Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed

Opinion


EDITORIAL: Bull's-eye on their next target

Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., have sent letters to an estimated 52 insurance companies asking them to provide detailed information on their company-funded executive conferences and retreats, as well as executive and board member pay for those making more than $500,000 a year, Fox News reports.

The congressmen also want data on the firms' annual sales, net income and dividend payments, including detailed profit breakdowns for all health insurance products the companies have sold.


Most Popular Stories
  • J.C. WATTS: Bad dog food for the Democrats
  • EDITORIAL: Leaving Las Vegas -- alone
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Exposing the 'secure our borders' lie
  • LETTERS: President delivers another blow to Las Vegas
  • LETTERS: Mayor doesn't deserve to be labeled a 'racist'
  • THOMAS MITCHELL: The audacity of hypocrisy
  • EDITORIAL: Hiking permits
  • LETTERS: Death of Yucca Mountain not worth a news release?
  • LETTERS: Suspend sports, reorganize district to save money
  • LETTERS: Yucca Mountain presents an opportunity




  • "The letter comes in the midst of a campaign by Democrats to portray the insurance companies as the villains of the health-care system," reports Elizabeth MacDonald of Fox Business. "The move could be a back-door arm-twisting measure to remind insurers that opposition to changes to health care could lead to long investigations of the way they do business."

    Attacks on the insurers, spotlighting supposedly lavish executive pay, have picked up in recent weeks. One such ad, paid for by the union-sponsored organization Americans United for Change, says "Ed Hanway, CEO of insurance giant Cigna, makes $12.2 million a year. That's $5,883 an hour. Ed makes more in one day than the average American makes all year long."

    Leave aside the fact that Americans used to revel in seeing people work hard and get ahead. What about the notion that Mr. Hanway was hired and his salary set by the board members of a private firm who answer to private stockholders?

    If the answer is more competition, fine. Let Congress pass a law requiring states to allow residents to buy health insurance across state lines, with any coverages they desire -- no mandates.

    The high-handed approach of Reps. Stupak and Waxman may be well-designed to put fear in the hearts of insurance executives and boards of directors, inviting images of crazed mobs with torches shouting "Get 'em! They're rich!" But the problem with this approach as a matter of economic policy is that the Congressional Budget office already looked into the impact of industry profits on premiums, last December, and found that impact was less than 3 percent.

    Nor is it at all clear that turning the insurance business over to the government would trim costs by that 3 percent. Michael F. Cannon, author of "Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It," looked into this question for an Aug. 6 Cato Institute report and concluded: "Profits are an important market signal that increase efficiency by encouraging producers to find lower-cost ways of meeting consumers' needs."

    The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission estimates it made $10.4 billion in improper Medicare payments in 2008. Government bureaucrats with guaranteed paychecks just don't do much about fraud and mistakes. This "may raise its overall spending relative to a more tightly managed approach," the CBO reports.

    But the larger point here is how quickly congressmen have puffed themselves up with the delusion that they can call virtually any industry on the carpet, set their union allies to work maligning them as greedy fat cats, and promptly cast aside the competitive free market -- the system that made ours the most prosperous nation in the world.

    Where does Congress find the constitutional authorization to drag in executives of any industry they wish to take over, insisting those private parties lay out their firms' proprietary financial information?

    Up till now, the excuse had been "They took taxpayer bailout funds." But Fox News reports "So far, the health insurance industry has not received bailout money."

    If Congress can attack this industry just because it would like to take it over -- even after the CBO warned the planned government system would be more costly, would cause 15 million Americans to lose their current coverage, and would still leave 16 million Americans uninsured -- what industry will the congressmen feel free to attack next?

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 39 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    John F wrote on August 24, 2009 07:30 AM: riotact,

    Obviously I disagree with your contention that Medicare is not sustainable. If it is, then all of our health care system is. What is unsustainable is putting our health car insurance in the hands of those who profit by denying us coverage.

    My apologies for taking offense where none was intended.


    riotact wrote on August 24, 2009 05:11 AM: John F,

    Nowhere in my commentary do I state a belief that private industry wouldn't steal from others. I merely pointed out, using your own words, an instance where government officials have, and continue to, rob the public blind.

    Medicare IS a Ponzi Scheme because those paying into it now will never receive these benefits when they finally become eligible. The system is not sustainable.

    If you are upset because you THINK I labeled you a fool, you should really get some thicker skin. while I don't agree with you, you weren't the target of the term.


    John F wrote on August 23, 2009 09:26 PM: Grumpy,

    Here's the problem we have. We have insurance companies that will drop you when you become unprofitable.

    Think about a disease like multiple scelrosis. It doesn't shorten yout life span, it just makes it very expensive. The medicines that can inhibit the progress of the disease can run $30,000 per year or more. Other therapies and treatments can add tens of thousands more every year.

    Insurance companies drop not only people, but groups with individuals with illnesses like this.

    When we say that medical insurance should be used for only things that are catastrophic, we are saying it should be used for precisely those things that insurance companies DON'T want to cover. If too many people in a group have enough of these illnesses the insurance company will drop the group. The company for which I work has had that happen. We now have to charge so much for insurance for our hourly employees that almost noe of them can afford it.

    My company has about 200 hourly employees. Even if all of our employees were paying monthly premiums, one person with MS would be enough to cause our group to get dropped.


    grumpy wrote on August 23, 2009 05:01 PM: John F,

    That is why I plan---I have enough to cover all but a catastrophe. That is the only time insurance should be used. If insurance were limited as such, premiums would drop. Insurance today covers far too many routine things that drive the cost of everything sky high.

    It is time for people to take charge themselves and take health care seriously as a matter between them and the caretaker.

    Third party involvement always raises costs.

    BTW, I hope all is well with you and yours too!


    grumpy wrote on August 23, 2009 04:58 PM: ?


    John F wrote on August 23, 2009 04:41 PM: riotact,

    Wrong. Medicare taxation represents the taxing of one segment of society for the benefit of another. Medicare for all would represent the taxation of everyone for the benefit of everyone, which is the way taxation is supposed to work in the first place.

    Please don't stoop to insults. I would never say you are a fool. Your belief that government might steal from you but that private industry wouldn't is certainly naive, if not downright foolish, but I would never call you a fool.

    Grumpy,

    Good for you (and good to hear from you again; it's been a while). I sincerely hope that you never contract a truly serious disease, get into a serious auto accident, or require something like a transplant operation, as it will undoubtedly leave you bankrupt.

    Of course, with the way private insurers drop people with catastrophic illnesses (over half of all personal bankruptcies in America are medical debt-related) I'd probably end up bankrupt, too. So absent a national single payer plan, going without insurance might indeed be the way to go after all.


    grumpy wrote on August 23, 2009 04:14 PM: What's the fuss? I have no health insurance by choice. My health care needs are met when I visit the provider of my choice, negotiate the cost of treatment or service without interference from third party busybodies like the government or insurance companies.
    Then I receive treatment/diagnosis/medication and pay for it like anything else.

    Easy as pie.

    Folks, stop whining and depending on others for your well-being. Learn to take care of yourselves.


    time for real change wrote on August 23, 2009 04:04 PM: I'm giving my money and my time to support TARKANIAN for US Senate... time for a real change and we start by getting liberal, socialist, marxist, America-hating Scummy Harry out of office. He has done enough damage.


    riotact wrote on August 23, 2009 02:38 PM: "Medicare takes taxes from people who are working to support the medical care of people who are not." = Ponzi Scheme


    "Social Security has sustainability problems not because of any problems inherent with the Social Security system itself; there is plenty of money if Congress would only leave it alone."

    This is the very reason sane individuals are against government run medical care and/or medical insurance. People in favor of such programs play the class warfare game or paint private industry as evil, but turn a blind eye to their elected officials stealing from them over and over and over again. These are the true fools.


    Tom, Burbank wrote on August 23, 2009 02:07 PM: California barfed lifetime politician Henry Waxworks up out of its own trough-slopping political system and now the entire country has to suffer his mobesque anti-America wrath. He's not from my district so I've never had the pleasure of voting against him. Vote out all incumbents.


    Read All Comments