Topic: Health Care
In Memory of the HMO Maestro The surprising champion of HMOs. Surprising because of his recent utter outrage over the very concept.by Lonnie Dalton
(libertarian)
Friday, August 28, 2009
Usually, my articles have had an academic feel. This one initially was a bit more "bloggy." But then a commenter made a reasonable point which prompted me to edit and add. Still more "bloggy" than usual.
The timing of this is somewhat unfortunate but also quite coincidental. Considering that health care is THE topic at this moment in time in America, I suppose it is no time to pull punches, or good information, just to be overly courteous. And then I think further, and realize the other side is likely attempting to use the same unfortunate circumstance to their advantage, and I realize my pause (except to show that I do have a heart) is too silly to worry about.
Since I am attempting to resecure a position in radio, I was listening to an MP3 from me being on a radio show during my "political activist" phase in the midst of the 2008 primaries, and one of the things brought up was health care. A fellow guest mentioned how Ted Kennedy was so outraged over the state of health care and particularly HMOs, even though he was as responsible as anyone for the rise of HMOs to begin with!
I decided to look into it, and it is true.
So here's a rough sketch for the makings of a great anti-ObamaCare commercial:
1. A video of Obama speaking in Virginia, saying how he's happy to take on the health care problem, but he doesn't want "the folks" who created the health care "mess" to do "a lot of talking." He wants them to "get out of the way so we can clean up the mess." (many videos available, so its searchable, but here's a specific one available as of 8/27/09 ).
2. One of the things these "health care reformists" rail against is the EEEVIL HMOs.(No reference needed, but easy source to find)
5. So... should the Democrats, who are the ones "responsible for creating the mess" stop doing "a lot of talking"?
I think that'd be appropriate. And indeed helpful.
It should be noted that Nixon signed the 1973 Act, but Kennedy was the sponsor.
It should also be noted that as the aforementioned commenter said, HMOs did exist prior to 1973, so Kennedy didn't "create" them. What he did do was be as visible of a champion as anyone in the act that made HMOs prominent on the American landscape. The 1973 act was used as a method to use the "gatekeeper" aspect of HMOs to get Medicare and Medicaid costs under control. The act required employers above a certain size to offer HMOs as options if they were available. HMOs were subsidized which resulted in artificially lower premiums and more HMOs being created. Thus many people joined HMOs who would not have otherwise.
The act also removed barriers to the spread of HMOs, including pre-empting state laws that kept doctors from being paid for not providing care.
So the "lack of patient choice" so often cited in appeals for "health care reform" are very much a result of... previous government health care reform.
The original implied point of this article holds - considering Mr. Kennedy's emotional outrage at the topic, you certainly would think that if he had the ability to influence the decision of whether HMOs would prosper, he'd have tried to stop them in their tracks. Yet, he was their champion.
His lack of candor, humility, or responsibility about his historical role and responsibility is the point here, as much as anything.
A supplemental point is Kennedy as a specimen of that political species that after showing no consideration of the potential negative consequences of legislation they support, will later use those negative consequences that they created to seed further government meddling.
Obviously there are more specific reasons to oppose ObamaCare, but this info implies two simple points:
1. If the Democrats are right, and health care is facing real problems, in essence, considering history, their big solution is to just "use a bigger hammer." Despite obvious proof of their inability to foresee problems, prior government involvement that didn't work just means its time for more government involvement.
2. To the extent they're aware of their previous actions (always a good question), they are being disingenuous with their outrage, as though this situation has only come about because the government has not been allowed to control the situation. But by any reading, one must conclude that this legislation changed the rules of the game and HAS to be credited with helping to cause the current situation.
One can make the previous two arguments without believing there is a "health care mess" - they are "even assuming you are right" arguments. I for one believe there are problems that need to be addressed, but don't see how a FURTHER separation of customers from payment for the services and goods could ever solve a cost problem.
For a good background on the history of the HMO legislation, its context, effects (including cost), and other good stuff including Kennedy quotes, check out this well-cited article - "Blame Congress for HMOs", by Twila Brase, available as of 8/27/09).
The views expressed in this
article are those of Lonnie Dalton only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Lonnie Dalton is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-08-28 04:53:15
I'm no fan of HMOs or Ted Kennedy, but this article needs some balance to it.
First, as the wikipedia article on the subject states, HMOs have been around since 1910, long before Ted Kennedy was born.
Second, Kennedy may have sponsored the 1973 bill, but ever since then HMOs were the darling of the conservative Republican Party (which also supports Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention the FDA, by the way), in preference to actually reducing government involvement in medicine. Trying to bury that fact by rewriting history to make it sound like it was all Kennedy's idea is disingenuous at best and just plain lying at worst.
not to mention neo-conservative rather the libertarian, which is the attempt to free us from special interests whether they originate from the left OR the right.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
