Don Corelone called his people in for a meeting yesterday.

WASHINGTON—The government’s top health official summoned health-insurance chief executives to the White House Thursday and told them they need to disclose more data justifying sharp premium increases.

The dressing-down, part of which was televised, was part of a campaign by the White House to build support for its health overhaul as President Barack Obama presses Congress to deliver final legislation to his desk in the next few weeks.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called five insurance company executives, including the heads of UnitedHealth Group Inc. and WellPoint Inc., to the Roosevelt Room to request explanation on the recent rate increases.

Who is Kathleen Sebelius to summon private individuals to the white house to explain why they raised their prices? It’s none of her or Obama’s business. No one is forcing people to buy their products, so if people don’t want to pay the prices, they can choose not to. Oh yeah, they will be forced to at gun point real soon.

Mr. Obama dropped by and read them a letter from a 50-year-old cancer survivor from Ohio whose premiums rose 40% this year. He told the group that such rate increases are “unjustifiable,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said.

How about we read some letters from upstanding people that the government has imprisoned or pillaged for taxes? How about the family farm that had to be sold after gramps died, because the family couldn’t afford the death tax? How about the poor child who’s trapped in crappy public education, and because of Obama they had their charter school option taken away? Maybe we should read a letter from a child, who’s mother’s body was blown to bits by a drone attack? Oh that’s right, those aren’t American children, so they don’t matter. Maybe we should read a letter from a small business owner, who couldn’t sleep for weeks over the thought of having to layoff someone who’s become like family to him (or her)?

Insurers said the drug makers, medical-device makers, hospitals and other health-care companies are driving up the underlying cost of medical care. They said that trying to lower premiums without addressing those costs was destined to fail.

“The rate is really reflective of our other parts of the health-care delivery system,” Ron Williams, chief executive of Aetna Inc., told the group at the beginning of the meeting. In an interview after the meeting, Mr. Williams said the secretary should have included representatives from those industries.

I can see it now. “Please Mr. Obama. It’s not our fault. Please don’t point the gun at us.” Truly I think the insurance companies are the root problem of health care costs, but it’s not their doing. We have decided that insurance is supposed to cover everything, and then we complain when prices skyrocket and premiums skyrocket. Government of course played started it all off with their wage caps, HMOs, mandatory coverage, tax credits to businesses for supplying insurance, medicare/medicaide, etc.

The day started with gracious exchanges followed by sharper words afterwards

Ms. Sebelius asked the companies to begin posting information online for consumers to explain how much of their revenue goes toward administrative costs, marketing and actual care, along with other details of the rate increases. She called for “greatly increased transparency about what indeed is going on.”

This could make a great movie you know? Kathleen Sebelius can be walking around the room, nonchalantly waving a gun around as she’s talking. Not really pointing it at anyone directly, but they get the point. Then she says, “OK, I’ll tell you what. (Need mob sounding accent) Here’s what I want you to do. I want you to start posting all your information online.”

Insurance company: “But that information is confidential. We already are forced to disclose financial information for the SEC. That would give too much info to our ….”

Sebelius cocking the gun and turning towards the complaining insurance executive: “I think I’m being fair here. Now, are you going to do like I ask or what?” She stares down the executive, who meekly gives a nod.

Several executives at the meeting said they didn’t immediately commit to posting the information but were open to the idea. Much of that data is already detailed in filings to state insurance regulators, though they are difficult to access. Publicly traded companies report executive compensation and national cost trends, but keep some other measures under wraps as trade secrets. “There might be more transparency out there than you might realize,” said UnitedHealth Chief Executive Stephen Hemsley.

The two sides couldn’t agree whether insurers are highly profitable or just scraping by. Industry executives rolled out data showing their average profit margin was 2.2% last year, lower than other health industries. Ms. Sebelius cited figures showing that top insurers earned a collective $12 billion in profits last year, a 56% increase from the prior year, but that didn’t account for one-time gains.

Oh my world. You mean these companies are actually trying to make money by providing a service to customers? The audacity (and not of hope). How much does the Obama administration think these guys are going to make once Sebelius and Obama turn the gun on the people and force us to become customers? At that point, the government controls both citizen and the company, so who knows really. A 2.2% profit margin is nothing to write home about. Also, considering that health care is 1/6th of our economy, earning a collective $12 billion is not a lot of money. Think about the collective money Obama and the rest of government throw around.

The health overhaul, if passed, would require most Americans to carry health coverage or face a fine, meaning insurers would get more business.

Ah Ha! That will show those evil corporations! Wait….. wait… did I miss something?

However, insurers would be required to accept all applicants, including those who are sick. And they would see tougher restrictions on premium increases, particularly through the new state-based insurance exchanges.

Doesn’t state-based insurance exchanges sound so free market? This is sort of like the guy who comes to have a meeting with Don Corleone, so he can ask to do business in the neighborhood. Of course the Don is a reasonable man. He’s not going to be unfair. The new guy can do business. He just has to pay the toll to the mob…..I mean the government.

The White House has also proposed a new federal body with power to review premium increases. But that may not end up in a final bill due to procedural regulations that might require it to be jettisoned. That would be a relief for insurance companies, who say the panel would duplicate the rate regulation they already get from individual states. “If you have the rules written in the states and the prices written in Washington, there might be a disconnect,” said Angela F. Braly, chief executive of WellPoint Inc.

via Health Secretary Sebelius Debates Rate Increases With Insurers – WSJ.com.

Don’t forget though. All this additional regulation, bureacracy, panels, etc is going to lower cost. Obama said so.

During the Health Care Summit yesterday, the word pooling was used a lot. Typically, it was in reference to how the government can enabled people and small businesses to setup pools to purchase health insurance. Has anyone asked what is preventing that now? The politicians act like nature itself is preventing “pooling”.

Senator Baucus: So the main point is we’re not really that far apart. We’re trying to find ways for small business to pool, small business to take advantage of competition, they shop and compare; and also some tax provisions that enable — to encourage businesses to get health insurance.

Congressman Andrews: And then the President asked the question about whether we can find agreement on pooling the purchasing power of small businesses and individuals so they can get the same deal that big companies and members of Congress get. And my friend John Kline talked about the association health plan proposal. Respectfully, John, I think that what you’re talking about with association health plans and what we’re talking about with exchanges is a semantic difference. It’s a matter of pooling the purchasing power of small businesses and individuals to get a better deal.

President Obama: I just want to point out, though, that the principle of pooling is at the center of both the Senate and the House bill.

Representative Boustany: Small business health plans is one way to really deal with this and allow for pooling.

What is preventing people and small businesses from pooling? It’s the same root problem of all our problems, GOVERNMENT. The government is the one who sets up these tyrannical rules and regulations that say what “free” people can and can’t do. They tell you how you are going to buy, what you are going to buy, how you are going to pay for it, and on and on. It is not nature, and it is not the free market.

If these geniuses want to enable people to pool, they should get the government out of health care. If pooling makes sense for people, they will do it themselves. The problem is right now they can’t because government is a pool of bad regulations and idiots with bad ideas.

You seriously have to laugh at the idiocy of our government officials. They simultaneously do things that drive up costs at the same time they try to cap costs. It’s like trying to squeeze the air out of one end of a balloon at the same time trying to keep it from going to the other end.

Seeking to revive his stalled health-care legislation, President Barack Obama is proposing a new idea to address health costs, giving the federal government authority to block insurers from making premium rate increases.

Sorry, one second. I’ll be right back…………

Ok, I didn’t think so. I was looking to see where in the Constitution it says the Federal government has any power to block private enterprises from raising their prices. Competition will prevent private enterprise from raising their prices above market prices. Oh, that’s right our government prevents competition between states.

The move raises the ante after two weeks of presidential bashing of rate increases including WellPoint Inc.’s decision to raise premiums for some California customers by as much as 39%. WellPoint has defended its price increase as unavoidable in light of rising health costs.

While I would hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, this huge rate hike sure comes at an opportune time for ObamaCare. I mean, if I wanted to help out Obama, I would probably do just this. This would make people just mad enough to say “Screw it. Let the government take over the industry. How can they justify a 39% increase.”

Meanwhile, once the health care theft bill is passed, the insurance companies have a huge increase of new customers who have no choice but to buy their crappy products. After all, the customers has a gun pointed at them.

Private insurance companies are now regulated by the states, which review proposed rate increases. Under the Obama proposal, the federal Department of Health and Human Services would gain the power to review and block premium increases.

via Obama in New Health Push to Block Insurers From Raising Premiums – WSJ.com.

Wow, I didn’t realize there was no federal regulation of the insurance industry. The Wall Street Journal really did break news this morning. Can we confirm this and burn all the papers in the federal registry?

States, like the rest of our government idiots, do tell insurance companies they have to provide coverage for all kinds of medical conditions even when the customer doesn’t want or need it. This does not help consumer. They are not getting something for nothing just because state governments tell insurance companies they have to provide certain coverages. The customer still has to pay for services they never wanted and do not need.

Then in order to make sure the citizen can’t avoid the idiotic ideas of their local states, the federal government steps in and makes sure you are trapped. They make sure you cannot buy insurance from across state lines. This is no different than how they trap us into the expensive drug market we have here in the US. Because we aren’t allowed to buy drugs from across the border, drug companies can charge whatever they want.

After all this anti-free market, anti-consumer, anti-freedom idiocy is put into place, you get demagogues like Obama saying the free market has failed. He must step in. The government must have the power to take over the private sector in order to save us. Meanwhile, the only saving we need is from our fascist government.

Lewrockwell.com has a fascinating post today (actually a chapter from a book) about how the market could better handle defense from foreign agression than government. As I said in my post the other day, defense whether domestic with police or foreign with military, can be defended as a government role, because government’s role is supposed to be defending individual liberty and protecting us from coercion.

While I think it is hard for most people to believe that the free market can provide policing and military defence (even I questioned military), this post makes a great argument for the free market. As I was reading, lights were going off in my head as to downfalls of government defense and the benefits to the people of it being handled in the free market. Here are some highlights. I highly recommend reading the entire post. Whether you agree or disagree, it is fascinating.

Many people ask, “But how in the world could a laissez-faire society deal with aggression by foreign nations, since it would have no government to protect it?” Behind this question are two unrealized assumptions: first, that government is some sort of extra-societal entity with resources of its own – resources which can only be tapped for defense by the action of government – and, second, that government does, in fact, defend its citizens.

In reality, government must draw all its resources from the society over which it rules. When a governmentally controlled society takes defensive action against an aggression by a foreign power, where does it get the resources necessary to take that action? The men who fight are private individuals, usually conscripted into government service. The armaments are produced by private individuals working at their jobs. The money to pay for these armaments and the pittance doled out to the conscripts, as well as the money to pay the salaries of that small minority comprising the other members of the armed forces, is confiscated from private individuals by means of taxation.

Government’s only contribution is to organize the whole effort by the use of force – the force of the draft, taxation, and other, more minor coercions, such as rationing, wage and price ceilings, travel restrictions, etc. So, to maintain that government is necessary to defend a society from foreign aggression is to maintain that it is necessary to use domestic aggression against the citizens in order to protect them from foreign aggression.

In spite of the obvious immorality of forcing men to protect themselves against force, some people still maintain that a coerced defense is more efficient than a willing one and is, therefore, permissible or even necessary in an emergency situation such as war. A brief examination will show the fallacy of this variation of the moral/practical dichotomy.

The success of any endeavor, including war, depends on the amount of thought and effort put into it by those involved. Under the pressure of force, a man may be induced to put forth a great deal of effort and even a little thought, but his reluctant, fear-driven exertions can’t compare in efficiency and productivity with the ambitious and tireless efforts of a free man striving to accomplish something he really wants to get done. The man who works enthusiastically not only works more efficiently, he also uses his mind to discover new and better ways of reaching the goal, and such innovation is the key to success.

Furthermore, a system of force is always wasteful of resources, because the more unwilling is the victim of the force, the more energy must be diverted to keeping him in line and the less is left to accomplish the task. Men who are forced to do what they don’t want to (or not to do what they do want to) are amazingly good at devising devious and complicated ways to cheat on the system which enslaves them. This is why even the most totalitarian of governments find that they cannot wage war without huge propaganda efforts aimed at convincing their own people of the justice and necessity of the war.

Throughout history, people have been talked into submitting to the tyrannies of their governments because, they were told, their government was vitally necessary to protect them from the even more terrible depredations of other governments. The governments, having put over this bit of propaganda, then proceeded to cajole and coerce their citizens into protecting them!

Governments never defend their citizens; they can’t. What they do is make the citizens defend them, usually after their stupid and imperialistic policies have aggravated or threatened another government to the point of armed conflict. Governmental protection against foreign aggression is a myth (but a myth which, sad to say, most people actually believe in).

Government can’t defend its citizens, and it is foolish and sacrificial for the citizens to defend a coercive monopoly which not only enslaves them but makes a practice of provoking conflicts with other coercive monopolies – i.e., with other governments.

Morally, no man may be prevented from defending himself and his values, nor may he be forced to defend them if he doesn’t want to do so.

If some of the people in an area feel that one of their neighbors is not “carrying his fair share of the defense burden,” they are free to use rational persuasion to attempt to convince him that it would be in his interest to assume his own responsibility of self-defense. They may not, however, extort his compliance by any use or threat of force…even if they are clearly in the majority. Nor would it be practical for them to do so. A man who is coerced into defending his neighbors against a foreign aggressor may decide to spend part of his efforts on defending himself against his coercive neighbors instead.

In a laissez-faire society, defense against foreign aggression would be offered for sale on the free market, just as would any other type of defense. Because of the close natural connection between insurance companies and defense agencies, it would probably be most feasible to sell defense against foreign aggression in the form of insurance policies. That is, insurance companies would sell policies agreeing to protect their insureds against foreign aggression and to indemnify them for losses resulting from such aggression (the contract to be void, of course, if the insured provoked the conflict by his own aggressive actions). The insurance companies would see to it that whatever defenses were necessary to prevent the losses were provided, and they would make sure that a very efficient job of defense was done, since any losses would cost them large sums of money.

A major portion of the cost of defense against foreign aggression in a laissez-faire society would be borne originally by business and industry, as owners of industrial plants obviously have a much greater investment to defend than do owners of little houses in suburbia. If there were any real threat of aggression by a foreign power, businessmen would all be strongly motivated to buy insurance against that aggression, for the same reason that they buy fire insurance, even though they could save money in the short run by not doing so.

An interesting result of this fact is that the cost of defense would ultimately tend to be spread among the whole population, since defense costs, along with overhead and other such costs, would have to be included in the prices paid for goods by consumers. So, the concern that “free riders” might get along without paying for their own defense by parasitically depending on the defenses paid for by their neighbors is groundless. It is based on a misconception of how the free-market system would operate.

Foreign Aggression by Morris and Linda Tannehill.

The one part that really struck out at me was paying for defense like an insurance policy. As I stated the other day, insurance companies could provide fire services to their subscribers instead of having it handled through government and taxation. Insurance companies have the incentive to minimize their outlays, so they will are motivated to get fires are put out quickly and make steps to minimize the chances of having fires. The less fires they have, the higher their profits. On the other hand, the more fires (or other services delegated to a fire dept.) the bigger the department comes, and the bigger their budgets become. This is the goal of a government organization. Anyways, they explained how insurance could address defense in a similar manner.

While insurance companies have been demonized in our media and government, they provide valuable services when government isn’t involved. I don’t hear too many people complaining about their evil life and home owner insurance companies. Instead they complain about health insurance companies who are heavily regulated and where government accounts for 50% of all expenditures.

While I haven’t worked through all the details of whether I think this could work or not, here are some of the first thoughts that came to mind when I read this:

1. Insurance companies would not want war. It would cost them too much money. Since their contract is to defend their client, they would pursue diplomacy better than a government would who gets more money and control if there is a war.

2. Insurance companies in looking to reduce the chances of expensive reconstruction costs, would invest heavily in defensive measures that would dissuade agression. Instead of going out looking for dragons to slay, they would do what the people(clients) want, which is to be defended only. Most people do not want their government going out starting wars.

3. While the defense agencies might be incentized to have wars in order to grow, insurance companies, who would be the client or owner of the defense agency has the exact opposite incentive. Because of that, the insurance company would keep the defense agency in check. If the defense agency was stirring up trouble in order to get more business, they would lose the largest clients, insurance companies. Instead their incentive would be to develop lower cost technologies and to become more efficient. That would increase their profits without the need for increased warfare.

Again, this is just off the top of my head as I’m reading this myself, so I may be missing some incentives and some possible downfalls. I’d love to hear thoughts from everyone else.

Nick Gillespie was on Stossel and got into a heated exchange with a lady who thinks she knows how to live your life better than you do. Underlying her entire argument is that you do not have the right to choose what to eat or what is best for you. You gave up that right when our government decided they had a role in our health care system. While food is the main focus, if we have socialized health care for all, this will spread into every aspect of our lives.

YouTube – Nick Gillespie pwns Blond Health Nazi.

So, the Dems always act like they are fighting against the big insurance and drug companies for the people. Yeah right. Looks who’s coming to the democrats rescue to save health care reform.

We’ve been following the special election in Massachusetts, where the GOP hopes to pull a surprise upset in the race to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat.

If they do pull it off, healthcare reform is instantly in trouble, as the Democrats drop below 60.

But money is coming to the rescue of Democrat Martha Coakley — healthcare industry lobbyist money, specifically.

Tim Carney identifies several of her top fundraisers. Take a look at who they represent:

• Thomas Boggs, Patton Boggs: Bristol-Myers Squibb
• Chuck Brain, Capitol Hill Strategies: Amgen, BIO, Merck, PhRMA
• Susan Brophy, Glover Park Group: Blue Cross, Pfizer
• Steven Champlin, Duberstein Group: AHIP, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis
• Licy Do Canto, Raben Group: Amgen
• Gerald Cassidy, Cassidy & Associates: U. Mass Memorial Health Care
• David Castagnetti, Mehlman, Vogel, Castagnetti: Abbot Labs, AHIP, Astra-Zenaca, General Electric, Humana, Merck, PhRMA.
• Steven Elmendorf, Elmendorf Strategies: Medicines Company, PhRMA, United Health
• Shannon Finley, Capitol Counsel: Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Blue Cross, GE, PhRMA, Sanofi-Aventis.
• Heather Podesta, Heather Podesta & Partners: Cigna, Eli Lilly, HealthSouth
• Tony Podesta, Podesta Group: Amgen, GE, Merck, Novartis.
• Robert Raben, Raben Group: Amgen, GE.

Of course, this is how politics works. Lobbyists for various corporations and causes get involved wherever they can for candidates of both parties. But when you see all these big pharma (and insurance!) representatives coming with cash for a crucial vote, you know which side they’re on.

via Panicked Healthcare Lobbyists Descend On Massachusetts To Save The 60th Democratic Vote For Reform.

I’m sure no one that reads this blog is surprised. If the health care bill wasn’t in the best interest of the drug and health care companies, they would not be coming to the rescue for the democrats. Why do they want this bill? Well, government is forcing people at gun point to buy their products. How much easier can business be for them? They don’t have to convince you to buy their product anymore. You can’t decide that you only need a minimal plan, because their buddies in congress are going to make sure you have a “qualified plan”. Oh, but we’ll figure out what that is after the bill is past. Let’s not worry about the details right now.

What a joke our government has become. The mafia must be looking on with envy. The big drug companies have all signed up for protection, and they are all doing their part to protect the turf of the ruling class.

I can’t believe I found this on Newsweek. Remember when you were free to make your own choices? Once the government starts toward an objective, they will do everything and anything to make it happen. The results do not matter. Here is a lady who pays a $1500/year fine, so she can keep the insurance she has. What happens? Here provider is driven out of the state. By the looks of her, she must be too stupid to realize what’s best for her. Luckily, the govmint is here to help!

Health-Insurance Holdouts – Newsweek.com.

Merry Christmas America. How do you like being raped and pillaged for Christmas? Our government, once this is signed into law, has cut the final string to it’s founding principle of protecting individual rights. No longer are we individuals. We are now part of the “public”. Anything thing that can be construed as harmful to the “public health” will used against the individual. We are all only one NIH study away from losing any right the government chooses to take away. Guns are first.

The Senate approved sweeping health-overhaul legislation on Thursday, a landmark moment for White House-led efforts to expand insurance coverage to more than 30 million Americans.

via Senate Passes Sweeping Health-Care Bill – WSJ.com.

Just as a reminder this bill does nothing to fix the problems as I explained in my post on root causes.

Might be good to re-read my posts on real free market solutions.

Part 1

Part 2

Apparently, so called green firms are looking toward local coercion to grow their businesses now that the global gun to the head fell through.

Businesses that had banked on global greenhouse-gas limits to spur alternative-energy investments now are looking to national and local policies to get more wind turbines turning and nuclear-power plants humming, after the muddled outcome of the Copenhagen climate summit.

The failure of the United Nations gathering to produce an enforceable accord to cut fossil-fuel emissions leaves the U.S., Europe, China, India and other countries to pursue the energy policies they already had.

In many cases, those policies are aimed more at strategic goals, such as economic development or reducing dependence on Mideast oil, than at threats posed by global warming.

via After Summit, ‘Cleantech’ Firms Reset Strategy – WSJ.com.

“Businesses that had banked on global greenhouse-gas limits” should be considered fascist enterprises. No businesses should be looking to force to public into buying their crap in order to grow their businesses, but unfortunately that is how business works now in America. Look at the health insurance companies. They are going to have millions of new customers thanks to government force.

Also, as stated in the last sentence, so called green tech is not economic development. You don’t develop economically by forcing people to buy something that is more expensive, delivers you less energy, to eventually get back what you already had. I’m not more wealthy for trading in my paid for Ford for a new Mercedes with a car payment.

Last night I’m watching John Stossel’s new show on Fox Business. His topic was health care. As usual, Stossel was right on blaming health insurance (third party payer) for the rising prices. Of course, the socialists in the audience and in some of the on the street interviews were having none of it. What was to blame? PROFITS! These idiots think that profits drive up the costs. I even debated a socialist on Facebook who said under socialism goods and services would be the cheapest they can be, because there would be no profit. By definition, he thinks removing profit lowers price. His exact words were, “Profit wouldn’t even be considered in a socialist state, so drugs would automatically be at their lowest possible price.”

It’s silly to think that removing profit makes things cheaper. Price is a function of supply and demand, not profit. Socialism always generates more demand while dwindling supply, so there is no reason to think that not having profits would lower price. That is a simple economic fact. The other hazard of removing profit though is lack of innovation. This is where removing profit is deadly.

The biggest profits are generated with the introduction of a new innovation. The innovator has first dibs on the market. They can charge the most to recoup their investment costs. After investment costs are recouped, they generate tons of profit. I know that sounds horrible in the eyes of many socialists, but what happens next is competitors see the huge profits. They then rush in to capture some of the profits for themselves. By jumping on the profit bandwagon, they bring the goods and services to more people. How do they differentiate themselves in order to get a piece of the profits? They either innovate, making the product or service even better, they seek efficiencies, which lowers costs, or they undercut their competitors, seeking less profits in hopes of taking some of the market. This whole process drives down the cost through innovation, efficiencies, and out right price wars.

This competition always drives profit margins down. Anyone who gets in on the early stage of a new technology can tell you “enjoy it while it lasts.” Once the profit margins are driven down so far, you end up with the companies who can deliver the products or services with the best quality and efficiency.

Meanwhile, the innovators are back at it seeking the massive profits that come from new products and services. This is what leads to our ever improving livelihood.

So what does this mean for health care? If we remove the boot of the government, we can have this same process in health care. It does happen inspite of the government now, but there is no doubt that it is hampered and slowed. For instance, moving a drug through the FDA is estimated to cost close to $1 billion dollars and takes 15 years. How many drugs are there that are needed, but can’t produce the profits necessary to overcome the costs imposed by the FDA? How many people die without those drugs?

If you remove profits, you remove innovation. If you remove innovation, people die. New drugs, treatments and cures are not developed.  If you remove profit, you remove competition. It’s competition that brings products and services at ever cheaper prices to the masses. If people can’t get the products and services, people die. While all these socialists scream, “No profits in health care!”, they should be screaming “Let people die, let people die!”

Watch Stossel’s Health Care show here:

http://www.therightscoop.com/watch-%e2%80%98stossel%e2%80%99-from-fox-business-%e2%80%93-december-17-2009/