Lobbyists shaping the direction of health insurance reform in the Senate, in meetings behind closed doors, with Kennedy and Obama's blessing
This story really needs more attention than it's getting. I see a lot of people interested in the health insurance problem thinking that health care reform hinges on who gets the HHS secretary post; I doubt that that will matter so much after reading this:
Health Care Industry in Talks to Shape Policy
by Robert Pear, New York Times, February 20:
Since last fall, many of the leading figures in the nation's long-running health care debate have been meeting secretly in a Senate hearing room. Now, with the blessing of the Senate's leading proponent of universal health insurance, Edward M. Kennedy, they appear to be inching toward a consensus that could reshape the debate.
Many of the parties, from big insurance companies to lobbyists for consumers, doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, are embracing the idea that comprehensive health care legislation should include a requirement that every American carry insurance.
While not all industry groups are in complete agreement, there is enough of a consensus, according to people who have attended the meetings, that they have begun to tackle the next steps: how to enforce the requirement for everyone to have health insurance; how to make insurance affordable to the uninsured; and whether to require employers to help buy coverage for their employees.
The talks, which are taking place behind closed doors, are unusual. Lobbyists for a wide range of interest groups -- some of which were involved in defeating national health legislation in 1993-4 -- are meeting with the staff of Mr. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, in a search for common ground.
While President Obama is not directly represented in the talks, the White House has been kept informed and is encouraging the Senate effort as a way to get the ball rolling on health legislation.
....The 20 people who regularly attend the meetings on Capitol Hill include lobbyists for AARP, Aetna, the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, America's Health Insurance Plans, the Business Roundtable, Easter Seals, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and the United States Chamber of Commerce....
The full article suggests a consensus is really being formed. Once this is done, what this group wants done is most likely what the president and Congress will push for, because they'll have these lobbyists at their back.
Jane Hamsher and Dave Sirota are falling down on the job. I think they need to start getting their panties in a bunch about this right way.
February 22, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, ArtA (I think). After hearing Rahm's brother, Dr. Zeke, give his plan, which I blogged about here: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/cville_dem/2009/01/forget-single-payer-orthe-obam.php
I can't claim to be surprised. I am disappointed though. If we can't get a health care policy in place that hasn't been written by the leeches who have the most to gain and the least to offer; from this administration, when and who can we get it from?
This saddens me, and it also pisses me off. It makes me think of Cheney setting energy policy with the help of his oil company pals.
February 22, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, with a number of polls showing that the majority of Americans support a single-payer system, I´m sickened by the business-as-usual approach to crafting such important legislation by lobbyists sans inclusion of the wishes of the electorate. Thank you for the post AA.
February 22, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ack!! Don't let it sicken you. Stick with disgust and outrage!!
February 22, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No representation for the poor? No advisors from Medicare? The VA?
Bah!
Force everyone to have it, eh? Can you say legalized graft?
February 22, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
IMO, the "left" has decided not to join the conversation. Obama published his plan during the election, we all know what he's going to be trying to do. It's not like he sprung it on everyone out of the blue.
Rather than standing up to defend the plan, understanding it, and working to help make it successful - everyone is expending their energy on a concept that isn't on the table and doesn't even have a legitimate policy infrastructure that COULD be acted on rapidly. I've said it before, I'll say it again: People need to get a grip and protect OBABMA'S plan from being screwed up instead of whining that Obama's plan isn't "single payer".
Now the pump is primed for insurance companies to mandate participation - in a pool where they set the rules - and call it "universal" ... based on the BS assertion that unless you force people to have health care they won't get it until they are on death's door. They've even gotten many on the left programmed to take their side as a fallback position to single-payer.
If I wasn't being screwed in the process, I'd call it a classic irony. As it is, I just have to say it's sad and bewildering. Believe me, the insurance companies and lobbyists LOVE the netroots expending their efforts tearing down Obama's plan - this leaves them unopposed operational space.
February 22, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless you think the Republicans are all going to vote for this plan (which would certainly prove what kind of plan it is!) seems to me the left can just refuse to vote for it. How many negative ads would the left have to fund about predatory insurance companies and people being forced to buy bad policies against their will to kill the plan?
This is the holy grail. If the left is frozen out on this one, there is zero reason to remain in the Democratic Party.
February 22, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spoken like someone who has health insurance for themselves. My COBRA ran out a year ago - and I could barely afford that. I just need an affordable policy before something bad happens. I can clearly see how that would become reality under the Obama plan (if entrenched interests don't screw it up).
It sounds like you are saying if you can't get your holy grail, than myself and those like me can just die under the current system to prove your esoteric point. Thanks. The democrats failed the nation on this once - your partisan affiliation isn't nearly as important to me as forward progress.
It doesn't need ALL the republicans - the stimulus passed with only 2 out of the entire congress. So yes, I think they could get 2 votes in the senate and I don't think that inherently means the plan sucks.
February 22, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may well die under the future system if it's a bad bill. Insurance is not the same as care. I fear Obama is too eager to make a deal, any deal.
February 22, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said, I am comfortable that the plan as presented during the election is likely to bring a decent policy within my financial means rather quickly.
Letting the bill get loaded down with crap and then killing it GUARANTEES that I will remain in the precarious situation I am currently in. Such a solution would only be proposed by someone who is not personally at risk.
February 22, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are exactly right on this bluebell. Now is the time for the left to grab the supposedly less neanderthal Democrats by the short hairs and remind them that the bluedogs ain't the only group in town that can hold the keys to success or defeat.
My own opinion is that no reform is better than bad reform because with no change at all things will continue to get worse and highlight the need for a national health program that dispenses altogether with the thieves and charlatan's of the health insurance industry who prey on the rest of the nation.
After all, what good is universal coverage if we still have the same rotten system that will deny that you need the care you need and which will not actually cover the costs of what little care is given under their policies?
February 22, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. So what should we do? I am not sure how much my comments to WhiteHouse.gov, or going to a house party is helping.
February 22, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I'm naive, but I think that expressing ourselves here, with all the eyes watching our comments, is bound to have some effect. Maybe greater than whitehouse.gov.
February 22, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
One would hope so. Forcing people to pay for health insurance remotely like what is available today would be criminal. Providing minimal (basic) health care via ordinary taxes could be workable.
The left should be screaming at Obama that his plan is not what they want.
February 23, 2009 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP, who is watching this site? I don't understand your comment. I admit I was surprised when USA Today requested my permission to quote a comment I made here, I figured it was picked up by a fellow commenter, not anyone who comes here for opinion and wisdom (even though they could find all that and more here thanks to people like you). Do you know something about who in the government keeps tabs on TPM and the commenters?
February 23, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many read, who do not comment. Many in govt and other places!
February 23, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's not helping. Our President and his staff are frantically attempting to shore up and restore the status quo. I sincerely believe the President's version of "change" which was purposely ill-defined during the campaign really was to restore the nation to a previous point in time. With respect to health care it is just interest group politics to them. The change.gov website is, in my opinion, a cruel joke and a cynical nod to the participation of we noninsiders but no more. The interests of the people will only be represented as they have always been represented: by organized action outside of the established power arrangement precisely because we are dealt out. That is what the "New Deal" really was, a recognition of the demands and legitimacy of the outsiders who had never had a seat at the table of power. It took decades, but the forces of reaction managed to undo all that and once again the people are on the outside. Until pressure is applied, until the genuine anger and dissastisfaction of the millions is demonstrated to the powers that be, including our President, there's simply no hope for an outcome that is beneficial to the people in any way other than pure coincidence.
February 22, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is of course impossible for the White House to literally listen to a million distinct voices. That's one reason we have a Republic-like government structure. However, that doesn't mean that a million emails or form entries will be totally ignored, and of course places like "change.gov" are only the tip of the iceberg of individuals getting involved in political action.
If you want Obama to more the status quo instead of defending it, you've got to work on him from many traditional angles in addition to the internet means.
February 23, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure the friends and families of all the people who die for lack of insurance while waiting for your perfect progressive utopia will thank you.
February 22, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The people waiting for something perfect are not on the left. Your eagerness to accept crap instead of universal health care for all is a weakness and no favor to those who need health care because it only prolongs the scam we have in place. Remember, the scam we have is the worst system in the industrialized world.
The left is only waiting for a decent plan that actually covers all the people and is worth the expense. That is something that every single one of the great nations of the west have had now for decades but that we lack. Have you become so weakened and desperate you will take anything? Seems that way to me.
What you and others willing to accept any crumb they throw at you are doing is prolonging the pain. Your grasping for any small improvement is no favor to the ill and those in need of care. People will still die for lack of coverage under the horsehit insurance subsidies people like you are willing to accept so don't do the holier, more practical and smarter than thou thing okay? If you're honest, you can see the road of accepting half a loaf strewn with at least as many bodies as that of working for something worth having. So I urge you and others to rethink your willingness to accept any old bone from the table of the wealthy and corrupt interests who want so eagerly to sell you the current half a loaf they're offering up.
February 22, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure the ones who've already, er, expired, all are grateful for your indifference and caution.
February 22, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that we are going to have to accept something other than what we want. But we aren't being invited to the table! Yeah - I sent in my suggestions on his website and I know many others who have. I realize they had probably thousands of suggestions, but no one knows if they have even been heard.
Now we hear that there are "meetings." I do not trust the insurance industry and nothing that Barack Obama says will change that, so whatever comes out had better have some protections for us. If the insurance people are in the meetings and I'm not, why should I believe that the welfare of our citizens is the first priority, or even a priority at all?
Tell me what you think we should be doing, since nothing is out there at the moment, and I haven't been invited to the meetings. Where should my energy be going?
I'd really like to know.
February 22, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. The meetings scare the bajezus out of me. Particularly this:
It seems that there is already a consensus to gut important parts of Obama's plan.
So far, the only thing I've been hearing from the traditional "base" of the democratic party is a push for "single payer". You have me convinced single-payer is a great solution (which I didn't agree with a couple of months ago) ... but that's totally academic because single payer is not on the table - and there is no viable political path to get it there at this stage (based on the campaign; between Clinton, McCain, and Obama - it was NEVER on the table).
As such, I think our energy is best spent opposing the things that the lobbyists are trying to do to Obama's plan. It may not be perfect, but demand congress delivers exactly what Obama promised in the election. It's a hell of a lot better than what appears to be the emerging consensus.
My fear is that like the republicans and their "tax cuts only" stimulus proposals - taking a stance of "single-payer or nothing" ensures that the netroots never make it to the table.
February 22, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
We aren't at the table anyway. By not being at the table at all, Obama has already preemptively surrendered any bargaining power he had in claiming that he had to make his base happy. He apparently doesn't give a fig about his base and will concentrate on compromising with the Blue Dogs and Republicans. By shouting that the left has zero influence, he places ALL the influence to the right. That's not how you get a moderate solution that's how you get just another in the long string of sell outs to corporate lobbies.
February 22, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Among last year's major Democratic contenders for the nomination for President, Barack Obama was the least progressive of them all on the issue of health care. His "plan" is merely a big subsidy for the existing health insurance interests and he got huge support from them. The only thing even remotely progressive about Obama's stated approach is that it has a goal of universal health coverage in the future. It wouldn't even cover everyone right away! It gives massive subsidies to the insurance industry that don't cost quite as much as what is paid to them by private business right now. Big deal. At best, this would be a very temporary solution. If that's all the President comes forward with for this Congress to deal with then it should fail because it isn't really reform at all. It is just shuffling the deck a little.
February 22, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone remarked the other day that Richard Nixon's universal healthcare proposal was far better than anything we're likely to get out of the Obama administration. I just feel like this is the story of my political life. I started it voting against Nixon and now he's to the left of any political alternative I have! And Obama probably won't get out of Iraq or Afghanistan any quicker than Nixon was getting out of Vietnam. Talk about a life of political futility! They're going to have to cover anti-depressants in that healthcare plan to make me happy.
February 22, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
More like put them in the water supply....
February 22, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cosigned
February 23, 2009 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's ironic, but that is what happens when Democratic electorates refuse to support actual Democrats instead of corporate centrists who consistently do little or nothing of long term value for the people. Each and every major policy initiative by corporate centrist Democrats has the interests of their corporate backers first and foremost in mind. That's just the plain and simple fact of the matter. Why do people insist on continuing down this ineffective path that produces little or nothing for the average American?
Have you noticed anytime a Democratic candidate emerges representing the "Democratic wing" of the Democratic Party that person is instantly tagged as a hopeless cause and unelectable? That person is then put and kept in the "unelectable" jar and put on a shelf by the corporate media (and their buddies in the DC Democratic establishment) no matter what.
Remember that's how they sank Howard Dean and what caused the rush to John Kerry who was as popular as an old shoe prior to the Dean scare manufactured by established DC Democratic interests and their media enablers. Much of Obama's support was built on the same argument that only a centrist is electeable. Many liberals supported him on the oft stated (but rarely supported by any evidence) belief that he was just posturing as a centrist but that once elected he would be more liberal. Who's the joke on now?
Events have now overtaken the centrist position on pretty much every issue out there. It is very apparent that only real, full blown liberalism offers any real change at all or answers for the woes confronting us and still the DC Democratic establishment clings to it's bankrupt centrist preferences. I don't really blame them. After all, it is very, very lucrative for them to keep the status quo in place while convincing people that preserving the status quo is actually "change."
Obama is a good man and a smart man. But how courageous is he? We will find out. I'm in hopes that he'll recognize (sooner than later) that if he wants to succeed he will have to throw all that centrist crap overboard and instead do what is right for the country.
February 23, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'Ville: I want you and DrAaron at the meetings. People in the medical profession who deal with the insurance nightmare everyday, and can attest that all the bureaucracy takes time away from providing health care of any kind, very expensively.
Is this series of meetings why Dean has apparently been frozen out? Because he is all about single-payer?
I'm starting to think all the insurance companies should merge into one gigantic evil-doer so that at least we have only one dragon to slay.
February 23, 2009 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
They weren't "invited." What do you suggest, crashing the "closed door" meetings?
It seems to me that Obamas plan was barely adequate last year. Now it's clear that nothing LESS than single payer will do. When situations change, plans change, or should we stick to budgets and spending patterns from 3 years ago? Nonsense.
Obama ALSO said he couldn't do anything on his own, he needed participation from everyone. Isn't it about GD time the people pushed for what the majority wants? The majority wants SINGLE PAYER.
Time for the U.S. to join the 20th Century.
February 22, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good one, Bwak: It's time for America to join the 20th century."
February 23, 2009 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
AA,
If the NFIB is involved LOOK-OUT I was once an employee (for about a week) couldn't handle the GOP indoctrination that was pretty much required, unspoken but, required.
Did ANYBODY have any doubts when "Harry & Louise" reappeared shortly before the election?
BTW, are you actually an "artappraiser"?
February 22, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
on your "BTW": yes, sort of like the people on Antiques Roadshow (several on that show are ex co-workers from times gone by.) But I am not exactly like them as I am not also working as a dealer or for an auction house; rather, I do actual written appraisals, mostly for legal purposes/situations. But I don't use the name because I want to talk about it, I don't. I only ended up using it as a screen name because my first experiences on the net many years ago were on sites like ebay, where I grabbed the name as it was available because there it was good for my name to describe what I do. Shortly after that, I started going to sites like this, and it was easy to use the same screen name, and I didn't think twice about using it. Then, even though I'd rather not refer to what I do, I liked having the track record for that screen name which makes it easy for me to look up stuff I've posted on google.
February 23, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon my language, but Damn!!!
February 22, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, now a bit of context. It annoyed the heck out of me, when they did these health care house-parties and allowed reps from the insurance companies and who knows what to attend! I didn't go to one, because I had no interest in arguing with lobbyists!
We've all been sold down the river!
February 22, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get mad, get even!
February 22, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gonna do my best, bluebell!
February 22, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, lets not wait to see what actually is introduced into Congress and whether the meetings discussed in this article have anything to do with it. Let's work ourselves up into a furious frenzy of rage right now, right this minute, over inferences from inferences drawn from hints about what's going on in one newspaper article we read one day. Heck, our own generalized suspicion of corporations and paranoia that we're going to be sold out that's the residue of the previous eight years is more than sufficient to fill in the gaps left the the absence of facts. Who needs any actual facts, anyway? Break out the torches and pitch forks!
February 22, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nawww. let's wait until it's too late to influence anything and it's a done deal.
February 22, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
How bout we split the dif?
February 22, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's always the consumers doing the compromising. I'd like to see a little from the 'other' side.
Sorry, we're up against the wall here. There's no more room. Next week 100,000s more will lose their jobs and healthcare. Our system is a disgrace and an embarrassment. We HAVE been compromising, and this is what it has given us:
Bankrupt healthcare, poor service, expensive drugs, and overworked healthcare workers.
Time for something completely different.
February 22, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, no! Not the egg against the wall again!
Splat!
We are up against corporate personhood! (a personal vendetta of mine!)
You're right, bwak! Ok, I'm gonna go nuts over this!
February 22, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good thing I'm hard-boiled.
=D
Please do.
February 22, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't get too upset about this yet. Health care reform isn't going to happen without the backing of a lot of groups, and Kennedy has been very good at creating consensus among competing interests in the past. Last time we tried health care reform, the insurance industry mounted an aggressive advertising campaign that succeeded in turning public opinion against the reform effort. Getting the health industry on board this time is a smart thing to do because a powerful industry like that can derail the whole thing. I admit to a certain degree of skepticism about the for-profit health insurance industry ever being able to offer good and sufficient care at reasonable prices. (Their approach so far has been to try to restrict care while increasing prices.) But if there is a way to keep health care private and also make it good and relatively inexpensive then I'm all for giving the health insurance industry a chance. Health care is extremely expensive (and not just because of health insurers making profits). Limiting the amount of health care costs transferred to taxpayers is a good thing, as long as the overall goal of accessible and affordable care can be achieved.
Also, I trust Kennedy more than just about anybody in government right now. He's an extremely effective senator with his mind and heart in the right place on almost every issue. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in this until I see clear evidence that he's working for enemy.
February 22, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hate to say it, but Teddy's days are numbered and I'm sure he'd like to see this enacted before he dies, but that might not be realistic. We can't rush this out of sentimentality. People's lives literally depend on getting the bill right.
February 22, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you there bluebell. We should proceed with care and sadly, Kennedy probably won't be able to lead this thing in the future as he has so far. But while he's alive and active, I still trust him to do the right thing. If he can lay a sound foundation for consensus on a workable plan, we'll all owe him a great deal of gratitude.
February 22, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sure hope you're right, but even with his days numbered i don't recall Teddy's consensus building as being helpful in ever getting No child left behind funded.
February 22, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that it's not something to get extremely upset with just yet; AARP, for example, is not my top enemy lobbyist.
But the behind closed doors thing really really bothers me, ESPECIALLY since it has to be outed by the New York Times getting leaks. "Behind closed doors" but announced that it was going on would be far better, with lots of P.R., possibly updates about what's going on. Maybe they want to end up with a recommended paper from the group (like the Iraq Study Group) and then make it public, then open it for challenges.
Heck, it's important for the economy to have this kind of transparency at this point in time. Think of being a small business and deciding whether to lay someone off or keep everyone but cut their health insurance? Or just by virtue of how many more will be losing employer-provided health insurance in the next year. There are going to be more and more citizens up-close interested.
But it just bothers me that it's a setup for what this group suggests is what's going to end up getting supported. I realize it's a smart political way of doing things, to avoid "Harry & Louise" type reform killer campaigns, but is it the smart governing way at this point in time?
The main reasons I myself would like to see it more open, is that I like to know what my future looks like. I don't have the beliefs of some others here that I can get what I want (single payer.) Anyone who still expects to get single payer in one fell swoop rather than implemented slowly and incrementally is being unrealistic, they obviously didn't listen to what the candidates for president were saying, or were hoping they were lying.
I just want a better idea of what's actually going on, a better chance at guessing for myself, what our health care system for the next decade or so is going to look like. When many of the ideas that are being strongly considered are being discussed behind closed doors, I don't have a clue what's going to happen, and I can't plan for me and mine. I'd like to know who's pushing for what, and to be able to analyze whether I think they'll get it. And a lot of health care workers have a bigger stake in being able to do the same thing than I do.
BTW, as to several comments by others on this post, regarding hate of insurance companies. I hate all insurance companies, not just health, can rant about them with the best of them. But one has to realize that health insurance companies would not be going away even if we had single payer tomorrow. They would offer supplemental policies. They do so now for Medicare. I don't know the numbers for the whole population, but a majority of the seniors I know personally do not rely on Medicare alone. It's ironic but getting single payer would mean role reversal in some ways for insurance companies as to who is seen as the bad guy. Single payer would be denying certain types of care and insurance companies would be offering coverage for those things denied by single payer.
February 23, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
ArtA, I prefer these kinds of meetings to be open too, though I also know that some people feel less free to speak openly if they're on the record and hence closed-door meetings sometimes elicit more honest and free dialogue. I have very mixed feelings about people saying things in private that they won't stand up for in public, but I also know that people have competing responsibilities and sometimes speaking their minds in public can interfere with those other responsibilities. So it's a complex problem. Which gets me back to my original point: I trust Kennedy greatly. I think he's earned that trust. So let's keep our eyes open, but let's also not rush to judgment.
February 23, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I hate about the concept is that it's just like welfare "reform". You notice the Democratic party has banned the word poverty from its dictionary. The poor have been disappeared. I can just see the shameless centrist crowd pronouncing the healthcare problem solved because they pass a law making those just above the poverty line new victims of the centrist ideology: of the lobbyist, by the lobbyist and for the lobbyist. Force them to buy insurance? What and not pay their mortgage? And what kind of "affordable" insurance do they get if they do choose to put the health insurance before the mortgage or the food on the table? Something with deductibles as high as their annual inome? Meanwhile, you undermine employer paid insurance and just force more people on to the welfare for insurance company mandated plans.
Who represents the American people?
February 22, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just sent a message to Obama telling him to get the fu***** lobbyists out of the business of shaping health care. Or make sure there are also people on the side of citizens in the same room, at the table, with an equal voice. I further said that we know congress won't see to it that citizens are represented. The WH and Obama are going to grow tired of my nastygrams. But thats OK. The only way to have things change is to hammer on them until they get the message.
February 22, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
One other point: I'm not sure I'm against mandates to carry insurance as long as insurance is affordable and/or subsidized or free for those who otherwise couldn't afford it. Most states mandate auto insurance and few of us complain about that. Plus, most states regulate auto insurance rates. I assume the same would happen with health care. The industry would be guaranteed customers, but would also have to submit to a lot more regulation.
February 22, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, but who would be the regulators. Is it going to be like it is now where non-medical folks determine whether a procedure is medically necessary?
February 22, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The regulators (i.e., HHS) could say that if your doctor says something is medically necessary, it's medically necessary and must be covered. No one gets denied necessary care and no one gets "totalled."
February 22, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I understand it, that is exactly the plan that Obama is proposing. Chances are under mandates and stricter regulatory controls, the "for profit" part of health insurance will be a thing of the past.
February 23, 2009 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your car isn't the same as your kid. You don't want the kid written off as a total loss because the insurance company doesn't want to pay to fix him.
February 22, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kid = totaled. No, that would not look good!
February 22, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This leads into a very important semantic point. Auto insurance is mandated because it is the only way insurance companies can make a profit. How many people actually have accidents? I don't know, but it is a fraction of the people who pay annual premiums, and therefore the insurance companies take in more money than they pay out. The very TERM insurance implies that you are paying for something to reimburse you for something you don't expect to happen!
My Websters defines insurance as "the act of insuring life or property against contingencies..." [Contingency is defined as dependence on chance or fulfillment of an uncertainty...]
How many people go to the doctor? Pretty much everyone, so why do we call it insurance? What we need is a Health Care Program! If some people want insurance that will cover for extras like private rooms, then they can buy insurance.
Insurance is supposed to protect you from something unexpected like your house being robbed, or catching on fire, or being in a car accident; you pay into a pool, and most of us never get back a fraction of what we pay in. But if a catastrophe DOES occur, we get back far more than we paid. That is what insurance is for.
Ditch the entire concept of health insurance, and get started on a Health Care Program for our country!
February 22, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just so, C'Ville. No one should be getting rich off healthcare. It should be treated like a public utility.
February 22, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
i have no problem with competent doctors and nurses doing quite well. i wonder what % of the health care budget that turns out to be. my wild guess is 5%.
February 22, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
CVille,
Insurance is a wonderful thing--especially mutual insurance where the policyholders are also the insurance company shareholders and therefore receive any profits made by the insurance company.
We know that there are risks in life--and while we can't predict which individuals will be victims of those risks we can predict how many people in a large group will be victims. Because of this, we can calculate the cost of covering the loss from the risk for the entire big group. Insurance works simply by determining the risk across the whole group and asking each member of the group to pay enough so that total payments made equal the cost that will be incurred by the whole group. This means everyone pays a relatively small amount so that the individuals who end up suffering a loss from the risk can be taken care of. Insurance is therefore a private-sector version of collectivism. If the insurance company is a mutual company, any profits earned by the company through its investments or through a smaller number of claims than predicted get redistributed back to the policy holders. This, in my opinion, is an excellent system.
Insurance is appropriate, however, only for funding large costs that are predictable for a large group but unpredictable for any particular individual. With healthcare, insurance is therefore useful for catastrophic illnesses that are very expensive, unpredictable on an individual level, but relatively predictable on a group level. Ordinary healthcare--annual physicals and other relatively predictable expenses--are better funded from income and savings. Digging myself even deeper into the hole I'm in (having defended insurance), I'm also going to defend health savings accounts as a very effective means to cover these smaller, more predictable health care costs (as well as an effective means to save for future insurance costs).
The problem, of course, is that insurance and HSAs require reasonable income to be affordable. This means these programs need to be subsidized for those whose income isn't sufficient to cover the necessary costs. I'd be fine with a system that mandated insurance and HSAs to cover the cost of care as long as the system also provided sufficient subsidies to those whose income is inadequate to purchase the mandated insurance and make the mandated contributions to the health savings account.
I'm not sure this is the system I'd advocate for--I'm not sure what I'd advocate for yet--but I don't think ruling it out a priori makes sense either.
February 22, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would sum it up this way:
How should we spend our limited health care dollars? On health care? On advertising? On profits? On employees at medical offices who have to routinely spend hours pre-authorizing and otherwise jumping through hoops constructed to limit care? On reams of paper and faxes to keep the insurance gate-keepers in conrol?
Or should we have a pool of old and young, sick and healthy, hale and infirm to share the risk? Insurance companies will always have an incentive to punish (financially) those that cost more to take care of. That will never change.
I had an HSA. My yearly premiums added up to $4,000 a year, with a $2,500 deductible. That meant that before they would pay ONE PENNY I had to have spent out of pocket, $6,500. If that happened in December everything would be reset again January 1st. It was a complete rip-off, and I worried about it every single day that I had that infernal policy. Why was my policy so bad? Because I had breast cancer in 1997. I also had neck pain and got a CT scan. Both those things put me in the Class III category.
PS: Insurance companies don't like people in the Class III category. My previous insurance, which paid for screening mammograms wouldn't pay one penny for my mammograms. Why? Because I had a history of breast cancer, and so they weren't considered "screening."
Are you getting the picture? Health insurance companies are the scourge of the earth: They care nothing for people and only for money. I sincerely hope they die a very painful death.
February 22, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You go C'Ville. I think that some of these people have had the great fortune of never being ill, or having anyone they love be ill or have a chronic illness. That could change in a heatbeat.
Healthcare dollars should be spent on HEALTHCARE.
It's a no brainer, really.
February 22, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
CVille,
Today's insurance system is a mess. There's too much money spent on gatekeeping, cost shifting, and risk avoidance. But that doesn't mean insurance is necessarily bad. Nor would it be quite fair for me to agree that insurance companies are the scourage of the earth. I too had major medical problems. I was on life support for weeks, seriously ill and unable to work for two years, kept alive by a drug that cost $150,000 per year (yes!) and finally cured--yes nearly completely cured--by a 13-hour high-risk surgery. I have no idea what my care cost--but it was many hundreds, maybe millions, of dollars. My insurance company (actually my employer, since my employer is self-insured, though my employer's plan is administered by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois) paid nearly the entire cost (I paid $4,000 plus my employee premiums of about $2,500 per year). There was some annoying paperwork--but very little really given the amount of money being spent--and nothing the doctors ordered was denied. Now I know I was extremely fortunate to have very good coverage. But in my case the system did work. And because I'm still employed, I still have access to excellent coverage despite my poor health history. The problem, from my perspective, then, isn't so much the insurance system--but the fact that so many don't have the same access to insurance that I have. Maybe we should go ahead and scrap insurance. But I can't yet rule out giving others access to the same--very successful--insurance that I have.
February 22, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am glad you had such a good experience with your insurance, but if you had not been in a group (employer-provided) it would not have been the case. If you lost your job tomorrow I can promise you that your history would put you into the "uninsurable" category if you were trying to get insured as an individual.
The problem with insurance isn't for those of us who get it through our jobs; it is for everyone else.
For those whose employers don't provide it, or for those who can't afford the premiums even if they do provide it, or for those who are hourly employees, or etc etc etc...the reality is that those people are scrutinized as to their potential for "loss."
Do you know what the definition of "Loss" is in the insurance industry? It is whatever they have to pay out. Yes, every time they pay for a Pap Smear, a Mammogram, an Appendectomy, treatment for pneumonia, a cast on a broken arm, etc etc etc, those are by definition in "Insurance-Land," LOSSES!
That implies to me (at least) that they resent those payments and would like for them to go away. At least that is what "loss" means to me.
Yes, scourge of the earth is just about right, in my book.
February 22, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, yes, claims are losses. And for-profit insurance companies try to limit those losses by limiting exposure to risk (i.e., denying coverage to those with a high risk of illness) and limiting payments to those they do cover. But laws can be passed to force insurance companies to accept everyone and pay all claims for all care authorized by a doctor. Laws can also limit the premiums insurance companies can charge. The insurance companies would then have to seek profits in other ways--by offering better service, being more efficient, and investing more successfully. Maybe this isn't an ideal system--but then maybe it isn't all that bad either and if it can be implemented more quickly than government-managed, government-paid care then why not give it a try?
February 22, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not give it a try?
What if you had to pay a company just for the privilege of going to the grocery store? And you would have to pay them more if you had a history of buying fresh vegetables and such as opposed to cheap frozen dinners.
We HAVE GIVEN IT A TRY! WE HAVE HAD NOTHING BUT INSURANCE COMPANY RIP-OFFS FOR AS LONG AS ANY OF US CAN REMEMBER!
Holy shit! This is like saying, "well, yes...robbers do steal your money, but if we just pass some more laws we can still let them into our homes and they can only steal what they really deserve to get by."
Why should ONE RED PENNY go to people/companies who provide NOT ONE SINGLE service?
Oh, yes, for the last 100 years insurance companies have denied coverage to those who need it the most, but if we just pass laws...
WE DON'T NEED INSURANCE COMPANIES! THEY NEED US! KILL them! They are strangling our industries and ruining our country.
February 22, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Killing the health insurance companies might be the best solution. But that isn't going to be easy or fast, particularly during a recession when no one wants to destroy a whole industry and send even more people into unemployment. If Kennedy can get universal, affordable, and sufficient coverage working with the insurance companies--and he can get that coverage quickly--I'm not getting in his way just because I hate insurance companies.
February 22, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, that is just a complete load of crap. Auto insurance was enormously profitable before mandates because they refused to insure anyone who was an actuarial risk, either explicitly or by raising the rates on the bad risks so high that they went without.
Kind of like health insurers do now, or would do if they could, as it happens.
By coercing all the bad risks into buying insurance, and by further subsidizing them through a reinsurance pool subsidized by the premiums of the goods risks, we, as a society, insure that a family whose breadwinner was killed by a drunk driver won't be impoverished. It's not perfect, and its not my preferred model for health care, but the suggestion that mandatory car insurance is some sort of insurance industry conspiracy enacted by a corrupt legislature is asinine. The insurance companies were dragged into the arrangement kicking and screaming.
How many people ever have accidents? That's the point of insurance--all insurance. If everyone had accidents every year, insurance would be impossible just as health insurance would be impossible if everyone was sick all the time.
If we're going to have a fight, let's have a fact-based fight instead of one fueled by anti-corporatist dogma or leftist handwringing over the prospect that someone somewhere may make a profit.
February 22, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
NO ONE has problems with profits. They have problems with obscene profits. Can't tell the difference? I can.
No wonder you're a corporate apologist.
February 22, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speak for yourself Bird.
Oh damn, I let myself slip. Alright, I'll say it, I have a moral aversion to shareholders profiting on illness. I just do. It god damn makes me queasy. Kinda like selling organs, or eugenics. Something just doesn't seem right.
February 22, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off, duck, I am a chicken. Secondly, I was speaking generally....I know. it's wrong to have wall street making money off healthcare.
February 22, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh that was you, sorry I was really just looking for a place I could have my confessional.
February 22, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe just hike those robes up over yer head and whisper?
=D
February 22, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You completely misunderstood my comment. Yes, auto insurance companies were behind the requirement that all car owners are mandated to have insurance. Do you dispute that?
The reason is that it is the only way they could effectively protect all drivers. A pool of good/bad drivers is necessary to generate the funds to insure all of us. The end result is that most people don't have accidents, and don't recoup their premiums, but those who do get more than they paid in, and the insurance company, which take the risk in the first place, makes a profit.
What is wrong with that? That is the whole point of insurance!
NOW, READ THIS SLOWLY SO YOU CAN GET IT:
Health care is a different kettle of fish, because EVERYONE NEEDS HEALTH CARE! Not everyone crashes their car -- see the difference?
Why don't you read what I wrote before you spout off on what I wrote? In fact, why don't you go back a re-read it and then come back and make a comment.
GEEEEEEZ!
February 22, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see mandates as a huge giveaway to the insurance companies - taken directly out of our pockets. No matter how poor the service is, we will be forced to pay whatever price they demand. You keep the profit motivations of the free-market and eliminate the competitive checks that (supposedly) cause markets to function on behalf of the consumers.
IMO, if health insurance is going to be mandated we really need to implement full-on single payer. Otherwise you are just adding a financial overhead given directly to the insurance companies with zero benefit to the end user.
The auto insurance requirements are for liability, I don't see how the concept applies to proactive health care. It's not like you get oil changes and tune-ups through auto insurance - or that your neighbor's arm breaks when you have a heart attack.
February 22, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mandates are important. But it's nearly impossible to mandate health insurance. Though it would be a cinch to mandate health coverage via something like Medicare: A kid is born and gets a SS#. End of story!
February 22, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then eliminate the collusion.
Tell me, why are drugs so much cheaper in every other country but here?
Free markets. (spit) There are no free markets in this country. That's just a pile of horsepucky.
February 22, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
When things settle down, I'm gonna present a blog looking at "freedom" - and justice. We've overemphasized the former (in so many areas) and forgotten the latter.
February 22, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I look forward to this one!!!!
February 22, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a title and a few ideas. It needs to be discussed. But I'll wait a day or two.
February 22, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"No matter how poor the service is, we will be forced to pay whatever price they demand."
Oh, yes! Plus, you'll have to keep your eyes continually focused on the Congress critters who will be under never ending pressure to cut them an even better deal every session of Congress. As long as we are putting the insurance company first and the American people last that's going to be the story. Plus, since it will inevitably undermine employer paid plans, people may really get screwed.
My beef is that the commitment is to the insurance without ever defining a fundamental level of care that must be provided. Show me the commitment to providing care first.
February 22, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing more indicative of the plight of The Middle Class than the leeches called Health Insurance Companies!
THINK ABOUT THIS...
The THREE ways these blood suckers make money is
1. To actually take the cost of health care as charged by doctors and hospitals and basically mark it up by 25%, to make their shareholders happy!
2. The second way is the most heinous THEY HAVE TO DENY COVERAGE, often life saving coverage.
3. And finally. Investing YOUR premiums. How do you feel about letting BIG BUSINESS take your premiums and "LOAN" them to the "moerons" that got "U.S." in this condition to start with.
That's it, those THREE ways are health Insurers ONLY ways for making a profit!
YOU TELL ME, IS THIS THE WAY TO HANDLE ANYTHING, LET ALONE YOUR HEALTH CARE!! Rationing is already happening, ask ANYONE that is trying to get approval for a proven treatment that these...uh...Oh... here it comes.... that these... these F#@KERS CALL EXPERIMENTAL!
Then there is the UCR (Usual, Customary and Reasonable) charges. And we all just heard how those are determined by an "independent organization" oddly enough owned by United Health Care.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!
take a look at these links
http://nysbar.com/blogs/healthlaw/2008/02/cuomo_sues_unitedhealth_and_in.html
Or this link
http://healthcare.zdnet.com/?p=1690
Or just Google "Ingenix, Cuomo and United Health Care" And prepare to have your eyes opened... WIDE. I can't for the life of me figure out why we haven't heard more about this in the MSM. Oh...wait... maybe Big Business protecting Bigger Business?
THEN TRY TO DEFEND ANY HEALTH INSURANCE CORP.
We need HEALTH "CARE" NOT HEALTH "COVERAGE" the two are not interchangeable nouns!
Johnny Nash put it best;
"I Can See Clearly Now..."
February 22, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we're really counting, they also package the revenue from premiums as derivative CDOs - and then insure derivatives 100x over by issuing CDS contracts and then trade the CDS revenue streams as securities to people who don't have the assets to cover a loss if the CDS is required to pay out ... but that's a whole different issue.
No doubt about it. Insurance companies suck.
February 22, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess my problem with mandates and the whole idea of choice in health insurance is that I have no idea what type of insrance plan is best for me.
I'm a fairly bright guy, not quite to the level of a lot of the folks around here, but no slouch either. But I am not a doctor, I don't know what my risks are? or my family's risks. Nor am I a lawyer or an accountant who is best able to game the system. When I sign the pile of paperwork I don't really feel that qualified to know exactly what I am signing. When they send me a new pile every six months with a new plan telling me what it covers and what it doesn't, I don't really get it.
I just want to see the doctor occasionally and know I'm covered if i have an accident or come down with some bizarre disease. Call me lazy, but that is all I want, please don't complicate it. Its really simple.
February 22, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes!
I'm not going to add to the debate...everything I want to say has been said above by C'Ville, Face, Bwak...
Please, whatever is accomplished, please make it simple to understand. Coverage now is so complicated it reduces people to tears trying to figure it out. I've seen my old ancient aunt shaking with fear that she wasn't covered anymore for the medications she needs under that farking new drug coverage plan from Medicare. Why does it have to be so complicated to get your health seen to? Isn't it enough strain on a person being ill in the first place? Okay, I'm gonna shut up now because I'm not adding anything. Just venting.
February 22, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeesus, what a blog. One would think that health care is a real issue in this country.
This health care system must change.
What all this tells me is that the powerful in this country are scared.
Ted Kennedy is not a fascist.
This is going to be an interesting four years!!!
February 22, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kennedy, at this point in his life and career, has nothing to gain from currying lobbyist favor. He is probably the most knowledgeable person alive with regard to knowing what it takes to get major legislation written and passed. The motive for convening this group seems to be obtaining enough buy-in to forestall the major players from strangling any proposed legislation in the cradle.
Obama is not going to sign off on any legislation that does not provide effective cost controls, affordable access for those with pre-existing conditions, and coverage mandates strong enough to prevent Americans from being bankrupted by major illness.
While healthcare advocates and progressives need to be vigilant and give no politician a blank check, Obama and Kennedy have both earned a measure of trust by now.
February 22, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Xpost, yes, yes, yes
February 22, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many people file bankruptcy each year due to health care bills from catastrophic illness? How many jobs are lost or never created because of the costs of employee coverage? If we can set aside a $trillion at this point to act as a as a bank, lending to business and consumers (just one short leg of the Financial stability Plan), and put the idea of nationalizing banks on the table, then nationalizing health care should damn well be on the table, too. The exorbitant costs of health care in this country (driven by profiteers who buy our representatives) make up a large part of the economy as a whole and should be part of any “restructuring.”
The question of real change has nothing to do with political considerations or what may or may not be doable according to lobbyist spokespeople (i.e. congressmen). If politics is about popular support, a majority of the country favors single-payer just as they favor ending our M.E. misadventures ASAP, ending blind support of Israel, ending constitutional abuses and prosecuting past crimes, bailing out working people before the banks that brought on this mess (if you’re too big to fail, you’re too big), and on and on.
This is nothing new. It seems like it’s been decades since the gov was even superficially responsive to the people. But that is no reason to be quiet and hope for a half-assed compromise that will only extend the pain into the far future. It is our own party that we must fight if we insist on real change. A democratic Congress decided in a matter of days to throw $700 billion into the undefined TARP. The Fed had already been throwing $billions out the back door. A drastic change in this country and the world is not only possible but inevitable. The question is what form it will take. This is a moment in time that will not come again. Now is when people should be screaming loudest.
February 22, 2009 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Health care is only a matter of life and death, whereas democracy is really important!
From that point of view, these devotees of "secret covenants, secretly arrived at" sound a little alarming:
(( That is from the NYTC piece of 20 February originally cited. ))
So how about a government OF the Sense of the Room, BY the Workhorse Group, and FOR . . .
. . . ?
Well, I suppose the SR and the WG must be doing it all for US, in some sense, but . . . .
___
The brawl in the peanut gallery is interesting, too. Are a bunch of lunatic lefties going to make sure we end up with no bread instead of half a loaf? Are a bunch of moderate mushheads going to blow the last best chance for ultimate excellence?
I believe both Tweedledumbians and friends of Tweedledee have noted that the Sense of the Room™ and the Workhorse Group® are not exactly holding their breath to learn who wins.
It sounds (to me) as if neither group even expects our belovèd POTUS to care who wins -- which amounts to supposing that wherever Barry XLIV happens to stand on a given day is the leftmost point of serious politics in the holy Homeland, with nothing out beyond it but a desert of sterile blogghiatura and kvetch.
Well, that may be. After no more than thirty-four (34) days, the present keyboard does not venture to pronounce definitively.
Meanwhile, over at Wingnut City and Rio Limbaugh, the natives and their witch doctors hold a very different theory, one according to which Mr. Obama is continually being pressured from the left and thus prevented from relapsing into that tame and respectable neoreactionary that President L. Summers, for example, obviously wishes he would relapse into. (What would we get if Big Larry were made Medical Dictator? One shudders to imagine.)
Some of the witch doctors are not without imagination, and some of their imaginin’s have to do with the matter at hand. The neocomradely scenario that this keyboard liked best had it that we fiends are fiendishly attempting to sneak in single-payer Psocialized Medicine by way of those 47,000,000 uninsureds. ‘Our’ scheme is to set up a Fedguv corporation to insure them, on the model of the coverage provided for Fedguv civil servants. This, the neocomrades expect, will be so obviously superior to any product offered by Aetna or Blue Cross or Kaiser Etcetera that almost everybody will desert the Sacred Private Sector en masse and, hey presto, all of a sudden you can hardly tell US from a medical pit of darkness like Canada or the UK! Presumably beyond a certain tipping point, ‘we’ could tear off the mask of providing an insurance product and just plain provide medical services as such.
Unfortunately there is not much evidence that ‘we’ are up to anything of the sort. Pretty clearly the Sense of the Room™ folks and the Workhorse Group® gentry are scheming to hand oodles and oodles of their Uncle Sam’s money over to Aetna and Blue Cross and Kaiser Etcetera rather than set up a "Tennessee Valley Insurance Authority, " as it were, to compete against them.
To compete against our private-sectorian betters unfairly, the neocomrades take for granted. It is a bit of a puzzle, though, why they get so worked up against this sort of thing. If Uncle Sam really and truly can't manage his way out of a paper bag, as the denizens of Hooverville and Wingnut City are forever assurin’ everybody that Sam can't, ought not the neocomrades welcome incompetent competition from a TVIA in the sure and certain hope that the fate of Air America awaits it? -- that fate bein’ either Darwinian extinction altogether, or at least confinement to some tiny ghetto or reservation at the far fringes of the Homelandic mainstream. [*]
"He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
That puts it not unto the touch,
To win or lose it all!"
However the immediate point is not whether anybody likes this enemy idea as much as I happen to, but only that there certainly exists some ground between "single-payer" and the boondoggle that Sense of the Room and the Workhorse Group are evidently headed for. But God knows best.
Happy days.
___
[*] Well, OK, sure, I am cheating just a little on a couple of fronts:
(1) Here in the immediate aftermath of the Crawford Crash, the beauties of Big Management as conceived and practiced by MBA's from the Harvard Victory School are rather at a discount. For the moment, anyway, poor black-thumbed Sam looks a little less bad to anybody who cares to grade on the curve.
(2) Reducin’ a competitor that starts out with nearly fifty million customers to the status of Air America would be a pretty stiff challenge for our HVS MBA classes, GOP geniuses though they be. Perhaps Big Management could accomplish it in the end, but the process would take quite a while.
February 23, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can understand the idea of mandatory automotive liability coverage.
I don't understand this. Except in the sense that it sounds like regular people are going to be in need of some (more) vaseline.
I wonder how many regular citizens are at the table to complement the seats occupied by lobbyists?
February 23, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I remain confused by all the talk about a single-payer plan. Personally I would prefer one too, but it seems like if you really wanted a single-payer plan you would've voted for the candidate who proposed that. Obama's health plan was never single=payer and he made no excuses for that.
As for the hysteria about this article - Kennedy started this process well before Obama ever even got elected. That is his perogative, it will be the HELP Committee "chairman's mark." It also won't be the only bill in town - the Senate Finance Committee will have a mark, there will undoubtedly be other proposals in the House, etc. One piece of gristle does not a sausage make.
And bless your hearts if you think anyone can come up with a bill that has a snowball's chance in hell without at least some input from the dreaded "lobbyists," particularly AHIP. Yes, I hate them too, but I also hate Kid Rock and Obama hasn't done a thing about getting rid of him either.
February 23, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
DKDC,
AHIP is THEE major malfunction in getting real health care.
February 23, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
A pure mutual insurance company would make money by charging premiums to all their consumer/shareholders across the board to cover the losses of those in need. Since those in need far exceed those who pay, profits are created. If there was a mutual company, then these moneys go into a reserve to cover future losses. At some point this reserve creates a monstrous amount of money and the shareholders who are also the consumers get a refund. Insurance costs go down.
The fat cats observed this occurring in the early days of insurance and there is not a single mutual insurance company left. It all began with farmers developing a co-op to protect each other from bad weather. That is why there is the Farmers' Insurance group and State Farm insurance and why there are so many companies with the word, "mutual" in them. But not a singe one is a mutual insurance. They have all been bought and subjugated to shareholders who may, or may not, also be consumers.
Everything else is BS.
February 23, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Health reform next on Obama's agenda
President Obama will host a White House summit on health reform next week, he said Monday, signaling that he means to push forward aggressively on an issue some thought would fall by the wayside.
By Jeffrey Young @ The Hill, Posted: 02/23/09 05:36 PM [ET]
February 23, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wal-Mart and AT&T are members of John Podesta and Andy Stern's "Better Health Care Together" lobbying group. (Stern is the leader of the union SEiU.)
Exelon power company and Giant food stores are backing Ralph G. Neas' "National Coalition on Health Care" lobbying group.
There's a whole new world of lobbying bedfellows out there, see
"Liberal Groups Are Flexing New Muscle in Lobby Wars"
By Jim Rutenberg
Published: February 28, 2009
March 2, 2009 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink