potter, Wendell

=switched sides? so sorta whistleblower?
=new front
<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-front-group-hall-of-s_b_847338">https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-front-group-hall-of-s_b_847338</a>
no lnxTHE BLOGThe Front Group Hall of Shame Gets a New InducteeThe creation of the Choice and Competition Coalition is coming straight from the corporate lobbyist playbook. And it undoubtedly will have some big money behind it.Wendell PotterBy Wendell Potter, ContributorFounder of Tarbell.orgApr 11, 2011, |Updated Jun 11, 2011This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.Today will go down in the public relations history books as the day health insurers and their allies began a coordinated campaign to ensure that the health care reform law is implemented in ways that will benefit them way more than the rest of us. Today is the day they plan to launch their brand new front group -- drum roll please -- the Choice and Competition Coalition.
But first, a bit of context.
In a chapter of my book, Deadly Spin, entitled "The Playbook," I explain the remarkable track record that big corporations and their lobbyists have in getting the American public to buy the bill of goods they're selling. They bring out the Playbook, I note, for a single objective: to influence public policy by manipulating public opinion.
The Playbook comprises a set of activities that have long worked beautifully for industries fighting proposed new laws, regulations or taxes that are designed to make them behave in more socially responsible ways.
Among the first industries to use the Playbook was Big Tobacco. PR firms actually created the Playbook for tobacco companies almost half a century ago after the U.S. Surgeon General declared that smoking was hazardous to our health. Consumer groups launched campaigns to discourage people from lighting up and pressured lawmakers to regulate the production and sale of cancer sticks.
According to the Playbook, these are the initial actions of industries under attack: (1) "Hire a big and well-connected PR firm," and (2) "Have your PR firm set up and operate a coalition or front group, which, if at all possible, should have words like 'American' or 'freedom' or 'choice' in its name."
So, as you see, the creation of the Choice and Competition Coalition is coming straight from the Playbook. And it undoubtedly will have some big money behind it.
Having helped birth similar front groups during the nearly two decades I spent inside the health insurance industry, I can hardly wait to see how the CCC will take shape, who will be its chief spokesperson, which big PR firm will be setting it up and how that firm will craft talking points. Those talking points, of course, will cause us to fear the loss of all we hold dear as freedom-loving Americans if the big, bad government restricts our choice of health plans and undermines the competition that adds so much value to the health insurance marketplace.
Speaking of competition, just imagine how much time and money the world's biggest PR firms devoted to landing this account. I would love to have been a fly on the wall during the presentations they made to my former colleagues about how successful they would be in helping the CCC achieve its objectives.
I can imagine Porter Novelli describing its success in the 1990s and early 2000s creating the front group called the Health Benefits Coalition, funded primarily by health insurers, to make sure Congress did not pass a Patient's Bill of Rights. The HBC allied with the conservative group FreedomWorks to demonize the legislation, which, among other things, would have expanded our rights to sue insurers or employers when we're denied coverage for doctor-ordered care. Using the HBC's messaging, FreedomWorks warned in a 1999 press release that the legislation "would only take money out of consumers' checkbooks and put it into the pockets of trial lawyers, making health insurance less affordable for all Americans." The campaign worked. No Patient's Bill of Rights was ever enacted.
I can also imagine APCO Worldwide describing how it helped the tobacco industry in the 1990s by recruiting allies to join The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). The mission of TASSC was to hang the label of "junk science" on any warning that second-hand smoke might cause health problems for nonsmokers.
The insurance industry took notice of that campaign and hired APCO when thousands of doctors filed a class-action lawsuit against managed care companies in the late 1990s for cheating them out of payments they were due. Parroting a tactic employed by Porter Novelli and FreedomWorks, the coalition APCO created for its clients -- America's Health Insurers -- sought to "reframe the debate" by attacking the trial lawyers representing the doctors.
To give credit where credit is due, it was APCO, not Porter Novelli, that pioneered this particular tactic as part of its work for tobacco companies. To wage war in the court of public opinion against consumer advocates and people dying from smoking, APCO created a "grassroots" group called Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) and set up numerous chapters nationwide. According to Sourcewatch.org, a website operated by the Center for Media and Democracy, the CALA chapters were created "to give the appearance of a groundswell of public desire to alter the legal system to make it harder to bring lawsuits for injuries and illness caused by hazardous products." APCO activates the CALAs whenever a client gets hit with a big class-action suit.
APCO was also the PR firm of choice when Michael Moore's documentary Sicko, which cast health insurers in an unfavorable light, was about to debut. APCO established the front group Health Care America for its insurance and drug company clients to discredit Moore and his movie and to begin the work of scaring Americans away from other countries' health care systems.
So what do the insurer's newest coalition hope to achieve? Well, according to a brief item on an industry website, the first priority is to assure that states set up their required health insurance "exchanges" in ways that protect the interests of insurers and the agents and brokers who sell their products. Of course, they won't describe it that way.
The reform law gives states wide latitude in how they operate their exchanges. Utah already has an exchange, and the insurance industry really likes it. That's because the exchange is little more than a website where insurers can post all their benefit plans, even the ones that all but guarantee the purchasers will be underinsured. Those plans, by the way, are very profitable for insurers because they rarely have to pay out much in claims. Utah officials do relatively little to assure state residents that they are getting any value for what they buy.
California, on the other hand, is taking an approach the insurance companies hate. When the California exchange is up and running in 2014, it will vet the insurers' benefit plans and only offer those it deems to be of value to consumers.
According to a recent story in Politico, the CCC will include America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the insurance industry's big lobbying group; AHIP's longtime ally, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; PhRMA, the drug makers' lobbying group, and the National Association of Health Underwriters, which represents agents and brokers. The CCC will be advocating for exchanges that "promote competition and preserve consumer choice." The story said the group "is likely to advocate for exchanges that allow maximum participation, unlike the selective contracting model employed by California."
AHIP spokesman Robert Zirkelbach was quoted as saying, "Many stakeholders agree that exchanges must be true marketplaces that maximize choice and competition so that consumers and small businesses can purchase the plan that best meets their needs."
I am so grateful I no longer have to say stuff like that to the media. But I do agree with Zirkelbach that many stakeholders want the exchanges to be more like Utah's and less like California's. And those stakeholders are the 1,300 health plans AHIP says it represents and the agents and brokers who worry that their services will no longer be needed if the states' exchanges do what Congress intended. And that is to provide us with the information we need to help us select the coverage that will protect us from financial ruin if we get sick or injured and help us avoid the junk insurance that far too many Americans are paying their hard earned money for in the "true marketplaces."
This also was published by the Center for Public Integrity.=<a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/09/healthcare-reform-advocate-wendell-potter-the-for-profit-system-is-unraveling/">https://www.alternet.org/2019/09/healthcare-reform-advocate-wendell-potter-the-for-profit-system-is-unraveling/</a>no lnx
Healthcare reform advocate Wendell Potter: The for-profit ‘system is unraveling’Written by Michael Winship / Common Dreams September 30, 2019With the word “whistleblower” spinning through news cycle after news cycle these last few days, every headline about Trump, Giuliani and Ukraine is a powerful reminder that the whistleblower is a proud tradition in the United States, one that merits our support and protection.
Throughout our history, women and men with courage, indignation and integrity have stepped forward to whistleblow and put an end to wrongdoing even if they themselves have heretofore been part of the problem. One of these is healthcare reform advocate Wendell Potter.
Eleven years ago, after a moment of reckoning at a country health clinic in Tennessee, Potter left a high-ranking job as head of corporate communications at Cigna to tell the truth about the excesses and abuses of the health insurance industry. Since then, he has worked hard to spread the word, authoring two best-selling books, Nation on the Take (with Nick Penniman) and Deadly Spin, and founding the nonprofit investigative journalism site Tarbell.org, named after muckraking Progressive Era reporter Ida Tarbell.
Now, among all his other efforts, activist Wendell Potter has become president of Business for Medicare for All, the only national business organization working for single payer health insurance. This group of the economically pragmatic lends expertise and credibility to the cause of reform at a time when many, including some of those running for the Democratic presidential nomination, question the viability of single payer.
I have known Wendell Potter for a decade. We broke the news of his whistleblowing at Bill Moyers Journal in 2009 when he came to us both with his story and the corporate documents to back it up. My conversation with him below has been edited for length and clarity.

Listen:Let’s begin with your background for people who aren’t familiar with how you became committed to healthcare reform and specifically to the idea of Medicare for All.
I spent 20 years inside the insurance industry. It was a career I never could have anticipated. I was a journalist in my first career out of school, I grew up in Tennessee, and was a reporter in Memphis and finally, Washington. I covered Congress and the White House for the Scripps Howard newspapers.
Then I got into PR work, wound up working for Humana, and then Cigna, two of the biggest health insurance companies, altogether for about 20 years.
I rose up the ranks and was heading corporate communications at Cigna when I had a crisis of conscience. I came to realize that what I was doing for a living was, in too many cases, the exact opposite of what I tried to do as a reporter. I realized I was misleading people. I told myself the story that I never intentionally lied to people, but I was misleading people to perpetuate the private insurance industry, and was a willing cheerleader for the industry for a long time.
I came to realize that what I was doing not only was so far afield from what I used to do as a reporter, but also that I played a role in perpetuating a very broken and dysfunctional and unfair healthcare system. On a trip back to Tennessee to see family, I went to something called a healthcare expedition that was being held at a county fairgrounds nearby. I went there out of curiosity.
I’ve often said that it was my road-to-Damascus experience. I saw people who were waiting in long lines to get care in barns and animal stalls. It [broke] my heart. It made me realize that I had some responsibility for that, and I made a commitment that day to try to figure out some other way to earn a living.
There were other reasons. I was beginning to grow disenchanted with what I was expected to say and be a cheerleader for. In particular, this was at the beginning or at the early stages of insurance companies moving everyone to the high deductible plans and I began to question that policy. I knew from experience that working from the inside trying to change something that was an industry-wide strategy was just not something that I would have any ability to influence.
So I left. I became a critic of the industry and ultimately decided to be a very public critic of the industry and testified before Congress. As you well know, one of my first times in the media was an interview with Bill Moyers.
I remember meeting in secret with you and Bill and one of our producers.
It was in secret and you guys grilled me for, I don’t know how long, but you obviously wanted to make sure that I knew what I was talking about and was the real deal and would be someone worthy of TV journalism.
Medical costs are out of control. You’ve said the current system is not sustainable and not repairable. So what do we do?
I think the only alternative is to expand a program that’s worked for more than 50 years now — Medicare. All surveys show that people who are enrolled in Medicare, even today, despite some of the inadequacies of the current program, are much more satisfied with Medicare than people enrolled in private plans.
One reason for that is because private insurance has changed significantly over the years. Not only have premiums gone up, but insurance companies also have figured out ways to avoid paying for care in many different ways.
There’s a term in the industry that you don’t hear very often outside of boardrooms or calls with financial analysts called “benefit buydown.” And it’s a term that describes a lot of the things that insurance companies are able to do to decrease the value of your private coverage, whether it’s moving people into high deductible plans, making them pay a lot more for care out of their own pockets before their coverage kicks in, limiting their choice of access to doctors and hospitals, having someone at an insurance company decide whether or not you’re eligible for a procedure your doctor says you need. All these things have been going on for several years and they make health insurance much less valuable than it used to be.
Another aspect of private insurance companies that’s become prevalent is to very much restrict which doctors and hospitals you can go to through these so-called limited or skinny networks. That continues. So people in private plans have less choice, but they’re paying more for it and having to jump through hoops to get their bills paid.
That has not happened in the Medicare program. Medicare is a program that cares for, or provides access to care for the oldest and in fact the sickest in our population. They’ve done it well, and the administrative costs of that program have been far, far less than in the private insurance industry. So it makes a lot of sense to take what we’ve got, which has worked for people for generations now, expand it to cover everybody and eliminate an unnecessary middleman, which is the insurance industry.
One of the things that I can remember so vividly toward the end of my career was attending a leadership meeting with our then CEO at Cigna, and someone asked him what kept him up at night. He used a word that you don’t use everyday — disintermediation. It’s a word that means essentially disrupting or getting rid of the middleman, the unnecessary middleman. He went on to say that he feared that at some point Americans, and in particular American employers, would begin to question “the value proposition,” to use business jargon, of the private insurance industry.
We’ve reached that point. As you noted, my nonprofit organization is called Business for Medicare for All. We make the economic, the business case for moving to a Medicare For All type of healthcare system, and employers are indeed waking up to realize that over decades they’ve been sold a bill of goods by private insurers. They keep coming up with ways to shift more of the cost of care to employees and their dependents. So it’s time to move to a program that makes a lot of sense economically as well as morally.
How did you become involved in Business for Medicare for All? What was the idea behind it? How did it happen?
About three years ago, I was approached by a business leader in the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania, Richard Master, who decided to make a documentary on the US healthcare system. He wanted to interview me. It became very clear that he was an advocate for expanding the Medicare program. He’s a very successful businessman. His company is called MCS Industries and it’s based in eastern Pennsylvania. They’re the country’s biggest seller of picture frames and mirrors and decorative stuff like that.
But he began to pay a lot of attention to healthcare costs. He’s got an MBA from Wharton and a law degree from Columbia so this guy’s really smart, has built a very successful business, but he was questioning the sanity of a system in which he has no control over his healthcare costs from year to year.
I realized that his situation wasn’t unique. Every year, he was spending more and more to provide coverage to his workers. He was committed to that, but he was having an increasingly challenging time making the numbers work. So he did a lot of research and came to the conclusion that we’re alone in the developed world in having a system that is run by insurance companies.
So he essentially woke me up to the problems that American businesses are facing. I knew what individuals and families were facing, but I hadn’t paid a lot of attention to what is happening to employers who are trying to stay in the game in our uniquely American, employer-based healthcare system. It’s abundantly clear that the system has run its course and is just not working for increasingly large numbers of employers. Certainly small businesses, most small businesses in this country, if they ever offered coverage, have thrown in the towel because they simply can’t afford to do it.
His company is a midsize business, but he and a lot of other CEOs of midsize businesses and large companies are beginning to question the value proposition that insurance companies have always sold them on. Even some of the huge employers in this country are recognizing that. Boeing, in markets where it has a lot of workers, is bypassing that middleman and contracting directly with hospitals and doctors in markets like Seattle, Charleston, South Carolina, and southern California.
So I’ve learned a lot about the plight that American businesses are facing. Even Warren Buffett said a few years ago that the US healthcare system is the tapeworm that is destroying American competitiveness. American companies are becoming increasingly uncompetitive in the global marketplace, and he’s right. His partner Charlie Munger, who’s a Republican, has said that the only alternative he can see that makes sense is moving to a single-payer, Medicare for All type of healthcare system. So business leaders are beginning to step up and let their voices be known, and that’s why we exist — to give them a voice collectively.
We’ve got several hundred employers who are part of our organization. Our goal is to have at least one business from every congressional district by this time next year. We’re growing pretty rapidly and we already have a voice in Washington.
You’re saying, who knows better the impact of healthcare on people trying to run a business.
That’s exactly right. The insurance industry, one of its current campaigns is called Coverage At Work and it’s trying to perpetuate the notion that our employer-based system works and needs to be sustained.
But it’s unraveling. In 1999, I think this was from the Kaiser Family Foundation survey, 69% of employers were offering coverage. It is now down into the 50s. We have this belief that most employers offer coverage, but very few small businesses now do, and that’s where most jobs are generated. A lot of people still work for large companies, but the biggest job engine, if you will, or job creators, as the Republicans often say, are small businesses and they just cannot offer benefits like we used to see.
We also have the situation now with the growing gig economy and the fact that people may have as many as a dozen different jobs in a dozen different workplaces over the course of a career. Medicare for All offers portability, whereas if you have to keep switching from place to place to place, they may or may not have an employer health plan. It really messes you up.
That’s exactly right and more of us are in that boat. People who are drivers for Uber and Lyft, for example, sometimes they will have a regular job that offers benefits, but more often than not, they work two or three other jobs, none of which offer benefits and so they drive to supplement their income. These companies don’t offer health insurance benefits. Lyft and Uber don’t because they don’t consider the [drivers] employees. So we have a sizable and growing population of people who are in the gig economy and that’s going to continue.
Some of the businesses that are most interested in our work are companies like that. One of our members is Postmates, the delivery service. They get this — I mean, they know that the people who drive for them need health insurance and health benefits and having a Medicare for All type of system covers everybody and employers are unburdened with the responsibility of directly providing that coverage. It doesn’t mean that they’re off the hook for providing financing for this. When we are talking about Medicare for All, we’re talking about a publicly financed health care system that individuals and businesses would pay to support.
And it’s not creeping “socialized medicine.”It’s not at all. In fact, that is a term, as you well know, that’s often used by opponents of any kind of reform. To be honest with you, I used to use that term a lot at my old job to try to get people to believe that any kind of reform that we didn’t agree with was socialized medicine.
As you probably know, that term really began to be used and take hold during the Cold War era, in the latter part of the Truman administration, when he was advocating for universal health care. The American Medical Association was dead set against it and began to rail against socialized medicine.
What we are advocating is not a system like the UK system in England and Scotland and some other places in which the government actually owns most of the hospitals and employs most of the doctors. You might be able to get away with calling that socialized medicine to a certain extent, but what we’re advocating is publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare, more like the Canadian model. We’re not suggesting that we just import the Canadian system, but it would have a lot of similarities to that…
So why is it that so many people, including some of our candidates for president, are still pushing the public option, the idea of choice, of still being able to get your private insurance or the government option?
When Congress was debating what became the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare, I was one of the most vocal proponents of the public option.
The reason was because at that time, that was as good as we could possibly get because President Obama and congressional Democrats had decided to try to keep the current system in place, make some significant changes to expand coverage in certain ways but to a large extent, keep the private insurance system controlling the healthcare system, serving as the gatekeeper. So President Obama said, “Let’s have a public option,” as he put it, “to keep private insurance companies honest.”
This just shows you how much things have changed. Ten years ago, there really was no serious consideration in Congress for Medicare for All or single-payer healthcare. At that time, it was just considered something that Congress would never consider. Flash forward 10 years, and you have a majority of Democrats in the House signed on to legislation that would create a Medicare For All type of healthcare system.
But a lot of the presidential candidates are not there yet. The ones who are: Bernie Sanders is the chief sponsor of the Medicare for All bill in the Senate and Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and I think Julian Castro are co-sponsors.
But Kamala Harris then kind of backed away from Medicare for All.
She did, she’s had two or three different positions on it, or at least clarifications, I guess she’s called it, or explanations. I don’t know what she said most recently, but essentially she is saying, let’s keep private insurers in the mix, that it might be too disruptive to suggest that people might lose their private insurance. She was not there initially, but in her more recent statements, she has kind of changed to say that.
I think the reason is because there are people who have been led to believe that people are so attached to private health insurance that they would oppose a policy change or a law that would ultimately make private insurance unnecessary, and then people would “lose” their private insurance.
If you look closely when you’re polling Americans, they’re concerned about losing something they had that’s valuable, but what they’re most concerned about is having coverage that they can afford and that is secure, that’s not going to go away when you lose or change jobs. And the choice they’re most interested in is having a broader choice of doctors and hospitals. Most of the top line survey results you see [indicate] those people are concerned about losing private health insurance, but if you drill down, they may be happy to move away from that system as long as you can assure them that they will have access to the doctors and hospitals that they want and that it’s going to be secure, they won’t lose it, and that it’s affordable.
Elizabeth Warren said in Houston at the last debate, everybody loves their doctor. Everybody loves their nurses. Everybody loves their therapists. I don’t know anybody who says they love their insurance company.
And she was right! Back in my old days in the industry, I can recall when we did what we could to try to see if we could change public attitudes toward insurance companies. I’ll be honest with you, for quite a period of time, I wouldn’t tell people what I did for a living because private insurance companies have never had a good reputation. The reality is that it’s the system we grew up with, and a lot of people have been led to believe that government is bad, and the government can’t do anything efficiently, and ignore the fact that the Medicare program has been operating very efficiently, serving the oldest in our country for many years.
And it was really up and running in a year. They had it running efficiently very quickly.
That’s exactly a point that I make as well. People say, “Gosh, you’re talking about something that would be so disruptive and how can you pull that off in a short period of time?” [Medicare] was up and running in a year back in the 60s.
One of the reasons why there were problems associated with implementing [the Affordable Care Act] was because it was built around the existing multi-payer system. It’s enormously complex. To roll out a system that’s built on that and to try to set up a mechanism in which people are still faced with multiple choices and you’re having to set up some kind of an exchange, as was done to make sure that you had a program that had all these multiple insurers and their multiple plans, it’s enormously complex, but a transition to Medicare would be much, much simpler.
I’m in a labor union. Medicare is my primary coverage and my secondary is my union plan. It’s a very good plan. What do you say to someone like me, a union member, about giving that up in exchange for Medicare for All?
You have to be assured that what you would be giving up would be replaced with something that would be at least as valuable and that it would not be disruptive. A lot of union members have expressed concern because these healthcare benefits in many cases have been hard fought.
One of the things I would tell you is that you might have good health care coverage or at least better than some people in this country have. You may have benefits that are richer, to use a term that’s often used, but there’s no security that you will keep that job. If you are a union member in those places, you can still lose your job, still experience a plant closure and then you can lose your coverage.
In my case, I’m vested in my union plan.
So you have to be persuaded that you will have benefits that are even better or no worse than what you currently have, and we can make that assurance. Even in most union plans these days, the participants are increasingly facing higher deductibles. They’re having to pay more out of their own pockets before their coverage kicks in. They’re not immune to that. Increasingly, the networks of providers are more and more limited.
This year, you might have the doctor that you prefer to use, next year you might not. It’s out of your hands and you probably didn’t have a choice of insurance carrier. That was made for you. So this notion that even people who have union plans have a choice of health insurers, it’s not true, because those decisions were made by somebody else and typically, you’re never asked.
I think those who have union jobs in many cases have better benefits than those who don’t have union representation. Still, employers are faced with a conundrum. Private health insurers cannot and do not, nor do they want to control healthcare costs. So those costs continue to go up, and because we have the system we have and private insurers are really the only game in town, they’re able to demand more of employers every year in terms of premiums and higher costs to provide coverage to workers.
Then there are these other things that are now common in private plans, like having a denial nurse or a medical director who is really in place in these insurance companies to determine whether you will get the care that your doctor says you need. Union members are not exempt from that. That’s something that most people don’t really fully appreciate until they really become very ill or injured and are finding that they and their doctors don’t have the final say as to whether they’ll get coverage for a treatment that even is listed as a covered benefit.
You’ve heard me tell this story, but the thing that was the final straw for me was having to defend my old company and be the spokesman for the company when a 17-year-old girl in California was scheduled to have a liver transplant, but a company medical director said that he didn’t think it was medically appropriate for this patient. She was 17 years old and a perfect match had been found. The family knew and the doctors knew that this was a covered benefit, transplants were covered, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to get it. For high ticket items like that, there’s always a health insurance employee who will make the final decision as to whether or not you’re going to get coverage.
I was always advised by the lawyers at my company, “You never say that we deny care, but we can deny coverage for care.” There’s no difference between that because most people, if you deny them coverage, most people don’t have the funds and can’t scare up the money to pay for your child’s liver transplant.
In this case, the family raised such a ruckus and got such media attention focused on this case that my company capitulated and ultimately decided to cover the transplant but days passed, and when you’re facing a situation like that, minutes count. Like I said, there was a perfect match of a liver found. It was waiting for the surgery to start when the family was called aside and the surgeon said, “I’m sorry, we can’t go forward because Cigna hasn’t given us clearance.” So that’s what more and more people are facing. That’s not an isolated story, it happens day in and day out.
You recently said to Michael Hiltzik at the Los Angeles Times, a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist there, “Health insurers have been successful at two things, making money and getting the American people to believe they’re essential.”
It’s true. I handled financial communications for Cigna for 10 years. Whenever the company would announce earnings or have any kind of financial news release, I was the guy that reporters from The Wall Street Journal and New York Times and anyone else would call to find out what it all meant. So I had to know how insurance companies, and my company in particular, made money, where the money came from, where the money went. So I learned that is absolutely true. They know how to make money, regardless of what laws and regulations are in place.
And I knew quite frankly, that when the Affordable Care Act was passed, even though there were important provisions in that law that restricted some of the practices that they were engaging in that were very common before the law was passed, that they would figure out other ways to make money because they have shareholders who have expectations of a certain amount of profit every three months. It’s a short-term game. You have to demonstrate to your shareholders and Wall Street financial analysts that you are mindful of their needs… So that’s job number one for them is to make sure that they’re making money that satisfies Wall Street and their shareholders.
The other thing that I was in involved in and engaged in for years was ongoing propaganda campaigns to make people think that [private insurers] are essential. It’s not just the insurance industry, but other corporations over many years have persuaded the public that the private sector can do no wrong, and that the free market is sacred and can work in healthcare as well as presumably in any other sector of the economy.
We have decades of evidence that it doesn’t, but if you have the resources to engage in an ongoing propaganda campaign, you can persuade people, and you can turn people against policy proposals that would be in their best interest. I know that from having done it for many years.
How does a group like Business for Medicare for All go up against that?
First, by having some insider knowledge of how it works. I do, because another part of my job was equipping lobbyists with talking points, and making sure they had fact sheets and white papers to pass along to members of Congress, for example, to persuade them to see the world from our perspective.
To a certain extent, you have to play the same game, but we’ll never have the same resources. They are able to skim off a certain amount of the premiums we pay every month to go to these propaganda and lobbying campaigns. So you’re never going to be able to match them. To a certain extent, we’re playing a David versus Goliath game here.
Being a nonprofit, we’re raising money that is helping us to be in the game, to help push back against the propaganda… I often say that some of the work that I do is to help inoculate people from the propaganda, to help them understand where it’s coming from, how the language is developed.
… They keep trotting out the same kinds of language, like socialized medicine, like government-run healthcare, like a government takeover of healthcare. I know where these terms come from. I know how effective they are. So you’ve got to help people understand how propaganda works. It’s not easy, but it is something that has to be done, to have a means of pushing out positive information about what we’re proposing and to have a rapid response mechanism to push back against the propaganda. So that’s what we’re building.
We talked a little bit about the Democratic candidates and one of the things that has come up among some of them who are not as fully embracing of Medicare for All as others is the basic question: how do you pay for it?
Yes, and it’s not something that you can answer in a soundbite. It’s very easy to discredit a proposal with a soundbite, to scare people. My first experience in doing that was in the early nineties during the time when the Clintons were proposing to reform healthcare. I was part of a war room effort back then to scare people away from their proposals.
We’re seeing the same thing played out now, as we have in the intervening years. It is a challenging one because if you’re talking about something that switches to a system of publicly financed care, what does that mean? It means that you finance it through taxes. We’ve been conditioned to see tax as a four-letter word and to fear taxes. So it’s the challenge for advocates, and that includes me, to help people understand that.
Consider what you’re paying now, you and your employer or you and your union. Consider that a tax that’s going ultimately into a private insurance company. You don’t elect anyone. There’s no accountability, no government accountability in a system like that, but just shift the way you think of what you and your employer are paying as a tax, and that keeps going up every year. In fact, the average cost now of a family plan that’s offered by an employer in this country is over $20,000. It’s an enormous amount of money.
We also kind of tend to think that our employers are giving their own money to the insurance companies, but that’s not true. It’s all our money. It’s part of our total compensation. So that $20,000, instead of going to an insurance company would go into this single fund. So the “taxes” that you’re paying to an insurance company will be taxes that will be going instead to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which administers the Medicare program that we’ve had for more than 50 years.
It does require a shift in thinking and it is financed by taxes. [But] it’s a much more efficient system. You eliminate so much overhead. So many of the administrative expenses that are associated and made necessary by a multi-payer system would simply go away.
I think in every one of the debates so far, one of the moderators has said, “Well, how are you going to pay for this?” It’s a legitimate question, and it’s a question that candidates need to answer and need to answer forthrightly… It will be a taxpayer supported healthcare system, but I think candidates are a little shy about trying to explain that…
You’ve got to spend a little bit of time explaining how that shift will occur. And that by moving to a single-payer system, you eliminate so much that is unnecessary spending.
We spend over three and a half trillion dollars a year on healthcare in this country, far more than anybody else. On a per capita basis, we spend $10,000 per person. It’s $10,000 for every American, every person in this country, which is twice as much as the average developed country spends.
It’s not because people are getting better care, [although] in many cases they are, it’s because of the high cost of administering that’s part of the multi-payer system.
The paperwork alone…
And it’s not just within the insurance companies and their multiplicity of plans. Doctors and hospitals have to have teams of employees who do nothing more day in and day out but deal with various insurance companies — trying to figure out what plan one of their patients is in, whether that plan covers and to what degree what the doctors say they need. So it’s an enormous waste of resources. At least 30% has been proven to be spent on things that don’t improve our care and in many cases set up barriers to care.
But what happens to those people who have those jobs, the people who are pushing the paper and working the computers — what happens to them?
Well, keep in mind that a lot of the people who are working for insurance companies and for doctor’s offices and hospitals are clinically trained nurses who’ve been hired to do this work. They’re no longer attending to patients. They’re part of the administration.
Or they’re denial nurses.
Exactly right. Rather than helping people get well, they are a barrier to care in many cases. I was doing some research on this a few years ago. United Health alone was hiring 10,000 nurses. They also employ doctors who are no longer providing care but are in administrative positions calling the shots, making decisions as to whether someone will get the care that an attending physician or someone’s private physician says that a patient needs. In many cases, these people can go back into providing care. We have an aging population, a growing population, and we need to have more doctors and nurses. So a significant percentage of those can go back to providing care.
Others, the work that they do is not specifically and uniquely for the health insurance business. They have skills that can be used in other industries and other jobs. The legislation that both Senator Sanders has introduced and Congresswoman Jayapal has introduced in the House also provides funding, I think it’s for a period of four years, to help people transition to new jobs. And for those who are in their 50s, it provides the assurance that they can have a continuation of income for a period of time.
It’s called Just Transition and union leaders who are supportive of Medicare for All have been involved in making sure that people who would lose their jobs or have to change jobs would be taken care of. A lot of the money that would be set aside would help with skills training, even relocation. If you have a pension at risk, that would be protected.
Would some of the money that would be raised through taxes to go into Medicare For All be used to convert for-profit facilities into nonprofit facilities? How do you keep someone who owns a hospital — because I’ve seen it happen in my neighborhood and I know it’s happening in Philadelphia where you live — from turning it into condos?
Frankly, that is an issue that has been debated… There has been a proposal that was not included in the House bill that would outlaw the use of federal funds going to a hospital or other institution that has a for-profit status. So for-profit facilities would continue to exist and they could, as they currently are, get reimbursement for the care that they provide.
But there is no magic bullet of a hospital being nonprofit. A lot of the nonprofit health hospitals in the country have closed as have some of the for-profits. The reality is that even the nonprofits largely have to operate like the for-profits do. There’s not a heck of a lot of difference. They have different tax status, but in many cases, as we have seen with the University of Virginia scandal — of that hospital system being very aggressive in collecting debts of people who’ve received care there — they operate very much the same way. So just outlawing the use of federal funds that go to a for-profit facility sounds interesting and it has some support, but the reality is that nonprofits and for-profits operate very similarly. They call profits different names and in the nonprofit world, they refer to it as surpluses, but it’s the same thing — just doesn’t go to shareholders per se.
You’re right about Philadelphia, the Hahnemann hospital that has been there for decades and has served as a safety net hospital for many, many generations is shutting down because it was taken over by a for-profit company and had a number of owner changes and the current owner decided, “Well, this is not making money for us, so we’re going to shut it down.” I’m fully expecting that before too long we’ll see condos where that hospital was.
I was on a speaking tour of Tennessee not long ago and I heard about the rural hospitals that have closed there, and it’s not unique to Tennessee, but it just happens that on a per capita basis, more have closed in Tennessee in recent years than anywhere else. A lot of those were operated by for-profit companies that were looking at shareholder interest more than anything else, not community need, and decided for the sake of the company it would be better to shut them down.
Some that have closed have been operated on a nonprofit basis but one of the things that’s important in the Medicare for All legislation, in the House in particular, [is that it] would establish something called global budgets for hospitals and other institutional caregivers.
It actually was something that was envisioned in the Clinton plan in the early nineties. There was opposition in the industry [and] there will be as we go forward in this debate, but what global budgeting does is it looks at a lot of factors to determine how much a facility should be a given in a certain year to continue serving the needs of the community – looking over a three -year period of time, for example, taking into consideration the demographics of the area served and making sure that that facility has an adequate amount of money based on recent history to continue providing services to the people who live in the area and depend on it. If you have a system like that, it would eliminate a lot of these hospital closures.
We talked about the Democratic candidates. We haven’t talked about the Republicans. Especially since this current administration has been in office, we’ve seen a constant effort to completely eviscerate the Affordable Care Act. Until the composition of the Senate and the executive changes, how can we hope to see something like what you propose?
I can’t predict when it will happen. What I do say is, I think it’ s not a matter of if, but when. Who controls the Senate and who controls the House, who controls the White House is a big factor. I don’t think we’ll see this enacted until Democrats are in control of both houses of Congress and the White House. Will that happen after 2020? I can’t tell you. I think there’s a good chance, a better chance certainly that we could make progress and get this implemented if Democrats do take control of the Senate.
If not, I think we’ll be looking at a few more years down the road until we do see that change in control. Trump could be reelected. We just don’t know at this point, [but] the current system is just not sustainable. We’re seeing that the employer-based system is unraveling as more and more employers are unable to stay in the game and offer coverage. More people are earning a living in the gig economy and can’t rely on an employer to provide coverage. Health insurers can’t control cost.
When the Affordable Care Act was passed, we were spending about two and a half trillion dollars on healthcare in this country. Now it’s three and a half trillion dollars. So you’re seeing that the private system of insurance is not controlling healthcare costs. One of the aspirations, one of the goals, one of the things we need is universal coverage, but we’ve got to have our eye not only on that ball, but on what is a system that controls costs, because we simply cannot keep going the way we are. More and more employers are going to be throwing in the towel and saying, “This doesn’t work.”
I think it’s conceivable that if there’s another four years of Trump and Republican control of the Senate, you’ll see further attempts to weaken, to sabotage the Affordable Care Act. There is this belief among a lot of Republicans that it needs to be removed. And some are living in some fantasy world that before the Affordable Care Act was passed, the free market was working or could work.
It would be catastrophic for the country if we got rid of [Obamacare, although] as the late Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt said when it was passed, it’s an ugly Band-Aid on an ugly system, and that’s what it is. It helped bring a lot more people into coverage, but you still have 30 million people who don’t have coverage and many millions more than that who are now under-insured because of these high deductibles that they have to meet before their coverage kicks in, so it’s not sustainable. There is a limit, and I know that employers are getting fed up with having to figure out how can they shift more of the cost of care and premiums to their workers. You can’t keep doing that.
So you’re hopeful?
Maybe I’m just an optimist by nature, but I’m also a pragmatist. One of the things that I am working to do in my organization is to – using a PR term – condition the environment to help make change more likely. You’ve got to persuade the public that what you’re proposing is solid policy and in their best interest. It’s not an easy thing, particularly when you’ve got a lot more money that’s being spent to continue propaganda campaigns to keep people voting against their own best interest. But I feel an obligation to do this, Michael. Because of all that work that I did in my old job I’m making amends. So it’s not just optimism, it’s an obligation to do this, and to do what I think is the right thing, the right policy both from an economic but also a moral point of view.
So people reading this or listening to this, if they want to learn more about Business for Medicare for All, where should they go?
Go to our website, which is BusinessforMedicareforAll.org. Go there.
We also are launching Medicare for All Now, which will be a 501(c)(4). That will enable us to delve into the political work more deeply. We can endorse candidates and will be able to raise money. We have not endorsed a candidate for president. I don’t know that we will in the primaries. We’ve got Senators Sanders and Warren who are strong advocates of “the damn bill” that Senator Sanders drafted and that has the support of several of his colleagues. As we discussed, not all of the candidates are on board with that, but we very well may weigh in, even in the congressional campaigns, so stay tuned.
Wendell Potter, thank you very much.
Thank you, Michael.
Michael Winship is the Schumann Senior Writing Fellow for Common Dreams. Previously, he was the Emmy Award-winning senior writer for Moyers & Company and BillMoyers.com, a past senior writing fellow at the policy and advocacy group Demos, and former president of the Writers Guild of America East. Follow him on Twitter: @MichaelWinship.
Enjoy this piece?… then let us make a small request. AlterNet is increasing its original reporting, edited by The Nation’s Joshua Holland, with a focus on 2020 election coverage. We’ve also launched a weekly podcast, “We’ve Got Issues,” focusing on the issues, not Donald Trump’s tweets. Unlike other news outlets, we’ve decided to make our AlterNet 2020 coverage free to all. But we need your ongoing support to continue what we do.
AlterNet is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of white nationalism, to spotlighting the overlooked struggles of the working poor, AlterNet continues to speak truth to power. As newspapers close, America needs voices like AlterNet’s to be sure no one is forgotten.
We need your support to keep producing quality journalism. As Silicon Valley absorbs more and more advertising dollars, ads don’t pay what they used to. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 Donate with PayPal button 
previous postWho fed Donald Trump his bogus Ukraine conspiracy theories?next postTrump supporters are pushing a new bogus claim about whistleblowers to shield the president from scrutiny
  TOP ARTICLES1/5READ MORERattled Lindsey Graham on CBS News: ‘Salem witch trials havemore due process than this’

FROM THE WEBPowered by ZergNet
People Believe Harry and Meghan Are Lying About Baby Archie
The Tucker Carlson Footage Fox News Refused to Air Revealed
CBS' Norah O'Donnell Caught on Hot Mic During Segment
This is What Melania Trump Typically Eats in a Day
Tabitha From 'Bewitched' is an Absolute Bombshell Now at 55
Ford to Launch Self-Driving Ride ServiceRELATED ARTICLES Ads by RevcontentTrending NowBorn Before 1965? Claim These 15 Senior Rebates NowThe Highest Paying Cash Back Card is Finally Here#1 Ingredient That Starves Cancer Cells?How to Spot the 'Fake CBD' That's Flooding The MarketToenail Fungus: 1 Cup of This Will Get Rid of ItPut This Spice in Your Shoes to Fix Toenail FungusRead Comments - Join the Discussion
Report Advertisement
Report AdvertisementBRAND NEW STORIESTrump again freely admits he was trying to get Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden — which experts say is ‘plainly illegal’MAGA: Make America ‘Greta’ againTrump ‘cannot be allowed to command the United States military’ after threatening civil war: Law and ethics expert‘A genuine threat to democracy’: Trump gets ripped to shreds for ‘appalling’ threat to arrest Adam SchiffTrump supporters are pushing a new bogus claim about whistleblowers to shield the president from scrutinyHealthcare reform advocate Wendell Potter: The for-profit ‘system is unraveling’
Report AdvertisementMOST POPULAR1Ralph Nader: Constitutional outlaw Trump may implode with lies before he is impeached2George Conway posts epic tweetstorm obliterating Lindsey Graham’s ‘pure garbage’ defense of Trump3Mike Pompeo is targeting Hillary Clinton’s emails in massive investigation: Bombshell Washington Post report4‘It’s a non-answer’: Chris Wallace gives Stephen Miller epic grilling after he blames Trump impeachment on the ‘deep state’5CNN’s Tapper artfully exposes GOP rep’s hypocrisy for attacking Biden while supporting Trump: ‘Either there’s a principle — or there isn’t’6‘Ridiculous’: Former prosecutor laughs off Giuliani’s latest defense of Trump — and advises him to lawyer up7This law professor’s research maps out how to defeat dog-whistle politics, win elections and build a progressive majority8Internet fires back at Trump after he threatens ‘civil war’ if he’s impeached: ‘We’re dealing with a disturbed sociopath’9Why a local showdown over voting technology in North Carolina is a harbinger for elections across America10Trump is following a trail of possible treason blazed in 1968 with Richard Nixon’s secret Vietnam negotiations
AROUND THE WEBPowered by ZergNet
The Best National Park Adventures of the Fall
Thousands to Attend BBQ Outside Vegan's Home Who Sued Neighbors
The Cars Frontman's Cause of Death Revealed
The One President Pope John Paul Refused to Shake Hands With
Teen Who Vanished 11 Years Ago Charged With Killing Kidnapper
Netherlands Teen Legally Euthanized for the Saddest Reason
Report AdvertisementMOST POPULAR1Ralph Nader: Constitutional outlaw Trump may implode with lies before he is impeached2George Conway posts epic tweetstorm obliterating Lindsey Graham’s ‘pure garbage’ defense of Trump3Mike Pompeo is targeting Hillary Clinton’s emails in massive investigation: Bombshell Washington Post report4‘It’s a non-answer’: Chris Wallace gives Stephen Miller epic grilling after he blames Trump impeachment on the ‘deep state’5CNN’s Tapper artfully exposes GOP rep’s hypocrisy for attacking Biden while supporting Trump: ‘Either there’s a principle — or there isn’t’6‘Ridiculous’: Former prosecutor laughs off Giuliani’s latest defense of Trump — and advises him to lawyer up7This law professor’s research maps out how to defeat dog-whistle politics, win elections and build a progressive majority8Internet fires back at POLITICSMEDIACULTUREECONOMYRIGHTSENVIRONMENTHEALTHAD-FREE LOGINAlternet.orgPOLITICSMEDIACULTUREECONOMYRIGHTSENVIRONMENTHEALTHAD-FREE LOGIN
 HOT TOPICS >>IMMIGRATIONSHOP TO SUPPORT PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISMTRUMPRELIGIOUS RIGHT#METOOGO AD FREE!MAKE A ONE-TIME DONATIONHealthcare reform advocate Wendell Potter: The for-profit ‘system is unraveling’Image by Emilypotter, WikipediaWritten by Michael Winship / Common Dreams September 30, 2019With the word “whistleblower” spinning through news cycle after news cycle these last few days, every headline about Trump, Giuliani and Ukraine is a powerful reminder that the whistleblower is a proud tradition in the United States, one that merits our support and protection.
Throughout our history, women and men with courage, indignation and integrity have stepped forward to whistleblow and put an end to wrongdoing even if they themselves have heretofore been part of the problem. One of these is healthcare reform advocate Wendell Potter.
Eleven years ago, after a moment of reckoning at a country health clinic in Tennessee, Potter left a high-ranking job as head of corporate communications at Cigna to tell the truth about the excesses and abuses of the health insurance industry. Since then, he has worked hard to spread the word, authoring two best-selling books, Nation on the Take (with Nick Penniman) and Deadly Spin, and founding the nonprofit investigative journalism site Tarbell.org, named after muckraking Progressive Era reporter Ida Tarbell.
Now, among all his other efforts, activist Wendell Potter has become president of Business for Medicare for All, the only national business organization working for single payer health insurance. This group of the economically pragmatic lends expertise and credibility to the cause of reform at a time when many, including some of those running for the Democratic presidential nomination, question the viability of single payer.
I have known Wendell Potter for a decade. We broke the news of his whistleblowing at Bill Moyers Journal in 2009 when he came to us both with his story and the corporate documents to back it up. My conversation with him below has been edited for length and clarity.




Listen:


Let’s begin with your background for people who aren’t familiar with how you became committed to healthcare reform and specifically to the idea of Medicare for All.
I spent 20 years inside the insurance industry. It was a career I never could have anticipated. I was a journalist in my first career out of school, I grew up in Tennessee, and was a reporter in Memphis and finally, Washington. I covered Congress and the White House for the Scripps Howard newspapers.

Report AdvertisementThen I got into PR work, wound up working for Humana, and then Cigna, two of the biggest health insurance companies, altogether for about 20 years.
I rose up the ranks and was heading corporate communications at Cigna when I had a crisis of conscience. I came to realize that what I was doing for a living was, in too many cases, the exact opposite of what I tried to do as a reporter. I realized I was misleading people. I told myself the story that I never intentionally lied to people, but I was misleading people to perpetuate the private insurance industry, and was a willing cheerleader for the industry for a long time.
I came to realize that what I was doing not only was so far afield from what I used to do as a reporter, but also that I played a role in perpetuating a very broken and dysfunctional and unfair healthcare system. On a trip back to Tennessee to see family, I went to something called a healthcare expedition that was being held at a county fairgrounds nearby. I went there out of curiosity.
I’ve often said that it was my road-to-Damascus experience. I saw people who were waiting in long lines to get care in barns and animal stalls. It [broke] my heart. It made me realize that I had some responsibility for that, and I made a commitment that day to try to figure out some other way to earn a living.
There were other reasons. I was beginning to grow disenchanted with what I was expected to say and be a cheerleader for. In particular, this was at the beginning or at the early stages of insurance companies moving everyone to the high deductible plans and I began to question that policy. I knew from experience that working from the inside trying to change something that was an industry-wide strategy was just not something that I would have any ability to influence.

Report AdvertisementSo I left. I became a critic of the industry and ultimately decided to be a very public critic of the industry and testified before Congress. As you well know, one of my first times in the media was an interview with Bill Moyers.
I remember meeting in secret with you and Bill and one of our producers.
It was in secret and you guys grilled me for, I don’t know how long, but you obviously wanted to make sure that I knew what I was talking about and was the real deal and would be someone worthy of TV journalism.

Report AdvertisementMedical costs are out of control. You’ve said the current system is not sustainable and not repairable. So what do we do?
I think the only alternative is to expand a program that’s worked for more than 50 years now — Medicare. All surveys show that people who are enrolled in Medicare, even today, despite some of the inadequacies of the current program, are much more satisfied with Medicare than people enrolled in private plans.
One reason for that is because private insurance has changed significantly over the years. Not only have premiums gone up, but insurance companies also have figured out ways to avoid paying for care in many different ways.
There’s a term in the industry that you don’t hear very often outside of boardrooms or calls with financial analysts called “benefit buydown.” And it’s a term that describes a lot of the things that insurance companies are able to do to decrease the value of your private coverage, whether it’s moving people into high deductible plans, making them pay a lot more for care out of their own pockets before their coverage kicks in, limiting their choice of access to doctors and hospitals, having someone at an insurance company decide whether or not you’re eligible for a procedure your doctor says you need. All these things have been going on for several years and they make health insurance much less valuable than it used to be.

Report AdvertisementAnother aspect of private insurance companies that’s become prevalent is to very much restrict which doctors and hospitals you can go to through these so-called limited or skinny networks. That continues. So people in private plans have less choice, but they’re paying more for it and having to jump through hoops to get their bills paid.
That has not happened in the Medicare program. Medicare is a program that cares for, or provides access to care for the oldest and in fact the sickest in our population. They’ve done it well, and the administrative costs of that program have been far, far less than in the private insurance industry. So it makes a lot of sense to take what we’ve got, which has worked for people for generations now, expand it to cover everybody and eliminate an unnecessary middleman, which is the insurance industry.
One of the things that I can remember so vividly toward the end of my career was attending a leadership meeting with our then CEO at Cigna, and someone asked him what kept him up at night. He used a word that you don’t use everyday — disintermediation. It’s a word that means essentially disrupting or getting rid of the middleman, the unnecessary middleman. He went on to say that he feared that at some point Americans, and in particular American employers, would begin to question “the value proposition,” to use business jargon, of the private insurance industry.
We’ve reached that point. As you noted, my nonprofit organization is called Business for Medicare for All. We make the economic, the business case for moving to a Medicare For All type of healthcare system, and employers are indeed waking up to realize that over decades they’ve been sold a bill of goods by private insurers. They keep coming up with ways to shift more of the cost of care to employees and their dependents. So it’s time to move to a program that makes a lot of sense economically as well as morally.
How did you become involved in Business for Medicare for All? What was the idea behind it? How did it happen?
About three years ago, I was approached by a business leader in the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania, Richard Master, who decided to make a documentary on the US healthcare system. He wanted to interview me. It became very clear that he was an advocate for expanding the Medicare program. He’s a very successful businessman. His company is called MCS Industries and it’s based in eastern Pennsylvania. They’re the country’s biggest seller of picture frames and mirrors and decorative stuff like that.
But he began to pay a lot of attention to healthcare costs. He’s got an MBA from Wharton and a law degree from Columbia so this guy’s really smart, has built a very successful business, but he was questioning the sanity of a system in which he has no control over his healthcare costs from year to year.
I realized that his situation wasn’t unique. Every year, he was spending more and more to provide coverage to his workers. He was committed to that, but he was having an increasingly challenging time making the numbers work. So he did a lot of research and came to the conclusion that we’re alone in the developed world in having a system that is run by insurance companies.
So he essentially woke me up to the problems that American businesses are facing. I knew what individuals and families were facing, but I hadn’t paid a lot of attention to what is happening to employers who are trying to stay in the game in our uniquely American, employer-based healthcare system. It’s abundantly clear that the system has run its course and is just not working for increasingly large numbers of employers. Certainly small businesses, most small businesses in this country, if they ever offered coverage, have thrown in the towel because they simply can’t afford to do it.
His company is a midsize business, but he and a lot of other CEOs of midsize businesses and large companies are beginning to question the value proposition that insurance companies have always sold them on. Even some of the huge employers in this country are recognizing that. Boeing, in markets where it has a lot of workers, is bypassing that middleman and contracting directly with hospitals and doctors in markets like Seattle, Charleston, South Carolina, and southern California.
So I’ve learned a lot about the plight that American businesses are facing. Even Warren Buffett said a few years ago that the US healthcare system is the tapeworm that is destroying American competitiveness. American companies are becoming increasingly uncompetitive in the global marketplace, and he’s right. His partner Charlie Munger, who’s a Republican, has said that the only alternative he can see that makes sense is moving to a single-payer, Medicare for All type of healthcare system. So business leaders are beginning to step up and let their voices be known, and that’s why we exist — to give them a voice collectively.
We’ve got several hundred employers who are part of our organization. Our goal is to have at least one business from every congressional district by this time next year. We’re growing pretty rapidly and we already have a voice in Washington.
You’re saying, who knows better the impact of healthcare on people trying to run a business.
That’s exactly right. The insurance industry, one of its current campaigns is called Coverage At Work and it’s trying to perpetuate the notion that our employer-based system works and needs to be sustained.
But it’s unraveling. In 1999, I think this was from the Kaiser Family Foundation survey, 69% of employers were offering coverage. It is now down into the 50s. We have this belief that most employers offer coverage, but very few small businesses now do, and that’s where most jobs are generated. A lot of people still work for large companies, but the biggest job engine, if you will, or job creators, as the Republicans often say, are small businesses and they just cannot offer benefits like we used to see.
We also have the situation now with the growing gig economy and the fact that people may have as many as a dozen different jobs in a dozen different workplaces over the course of a career. Medicare for All offers portability, whereas if you have to keep switching from place to place to place, they may or may not have an employer health plan. It really messes you up.
That’s exactly right and more of us are in that boat. People who are drivers for Uber and Lyft, for example, sometimes they will have a regular job that offers benefits, but more often than not, they work two or three other jobs, none of which offer benefits and so they drive to supplement their income. These companies don’t offer health insurance benefits. Lyft and Uber don’t because they don’t consider the [drivers] employees. So we have a sizable and growing population of people who are in the gig economy and that’s going to continue.
Some of the businesses that are most interested in our work are companies like that. One of our members is Postmates, the delivery service. They get this — I mean, they know that the people who drive for them need health insurance and health benefits and having a Medicare for All type of system covers everybody and employers are unburdened with the responsibility of directly providing that coverage. It doesn’t mean that they’re off the hook for providing financing for this. When we are talking about Medicare for All, we’re talking about a publicly financed health care system that individuals and businesses would pay to support.
And it’s not creeping “socialized medicine.”
It’s not at all. In fact, that is a term, as you well know, that’s often used by opponents of any kind of reform. To be honest with you, I used to use that term a lot at my old job to try to get people to believe that any kind of reform that we didn’t agree with was socialized medicine.
As you probably know, that term really began to be used and take hold during the Cold War era, in the latter part of the Truman administration, when he was advocating for universal health care. The American Medical Association was dead set against it and began to rail against socialized medicine.
What we are advocating is not a system like the UK system in England and Scotland and some other places in which the government actually owns most of the hospitals and employs most of the doctors. You might be able to get away with calling that socialized medicine to a certain extent, but what we’re advocating is publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare, more like the Canadian model. We’re not suggesting that we just import the Canadian system, but it would have a lot of similarities to that…
So why is it that so many people, including some of our candidates for president, are still pushing the public option, the idea of choice, of still being able to get your private insurance or the government option?
When Congress was debating what became the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare, I was one of the most vocal proponents of the public option.
The reason was because at that time, that was as good as we could possibly get because President Obama and congressional Democrats had decided to try to keep the current system in place, make some significant changes to expand coverage in certain ways but to a large extent, keep the private insurance system controlling the healthcare system, serving as the gatekeeper. So President Obama said, “Let’s have a public option,” as he put it, “to keep private insurance companies honest.”
This just shows you how much things have changed. Ten years ago, there really was no serious consideration in Congress for Medicare for All or single-payer healthcare. At that time, it was just considered something that Congress would never consider. Flash forward 10 years, and you have a majority of Democrats in the House signed on to legislation that would create a Medicare For All type of healthcare system.
But a lot of the presidential candidates are not there yet. The ones who are: Bernie Sanders is the chief sponsor of the Medicare for All bill in the Senate and Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and I think Julian Castro are co-sponsors.
But Kamala Harris then kind of backed away from Medicare for All.
She did, she’s had two or three different positions on it, or at least clarifications, I guess she’s called it, or explanations. I don’t know what she said most recently, but essentially she is saying, let’s keep private insurers in the mix, that it might be too disruptive to suggest that people might lose their private insurance. She was not there initially, but in her more recent statements, she has kind of changed to say that.
I think the reason is because there are people who have been led to believe that people are so attached to private health insurance that they would oppose a policy change or a law that would ultimately make private insurance unnecessary, and then people would “lose” their private insurance.
If you look closely when you’re polling Americans, they’re concerned about losing something they had that’s valuable, but what they’re most concerned about is having coverage that they can afford and that is secure, that’s not going to go away when you lose or change jobs. And the choice they’re most interested in is having a broader choice of doctors and hospitals. Most of the top line survey results you see [indicate] those people are concerned about losing private health insurance, but if you drill down, they may be happy to move away from that system as long as you can assure them that they will have access to the doctors and hospitals that they want and that it’s going to be secure, they won’t lose it, and that it’s affordable.
Elizabeth Warren said in Houston at the last debate, everybody loves their doctor. Everybody loves their nurses. Everybody loves their therapists. I don’t know anybody who says they love their insurance company.
And she was right! Back in my old days in the industry, I can recall when we did what we could to try to see if we could change public attitudes toward insurance companies. I’ll be honest with you, for quite a period of time, I wouldn’t tell people what I did for a living because private insurance companies have never had a good reputation. The reality is that it’s the system we grew up with, and a lot of people have been led to believe that government is bad, and the government can’t do anything efficiently, and ignore the fact that the Medicare program has been operating very efficiently, serving the oldest in our country for many years.
And it was really up and running in a year. They had it running efficiently very quickly.
That’s exactly a point that I make as well. People say, “Gosh, you’re talking about something that would be so disruptive and how can you pull that off in a short period of time?” [Medicare] was up and running in a year back in the 60s.
One of the reasons why there were problems associated with implementing [the Affordable Care Act] was because it was built around the existing multi-payer system. It’s enormously complex. To roll out a system that’s built on that and to try to set up a mechanism in which people are still faced with multiple choices and you’re having to set up some kind of an exchange, as was done to make sure that you had a program that had all these multiple insurers and their multiple plans, it’s enormously complex, but a transition to Medicare would be much, much simpler.
I’m in a labor union. Medicare is my primary coverage and my secondary is my union plan. It’s a very good plan. What do you say to someone like me, a union member, about giving that up in exchange for Medicare for All?
You have to be assured that what you would be giving up would be replaced with something that would be at least as valuable and that it would not be disruptive. A lot of union members have expressed concern because these healthcare benefits in many cases have been hard fought.
One of the things I would tell you is that you might have good health care coverage or at least better than some people in this country have. You may have benefits that are richer, to use a term that’s often used, but there’s no security that you will keep that job. If you are a union member in those places, you can still lose your job, still experience a plant closure and then you can lose your coverage.
In my case, I’m vested in my union plan.
So you have to be persuaded that you will have benefits that are even better or no worse than what you currently have, and we can make that assurance. Even in most union plans these days, the participants are increasingly facing higher deductibles. They’re having to pay more out of their own pockets before their coverage kicks in. They’re not immune to that. Increasingly, the networks of providers are more and more limited.
This year, you might have the doctor that you prefer to use, next year you might not. It’s out of your hands and you probably didn’t have a choice of insurance carrier. That was made for you. So this notion that even people who have union plans have a choice of health insurers, it’s not true, because those decisions were made by somebody else and typically, you’re never asked.
I think those who have union jobs in many cases have better benefits than those who don’t have union representation. Still, employers are faced with a conundrum. Private health insurers cannot and do not, nor do they want to control healthcare costs. So those costs continue to go up, and because we have the system we have and private insurers are really the only game in town, they’re able to demand more of employers every year in terms of premiums and higher costs to provide coverage to workers.
Then there are these other things that are now common in private plans, like having a denial nurse or a medical director who is really in place in these insurance companies to determine whether you will get the care that your doctor says you need. Union members are not exempt from that. That’s something that most people don’t really fully appreciate until they really become very ill or injured and are finding that they and their doctors don’t have the final say as to whether they’ll get coverage for a treatment that even is listed as a covered benefit.
You’ve heard me tell this story, but the thing that was the final straw for me was having to defend my old company and be the spokesman for the company when a 17-year-old girl in California was scheduled to have a liver transplant, but a company medical director said that he didn’t think it was medically appropriate for this patient. She was 17 years old and a perfect match had been found. The family knew and the doctors knew that this was a covered benefit, transplants were covered, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to get it. For high ticket items like that, there’s always a health insurance employee who will make the final decision as to whether or not you’re going to get coverage.
I was always advised by the lawyers at my company, “You never say that we deny care, but we can deny coverage for care.” There’s no difference between that because most people, if you deny them coverage, most people don’t have the funds and can’t scare up the money to pay for your child’s liver transplant.
In this case, the family raised such a ruckus and got such media attention focused on this case that my company capitulated and ultimately decided to cover the transplant but days passed, and when you’re facing a situation like that, minutes count. Like I said, there was a perfect match of a liver found. It was waiting for the surgery to start when the family was called aside and the surgeon said, “I’m sorry, we can’t go forward because Cigna hasn’t given us clearance.” So that’s what more and more people are facing. That’s not an isolated story, it happens day in and day out.
You recently said to Michael Hiltzik at the Los Angeles Times, a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist there, “Health insurers have been successful at two things, making money and getting the American people to believe they’re essential.”
It’s true. I handled financial communications for Cigna for 10 years. Whenever the company would announce earnings or have any kind of financial news release, I was the guy that reporters from The Wall Street Journal and New York Times and anyone else would call to find out what it all meant. So I had to know how insurance companies, and my company in particular, made money, where the money came from, where the money went. So I learned that is absolutely true. They know how to make money, regardless of what laws and regulations are in place.
And I knew quite frankly, that when the Affordable Care Act was passed, even though there were important provisions in that law that restricted some of the practices that they were engaging in that were very common before the law was passed, that they would figure out other ways to make money because they have shareholders who have expectations of a certain amount of profit every three months. It’s a short-term game. You have to demonstrate to your shareholders and Wall Street financial analysts that you are mindful of their needs… So that’s job number one for them is to make sure that they’re making money that satisfies Wall Street and their shareholders.
The other thing that I was in involved in and engaged in for years was ongoing propaganda campaigns to make people think that [private insurers] are essential. It’s not just the insurance industry, but other corporations over many years have persuaded the public that the private sector can do no wrong, and that the free market is sacred and can work in healthcare as well as presumably in any other sector of the economy.
We have decades of evidence that it doesn’t, but if you have the resources to engage in an ongoing propaganda campaign, you can persuade people, and you can turn people against policy proposals that would be in their best interest. I know that from having done it for many years.
How does a group like Business for Medicare for All go up against that?
First, by having some insider knowledge of how it works. I do, because another part of my job was equipping lobbyists with talking points, and making sure they had fact sheets and white papers to pass along to members of Congress, for example, to persuade them to see the world from our perspective.
To a certain extent, you have to play the same game, but we’ll never have the same resources. They are able to skim off a certain amount of the premiums we pay every month to go to these propaganda and lobbying campaigns. So you’re never going to be able to match them. To a certain extent, we’re playing a David versus Goliath game here.
Being a nonprofit, we’re raising money that is helping us to be in the game, to help push back against the propaganda… I often say that some of the work that I do is to help inoculate people from the propaganda, to help them understand where it’s coming from, how the language is developed.
… They keep trotting out the same kinds of language, like socialized medicine, like government-run healthcare, like a government takeover of healthcare. I know where these terms come from. I know how effective they are. So you’ve got to help people understand how propaganda works. It’s not easy, but it is something that has to be done, to have a means of pushing out positive information about what we’re proposing and to have a rapid response mechanism to push back against the propaganda. So that’s what we’re building.
We talked a little bit about the Democratic candidates and one of the things that has come up among some of them who are not as fully embracing of Medicare for All as others is the basic question: how do you pay for it?
Yes, and it’s not something that you can answer in a soundbite. It’s very easy to discredit a proposal with a soundbite, to scare people. My first experience in doing that was in the early nineties during the time when the Clintons were proposing to reform healthcare. I was part of a war room effort back then to scare people away from their proposals.
We’re seeing the same thing played out now, as we have in the intervening years. It is a challenging one because if you’re talking about something that switches to a system of publicly financed care, what does that mean? It means that you finance it through taxes. We’ve been conditioned to see tax as a four-letter word and to fear taxes. So it’s the challenge for advocates, and that includes me, to help people understand that.
Consider what you’re paying now, you and your employer or you and your union. Consider that a tax that’s going ultimately into a private insurance company. You don’t elect anyone. There’s no accountability, no government accountability in a system like that, but just shift the way you think of what you and your employer are paying as a tax, and that keeps going up every year. In fact, the average cost now of a family plan that’s offered by an employer in this country is over $20,000. It’s an enormous amount of money.
We also kind of tend to think that our employers are giving their own money to the insurance companies, but that’s not true. It’s all our money. It’s part of our total compensation. So that $20,000, instead of going to an insurance company would go into this single fund. So the “taxes” that you’re paying to an insurance company will be taxes that will be going instead to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which administers the Medicare program that we’ve had for more than 50 years.
It does require a shift in thinking and it is financed by taxes. [But] it’s a much more efficient system. You eliminate so much overhead. So many of the administrative expenses that are associated and made necessary by a multi-payer system would simply go away.
I think in every one of the debates so far, one of the moderators has said, “Well, how are you going to pay for this?” It’s a legitimate question, and it’s a question that candidates need to answer and need to answer forthrightly… It will be a taxpayer supported healthcare system, but I think candidates are a little shy about trying to explain that…
You’ve got to spend a little bit of time explaining how that shift will occur. And that by moving to a single-payer system, you eliminate so much that is unnecessary spending.
We spend over three and a half trillion dollars a year on healthcare in this country, far more than anybody else. On a per capita basis, we spend $10,000 per person. It’s $10,000 for every American, every person in this country, which is twice as much as the average developed country spends.
It’s not because people are getting better care, [although] in many cases they are, it’s because of the high cost of administering that’s part of the multi-payer system.
The paperwork alone…
And it’s not just within the insurance companies and their multiplicity of plans. Doctors and hospitals have to have teams of employees who do nothing more day in and day out but deal with various insurance companies — trying to figure out what plan one of their patients is in, whether that plan covers and to what degree what the doctors say they need. So it’s an enormous waste of resources. At least 30% has been proven to be spent on things that don’t improve our care and in many cases set up barriers to care.
But what happens to those people who have those jobs, the people who are pushing the paper and working the computers — what happens to them?
Well, keep in mind that a lot of the people who are working for insurance companies and for doctor’s offices and hospitals are clinically trained nurses who’ve been hired to do this work. They’re no longer attending to patients. They’re part of the administration.
Or they’re denial nurses.
Exactly right. Rather than helping people get well, they are a barrier to care in many cases. I was doing some research on this a few years ago. United Health alone was hiring 10,000 nurses. They also employ doctors who are no longer providing care but are in administrative positions calling the shots, making decisions as to whether someone will get the care that an attending physician or someone’s private physician says that a patient needs. In many cases, these people can go back into providing care. We have an aging population, a growing population, and we need to have more doctors and nurses. So a significant percentage of those can go back to providing care.
Others, the work that they do is not specifically and uniquely for the health insurance business. They have skills that can be used in other industries and other jobs. The legislation that both Senator Sanders has introduced and Congresswoman Jayapal has introduced in the House also provides funding, I think it’s for a period of four years, to help people transition to new jobs. And for those who are in their 50s, it provides the assurance that they can have a continuation of income for a period of time.
It’s called Just Transition and union leaders who are supportive of Medicare for All have been involved in making sure that people who would lose their jobs or have to change jobs would be taken care of. A lot of the money that would be set aside would help with skills training, even relocation. If you have a pension at risk, that would be protected.
Would some of the money that would be raised through taxes to go into Medicare For All be used to convert for-profit facilities into nonprofit facilities? How do you keep someone who owns a hospital — because I’ve seen it happen in my neighborhood and I know it’s happening in Philadelphia where you live — from turning it into condos?
Frankly, that is an issue that has been debated… There has been a proposal that was not included in the House bill that would outlaw the use of federal funds going to a hospital or other institution that has a for-profit status. So for-profit facilities would continue to exist and they could, as they currently are, get reimbursement for the care that they provide.
But there is no magic bullet of a hospital being nonprofit. A lot of the nonprofit health hospitals in the country have closed as have some of the for-profits. The reality is that even the nonprofits largely have to operate like the for-profits do. There’s not a heck of a lot of difference. They have different tax status, but in many cases, as we have seen with the University of Virginia scandal — of that hospital system being very aggressive in collecting debts of people who’ve received care there — they operate very much the same way. So just outlawing the use of federal funds that go to a for-profit facility sounds interesting and it has some support, but the reality is that nonprofits and for-profits operate very similarly. They call profits different names and in the nonprofit world, they refer to it as surpluses, but it’s the same thing — just doesn’t go to shareholders per se.
You’re right about Philadelphia, the Hahnemann hospital that has been there for decades and has served as a safety net hospital for many, many generations is shutting down because it was taken over by a for-profit company and had a number of owner changes and the current owner decided, “Well, this is not making money for us, so we’re going to shut it down.” I’m fully expecting that before too long we’ll see condos where that hospital was.
I was on a speaking tour of Tennessee not long ago and I heard about the rural hospitals that have closed there, and it’s not unique to Tennessee, but it just happens that on a per capita basis, more have closed in Tennessee in recent years than anywhere else. A lot of those were operated by for-profit companies that were looking at shareholder interest more than anything else, not community need, and decided for the sake of the company it would be better to shut them down.
Some that have closed have been operated on a nonprofit basis but one of the things that’s important in the Medicare for All legislation, in the House in particular, [is that it] would establish something called global budgets for hospitals and other institutional caregivers.
It actually was something that was envisioned in the Clinton plan in the early nineties. There was opposition in the industry [and] there will be as we go forward in this debate, but what global budgeting does is it looks at a lot of factors to determine how much a facility should be a given in a certain year to continue serving the needs of the community – looking over a three -year period of time, for example, taking into consideration the demographics of the area served and making sure that that facility has an adequate amount of money based on recent history to continue providing services to the people who live in the area and depend on it. If you have a system like that, it would eliminate a lot of these hospital closures.
We talked about the Democratic candidates. We haven’t talked about the Republicans. Especially since this current administration has been in office, we’ve seen a constant effort to completely eviscerate the Affordable Care Act. Until the composition of the Senate and the executive changes, how can we hope to see something like what you propose?
I can’t predict when it will happen. What I do say is, I think it’ s not a matter of if, but when. Who controls the Senate and who controls the House, who controls the White House is a big factor. I don’t think we’ll see this enacted until Democrats are in control of both houses of Congress and the White House. Will that happen after 2020? I can’t tell you. I think there’s a good chance, a better chance certainly that we could make progress and get this implemented if Democrats do take control of the Senate.
If not, I think we’ll be looking at a few more years down the road until we do see that change in control. Trump could be reelected. We just don’t know at this point, [but] the current system is just not sustainable. We’re seeing that the employer-based system is unraveling as more and more employers are unable to stay in the game and offer coverage. More people are earning a living in the gig economy and can’t rely on an employer to provide coverage. Health insurers can’t control cost.
When the Affordable Care Act was passed, we were spending about two and a half trillion dollars on healthcare in this country. Now it’s three and a half trillion dollars. So you’re seeing that the private system of insurance is not controlling healthcare costs. One of the aspirations, one of the goals, one of the things we need is universal coverage, but we’ve got to have our eye not only on that ball, but on what is a system that controls costs, because we simply cannot keep going the way we are. More and more employers are going to be throwing in the towel and saying, “This doesn’t work.”
I think it’s conceivable that if there’s another four years of Trump and Republican control of the Senate, you’ll see further attempts to weaken, to sabotage the Affordable Care Act. There is this belief among a lot of Republicans that it needs to be removed. And some are living in some fantasy world that before the Affordable Care Act was passed, the free market was working or could work.
It would be catastrophic for the country if we got rid of [Obamacare, although] as the late Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt said when it was passed, it’s an ugly Band-Aid on an ugly system, and that’s what it is. It helped bring a lot more people into coverage, but you still have 30 million people who don’t have coverage and many millions more than that who are now under-insured because of these high deductibles that they have to meet before their coverage kicks in, so it’s not sustainable. There is a limit, and I know that employers are getting fed up with having to figure out how can they shift more of the cost of care and premiums to their workers. You can’t keep doing that.
So you’re hopeful?
Maybe I’m just an optimist by nature, but I’m also a pragmatist. One of the things that I am working to do in my organization is to – using a PR term – condition the environment to help make change more likely. You’ve got to persuade the public that what you’re proposing is solid policy and in their best interest. It’s not an easy thing, particularly when you’ve got a lot more money that’s being spent to continue propaganda campaigns to keep people voting against their own best interest. But I feel an obligation to do this, Michael. Because of all that work that I did in my old job I’m making amends. So it’s not just optimism, it’s an obligation to do this, and to do what I think is the right thing, the right policy both from an economic but also a moral point of view.
So people reading this or listening to this, if they want to learn more about Business for Medicare for All, where should they go?
Go to our website, which is BusinessforMedicareforAll.org. Go there.
We also are launching Medicare for All Now, which will be a 501(c)(4). That will enable us to delve into the political work more deeply. We can endorse candidates and will be able to raise money. We have not endorsed a candidate for president. I don’t know that we will in the primaries. We’ve got Senators Sanders and Warren who are strong advocates of “the damn bill” that Senator Sanders drafted and that has the support of several of his colleagues. As we discussed, not all of the candidates are on board with that, but we very well may weigh in, even in the congressional campaigns, so stay tuned.
Wendell Potter, thank you very much.
Thank you, Michael.
Michael Winship is the Schumann Senior Writing Fellow for Common Dreams. Previously, he was the Emmy Award-winning senior writer for Moyers & Company and BillMoyers.com, a past senior writing fellow at the policy and advocacy group Demos, and former president of the Writers Guild of America East. Follow him on Twitter: @MichaelWinship.<div>
</div><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=nUOSCgAAQBAJ">https://books.google.com/books?id=nUOSCgAAQBAJ</a><a href="http://www.alternet.org/books/heres-how-chemical-companies-decide-whats-toxic-not-epa-or-fda">http://www.alternet.org/books/heres-how-chemical-companies-decide-whats-toxic-not-epa-or-fda</a>an excerpt from the new book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nation-Take-Money-Corrupts-Democracy/dp/1632861097/?tag=alternorg08-20" style="text-decoration: none;">Nation on the Take</a> by Wendell Potter & Nick Penniman (Bloomsbury Press, 2016):Arsenic, like formaldehyde, can cause health and developmental problems and at high levels is linked to certain cancers. Columbia University professor Joseph Graziano jokes, darkly, that arsenic makes lead look like a vitamin. That’s because, as he told the Center for Public Integrity’s David Heath, it “sweeps across the body and impact[s] everything that’s going on, every organ system.” It’s in weed killers marketed to fight your lawn’s crabgrass, and, in many places, it’s in the water we drink.A 2008 draft assessment by the EPA estimated that arsenic was seventeen times more potent than previously thought. In assessing the impact of arsenic on women in particular, the agency estimated that if a hundred thousand women were to consume the legal limit of arsenic currently permitted, 730 would get bladder or lung cancer.After seeing the draft assessment, the producers of arsenic-based pesticides that hired Charlie Grizzle to lobby for them, Drexel Chemical Co. and Luxembourg-Pamol, began to take action, as did mining companies like Rio Tinto, which also would have been affected by the regulation. As the Center for Public Integrity’s David Heath reported, a group of lobbyists, including Grizzle, set up a meeting with Representative Mike Simpson, the Republican from Idaho, who by 2015 had received a total of $8,000 in campaign donations from Grizzle, according to data compiled and analyzed by the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics.All it took to send the EPA’s draft assessment to the National Academy of Sciences for a review was for a congressman to slip one paragraph into in a 221-page spending bill. When Heath asked Simpson about the paragraph, he said he worried about small communities not being able to meet drinking water standards.Such stealth maneuvers are not uncommon in Congress. A senator, for example, can anonymously put a hold on legislation, completely blocking it. Committee members can insert language written by lobbyists directly into a large spending bill before anyone has adequate time to review it. As Chellie Pingree, a Democrat from Maine, bemoaned to Center for Public Integrity reporter David Heath in June 2014: “It’s happening more and more in this Congress that we see less and less of what goes on behind the scenes, that members aren’t informed until the last minute. So things like this, major policy changes like this, can happen somewhat in the dark of the night with very little information to the public.”When confronted by a reporter, Simpson said he didn’t know that the paragraph inserted into the spending bill kept a weed killer containing arsenic on the market, and he said he had “no idea” that Grizzle had donated to his campaigns.Delays continued in subsequent years as industry-funded scientists presented their views to the Academy, sometimes without disclosing their financial ties. (The Center for Public Integrity reported that one such scientist suggested that an arsenic dose even higher than the current drinking water standard doesn’t cause cancer.) The result: in 2015, seven years after the EPA’s draft assessment that arsenic is considerably more dangerous than previously thought, many public health experts said the federal government was continuing to allow too much arsenic in our water and in products like weed killers. “Nobody’s Looking Out for Our Welfare”“We have a broken Toxic Substance Control Act,” says Tom Neltner. That’s the big problem that “federal health officials, prominent academics and even many leaders of the chemical industry” agree on, the Atlantic’s senior health care editor, Dr. James Hamblin, wrote in 2014.The obstacles for public health are (1) the vast majority of the eighty thousand industrial chemicals available for use are not regulated or even tested by the government, and (2) companies are not even required to submit most of them for testing. “What most Americans don’t realize is nobody’s looking out for their welfare,” Mount Sinai’s Philip Landrigan told us. “The great fear is always that there might be other chemicals out there that have never been tested but to which children are exposed.”In addition, the EPA (like the FDA) has to meet a very high standard before it can ban a toxin. The EPA has banned or limited only five. Weak laws even made it difficult to ban asbestos.There were signs in 2015 that the chemical safety laws might be strengthened when legislation to update the laws for the first time in thirty-nine years received bipartisan support in the Senate. It would, among other things, require more frequent testing at the federal level and make it easier for the government to pull products off the shelves.Sponsored by industry favorite David Vitter and New Mexico Democrat Tom Udall, who in the past has supported increased environmental protection, the bill even received kudos of sorts from some environmental advocacy groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund, which view the legislation as an improvement over the broken status quo. Other green groups maintained it was much too weak. Senator Barbara Boxer was pushing a separate, more stringent bill that allowed for testing of more chemicals each year.Vitter’s spokesman wrote that the “legislation provides common-sense reforms that are necessary to update the United States’ forty year old chemical regulatory program. Senator Vitter has worked with colleagues across this aisle, stakeholders from all sectors, and the EPA to draft this legislation that will drastically increase EPA’s ability to ensure the safety of chemicals being used in the United States.” It soon became apparent, however, that the bill was being vetted—and possibly even written, at least in part—by industry lobbyists. Using metadata on a Microsoft Word document circulated by Udall, a reporter for Hearst Newspapers found that the document originated at the American Chemistry Council. Senator Boxer said she felt certain the industry wrote it, citing a Senate information technology staffer who investigated the issue.Udall, who the New York Times suggested had formed an “unlikely alliance” with the chemical industry, maintained that the document originated in his office. One of his aides told Hearst that “it was shared with a number of stakeholders including at least one other senator’s office. One of those stakeholders was the ACC.” But the council did not deny authoring that draft of the bill. “There’s no way for anyone to tell,” a council spokesperson said. Others, including Udall’s office, said anyone could change some metadata. A spokesperson for Udall said the senator has been engaged with all groups on all sides of the issue.Regardless of who wrote the bill’s language, the end product was more than palatable to the chemical industry. The American Chemistry Council called the bill the “culmination of a multi-year effort” to secure “compromise, common-sense” legislation that it characterized as “a balanced, science-driven solution that reassured the public that our products are safe and that keeps our economy growing.”The ten biggest chemical companies spent $154 million lobbying on the bill over 2013 and 2014, the watchdog group MapLight found. In contrast, public interest, environmental, and medical groups together spent less than $18 million. The environmental groups spent $6.6 million.Those chemical companies also contributed almost more than $4 million in campaign contributions to several candidates’ campaigns in the 2014 election as the sponsors were shepherding the bill through Congress, MapLight found. The ACC also donated $150,000 to a super PAC supporting Vitter’s gubernatorial bid in Louisiana.The ACC also spent $4 million plus on TV and radio advertising in support of the reelection of Udall and the industry’s other allies in Congress, the Timesreported. The ads portrayed Udall as a man who brings “both sides together to get results.” According to the Times, Udall “emphatically rejects” that he was doing the industry’s bidding: “We can’t do something that is pie in the sky; we have to deal with reality,” he said. ==