Joe Scarborough convinced single-payer healthcare is the best option

[BrainGlutton]

Convinced by logical argument, yet! And on live TV!

“Why are we paying profits for insurance companies?” [U.S. Rep. Anthony] Weiner asked Scarborough. “Why are we paying overhead for insurance companies? Why,” he asked, bringing it all home, “are we paying for their TV commercials?”

Weiner, who recently warned that President Obama could lose as many as 100 votes on a health bill if a public option is not included, really wants single payer–Medicare for all Americans is his goal. What a crazy, way-out, reckless notion, Joe went into their encounter believing. But Weiner asked some simple, direct questions that no politician, much less Obama or HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, has managed to pose:

What is an insurance company? They don’t do a single check-up. They don’t do a single exam, they don’t perform an operation. Medicare has a 4 percent overhead rate. The real question is why do we have a private plan?

“It sounds like you’re saying you think there is no need for us to have private insurance in healthcare,” Joe asked at one point.

Weiner replied: “I’ve asked you three times. What is their value? What are they bringing to the deal?”

Scraping the bottom of a seemingly bottomless pit of spin, Joe is repeatedly left speechless, “stunned” and “astounded,” he said, by the questions themselves. Indeed, when confronted with unfettered capitalism’s massive failures, the right usually has nothing to say. The “free market” is supposed to eternally grow, not crash under its own greed. They’re left ideologically crippled.

But unlike, say, Lou Dobbs, who began dobbering when confronted with similarly direct argument for single-payer, Joe was able to take a deep breath and return from a break with his eyes opened.

He even repeated Weiner’s points clearly: The goverment would take over only the “paying mechanism” of healthcare, not the doctors or their medical decisions themselves. His ears perked up every time Weiner mentioned that the nonprofit Medicare spends 4 percent on overhead, while private insurers spend 30 percent.

<snip>

“You have succeeded in doing something that no one else has done on this show in two years,” said Joe, his fists rapidly knocking the table in excitement. “You made me speechless. And you made me speechless because you so clearly came here and stated your position.”

Could this signal the beginning of a change in the basic terms of the healthcare debate?

[Dinsdale]

I have often wondered what the benefit was of having for-profit insurance companies administer/gatekeep basic medical care.

[cosmosdan]

Certainly a step in the right direction and away from the lies.

[Rumor_Watkins]

“He’s an MSNBC stoolie. No true Conservative would say such a thing”

that’s all that will be said on that

[Sinaijon]

@BrainGlutton

Convinced by logical argument, yet! And on live TV!

Is the video different? Cause that’s not what your quote material says.

[BrainGlutton]

@Sinaijon

Is the video different? Cause that’s not what your quote material says.

I haven’t played the video. If you don’t think Weiner’s statements constitute “logical argument,” please explain.

[wierdaaron]

When I started reading this, I had Scarborough and Hannity confused in my head.

If this had happened to Hannity, I’d have heavied my pants. Joe, though, isn’t a flailing demagogue of lies and hatred like Hannity is, he’s just a confused little forest critter.

[Sinaijon]

@BrainGlutton

I haven’t played the video. If you don’t think Weiner’s statements constitute “logical argument,” please explain.

It does constitute “logical argument”, and Scarborough complements him on presenting it well, but that doesn’t mean the Scarborough changed his mind and was won over.

There isn’t any indication that Scarborough thinks single payer is the best option. He simply complemented Weiner on a good presentation of his side.

[mswas]

I heart Anthony Weiner.

[Captain_Amazing]

Right. I just watched the clips myself, and the article is misleading. I think that Weiner explained his position well, and I think that Scarborough was polite, but Weiner didn’t change Scarborough’s mind.

[crazyjoe]

I’d like to see a cite for private insurers spending 30% on administrative costs. I know here BCBSMI talks about only spending something like 6%.

[yorick73]

Scarborough has many faces. Watch his morning joe program and try to square that with what he says on his talk radio program. The two types of media are very different but he seems to have different opinions on his two shows.

[duality72]

@crazyjoe

I’d like to see a cite for private insurers spending 30% on administrative costs. I know here BCBSMI talks about only spending something like 6%.

Seems their own website only claims 9% and perhaps they’re aided by being a non-profit.

[Sinaijon]

@crazyjoe

I’d like to see a cite for private insurers spending 30% on administrative costs. I know here BCBSMI talks about only spending something like 6%.

It’s kind of an apples to oranges thing. The 4% vs 30% is based on money payed out vs money payed for administration costs. Because Medicare has a very high payout for fewer people (seniors, etc), it seems more efficient measured that way. Private plans have far more healthy people, with lower average payouts. They still need people to administer the accounts, but they don’t actually make any payments. As a result they look inefficient when measured that way.

A better way to measure the efficiency is administration costs per person enrolled. When measured in this way, private plans are actually more efficient than Medicare.

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2505.cfm

[MOIDALIZE]

@Sinaijon

It’s kind of an apples to oranges thing. The 4% vs 30% is based on money payed out vs money payed for administration costs. Because Medicare has a very high payout for fewer people (seniors, etc), it seems more efficient measured that way. Private plans have far more healthy people, with lower average payouts. They still need people to administer the accounts, but they don’t actually make any payments. As a result they look inefficient when measured that way.

but they don’t actually make any payments…BUSINESS PLAN!..but they don’t actually make any payments…BUSINESS PLAN!..but they don’t actually make any payments…
Imagine that, private insurers have skewed the ratio of administrative costs to total costs by limiting the amount of money they pay out for claims. Seems like that’s their entire business plan.

Oh, by the way, nothing the Heritage Foundation says should ever be trusted because they are soulless cash whores who will drum up “research” to support any conclusions that they’ve been paid to come to.

[Sinaijon]

@MOIDALIZE

but they don’t actually make any payments…DENTAL PLAN!..but they don’t actually make any payments…DENTAL PLAN!..but they don’t actually make any payments…
Imagine that, private insurers have skewed the ratio of administrative costs to total costs by limiting the amount of money they pay out for claims. Seems like that’s their entire business plan.

Yeah, I worded that poorly. Private plans have a lot more healthy people who don’t even file claims, as a result, the plan doesn’t have to cut a check. I don’t know about refuted claims, but would think they are pretty neglible compared to the total amount of money flowing in and out.

Oh, by the way, nothing the Heritage Foundation says should ever be trusted because they are soulless cash whores who will drum up “research” to support any conclusions that they’ve been paid to come to.

Well, it should be easy to refute their numbers, then.

[mswas]

@Sinaijon

It’s kind of an apples to oranges thing. The 4% vs 30% is based on money payed out vs money payed for administration costs. Because Medicare has a very high payout for fewer people (seniors, etc), it seems more efficient measured that way. Private plans have far more healthy people, with lower average payouts. They still need people to administer the accounts, but they don’t actually make any payments. As a result they look inefficient when measured that way.

A better way to measure the efficiency is administration costs per person enrolled. When measured in this way, private plans are actually more efficient than Medicare.

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2505.cfm

Ok so that accounts for some variation. Maybe that’s why BCBS has higher administration costs than Medicare, but does it account for a 750% increase?

[LonghornDave]

Of note, here is United Healthcare’s latest 10Q. As you can plainly see, the administrative costs are no where close to 30%. I chose United Healthcare as I believe it is the largest health insurance provider. It is worth mentioning, however, that they do sell other products and services besides health insurance so the numbers won’t exactly be apples to apples.

For the six month period ending 6/30/09, the total revenues were $43.659 billion with operating costs (which likely primarily consists of general and administrative costs) of $6.165 billion. Therefore, the percentage of G&A to revenue is closer to 14%.

[MOIDALIZE]

@Sinaijon

Well, it should be easy to refute their numbers, then.

Indeed (PDF)

These administrative spending numbers have been challenged on the grounds that they exclude some aspects of Medicare’s administrative costs, such as the expenses of collecting Medicare premiums and payroll taxes, and because Medicare’s larger average claims because of its older enrollees make its administrative costs look smaller relative to private plan costs than they really are.

However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage. This is a near perfect “apples to apples” comparison of administrative costs, because the public Medicare plan and Medicare Advantage plans are operating under similar rules and treating the same population.

(And even these numbers may unduly favor private plans: A recent General Accounting Office report found that in 2006 Medicare Advantage plans spent 83.3 percent of their revenue on medical expenses, with 10.1 percent going to non-medical expenses and 6.6 percent to profits—a 16.7 percent administrative share.)

The CBO study suggests that even in the context of basic insurance reforms, such as guaranteed issue and renewability, private plans’ administrative costs are higher than the administrative costs of public insurance. The experience of private plans within FEHBP carries the same conclusion. Under FEHBP, the administrative costs of Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs) average 7 percent, not counting the costs of federal agencies to administer enrollment of employees. Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) participating in FEHBP have administrative costs of 10 to 12 percent.

In international perspective, the United States spends nearly six times as much per capita on health care administration as the average for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations. Nearly all of this discrepancy is due to the sales, marketing, and underwriting activities of our highly fragmented framework of private insurance, with its diverse billing and review practices

[BrainGlutton]

@Sinaijon

Yeah, I worded that poorly. Private plans have a lot more healthy people who don’t even file claims . . .

The same would be true of a single-payer system.