Help Expose Lies! Heritage Foundation - Not Real Research & David Broder Changes "Tune" on Diddling Politicians

Paul Krugman, our economics-explaining hero goes to the heart of the problem (before we go any deeper into the "Land of the Lost" in being able to determine propaganda from true research) in the duel between the healthcare providers/insurers and the public who want lower prices and better care (and not to lose their insurance once they actually need to use it for serious afflictions).

Whenever you encounter “research” from the Heritage Foundation, you always have to bear in mind that Heritage isn’t really a think tank; it’s a propaganda shop. Everything it says is automatically suspect. Greg Mankiw forgets this rule, and approvingly (yes, it’s obvious he approves -no wiggling out) links to a recent Heritage attempt to explain away Medicare’s low administrative costs:

Naturally, Medicare beneficiaries need, on average, more health care services than those who are privately insured. Yet the bulk of administrative costs are incurred on a fixed program-level or a per-beneficiary basis. Expressing administrative costs as a percentage of total costs makes Medicare’s administrative costs appear lower not because Medicare is necessarily more efficient but merely because its administrative costs are spread over a larger base of actual health care costs. When administrative costs are compared on a per-person basis, the picture changes. In 2005, Medicare’s administrative costs were $509 per primary beneficiary, compared to private-sector administrative costs of $453.

Well, whaddya know — this is an old argument, and has been thoroughly refuted. Jacob Hacker:

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.

You should always remember: 1. Don’t believe anything Heritage says. 2. If you find what Heritage is saying plausible, remember rule 1.

Thanks, Paul!!!! And as for David Broder . . . remember a long time ago when he used to be called "The Dean" of reporters (before his exposure as having been bought-and-paid-for-outright by the Rethuglicans (h/t to Crooks and Liars who are struck by the difference in Broder's tone from his coverage of Bill Clinton's infidelities))?. Broder wrote this about Clinton in the Washington (Republican Propaganda) Post. The Post published an article back during the initial Clinton madness by Sally Quinn (very much an insider - being married to the Post's now Vice President (previously Executive Editor) Ben Bradlee) that stated plainly the different treatment according outsiders (which continues today). What a difference ten years can make. Of course, it has nothing to do with Sanford being a Republican, does it, Dean Broder?

Naaaah. Suzan _________________

BadTux Lets Loose With the Facts on Medicare-Style Treatment For All

One of the best blogs on the internets is BadTux the Snarky (Economics) Penguin. Today he gives us all the data we need to judge whether or not to switch to the government-run, Medicare-style health insurance for all. And as you can imagine, he takes Harry and Louise to the terminal cleaners.

Government currently provides pays for 55% of the healthcare in the United States, between Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Tricare, state and county hospital districts, etc (statistic courtesy of the OECD). Health care currently consumes 16% of the U.S. GDP (statistic courtesy of the OECD). So *worst case* is that an 8% increase in the Medicare payroll tax (4% paid by employer, 4% by employee) would pay for Medicare for *all* Americans. But wait, there's the fact that Medicare has 3% administrative overhead and private health insurance has a 33% administrative overhead. What that means is that it'd actually be 30% less -- i.e., 3% paid by employer, 3% by employee. And that, in addition to the taxes *currently* being paid to fund health care, would suffice to provide Medicare for all Americans, not just wrinkly old prune-Americans. That's how the numbers work.

Read the details here. Now, is this enough of a terrifically compelling argument to make you start organizing for real change? Suzan P.S. Do not read Michael Hart today! (Unless you haven't gotten your fill of Rethuglican hypocrites yet (Beware - not office- or childproof).) _________________

Goodbye Social Security (and All the Rest of Your Supposedly Middle-Class Life) & Video of Bush Family Secrets

From the AP's most recent assault on your mental health we read (emphasis marks added - Ed.):

The government will have to borrow nearly 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year, exploding the record federal deficit past $1.8 trillion under new White House estimates. Budget office figures released Monday would add $89 billion to the 2009 red ink — increasing it to more than four times last year's all-time high as the government hands out billions more than expected for people who have lost jobs and takes in less tax revenue from people and companies making less money. The unprecedented deficit figures flow from the deep recession, the Wall Street bailout and the cost of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill — as well as a seemingly embedded structural imbalance between what the government spends and what it takes in. As the economy performs worse than expected, the deficit for the 2010 budget year beginning in October will worsen by $87 billion to $1.3 trillion, the White House says. The deterioration reflects lower tax revenues and higher costs for bank failures, unemployment benefits and food stamps. Just a few days ago, Obama touted an administration plan to cut $17 billion in wasteful or duplicative programs from the budget next year. The erosion in the deficit announced Monday is five times the size of those savings. For the current year, the government would borrow 46 cents for every dollar it takes to run the government under the administration's plan. In 2010, it would borrow 35 cents for every dollar spent. "The deficits ... are driven in large part by the economic crisis inherited by this administration," budget director Peter Orszag wrote in a blog entry on Monday. The developments come as the White House completes the official release of its $3.6 trillion budget for 2010, adding detail to some of its tax proposals and ideas for producing health care savings. The White House budget is a recommendation to Congress that represents Obama's fiscal and policy vision for the next decade. Annual deficits would never dip below $500 billion and would total $7.1 trillion over 2010-2019. Even those dismal figures rely on economic projections that are significantly more optimistic — just a 1.2 percent decline in gross domestic product this year and a 3.2 percent growth rate for 2010 — than those of private sector economists and the Congressional Budget Office. As a percentage of the economy, the measure economists say is most important, the deficit would be 12.9 percent of GDP this year, the biggest since World War II. It would drop to 8.5 percent of GDP in 2010. In the past three decades, deficits in the range of 4 percent of GDP have caused Congress and previous administrations to launch efforts to narrow the gap. The White House predicts deficits equaling 2.9 percent of the economy within four years. . . . For the most part, Obama's updated budget tracks the 134-page outline he submitted to lawmakers in February. His budget remains a bold but contentious document that proposes higher taxes for the wealthy, a hotly contested effort to combat global warming and the first steps toward guaranteed health care for all. Meanwhile, the congressional budget plan approved last month would not extend Obama's signature $400 tax credit for most workers — $800 for couples — after it expires at the end of next year. Obama's "cap-and-trade" proposal to curb heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions is also reeling from opposition from Democrats from coal-producing regions and states with concentrations of heavy industry. Under cap-and-trade, the government would auction permits to emit heat-trapping gases, with the costs being passed on to consumers via higher gasoline and electric bills. Also new in Obama's budget details are several tax "loophole" closures and increased IRS tax compliance efforts to raise $58 billion over the next decade to help finance his health care measure. The money would make up for revenue losses stemming from lower-than-hoped estimates for his proposal to limit wealthier people's ability to maximize their itemized deductions.

Weren't the rightwingnuts smart about this being Obama's economy? We know the truth; but it pales in significance next to the reality of the numbers. And speaking of the numbers. Here's the latest Social Security scare, which will be given to Tim Geithner to solve, of course (emphasis marks added - Ed.):

The U.S. Social Security and Medicare retirement and health programs for the elderly will run short of funds sooner than previously thought because the recession has taken a toll on tax revenues, a government report released on Tuesday showed. The Social Security trust fund will be exhausted by 2037, four years earlier than previously estimated, and the Medicare hospital trust fund will become insolvent by 2017, two years earlier than estimated, said a report by the trustees of the two popular programs. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said that "the dual effect of the economy and unemployment has produced a downward pressure on the financial security" of the Social Security program. The latest report said Medicare's financial problems are more severe than those facing Social Security because of rapidly rising health-care costs. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the report shows the urgency for the government to overhaul the two programs to help contain rising costs as the baby boom generation begins to retire and draw on benefits. "The sooner we come together to make the difficult but achievable changes needed to strengthen the solvency of Medicare and Social Security, the more time we'll give the American people to plan and to adjust, and the sooner we'll be able to ensure that these vital programs will be as important for generations to come as they are today," Geithner, one of trustees of the two programs, said at a news conference.

Be sure not to miss Russ Baker's latest video interview on the influence on current events of the Bush "Family of Secrets." I continue to wonder how long it will take this meme to go viral. Suzan ___________________