon

Don’t Let Michael Mann Succeed

I  enjoyed the running joke of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in the great Dickens novel Bleak House, back when I first read it. Little did I know that one day I and the magazine that I love would effectively be caught up in a version of that interminable case, courtesy of a litigious climate scientist with zero regard ... Read More
Elections

Beto Proposes to Oppress Church with State

Beto O’Rourke’s presidential campaign is within the margin of error of non-existence, but in his failure he has found a purpose: expressing the Democratic id. His latest bid for left-wing love came at a CNN forum on gay rights, where he said that churches that oppose same-sex marriage should have to pay ... Read More