Tag: insurance industry
Is Health Care More Important Than Health Care Profits?

Is Health Care More Important Than Health Care Profits?

Last year, Donald Trump said something stupid.

OK, nothing astonishing about that — just another day (or hour) in DonaldWorld. But this stupid thing he said did astonish an entire nation, specifically Britain. Apparently, Trump had seen a televised report by his most trusted foreign policy adviser — Fox News — showing people over there protesting about their government-supported National Health Service. See, tweeted our presidential son of privilege, even the Brits are fed up with the idea of health care for all, rejecting a socialized system that, according to Trump, “is going broke and not working.”

But — oops — the protestors were actually demonstrating in favor of their health service, demanding that the Tory government put “more staff, more beds, more funds” into the public program. Contrary to Trump’s ignorance and class bias against social programs, the British people love their tax-paid health care system, specifically because it does work. Everyone there is covered, getting quality care regardless of income levels. And they don’t have to fear that they’ll be denied service or bankrupted by a rip-off medical system run by and for private insurance giants, hospital monopolies, Big Pharma and other profiteers.

To see clear evidence of a system that’s really “going broke and not working,” the president could look at the 44 million Americans (including 4 million children) who have no health coverage, plus millions of others who’re being gouged by ruthless drugmakers, denied treatment by insurance bureaucrats, and drowned in debt by surprise medical bills.

The problem with America’s health care system is — hello! — the system! During the past 30-40 years, its structure has been wholly corporatized, perverting health care from a human right to just another commodity for sale. If it’s care you want from a system, a corporation is the worst way to go, for the corporate mandate is not to maximize the health of the many, but to maximize profits for its few investor elites.

For $3.5 trillion a year, shouldn’t we Americans get a world-class health care system? Yet, while we spend the most on health care of any advanced nation in the world (more than $10,000 a year per person), we get the worst results.

No surprise then that a majority of Americans want a major overhaul of our corporate system. Indeed, the boldest proposal for structural change — the “Medicare for All” idea put forth by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Pramila Jayapal — is now backed by 82 percent of Democrats, 66 percent of independents, and (get this) 52 percent of Republicans! So… why isn’t Congress responding to this overwhelming public demand for universal coverage?

Of course, corporate lobbyists and corrupting campaign cash are one reason. But also, our lawmakers do not personally feel the financial pain and emotional distress inflicted by a system built on private greed. Instead, the health needs of our governing elites are being generously provided by a double layer of the socialized care that they are refusing to provide for everyone else.

First, they and their loved ones get taxpayer-subsidized insurance coverage, with you and me paying about 72 percent of the price of their health plans. But —- shhh! — through a secretive office in the U.S. Capitol building, members of Congress also have privileged access to a full-blown system of — shhh! — health care socialism!

Called the Office of the Attending Physician, it provides a complete range of free medical services for lawmakers. No appointment needed, and no waiting. They just walk in and doctors, nurses, technicians, pharmacists, and other professionals tend to them right away. No bill is presented and no need to fill out an insurance form. They get what a former OAP staffer described as “The best health care on the planet.” Thus, members feel no urgency to reform the system, since it’s working beautifully — for them.

So, to get good care for all of us, the first step might have to be taking away the pampered care that lawmakers have quietly given to themselves.

Populist author, public speaker and radio commentator Jim Hightower writes The Hightower Lowdown, a monthly newsletter chronicling the ongoing fights by America’s ordinary people against rule by plutocratic elites. Sign up at HightowerLowdown.org.

Federal Backstop For Terrorism Insurance Set To Expire

Federal Backstop For Terrorism Insurance Set To Expire

By Jenni Bergal, Stateline.org

WASHINGTON — When a large hotel near the World Trade Center was destroyed in the 9/11 attacks and a second one severely damaged, the company that owned them — like many other businesses — was relieved they were covered by insurance.

But after 9/11, the insurance industry, which ended up sustaining an estimated $32.5 billion in total losses, grew skittish and began excluding terrorism from commercial policies nationwide. That resulted in businesses having less terrorism coverage or none at all.
States and cities worried lenders wouldn’t approve loans to businesses that didn’t have terrorism coverage, potentially stunting economic development and harming real estate markets.

In 2002 Congress stepped in and passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), a public-private partnership that provides a federal backstop against losses from a terrorist attack. But the law is scheduled to expire at the end of this year, and the two competing bills that would renew it lay out different visions of how much federal help private insurers should get. Some groups argue it shouldn’t be renewed at all.

When insurance companies cut back on terrorism coverage in the wake of 9/11, Host Hotels & Resorts, which owned the two New York City hotels, went from having a billion dollars of terrorism coverage for its 118 properties to $300 million. For CEO Edward Walter, whose company now owns 140 hotels, reauthorization of TRIA is a must.

“Anybody that’s operating in business, big or small, is at risk. The smaller ones are probably more at risk,” he said. “If I lose one hotel, I’d still have 139 left. But a florist operating in that hotel might not have another location. It might matter more to them than to me.”

Reauthorizing the terrorism program isn’t just significant to the business sector. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners has urged that it be renewed, as has the National Governors Association.

Officials in Nevada, for example, say the program is especially important to their state, where the economy relies heavily on the hotel and casino industry, which makes it a potential terrorism target. Nearly 40 million people visited Las Vegas last year, and the tourism trade supports more than 380,000 jobs.

“The threat of terrorism is very real in Nevada,” Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval said in an email to Stateline. “The reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act will provide a level of certainty in the face of terrorist threats and allow Nevada businesses to continue focusing on growing our economy.”

In Illinois, the Department of Insurance said in a statement that if adequate terrorism insurance isn’t available, it could impact “a multitude of high-value commercial properties” such as Chicago’s mega-high rise Willis Tower and Trump International Hotel & Tower, as well as “many thousands of hotels and restaurants, numerous large upscale shopping malls, and other retail stores.”

The National League of Cities also supports reauthorization, warning that if Congress doesn’t extend the program, many cities could experience “increased premiums and increased assumption of risk that they cannot afford.”

“For larger cities, it’s more of a concern, but terrorist activity can occur almost anywhere,” said Yucel Ors, the league’s program director for public safety and crime prevention. “Without TRIA, we understand that insurers would no longer be providing terrorism risk insurance, so the rates would be very high for local government. Eventually, that filters down to taxpayers.”

Under TRIA, insurers that choose to sell property insurance to commercial policyholders are required to offer terrorism coverage, but policyholders aren’t obligated to buy it. A report by Marsh, a large insurance broker, found that 62 percent of businesses purchased terrorism insurance in 2013 — up from about 27 percent in 2003.

The program is meant to protect insurers in the event of a catastrophic attack. If a terrorist act causes less than $100 million in insurance industry losses overall, there would be no federal assistance. But if the losses are between $100 million and $100 billion, insurers would pay a deductible and then the federal government would step in and pick up an 85 percent share of the remaining losses. When insurers’ losses are under $27.5 billion, the government would recoup taxpayers’ money through surcharges on all property and casualty policies.

Losses of more than $100 billion wouldn’t be covered by insurers or the federal government, so affected policyholders would be on the hook.

So far, there have no TRIA payouts because there have been no large-scale terrorist attacks since the law went into effect.

A Senate reauthorization bill, sponsored by a bipartisan group and passed unanimously by the Banking Committee last month, would extend TRIA for seven years and make minor modifications.

The House version, passed by Republicans in the Financial Services Committee without Democratic support, would extend the program for five years, and significantly, would hike the threshold that triggers the government assistance from $100 million to $500 million — a change the business community opposes.

Committee chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, believes that the TRIA program needs reform and that the insurance industry should cover far greater portions of the risk.

“By the industry’s own admission, taxpayers are currently forced to bear incalculable amounts of risk with only a fleeting promise that they might someday get a portion of their investment back,” Hensarling said in support of the House bill at a June committee meeting.
But TRIA defenders argue that the current program is budget neutral and taxpayers would be on the hook only in the event of a large-scale attack. And they say that insurers would be unwilling to cover terrorism without TRIA.

One of the major groups stumping for TRIA’s reauthorization is the Coalition to Insure Against Terrorism, a business coalition representing industries ranging from transportation to real estate to entertainment. Among its members: the National Football League, the American Gaming Association, and the Association of Art Museum Directors.

“There’s such widespread interest because no one can reasonably predict where and when the next terrorist attack will be,” said Martin DePoy, a lobbyist who is the coalition’s coordinator. “We’ve seen that since 9/11 there have been dozens of attacks thwarted. Some have been in major metropolitan areas; others haven’t. Everyone now needs terrorism risk coverage. The next attack could be in Paducah, Kentucky.”

TRIA doesn’t just focus on property insurance; it also covers workers compensation.

Almost every state requires businesses to provide coverage that gives benefits to workers who are injured. Insurers can’t exclude terrorism coverage from those policies.

“If there are on-the-job casualties because of terrorism, insurance companies have no say. They have to pay out,” said Michael Dworsky, an associate economist at the RAND Corporation who has studied TRIA.

Photo via WikiCommons

Interested in national news? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!