There has been a great deal of introspection among leading Democrats after the bruising defeat in the last election — much of its directed at the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or “Obamacare.” It has ranged from Schumer’s view that the law was political blunder to Harkin’s view that it was a poorly drafted mistake. This week, the highest ranked Democrat, Senate majority leader Harry Reid, said that the Obama Administration may have doomed Democrats in Congress with its poor management and blunders in the rollout of the program. Now the person ultimately responsible for that mismanagement and failure, former Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, has her own prognosis: bad brand name.
At the time of the failed rollout, I believed that the most obvious response was at a minimum to fire Sebelius, the subject of a past column. However, the Administration and Democrats circled the wagons and Sebelius kept her job.
Now Sebelius explained on Wednesday that “Obamacare, no question, has a very bad brand that has been driven intentionally by a lot of misinformation and a lot of paid advertising.” I would not say that, after hundreds of millions of wasted dollars and hundreds of “fixes” to a poorly drafted law, the problem is the name. However, it reminded me of a story that I heard while attending the University of Chicago. This may be apocryphal but it is too good a story to check as they say. The story goes that Coca Cola was struggling with loss of market share against 7UP due to the appeal of the “uncola” in the anti-establishment environment of the 60s. So the giant corporation hired a counterculture icon from the University of Chicago (Severn Dardan is often named). The story goes that the cultural guru disappeared with a huge upfront fee to “study” the issue until the company demanded that he appear at a board meeting to give his recommendations for the future Coca Cola. The man walked into the board room in overalls and simply said “change the name” and walked out.
Now, while the hippy story may not pan out, I have an easy substitute from Sebelius. Just change the name. Problem solved.
Source: Politico
Thomas Sowell:
“Will the Veterans Administration scandal wake up those people who have been blithely saying that what we need is a “single payer” system for medical care? Delays in getting to see a doctor have been a common denominator in government-run medical systems in England, Canada, and Australia, among other places.
Government policies to “bring down the cost of medical care” almost never bring down those costs, and often increase the costs. These policies simply refuse to pay the full costs of medical care. Any one of us can do that, but we know there will be consequences. There will also be consequences when the government refuses to pay the costs, but these consequences will be concealed and/or denied.“
Haz&Jim 22
As a Canadian/American with dual nationality and the opportunity to access personal stories in both con tries, since 1987, I have found that indeed there are faults with the single payer systems that exist in Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, etc., etc., etc. However, the faults and costs due to the parasitical system the US has, and has alone, are fare more serious.
Regarding MRI and such, it has been found that hospitals in the US use these devices on the average of 33% of the time. In Canada the use is on average 80% of the time. I have many, many, many more stories of adequate care in Canada than in the US. In order to get this adequate care in the US, one must pay through the nose. No money equals clinics or closed doors.
Regarding choice, in almost all of the more advanced countries, over time, the citizens have demanded and received private clinics, and supplementary insurance options. This is known as a two tier system. A prime example is when someone I know personally wished to have cataracts removed, before they were ‘ripe’ for personal reasons that were not immediately necessary, they were told they would have to wait two months. This is called prioritization. They had the option of going to a private clinic and paying $2,500 the next week. First of all it would cost several times that in the US. Secondly B. C. Med reimbursed them $1,300 as that was the cost they used. They then could deduct the remaining $1,200 from taxes, 33%, which left them out of pocket $800. This $800 would be recuped in less than three months when the difference between the family paying $350 a month for B, C. Med premiums compared with anywhere from $600 on up in the US. My wife’s Aetna premiums were $1,300 a month before the ACA. She had $400 taken out of her pay each month and the company paid the other $900.
In BC and the other provinces the medical insurance plans are provincially administered. Statistics show that the administrative costs alone, per capita, in the US are five to seven times higher than in countries with universal government run insurance programs. Logic dictates that less cost in the administration equals less cost in the overall program. This has nothing to do with the number of MRI machines in upstate New York or the level of health care in the US. This is totally an issue of administration.
Regarding competition, you both need to put on the old thinking caps. There isn’t any. In the US there are approximately 1,200 private insurance companies which are part of a network of the ones we recognize: Aetna, Blue Cross, Humana, etc. These few dozen major marks are in turn underwritten or insured by a handful of global conglomerates such as Lloyds, Aig, and others in Germany, Switzerland, Great Britain, and Canada. These underwriters set the premiums as they eventually pay the costs. The typical American perception of competition making things better does not apply to all things. Those aspects of society that all are obligated to participate in are usually better handled by the government.
Another issue to understand is that regardless of whether a system is government run or privately run it is tied to the economy of the moment. When the economy of a country, or for example the province of British Columbia, is doing well the citizens vote for more and to pay less. When the economy is receding, the government typically charges more for less. In the private sector this is sometimes the case but more often than not when the economy is buoyant the private sector raises prices. The main driving axiom of private enterprise is not supply and demand or competition. Any fool knows it is charge what the market can bear. Commodities are prices as high as they can be priced before resistance is seen by lowering demand. Unfortunately this works with gas, cars, homes, etc but not with health. The need for health care is not pegged to the economy. However, the cost is and in the free market system, which has its appropriate places in society, the cost will always be pegged to what the hand can pull out of our pockets.
The argument of going it alone or the American way reminds me of the joke where the proud mother remarked while watching her son march along with his fellow soldiers, “Look and my boy; he’s the only one in step.”
They should rebrand it to LikeF**kWeCare.
Truth in advertising and all.
My sister’s family deductible under the ACA went from $1,500 this year to $9,000 next year … a 500% increase … while her expected premiums also increased. And she won’t even know what her true price for this PAST year was — whether subsidies were granted and for how much — until she gets her tax return back next year. Re-labeling won’t do anything to mask the stench of that kind of sh*t-sandwich.
Godwin nods.
It’s even more hilarious when socialists deny that their plans involve socialism, and can’t explain why people might oppose that. Instead they must not be smart enough to see the ‘intelligent’ solution, which often ends being the final one.
It is always hilarious to read socialists praise the efficiency of the state, despite decades of experience proving the opposite.
@Paul C. Schulte: Bingo. To ALA, the Chicago Way outweighs truth, justice, and the American Way.
issac, I know you hate the idea but we are modeled after the free market, not govt. monopoly market. Obamacare is nothing more than the govt. taking over more of the economy so it can steal our property and redistribute it however they like.
Also, if you don’t like the free market buying the politicians, vote in people who don’t have a “for sale” sign on their back. It’s not the markets fault.
A single payer health system is not the solution, sorry. If that’s what you want, I hope that you can get it, but a majority of Americans want to determine which system they can enroll in. And competition drives improvement.
Early in my working career I was employed by a company that designs and builds healthcare facilities. Some of our projects were MRI and CT facilities we designed and built for US hospitals that were near the US/Canadian border.
Our clients had many Canadians as clients. That was because the wait for an MRI or a CT scan in Canada extended to many months, even for patient who had cancer, or other serious illnesses. So rather than waiting until death, or until their diseases had progressed beyond the point where treatment would be effective, they drove over the border and bought radiographic services from hospitals in the US.
There were as many CT and MRI units in upstate New York as there were in all of Canada at one time. That’s probably still the case.
One of our architects was a guy who was a Canadian, and had moved to the US. He told us of the happy year when their second child was born. They were living near Toronto and the baby was born in November. Problem was that the provincial budget for anesthesia had been run out in September, so all the moms who went into labor after that could not be given epidurals or any other kind of pain relief while in labor and delivery. Government planning at its finest.
They moved to the US soon after that child was born.
So good luck with your single-payer government healthcare system. As for me, the farther away from healthcare the government is kept, the happier and healthier I’ll be.
Single payer/universal health care insurance is the intelligent solution. Along with a second tier optional privately run insurance, everyone will get what they want. It will cost the taxpayers a half to a third of what it costs now, per capita. All of our peer countries with more advanced systems are paying a half to a third for the same if not better health care.
The two main reasons why Obama did not propose this after he was elected is that the health care insurance industry owns, lock stock and barrel, enough politicians on both sides of the aisle to, if not stop it, hold it up for many years. They pull the old NRA routine, that it is socialism-used to be communism-and unAmerican.
The second reason is that the present system subsidizes three hundred to four hundred thousand jobs due to the redundancy of the so called competition between hundreds of insurance companies, who are all underwritten by a half dozen global underwriters such as Lloyds and AIG. At the time unemployment was rising and it would have been political suicide to propose a system to replace the parasites, if that system added another 300,000 to 400,000 to the unemployment list.
Another reason was that the Republican party was opposing anything that came from Obama. That has been graphically obvious for the past six+ years.
The only way to fix this mess is to amend it. If it is repealed then we go backwards. Even if this is the slogan of the Republican party it will more firmly entrench the parasitical private insurance industry.
The ACA has accomplished footholds in a necessary and intelligent outcome. Everyone should pay in. Coverage should not be predicated on previous or existing health conditions.
The private sector has increased its earnings by screwing the American public two ways. It has raised premiums and received subsidies from the American taxpayer. As long as the American public focuses on the ACA and Obama as the problem, the parasites will laugh all the way to the bank. Under the present system they are making more money than ever. If the system is repealed they will be back in the driver’s seat. As long as Americans remain stupidly diverted through political games played by the Republicans for the sake of power only, Americans will pay more for less.
This is the problem with the American system of government. It is nothing more than a sporting match with players bought and paid for duking it out every two to four years and obscuring the issues. It’s the issues, stupid.
I agree with Michael Haz’s response. In my personal opinion, I agree with his points!
And another Chicago institution, the American Library Association, still has not released the recording of Obama selling librarians on Obamacare. Bad brand is not the problem. The lack of transparency is, but that lack of transparency is needed for the very reason Gruber said. Here’s what I wrote about ALA hiding Obama’s speech given at a yearly ALA conference:
“Librarians Refuse ALA Obamacare Push; Wanted: Video of President Obama Speech at ALA Conference; Lenny Kravitz’s Message for Librarians”
http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/07/librarians-refuse-ala-obamacare-push.html
SafeLibraries – isn’t it the librarians who get their underwear in a twist every year over censorship of books?
The name on the box can be changed, but if the product inside the box still tastes like crap, the product will continue to fail.
It isn’t the brand name that is Obamacare’s marketing problem; it’s the horrible recipe, the manufacturer’s arrogance, the bloated ingredient list, and the ridiculous price point.
Add to that the manufacturer’s sole control of the market and lack of competition to make a better product, and you’ve got an utterly horrible product that no re-branding can fix. The copy on the box can say “Now 100% Crap Free!!” but there’s still mostly crap in the box.
No sweetie, it’s not the name…
The ACA was a baby step. We must move to Universal Health Care as every other civilized country has done. Making money off of sick and injured people is about as immoral an idea as one could imagine. The wealthy must help take care of the needy. With privilege comes responsibility. If the wealthy refuse to chip in, they will find themselves exposed to the same viruses and bacteria that attack the underclass, the same traffic accidents, the same genetic diseases, and there will be no health system available to help anyone.
This really is the worst administration ever.
Call it what it is. ‘Fraud’
Actually, rebranding has worked for some products, but abandoning the product has been the better judgment.
Change the name to what? The problem with ACA is that it allowed the same greedy, rapacious bunch to control health care that controlled it before the ACA was passed, the insurance companies. Single payor was the only was but Obama, according to Sebeilous, chose to go with the for profit model because it was the “American” thing to do. Yes, she did say that.