I have had an outrage diary burning in my brain for the entire day. The outrage was sparked by (shocker) John Cornyn on CNN's State of the Union earlier today.
This guy epitomizes what I consider the absolute worst of the worst in the Republican party (and that's saying something). The way he treats people - views their problems, their concerns - the utter contempt he displays in even the seemingly most casual comment was breathtaking.
CNN has published the transcript of the interview, which I will excerpt below the fold.
(Link to transcript)
The first question was about extending unemployment benefits:
Let's talk it over with the number two Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Republicans Senator John Cornyn of Texas.
I want to start with the economy. And, directly to you Mr. Cornyn, will Republicans support something the White House and Democrats say is critical, and that is another extension of unemployment benefits, even though there's a bit of a glimmer of hope in the economy?
Would you support that extension, and will Republicans make that an easy issue?
CORNYN: I think we need to provide a safety net for people who find themselves out of work temporarily. And hopefully the economy will pick up. Unfortunately, White House projections are that unemployment, even though it dipped down by one tick, will go over 10 percent. So, you know, it looks like we're in for some pretty tough days still ahead.
KING: So, yes, extend unemployment benefits?
CORNYN: I think we need to take a close look at that. We don't want to provide a disincentive to work, but where people are out of work and they need -- need some help, sure. We're -- we're open to that.
Ah. A disincentive to work. Because these fat unemployment benefits SO enable the bread winner at the head of a family to cover ALL their costs - healthcare, food, clothing, housing - so by all means. Let's ensure that extending those benefits doesn't incentivize those slacker unemployed people to remain unemployed.
(Now onto public option, co-op idea, etc. in healthcare reform) KING: Well, Senator Cornyn, let me come in on that point, because Senator Enzi, Senator Grassley are trying to reach agreement on some sort of a co-op plan that they think would get health care especially to people in rural areas -- and your state has many of them -- without a strong government hand.
Are you open to a co-op that has, maybe, a larger government role but not a full government option?
CORNYN: Well, I'm not for a government takeover using another name like "co-op," but so we have to see what the details are.
Liar. A total, abject, willing lie. Nowhere in the current proposal does government "take over" healthcare. The public option doesn't do it, and the co-op option doesn't do it. He goes on:
But, you know, the problem is that there's a lot of middle ground where we can meet where it's insurance reform; it's realigning incentives to provide value rather than incentivize volume of procedures; providing continuity of care, medical homes and the like, which I think have a lot of hope out there to providing better quality of care at hopefully a lower price. But the problem is, some of these extreme positions like the so- called "government option," in conference committee, where Democrats have a super-majority in both the House and the Senate, without some assurance that the public option, or government option, is off the table, I don't see how we make much headway.
Because we know, at least according to one group of analysts, that if there's a government option, it undercuts all private-sector competition, and about 119 million people who currently have insurance will lose it and find themselves on the government plan.
Conveniently omitted: the "study" to which Cornyn refers was conducted by the Lewin Group. As The Washington Post points out, The Lewin Group is wholly owned by UnitedHealth Group, a health insurance company. WaPo illuminates the whole issue even further:
More specifically, the Lewin Group is part of Ingenix, a UnitedHealth subsidiary that was accused by the New York attorney general and the American Medical Association, a physician's group, of helping insurers shift medical expenses to consumers by distributing skewed data. Ingenix supplied its parent company and other insurers with data that allegedly understated the "usual and customary" doctor fees that insurers use to determine how much they will reimburse consumers for out-of-network care.
Right-wing talk radio blatherers like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly pump up the "research" and "conclusions" by the Lewin group - but they preach to a willing audience. Cornyn is elected - and his constituents should know that he's fucking them over on the basis of a "study" funded by the very industry that is already fucking them over. Someone needs to tell them that they are being double-fucked - and I bet neither even kissed them first.
Back to the transcript:
KING: So, Senator Cornyn, do you agree with Senator Durbin that some of these people are overstepping (referring to the batshit insane Republican & insurance industry shills who pack healthcare town halls - some even wearing their Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield employee golf shirts)?
CORNYN: Well, I was with Congressman Doggett yesterday at a community health clinic here in Austin, and there were, I would say, an equal number of people who were clamoring for a single-payer system and those who said that this is -- they're scared to death that what they have now they won't be able to keep, and that Medicare, which is, of course, the safety net health care system for so many seniors, will be undercut by $500 billion, cut from that program just to pay for this vast expansion of the government's role in health care.
So just for shits and giggles, I went out to the April 2009 Lewin Group report and searched the document on the term "Medicare". I found some of the usual stuff (119 million people will be forced onto the public plan & lose private health insurance, for example). But what leapt out at me was the detailed, excruciating documentation of how insurers and other who profit from healthcare will ++gasp++ not make as much money. Here are a few:
If Medicare payment levels are used in the public plan, premiums would be up to 30 percent less than premiums for comparable private coverage. On average, the monthly premium in the public plan for a typical benefits package would be $761 per family compared with an average of $970 per family in the private market for the same coverage.
::snip::
Medicare premiums would be lower than private premiums because of the exceptional leverage Medicare has with providers. Medicare pays hospitals about 30 percent less than private insurers pay for the same service. Physician payments are about 20 percent less than under private coverage. Also, because Medicare has no allowance for insurer profits or broker/agent commissions, administrative costs for this population are about one-third of administrative costs in private health plans.
Assuming Medicare reimbursement rates and eligibility for all individuals and employers, provider net income would decline under this public plan proposal, even after accounting for reduced uncompensated care and increased utilization for the newly insured. Net hospital revenues would fall by $36 billion (4.6 percent), and physician net income would fall by $33 billion (6.8 percent). If eligibility is restricted to individuals and small firms, net hospital revenues would actually increase by $11.3 billion due to the increase in newly insured individuals. But net physician incomes would decline by $3.0 billion.
::snip::
B. Premiums in the Public Plan
We estimate that premiums for the public plan under this scenario would be between 30 percent and 40 percent less than premiums for comparable private coverage. As shown in Figure 1, provider payment levels for hospital services under Medicare are equal to only about 71 percent of what is paid by private health plans for the same services. In fact, Medicare payments to hospitals are actually equal to only between 92 percent and 95 percent of the cost of the services provided by hospitals. For physician services, Medicare pays only about 81 percent of what is paid by private health plans for the same services.
::snip::
Administrative costs are also expected to be lower for the public plan than under private insurance, reflecting that the public plan would not include an allowance for insurer profit and insurance agent and broker commissions and fees. Administrative costs, including profit and commissions, for privately insured small groups are on average equal to about 31.7 percent of covered benefits. If implemented through Medicare, administrative costs would be equal to about 13.2 percent of covered services.
Is it me, or does this sound an awful lot like the vaunted $600 toilet seat of the mid-eighties, only in reverse? The summary of my excerpts tells me the following:
- Premiums for comparable coverage (key word: comparable) will be 30% less under a public option.
- The average family will pay $209
less in their premiums under a public option.
- The government has enormous leverage in the healthcare market which translates to lower costs.
- The government has much lower administrative costs in healthcare and therefore doesn't have those additional costs to pass to consumers.
- Insurance companies will lose money with a public option.
I feel like I'm living in bizarro-world. I'll bet you any amount of money that Cornyn fully defends the WalMarts of this world, for coming up with a business model that allows them to deliver the same goods at a lower price. It's just with health insurance that he doesn't find that revolutionary model of success so palatable.
Back to the transcript:
CORNYN: The latest budget projection by the Budget Committee shows that over a 10-year period of time, this will cost $2.4 trillion, that's the House bill, and of course, it will be funded by Medicare cuts, it will be funded by tax increases on small business. And during a time of recession, that would kill the ability of small businesses to allow us to retain and create new jobs.
One thing I didn't see in Cornyn's beloved Lewin Group report was where Medicare cuts would fund the public option. Not sure where that came from, but I'll lay my wager that it came straight out of Cornyn's ass.
Cornyn, having shut his ass up momentarily, finishes his part of the interview:
So I think we need to slow down, as Senator Durbin said earlier, that's why I'm glad we have this August recess, we can talk to our constituents, hear from them, and let's keep working together to try to come up with something that makes sense, not this huge government takeover of our health care system.
It's not news to anyone here that Cornyn is an assclown. But he basically told ALL of his constituents that profits and the health and well being of the insurance industry trumps the well being of an individual and a family. In August of 2008, median household income for a family of four in Texas was $60,298 - and that's BEFORE the economy went off a cliff. Somehow I'd wager that that 30% reduction in premium cost would mean an awful lot to folks who aren't earning that much in the state of Texas. And he backed it up by citing a study conducted by an insurance industry front.
This pissed ME off and I don't even live in Texas. But maybe it was just the glare off of Cornyn's forehead that exacerbated my ire...
Call Cornyn on his lies:
Contact page
Too bad he isn't up for re-election until 2014 - but hey. I have a long memory. Do the voters of Texas?
Update [2009-8-9 21:38:46 by RenaRF]: Incidentally, here's what I wrote to Cornyn's office via the contact form linked above:
Just a quick note - I really found the Senator's appearance on State of the Union this morning both sad and incomprehensible.
Extending unemployment benefits is a "disincentive" to work? Have you ever tried to live on unemployment by yourself, let alone with a family to support? You should try it sometime - do a whole Morgan Spurlock "30 Days" type of scenario wherein you try to make ends meet for you and your family (let's say it's an average size of 4, including yourself) on unemployment. How tone deaf can you possibly be?
And the figures you cite on the so-called public option? SHAME ON YOU. You know those come from the Lewin Group, a wholly owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth. If you had bothered to read the report they published in April of this year, you would see that the 119 million figure you promote in your scare-tactic approach to protecting donor profits is a teeny, infintessimal part of the overall paper. The larger part, however, concerns itself with reporting extensively on how much money the insurance industry will lose in premiums with a public option on the table. It talks chapter and verse about how much individuals and families will save, and then goes on to talk about the poor, poor hospital industry and how horribly they'll suffer in their pocketbooks.
Boo hoo.
At least the interview shows you for what you really are - wholly disconnected from the daily life of any single average American.
RenaRF