Today's NYT Op-Ed piece by Paul Krugman warns that serious health reform will not, can not, take place without a change in the way the insurance industry does business.
I read this right after today's letters to the editor, which brought to my attention an article I had missed last Saturday on business ethics that opens with
When a new crop of future business leaders graduates from the Harvard Business School next week, many of them will be taking a new oath that says, in effect, greed is not good.
The article makes a point that's worth exploring.
"A Promise to Be Ethical in an Era of Immorality," by Leslie Wayne, talks about a recent trend in MBA programs to add business ethics courses to their curricula.
In the post-Enron and post-Madoff era, the issue of ethics and corporate social responsibility has taken on greater urgency among students about to graduate. While this might easily be dismissed as a passing fancy — or simply a defensive reaction to the current business environment — business school professors say that is not the case. Rather, they say, they are seeing a generational shift away from viewing an M.B.A. as simply an on-ramp to the road to riches.
Those graduating today, they say, are far more concerned about how corporations affect the community, the lives of its workers and the environment. And business schools are responding with more courses, new centers specializing in business ethics and, in the case of Harvard, student-lead efforts to bring about a professional code of conduct for M.B.A.’s, not unlike oaths that are taken by lawyers and doctors.
Since the 1880s, large corporations have operated, with protection from the Supreme Court, as if profit was their sole responsibility. The health insurance industry is no exception.
Personally, I think our best shot, and maybe our only shot, at serious health reform is to adopt a single-payer plan: it's more affordable, and it makes health coverage a service rather than a profit-seeking business. However, if health reform is going to take the form of a "public option" as one option that leaves the for-profit insurance industry largely intact, then that industry is going to have to re-evaluate its priorities.
As Krugman puts it today ,
The "public option," if it materializes, will be just that — an option Americans can choose. And the reason for providing this option was clearly laid out in Mr. Obama’s letter: It will give Americans "a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep the insurance companies honest."
Those last five words are crucial because history shows that the insurance companies will do nothing to reform themselves unless forced to do so.
I don't know how much a few courses in an MBA program can do to change the nature of capitalism, or make an industry that thrives on depriving people of needed services accept regulation and rules. My cynical view is that they won't do much. But I do find the idealism of the students in
Wayne's article kind of refreshing, and even a little inspiring:
"The courses make people aware that the financial crisis is not a technical blip," Mr. Kogut said. "We’re seeing a generational change that understands that poverty is not just about Africa and India. They see inequities and the role of business to address them."
Dalia Rahman, who is about to leave Harvard for a job with Goldman Sachs in London, said she signed the pledge because "it takes what we learned in class and makes it more concrete. When you have to make a public vow, it’s a way to commit to uphold principles."
I don't have much more to say, but hadn't seen this article discussed last week, and wanted to share it.