Health Care (without public option) on the Road to Neo-Feudalism

[Larkspur]

ealth Care on the Road to Neo-Feudalism

I believe that if the Senate health care bill passes as Joe Lieberman has demanded it–with no Medicare buy-in or public option–it will be a significant step further on our road to neo-feudalism. As such, I find it far too dangerous to our democracy to pass–even if it gives millions (perhaps unaffordable) subsidies for health care.

20% of your labor belongs to Aetna

Consider, first of all, this fact. The bill, if it became law, would legally require a portion of Americans to pay more than 20% of the fruits of their labor to a private corporation in exchange for 70% of their health care costs.

Consider a family of 4 making $66,150–a family at 300% of the poverty level and therefore, hypothetically, at least, “subsidized.” That family would be expected to pay $6482.70 (in today’s dollars) for premiums–or $540 a month. But that family could be required to pay $7973 out of pocket for copays and so on. So if that family had a significant–but not catastrophic–medical event, it would be asked to pay its insurer almost 22% of its income to cover health care. Several months ago, I showed why this was a recipe for continued medical bankruptcy (though the numbers have changed somewhat). But here’s another way to think about it. Senate Democrats are requiring middle class families to give the proceeds of over a month of their work to a private corporation–one allowed to make 15% or maybe even 25% profit on the proceeds of their labor.

It’s one thing to require a citizen to pay taxes–to pay into the commons. It’s another thing to require taxpayers to pay a private corporation, and to have up to 25% of that go to paying for luxuries like private jets and gyms for the company CEOs.

It’s the same kind of deal peasants made under feudalism: some proportion of their labor in exchange for protection (in this case, from bankruptcy from health problems, though the bill doesn’t actually require the private corporations to deliver that much protection).In this case, the federal government becomes an appendage to do collections for the corporations.

SNIP

Neo-feudalism is where unregulated markets, referred to as "free" markets, lead us.

[MisterP]

1. I dunno, I think the medieval peasants at least got some things back from their lords and membership

groups...

[Larkspur]

3. They also had their daughters raped by their lord on their wedding night

[MisterP]

5. McCyclopedia says it's probably mythical

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_seigneur

lots of "fees" and bribes though, going by Thomas Cahill's (rambling) work

[FiveGoodMen]

2. And not by accident, either.

[SanchoPanza]

4. You don't really need a public option.

It's a nice provision, certainly, but isn't necessary to insure universality or reduced costs.

For that, you need a larger risk pool and a marketplace that is hospitable to non-profits, largely through regulation. Germany, France, the Netherlands, and several other countries have high levels of coverage and reduced costs without a public option precisely because they established a national risk pool (read: exchange) that is tightly regulated. Minnesota, the state with the highest level of coverage and some of the lowest premium costs (when you take into account per capita income), did the same thing. No insurance company in the state can direct less than 90% of premiums or deductibles toward actual care, essentially mandating that the state's health insurance industry is non-profit.

There are enough Democrats (and possibly a Republican or two) who could have supported such a framework. But the P.O. shibboleth that many progressives erected scared the hell out of Midwestern Democrats who dread any national insurance program that is available to everyone and tied to Medicare rates. They simply won't vote for any proposal that creates a disincentive for medical practitioners to work in rural areas. And to be fair, these same Democrats (Conrad, Baucus, Nelson, Landrieu, etc) could have negotiated for a separate program to provide additional incentives, but the structure of the Democratic majority made that problematic. But they aren't any more to blame for this debacle than the people like the ones at FDL. No one was ever interested in negotiating in good faith.

[reggie the dog]

6. Would this bill make all Americans buy American insurance

or if we live outside the USA will they let us have single payer national health care? If they make me buy US insurance when I dont even live in the USA I just may have to renounce my citizenship