Lies and cowardice screwing almost everybody's health care coverage

There is usually more than one way to look at a situation. Often referred to as “point of view”, it is good to consider this, particularly in personal relationships, as the way you see things might not be the way the other person does. In the Trump years most of us have become more aware of a different basis for disagreement, not based on different interpretation of the facts but upon different facts. This is not just a difference in emphasis-- you and I both believe X and Y are true, but I think X is more important than Y and you think Y is more important than X.

We are in a situation in which a large portion of the population believes lies are facts, believes that things that are not true are true. Of course, this has always been the case, like when most folks thought that the Earth was flat, or that the sun and stars revolved around the Earth. These were definitively disproved, we know the truth, and yet there are other just as ridiculously incorrect beliefs (and, here, I except, for brevity, religion) that many people still cleave to. Heck, there are still flat earthers! I doubt that most of the leaders of the Republican Party or members of the administration in Washington – or even Fox News commentators -- actually believe most of these falsehoods (except Donald Trump, who seems too demented or stupid or isolated or all three to know), but they find them convenient ways of keeping the public’s attention focused away from what they are doing to benefit themselves and their buddies. This could be called the “Wizard of Oz” technique, and misdirection is a core part of most magic acts, but it is also a core component of fascist tyrannies.

These outright lies in the Era of Trump are incredible, both in number and the real impact on people. In the area of health, the focus of this blog, they have been amazing in terms of their scope and impact. Vaccines, among the few actual preventive things that medicine can do, have been attacked and criticized and completely wrongly said to cause worse problems than they solve. Not to put too fine a point on it, this is pure evil coming from RFK, Jr. and his team of loons. Yes, there are individual people who should not get one or more individual vaccines, because of a serious prior allergic reaction, or even worse a rare effect like Guillain-Barre, but for the vast, vast majority of children and adults vaccines are all good. They basically eliminated smallpox from the world, and essentially eliminated terrible killers like measles in this country – until a new movement endorsed by the Secretary of HHS brought them back. Your measles as a kid wasn’t too bad? Neither was mine. But lots of kids got sick. A bunch died. You never had measles because you’re too young? Because even your parents are too young? And you all had vaccinations? Sadly, maybe you’ll see it in your children. Mumps made people deaf and infertile, meningococcus dead or brain damaged, H influenza the same. Polio made people dead or paralyzed, in wheelchairs or in iron lungs. When I was a medical resident, we saw H influenza meningitis and epiglottitis, meningococcal disease, even some measles and polio. All eliminated by vaccines. Until we stop using them.

    

Smallpox                                Measles               Polio (in iron lung)

There are many, many other health disasters promulgated (it seems on purpose) by this administration. Eliminating or cutting back infectious disease surveillance – cyclospora, E. coli, salmonella -- anyone? Enjoying that? How about animal diseases? And funding for medical research – being heavily cut back especially for researchers that the administration doesn’t like.

But one HUGE area is health insurance, financial coverage for our medical care. I have written about the terrible US health care non-system which is designed to make money for private corporations (insurance companies, big hospitals and health systems, Pharma) instead of being designed to deliver the best actual health care for our people, and how it needs to be replaced by a system of covering everyone, as in every other wealthy country – improved Medicare for All. People need financial coverage because all those big corporations are owned by investors who demand ever-increasing profits, so the costs of the overall system (highest in the world by far), and to individuals, keeps going up.

Under the current administration, the opposite is happening. In a recent editorial in the NY Times, the cuts to coverage are enumerated and documented. The most dramatic of these are cuts to the Medicaid program and the subsidies for purchasing individual insurance on the marketplace created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA, “Obamacare”). The Medicaid cuts target the most vulnerable and needy, the poor and disabled, and the cuts to the ACA subsidies means that the poor-but-not-quite-poor-enough-to-qualify-for-Medicaid population that was finally insured through ACA will lose it. (If you want to know how poor you must be to qualify for Medicaid, you can look it up by state, but it is always very poor. When you look it up, remember that while many states tie eligibility to about 135% of the Federal poverty level, many others have much lower qualifying incomes.) This is really bad because it is going to kill people, is going to strain many physicians and hospital systems – especially those that cannot afford it, like rural hospitals – and create a lot of misery.

There are several other bad things related to health coverage that the Times does not even address. One of these is the aggressive promotion of Medicare Advantage (MA) plans for Medicare eligible people. These plans are not actually Medicare, a federal government run program, but private insurance products that use Medicare money (and gets paid more per patient than traditional Medicare, TM). On the one hand, if you get a good, comprehensive MA plan it can save you money (with TM you probably need to pay for a Medicare supplement and Part D plan as well as the Part B premium taken from your Social Security payment). But it can also have bad results because the insurance companies that run it can, and often do, deny payment for your care, just as they do for regular insurance.

Another health insurance problem the Times does not address is the fact that even in the best situations (in those states that chose to expand Medicaid and before Trump), the ACA did not cover everyone. Both this and Medicare Advantage are also areas not addressed by those making policy for the Democratic Party. It is not coincidental that the Times and that portion of the Democratic Party called (depending on where you stand) “centrist”, “moderate”, “Wall St.” or “right-wing” are similar, because both share a similar ethos. This is to be better than the GOP on a lot of social issues affecting individuals but to not threaten the basic status quo: corporate America making a lot of profit, and enriching its investors, at the expense of the rest of us, particularly but not only the poor, who get screwed out of medical care and/or bankrupted by the bills. Oh, and, by the way, if you one of the majority of people who have employer-sponsored health insurance, you’re still not safe. Costs for insurance to employers (with much or all of the increase passed on to employees) is expected to go up 11% in 2027!

The “centrist” branch of the Democratic Party does not support eliminating or strictly regulating Medicare Advantage, not to mention Improved (covering everything) and Expanded (covering everybody) Medicare for All. The same tired and inadequate reasons are given: “we can’t afford it” --- ridiculous given that every other wealthy or middle-income country does -- when what they mean is “we don’t want to alienate the billionaires who continue to support us”. They say that they need to “be moderate” because they don’t want to turn off independent voters, which results in policies that do not significantly help most regular people. Like Improved and Expanded Medicare for All (see the Jayapal House, HR 3069, and Sanders Senate, S 1506, bills) would.

We should be terrified of what the Trump Administration and GOP are doing, especially trying to disenfranchise voters before the election, and the huge cuts to our health care. But voters are not going to be excited by “Republican lite”; they need to hear about bold programs that will change their lives for the better.

Red, Blue and Purple Redux: Don't let them divide and conquer!

I wrote Red, Blue, and Purple: The Math of Health Care Spending back on Oct 20, 2009, and have referred to it several times since. It is important because not everyone is sick at the same time, so the percentage of sick people in any given year is relatively low.

I included these charts:

 

The colors represent more or less the same groups of people; in any given year 5% of the population accounts for 50% of the health care costs, while half the population accounts for only 3%. This means that, in any given year, a large percentage of our population (generally younger, and mainly healthier) does not have significant medical problems and thus does not incur significant medical expense. This is good for them, but it also can make them relatively happy with their health insurance. When you don’t need it, insurance of any kind is great, except that you continue to pay premiums. Ignorance is bliss. But when you get sick is when you find out how good your health insurance is – or is not. Does it cover the treatment that your doctor recommends? Does it say it will, but require prior authorization that, while not medically indicated, can delay your treatment. Maybe for too long ()? Does it cover your doctor? Does it cover the hospital they use? Does it cover the other doctors in the hospital you will be billed by (e.g., ER, radiology, laboratory, anesthesiology, etc.)? Does it require big co-payments? Or any?

It is also the basis for a lot of the decisions that health insurance companies make. In a recent post on the “Health Care Un-covered” substack, Ron Howrigon (Feb 3, 2026) demonstrates how insurance companies can use these numbers to their advantage (i.e, to not pay):

So, you have been named the new CEO of UnitedHealth, and you have this wonderful idea. Put policies in place to deny, delay or refuse to pay for care. These policies are going to upset 5% of your membership. The members impacted by these policies are expensive members with chronic diseases like MS, cardiac disease or cancer. Let’s say that half of those members get so upset that they leave UnitedHealth and join one of your competitors. That means you take a 2.5% reduction to your revenue but a 25% reduction to your medical expense. Profits go up and life is good. Well, unless you are one of those patients that didn’t get the medication or treatment that you needed that is.

You see? They don’t get screwed – you do. They don’t care if you leave their insurance company if you are costing them money. Ideally, insurance companies want to collect premiums from people (or their employers, or the government for programs like Medicare and Medicaid) who will never use them! Indeed, one tactic that Medicare “Advantage” (MA) plans use is urging people who get sick to consider leaving their program and going on to regular, traditional Medicare (TM). Those “free” glasses and hearing aids and gym memberships that the MA plans offer seemed great at the front end, but actually having them cover the cost of your being sick and in the hospital and needing procedures would be better.

It is too bad if people do not realize that, while they may be in the purple or even blue groups today, not needing too much health care and not costing that much, that could change tomorrow. Much of that “purple” group is made up of people with one or more chronic diseases, predominantly older, who go to the doctor a few times a year and maybe have a short hospitalization or two. But when those chronic diseases worsen, when you need surgery or other procedures, or need to be in an ICU, then you can quickly become “red”. The shifts can be even more dramatic for young, healthy people. One car accident and a teenager can need multiple surgeries and become a very high-cost patient. One premature baby who needs to be cared for in the neonatal ICU and your young family skyrockets into the high-cost group. Or cancer – a new and unexpected diagnosis can change anyone of any age into a high-cost high utilizer.

Since I wrote the original piece in 2009, many more people have cottoned to the truth of the situation, because they, or their family members, or their friends have experienced movement into the high-need, high-cost group. It may be only 5% of people in any given year, but those years mount up, and they are not the same people year-to-year. For starters, a significant percentage of those who were in that 5% last year are no longer with us this year. It is commonly noted that end-of-life care accounts for a huge percentage of the cost associated with someone’s care in their lifetime, but when that lifetime is over, others move into the 5%. The fact is that we are all in this together (well, except for the insurance company executives and really wealthy folks) and policies that don’t hurt us individually this year can hurt us very much next year.

In the substack post cited above, Ron Howrigon raises the specter of a major economic event, “correction” or recession à la the housing bubble of 2008, except maybe worse because the health sector of the economy is three times as large. The problem identified above is only one of three major problems with the health insurance industry that he identifies, as he makes the case that it is built on flawed economic assumptions just as the housing industry was. Such economic implosions are not, in themselves, good for us, but continuing the way we are is also not. For many years, the “economy” has grown, but all that growth has gone to corporations and multi-billionaires and not to regular people (indeed possibly more than all the growth, since the imbalance is worse). While there may be some hard-working people who are fine with this even though they are struggling to pay the rent and buy food and gas – it takes all kinds – most of us are not. If the health care industry “fails” and then must be rebuilt to actually take care of Americans’ health, that would be a good thing. Although, judging by the response of the government to the financial crisis of 2008-09, that would be a dubious outcome; they’d probably bail out the health insurers. Unless we all can get together to stop them!

Divide and conquer has long been a strategy used by rulers and the powerful. It still happens and, so far, it still works. On Dec 30, 2025 I published on this blog Yes, Rep. Van Drew, there IS a solution!, which had appeared 3 days earlier as an Opinion piece in my local paper, the Arizona Star. I note that Medicare for All is a solution to a huge part of this problem, that there are bills in both the Senate and House (S. 1506 and HR. 3069) to create it, and that a large majority of the American people, in poll after poll, support it.

While the people are increasingly understanding how they are being screwed for the benefit of the rich and powerful, in this important case insurance companies, legislators seem to have not gotten the message. This could be in part the result of money being given to them and their campaigns for re-election by those same companies! This cannot be understood as anything but – graft! And, to overcome this, our voices – and our votes – need to be loud and clear so they can be heard by those legislators and policy makers. Pass laws and make policies that benefit the health and pocketbooks of the mass of the American people, and do not pay attention to the enrichment of health insurance companies, their executives, or their billionaire private equity owners. In the balance between the health of the people and the wealth of corporations, the latter should get NO weight!

Write to them, tell them, call them daily!

Medicare re-enrollment: Time to consider being dissatisfied with a new plan!

It is Medicare re-enrollment season again. It began Oct 15 and runs through the end of the year. This is when, if you are dissatisfied with the Medicare plan that you are in, you can choose a new plan with which to be dissatisfied. I know this, if for no other reason, by the large number of pieces of junk mail telling me of the joy I will have if I enroll in this-or-that Medicare Advantage (MA) plan, not to mention the commercials blanketing television programs. I almost only watch live TV for sports, so I am seeing these on sports shows; I don’t know what it means that sports show ads target seniors. Maybe it’s just that ads on all shows target seniors; it is presumed that we are sitting around doing nothing but watching television so are an audience not only for Medicare Advantage but all kinds of “health” ads, ranging from those for incredibly expensive recombinant-DNA drugs (anything ending in “ab”, for starters) for uncommon conditions to the touting of ineffective (and possibly dangerous) nostrums. At least we don’t see as many ads for mobility scooters “at no cost to you” (albeit to the taxpayers) since some of the vendors went to prison. Unless they are soon to be pardoned, not an impossibility.

There is only one form of real Medicare, “Traditional Medicare” or TM. This is what you paid those Medicare taxes for that were recorded on all your paychecks, to fund the Medicare Trust Fund. Well, at least for Medicare Part A, which covers inpatient care and is what is covered by the Medicare Trust Fund. Medicare Part B, covering outpatient care (including outpatient procedures) is funded by general taxes plus monthly payments from recipients that are graduated by income (based upon the previous year’s tax form, so for the coming year, 2026, based on your last filed return which was for 2024). The base payment this year is $185/month, although subsidies may be available for low-income people. But while TM (unlike MA) does cover you for all Medicare-approved treatment, and it, not the hospital, sets the charge, it does not cover all of what it permits the hospital to charge you. For inpatient care, in particular, it will only pay 80% of whatever it has approved as what a hospital can charge. That is, if Medicare has approved a charge of $1000 for procedure X, it will only pay the hospital $800, and you are on the hook for the rest. So (if you can afford it) you should buy a Medicare Supplement (Medigap) policy to cover that. There are several types, but at least they are standardized benefit packages (labeled by letters A-N, except E, I, and J; these letters not to be confused with the Medicare Parts A, B, C, D). In addition, you are required to have a drug plan (Medicare Part D), which is an additional expense.

Besides being confusing, that is a lot of expense for TM: monthly payments for Part B, Part D, and your Medigap. On top of that it doesn’t cover all the things you may need or want, like vision correction (glasses; it does cover treatment of eye diseases and surgery), or hearing aids. That facilitates the marketing of Medicare Advantage (officially Medicare Part C), as intended: one easy monthly payment (which, depending upon the MA plan, may be completely covered by Medicare without out-of-pocket payments from you) covers it all – inpatient, outpatient, drugs, and glasses, hearing aids and even gym memberships! Why would you not want this?

I have written previously why you may not want MA (The WiSER program to erode your Medicare coverage: Not WISE for you! Sept 22, 2025, Medicare and Medicaid at 60: Need more -- and more threatened -- than at 50!, Aug 6 2025, and other older posts), which boils down to the fact that they are health insurance plans like the one you had, and can, and do, delay and deny coverage for individuals in order to save money (or, really, make more money!) They usually are HMOs or PPOs with a limited panel of doctors and hospitals for which they will pay. While the Medigap and Part D coverage you need with TM are also sold by the same insurance companies, these benefits are much more explicitly stated and required by law to be provided, although there are certainly efforts to get you to use cheaper drugs (usually not the “ab” drugs being advertised in the next commercial!) If you travel a lot, you may find that MA plans are often based in one geographical area. Also, many “destination” hospitals that people travel to in order to receive excellent care for conditions like cancer (eg., Mayo, MD Anderson) do not accept MA. To a large extent, having an MA plan is like having the insurance that non-Medicare recipients have, warts and all. There are reports (such as in Health Care Un-Covered) that, in addition to raising their rates and cutting benefits, MA plans will be “exiting certain markets” (the unprofitable, or really less-profitable-than-they-would-like markets), leaving residents in those areas without available coverage.

"Health Care Un-Covered", the substack founded by Wendell Potter, also reports on the new report from Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) “No Real Choice: How Medicare Advantage fails seniors of color”, that shows MA plans increase (rather than decrease, as they claim) racial inequity.

PNHP’s researchers found that communities of color are being steered into MA plans not because they’re better — but because they’re cheaper upfront. This dynamic, dubbed the “Gap Trap,” means that affordability is driving people into coverage that often denies care, delays treatment and locks them into narrow networks.

The old “cheaper up front but not once you get sick” gambit.

Plus, from the PNHP study:

·       Black, Hispanic and Asian/Asian-American beneficiaries are disproportionately concentrated in MA plans that score lowest on quality ratings, while white beneficiaries are more likely to live in counties served by higher-quality plans.

·       One study found that MA prior authorization requests were denied 23% of the time for Black seniors vs. 15% for their white counterparts.

·       Despite industry claims to the contrary, racial and ethnic health disparities in the United States are not being reduced by Medicare Advantage.

·       Studies show that Black enrollees are more likely than white enrollees to choose a 5-star MA plan when offered one. They’re just not offered them as often.

·       Racial minority enrollees in MA suffer from worse clinical outcomes and face barriers accessing best quality care because of restrictive networks and misaligned financial incentives. Black MA enrollees experience higher rates of hospital readmission compared to their white peers.

When is having insurance worse than not having insurance?

And, while we’re talking about the insurance that people not yet on Medicare and not eligible for Medicaid (ie., most Americans) have, it is (you may have noticed) getting more costly. At the present time the government is shut down over disagreement between Democrats and Republicans (including the administration) as to whether subsidies that made enrollment in health insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) actually affordable should be extended. For those who are fortunate enough to have employer-funded health insurance and do not have to buy plans through the ACA exchanges (154 million people), KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation) reports that covering a family of four now costs almost $27,000 a year, after two straight years of more than 6% increases, and 26% over 5 years. That is a lot, especially if the family is paying a hefty portion of it (often 50% or more) out of pocket.

It's not a good situation for people not yet on Medicare, not for those on Medicaid, not for those receiving subsidies to buy policies through the ACA, and increasingly difficult for those on Medicare or Medicare Advantage. How about we covering 100% of everything through Traditional Medicare, enroll every American of all ages in it, and fund it by not having to pay insurance companies?

Don't miss laughing at, and more important being informed by, this John Oliver video!

The WiSER program to erode your Medicare coverage: Not WISE for you!

While much about American health insurance is infuriating, starting with it treating the healthcare system as a vehicle for making money rather than providing healthcare, “prior authorization” (PA) is one of its most infuriating, and dangerous, practices. It means that before you can get the treatment your physician has recommended, indeed often before you can see the physician you want, the insurance company must authorize it. This practice is ubiquitous in commercial health insurance, including “Medicare Advantage” (MA), a program that allow an insurance company to collect the money allocated for you by Medicare. This means that if you receive a terrible diagnosis, such as lung cancer and your oncologist recommends a specific treatment, it is entirely possible that they will deny coverage for it, especially if your cancer is rare, or requires an expensive drug. You can file an appeal, but even if it is eventually granted, the process takes time, and meanwhile you are sick and your cancer is advancing.

But if you have Traditional Medicare (TM), this has not been a problem. TM covers virtually all doctors and hospitals in the country, covers most treatments, and does not subject the individual to PA, or decide that another (usually cheaper and possibly less effective) treatment, or even no treatment might be better for you. Or that a different doctor or hospital that is “in network” (for them) would be a better choice even if their track record is inferior. The absence of PA is a major reason why many health experts recommend TM over MA. 

Back in January, 2023 I wrote about the proposed ACO/REACH program at CMS (Privatizing Medicare through "Medicare Advantage" and REACH: The Wrong Way to Go!), which would allow companies (many owned by private equity) to purchase primary care practices, and voilà!, all those doctors’ patients were now in the company’s ACO and subject to restrictions on their care, including PA, without having to do anything at all and thinking they were safe because they were in TM! The REACH name was dropped but the program still continues; a friend in northern NJ was just informed he is now part of an ACO because they have acquired his doctor’s practice!

And other assaults on TM and the patients it covers continue. If you live in Arizona, as I do, or in 5 other states (New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington), even if you have TM you will suffer the indignity and damage of PA as Medicare implements a 6-year “pilot program” called WiSER (Wasteful and Inappropriate Services Reduction). No longer will you be able to get any Medicare-approved procedure from any Medicare-accepting doctor at any Medicare-accepting hospital (ie, virtually all doctors and hospitals). Medicare will contract with private companies that will utilize artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to decide whether you can get the treatment. As with ACO/REACH, you have no choice, as participation is “voluntary” by state, but not by individual Medicare recipient. Actually, then it is worse than ACO/REACH, which you could get out of by changing your primary care physician (provided you could find another one!); WiSER will require you to move out of state!

Maybe the AI algorithms know better than you or your doctor. After all, isn’t reducing wasteful and inappropriate services a good thing? If you believe that the high cost of health care is the result of your using inappropriate and wasteful services, you might want to consider that the companies Medicare contracts with to do the PA will be paid “based on a share of averted expenditures.” That is, they will be paid on commission, receiving a percentage of the money saved by denying your care! But that won’t affect their decisions at all, right?

In reality, the use of “inappropriate and wasteful services” by you and your family and friends is not the reason for the high cost of health care. The reason is the enormous administrative costs of the US healthcare system, including the huge amounts made by for-profit insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies (and the eight-figure salaries of their CEOs and other executives), as well as health care providers (hospitals and health systems and the physicians, usually employed by them). This is a system found nowhere else among wealthy countries, every single other one of which comprehensively covers the care of all their people at much lower per-capita cost.

Bringing PA into Medicare is not “wiser”. It is the exactly wrong way to go. What we need is the expansion of Medicare to include everyone in the US, birth to death, and the improvement of that system by covering all health needs, including mental, dental, hearing, vision, and eliminating the 20% hospital co-pay Medicare recipients now are responsible for (and must buy Medigap insurance to cover). The “administrative costs” now being taken out of the “healthcare” system by companies would more than pay for it.

We would then have a system designed to provide health care for the American people, not profit for corporations. Imagine that!

 

adapted from a piece originally written to be a guest essay in the Arizona Star, but not published 

Making a profit isn't enough for Wall St.: You are going to have to pay, with your money (and maybe your life!)

Wendell Potter, in his “Health Care Un-Covered” substack, recently (Aug 6, 2025) reports that ‘As Americans Struggled, Health Insurers Made a Record-Breaking $71.3 Billion in Profits. In 2024, seven big insurers posted $71.3 billion in profits and paid their CEOs more than $146 million.’ There are several things being said in that sentence. First is that health insurance companies made a lot of profit. Second is that some people, specifically health insurance CEOs, are doing very well, thank you. Third is the assumption that Americans are struggling, presumably with their health insurance and healthcare. Let’s think about each of these.

These health insurance companies, per the chart that Potter includes, made $71.3B in profits. That seems like a lot to me. For most, it’s also more than the prior year. But not for all. Note that Humana made 33% less than in 2023, a mere $2.7B. 

Fortunately, that was enough to continue to pay it’s CEO over $15M.

At least UnitedHealth, the largest health insurer, is doing fine, right? It increased its profits 6% over the year before, and its CEO Andrew Witty (head of UnitedHealth Group, not to be confused with the assassinated Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthCare, who worked for him), is the highest-paid health insurance CEO at $26.3M, so I guess he deserves it because the company is doing so well. That shows that I (and possibly you) are not expert in the ways of Wall St. investors. It wasn’t enough for them. Just two days earlier, on Aug 4, Potter posted ‘Inside the Midyear Panic at UnitedHealth’. It makes fascinating reading, although the lessons learned by an MBA student may be different from those learned by, say, a regular person needing healthcare. As far as Wall St. is concerned, it is not enough to stay profitable; corporate profits need to continually go up so that these investors can meet their expectations for their own profit. It is important to understand that, as much as health insurance companies can be seen to be greedy parasites who produce nothing but obstruction and cost for those providing and receiving healthcare which they sell as producing “value”, private investors are a meta-level worse. They don’t even pretend to produce anything; they are, as an old family friend liked to say, “in money”. They invest and expect money back, more money all the time, and don’t care much about how the companies they invest in get it.

Nearly 500 years ago, Shakespeare wrote the “Merchant of Venice”, an excellent but anti-Semitic play about a greedy Jewish moneylender named Shylock.* Shylock has been widely decried for centuries for demanding a pound of flesh as repayment for the loan (how horrible!) But, by today’s standards, particularly in health insurance, he’d be a piker. While a lot of people, including me, could afford to lose a pound (or 20) of flesh, the health insurance companies are being spurred on by their investors (along with their own lack of values), are doing much worse. The actions that they are taking to ensure Wall St. investors make what they believe to be sufficient ROI will end up killing people. Antonio should have been happy to give up his pound of flesh! 

Of course, the financial investors in health insurance companies are not gauche enough to literally demand the killing of their clients. But they did demand changes that will undoubtedly have that result. While UnitedHealth saw an 8% increase in their Medicare Advantage plans, which they generally like because these plans allow them to do what they do with regular insurance, obstruct access, they still had to pay more out in medical claims than the shareholders were happy about. As Potter says, “Those seniors figured out how to get at least some care despite the company’s high barriers to care (aggressive use of prior authorization, “narrow” networks of providers, etc.).” Sounds good if you’re a patient, but if you’re an investor, it’s horrific. Remember what the insurance industry calls the percent of the premiums that they collect which they actually have to pay for medical care? The “medical loss ratio”! They hate it when they make less profit because they are paying for your care! Yes, UnitedHealth made $14.3 billion in profits during the second quarter, but it was less than the $15.8 billion they made in the second quarter of 2024, so something had to be done!

Potter describes what UnitedHealth promised its investors they would do:

• Dump 600,000 or so enrollees who might need care next year  [after all it is much more profitable to collect premiums from people who won’t need care]

• Raise premiums “in the double digits” – way above the “medical trend” that PriceWaterhouseCoopers predicts to be 8.5% (high but not double-digit high)[ie., you, the customer, pay more for less]

• Boot more providers it doesn’t already own out of network [when they work for you, money you pay them goes back to yourself!]

• ·       Reduce benefits [of course]

Yup, these changes most definitely will kill people.

Most insurance involves has you betting against yourself; you pay premiums to protect you if something happens that you do not want (or expect) to happen, but might. You have homeowner’s insurance, but you hope your house doesn’t burn down. You have auto insurance, but you hope you are not in a car accident. Originally, health insurance followed the same idea; it was not intended to pay for routine care, but to protect you if you had to be hospitalized and or have surgery for something you didn’t expect. But then it began covering (or hopefully covering) regular medical care, visits, treatments, and drugs. It was paying for what you wanted – regular care, not unexpected and unanticipated “major medical” care. This is different from what insurance usually is. Actually, though, insurance companies preferred as it is predictable and relatively low cost. With Medicare Advantage plans, for example, they take money from Medicare to cover seniors who are happy to have coverage for prevention, doctor visits, drugs, and even gym membership without having to pay separately for a Part D plan, a Medicare Supplement plan (to cover the 20% of hospital costs Medicare Part A doesn’t pay for), etc.

When those people get sick, however, they want their bills paid, and not infrequently United and the others were denying it. But as Potter points out, not often enough to please their investors. People were sometimes, increasingly, getting their bills paid – indeed CMS, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, was requiring that they be paid. That is what infuriated investors – all that money going to pay for medical care rather than profit and shareholder dividends! So, they will reduce benefits, increase premiums, further limit the doctors you can see and hospitals you can use, and make being sick more unpleasant than it already is. Tough luck.

But that’s what you get when you have a “healthcare” system that exists primarily to make profit, not to provide healthcare. When you live in the United States. Why do we put up with this?

 

 

* Jews were moneylenders because it was an area open to them; in those quaint days Christians actually thought they had to abide on the Biblical prohibition on earning interest from lending money. It’s complicated; most of the prohibitions are actually in the Old Testament, but this was often interpreted as not lending money to other Jews; Christians were OK. Of course, they were presumably lending to other Jews when New Testament describes Jesus turning over the tables of the moneylenders in the Temple, saying per Matthew 5:42 ‘Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you’. Anyway, both Jews and Christians lend money – “invest” – now.