Blue Cross Millionaires Are Scared to Compete With a Public Plan
Monday 25 May 2009
by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

A Blue Cross building in North Carolina. The health insurance company is
running inaccurate television ads warning people against the prospect of
a public health care option. (Photo: Bill Warren)
The boys running the show at Blue Cross in North Carolina are running scared. They're worried that President Obama is going to treat them like autoworkers and make them actually compete in the market. The Blue Cross boys think that they belong in the same league as the Wall Street bankers and should just be allowed to collect their multi-million-dollar salaries without being forced to worry about things like competition.
The basic story is that Blue Cross of North Carolina decided to jump the gun on President Obama and Congress and start running television ads telling people how awful a public health care plan would be. According to the ads, people enrolled in the public health care plan wouldn't have a choice of doctors, would face long waiting periods for appointments and procedures and would not even be able to get a clerk to answer questions on billing.
That sounds pretty awful, but if it were true, you have to wonder why Blue Cross of North Carolina is so worried. After all, President Obama is not proposing that anyone would be forced to join a public plan. He just proposed that people have the option to buy into a public plan. Is Blue Cross of North Carolina really that terrified that it will be unable to compete with a public plan that doesn't let patients choose their doctor, subjects them to long waits and doesn't answer questions about billing?
Of course, if the ads being planned by Blue Cross of North Carolina were accurate, then it would not be concerned about a public plan. The reason that Blue Cross of North Carolina is running the ads is that it knows the ads are not true. There is no reason to think that a public plan will offer less choice, require longer waits or provide poorer service than a private plan, like Blue Cross of North Carolina. And there are reasons for believing that a public plan might cost considerably less.
Specifically, the administrative expenses of a public plan like Medicare are far lower than the expenses for Blue Cross of North Carolina. According to its Annual Report, Blue Cross of North Carolina spent almost 15 percent of its premiums on administrative expenses in 2008. That came to more than $1.8 billion. This money would have been enough to cover the costs of insuring almost 600,000 kids through the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Just five years earlier, Blue Cross of North Carolina spent more than 22 percent of premiums on administrative expenses.
By comparison, Medicare spends only about 2 percent of its revenue on administrative expenses. Unlike Blue Cross of North Carolina, Medicare doesn't earn profits and doesn't pay high salaries to its top executives. According to the Raleigh News and Observer, Robert J. Greczyn Jr., the chief executive of Blue Cross of North Carolina, earned $3.2 million in 2007. That's enough to pay for a year's worth of SCHIP for 1,000 kids. Other top executives also drew salaries well in excess of $1 million, a pay range that exceeds the top levels in the public sector by an order of magnitude.
Given the high salaries that Blue Cross of North Carolina pays its top executives and the other administrative expenses that it bears as a result of being a private sector plan with high overhead, it is not surprising that it would be afraid of a public plan. A public plan would likely charge much lower prices, thereby pulling away a large share of Blue Cross of North Carolina's business. Insofar as it was able to hold on to its patients, Blue Cross of North Carolina would probably be forced to lower its prices - slashing its profit margins - in order to be able to compete. This is not a happy picture for any business: fewer customers and lower profit margins.
The answer, of course, is tough love. We just have to tell Blue Cross of North Carolina than it will have to learn to compete. If it can't beat out a public plan in market competition, then the public and the economy would be better served if it went into another line of business.
Bankers may have enough political power that they can milk the government without limits. However, this may not prove to be true for the health insurers. If President Obama continues to push for a public plan, the good folks running Blue Cross of North Carolina and the other insurers may actually have to work for their paychecks.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
At some point, it would seem
Mon, 05/25/2009 - 11:09 — Jruss (not verified)Rationing always exists, US
Mon, 05/25/2009 - 12:46 — Anonarcmous (not verified)A single-payer system is the
Mon, 05/25/2009 - 13:19 — Zanne deJanvier (not verified)Please let me know as soon
Mon, 05/25/2009 - 13:27 — David Brookbank (not verified)I don't have much faith that
Mon, 05/25/2009 - 14:13 — Anonymous (not verified)An even better solution
Mon, 05/25/2009 - 14:18 — Anonymous (not verified)Re: the BEST argument for
Mon, 05/25/2009 - 14:18 — Brian Flaherty (not verified)Health insurance companies
Mon, 05/25/2009 - 15:31 — Anonymous (not verified)When will people begin to
Mon, 05/25/2009 - 15:54 — Denbo (not verified)We have monetized the health
Mon, 05/25/2009 - 16:35 — Anonymous (not verified)I don't think Blue Cross has
Mon, 05/25/2009 - 16:47 — sharonsj (not verified)"An even better solution"
Mon, 05/25/2009 - 16:55 — WCh (not verified)All insurance millionaires
Mon, 05/25/2009 - 17:35 — Sally (not verified)The only competition they
Mon, 05/25/2009 - 18:37 — Anonymous (not verified)I didn't have the money to
Mon, 05/25/2009 - 19:03 — Anonymous (not verified)It's almost riotously funny
Mon, 05/25/2009 - 19:19 — Robert Walters (not verified)I have been a provider for
Mon, 05/25/2009 - 22:51 — Anonymous (not verified)US Healthcare still involves
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 01:19 — Ravan Asteris (not verified)The short answer is that the
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 06:02 — Abbama (not verified)I'm from across the pond, so
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 07:35 — Anonymous (not verified)If you happen to have Blue
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 08:09 — L.D. Freitas (not verified)Well, ain't it sweet... the
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 08:39 — Poor country rep (not verified)"According to the [BS-BC]
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 09:12 — Gadfly (not verified)To WCh, the fact that there
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 09:56 — Patrick (not verified)* Health care insurance comes first
* Big pharma price gouging... well count it as first ex-aequo. Think that they obtained from the Bush administration the interdiction for Medicare to negociate prices - or, "Why do you think there are that many spam about canadian pharmacy?"
* Doctors population and expected income, related to both trained population and protectionism (re-read Dean Baker in these columns)
* Malpractice insurance costs - this is a side effect of the expected returns for lawyers and the fact that since the 80s the "Nation of law and not of men" has been taken maybe a little too literally: a Nation for the laws and not for the people.
Last word: automobile industry is 3% of the US economy; health care is... 17%. This is not actually created riches. This reminds me of the difference between the cost and the value...
Let's stop
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 10:07 — Anonymous (not verified)There's something wrong with
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 10:52 — 2WaySkeptic (not verified)With all the above right-on
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 11:00 — Anonymous (not verified)Single payer and make
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 11:09 — NYCartist (not verified)I think the best solution
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 11:55 — mapsguy1955 (not verified)One reason BC/BS and other
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 12:55 — Uppity Woman (not verified)Clearly there are huge
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 13:48 — Dave (not verified)Here are the profits the
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 14:18 — Anonymous (not verified)2WaySkeptic states "without
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 14:23 — andy (not verified)So what is the total of
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 14:39 — Americonned (not verified)An excellent article. I've
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 15:02 — bshames (not verified)I had insurance up until
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 15:42 — Anonymous (not verified)am a retired M.D. who has
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 16:11 — Joel Fyvolent M.D. (not verified)Let me start by saying that
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 16:12 — mouthofthesouth (not verified)The US is run by Wall Street
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 16:42 — CharlyAndy (not verified)It is difficult to know what
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 18:41 — Anonymous (not verified)I'm ready to take my chances
Wed, 05/27/2009 - 06:22 — ann m (not verified)Were so sorry for all the
Sun, 12/20/2009 - 12:52 — JasonLee (not verified)