A lie exposed

[Antid Oto]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

A lie exposed
20 July 2010

Four months after the passage of Obama’s health care legislation—hailed by most
of the media and the entire liberal establishment as the most progressive social
reform since the 1960s—the reactionary implications of the measure are emerging
ever more clearly.

The centerpiece of the plan, the White House claimed, was the extension of
coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans and the containment of costs
that were making medical care unaffordable for average citizens. Cost-cutting
and the implementation of “efficiencies” would not affect the quality of care,
the president claimed. Moreover, those already insured would be able to keep
their doctors and medical plans.

As the World Socialist Web Site explained, these claims were false. The purpose
of the legislation was to slash health care costs for US corporations and the
government by reducing coverage and rationing care for millions of Americans.

The ruling class saw Obama’s “reform” as an opportunity for corporations to dump
their employer-paid insurance plans, or, at the very least, restrict workers’
ability to choose treatments, doctors and hospitals.

The result, the WSWS warned, would be the establishment of a class-based system
where workers would be given inferior care while the rich continued to enjoy the
best medical treatment money could buy.

Recent news reports have confirmed this warning.

A July 18 New York Times piece, entitled “Insurers Push Plans That Limit Choice
of Doctor,” reports: “As the Obama administration begins to enact the new
national health care law, the country’s biggest insurers are promoting
affordable plans with reduced premiums that require participants to use a
narrower selection of doctors or hospitals.”

Insurance giants Aetna, Cigna, the UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint have already
offered plans with “limited networks” to smaller employers in New York, San
Diego and Chicago, the article notes, adding that insurers and their consultants
expect that “businesses of all sizes will gravitate toward these plans in an
effort to cut costs.”

“The tradeoff,” the Times writes, “is that more Americans will be asked to pay
higher prices for the privilege of choosing or keeping their own doctors if they
are outside the new networks. That could come as a surprise to many who remember
the repeated assurances from President Obama and other officials that consumers
would retain a variety of health-care choices.”

In New York, for example, Aetna’s “narrow network” plan provides access to only
half the doctors and two-thirds of the hospitals offered by its traditional
coverage, while in San Diego, 80,000 school employees, covered by UnitedHealth,
have been put in a multi-tiered health plan where their out-of-pocket expenses
depend on the quality and price of the physicians they choose.

By such means, the employers stand to save 15 percent.

“Affordability is the most pressing agenda item,” Dr. Sam Ho, the chief medical
officer for UnitedHealth’s medical plans, told the newspaper. That Obama’s
health care “reform” was from the start about cutting costs, rather than
improving coverage, is a fact of which the Times and the rest of the liberal
establishment were well aware and which they assiduously concealed from the
public. As the article points out, insurance executives at Cigna were sounding
out CEOs about super-cheap plans even as the bill was being prepared.

“What this does is eliminate the Gucci doctors,” Peter Skoda, the controller of
Haro Bicycle Corporation in Vista, California, told the newspaper. “Facing a
possible 35 percent increase in its rates,” the Times notes approvingly, “Haro
switched to an Aetna plan that prevents employees from seeing doctors at two
medical groups affiliated with the Scripps Health system in San Diego. If
employees go to one of the excluded doctors, they are responsible for paying the
whole bill.”

The Times notes that the last time corporations and insurers tried to restrict
access to specialists and hospitals—with the establishment of Health Management
Organizations or HMOs in the 1990s—it provoked an enormous public backlash. That
is why Obama, with the help of the New York Times and other media, sought to
conceal the real content of his health care “reform” from the population.

Under the terms of the plan, corporations are not obliged to provide insurance
at all, let alone maintain present levels of coverage. On the contrary,
companies that maintain insurance plans the government deems too costly will
face a punitive tax. Moreover, employers are liable to pay only a small
fine—well below the cost of continuing to pay premiums—if they drop workers from
their insurance coverage.

In Massachusetts—where the state government enacted a health care overhaul in
2006—hundreds of employers are opting to dump coverage and force workers to sign
up for the state subsidized health care program. According to a recent Boston
Globe article, under conditions of rising costs and the continued economic
downturn, companies say it has become far cheaper to pay the state penalty for
not covering their workers—roughly $295 annually per employee—than to pay
thousands in premiums.

Similar financial incentives will kick in nationally, once the Obama plan goes
into full effect.

Under the legislation, workers who are stripped of their employer-paid
benefits—along with those presently uninsured—will be forced to buy coverage on
so-called insurance exchanges run by the states. If they fail to do so, they
will be fined.

The insurance giants, which stand to make a windfall from the influx of
approximately 24 million new customers, are betting that their cut-rate plans
will be popular among workers who cannot afford quality coverage, the Times
reported. “We think it’s going to grow to be quite a hit over the next few
years,” Ken Goulet, an executive vice president at WellPoint, one of the
nation’s largest private health insurers, told the newspaper.

The New York Times led the campaign for the passage of Obama’s health plan. On
March 24, in a Times article entitled “In Health Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth
Inequality,” David Leonhardt wrote that the legislation was “the federal
government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising
more than three decades ago.” It was, he continued, part of a “deliberate effort
to end what historians have called the age of Reagan.”

This was a bold-faced lie, and the Times’ well-paid writers and editors knew it.
In fact, Obama’s plan to gut health care was part of the unfinished business of
the corporate-government offensive against the working class launched in the
1980s. This was also signaled by the Democratic president’s attack on health
benefits for auto workers during last year’s forced bankruptcy and restructuring
of General Motors and Chrysler.

The record of the WSWS on Obama’s health care “reform” sets us apart from all
those pseudo-left organizations and middle-class liberal publications like the
Nation, which promoted the anti-working class legislation.

Jerry White

http://wsws.org/articles/2010/jul2010/pers-j20.shtml

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********