 |
 |
   Memo: The way forward on health care reform in 2010.
 A dark legacy of the Vietnam War is creating a whole new set of problems.
|
   |
|
|
October 17, 2009
'TAKE ONE OF THESE, AND CALL US IN A DECADE'.... Watching President Obama's weekly address this morning, it seems the White House has had just about enough of the insurance industry's antics in opposition to health care reform. As presidential weekly addresses go, this was the equivalent of dropping the gloves. After noting recent progress on the legislative process -- the president said the debate is "draw[ing] to a close," adding that we are "closer to reforming the health care system than we have ever been in history" -- and reemphasizing why reform is so desperately needed, Obama turned his attention to the insurance industry, which is marshalling its forces "for one last fight to save the status quo." "They're filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads," the president said. "They're flooding Capitol Hill with lobbyists and campaign contributions. And they're funding studies designed to mislead the American people. "Of course, like clockwork, we've seen folks on cable television who know better, waving these industry-funded studies in the air. We've seen industry insiders -- and their apologists -- citing these studies as proof of claims that just aren't true. They'll claim that premiums will go up under reform; but they know that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that reforms will lower premiums in a new insurance exchange while offering consumer protections that will limit out-of-pocket costs and prevent discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. They'll claim that you'll have to pay more out of pocket; but they know that this is based on a study that willfully ignores whole sections of the bill, including tax credits and cost savings that will greatly benefit middle class families. Even the authors of one of these studies have now admitted publicly that the insurance companies actually asked them to do an incomplete job. "It's smoke and mirrors. It's bogus. And it's all too familiar. Every time we get close to passing reform, the insurance companies produce these phony studies as a prescription and say, 'Take one of these, and call us in a decade.' Well, not this time. The fact is, the insurance industry is making this last-ditch effort to stop reform even as costs continue to rise and our health care dollars continue to be poured into their profits, bonuses, and administrative costs that do nothing to make us healthy -- that often actually go toward figuring out how to avoid covering people. And they're earning these profits and bonuses while enjoying a privileged exception from our anti-trust laws, a matter that Congress is rightfully reviewing. "Now, I welcome a good debate. I welcome the chance to defend our proposals and to test our ideas in the fires of this democracy. But what I will not abide are those who would bend the truth -- or break it -- to score political points and stop our progress as a country." It's not the first time the White House has signaled its displeasure with the insurance industry, but this is by far the hardest-hitting rhetoric we've heard from the president on private insurers. This is also a reminder of the value in having a principal enemy to focus on. TNR's Suzy Khimm noted the other day, "Activists on the left have long insisted that insurance companies aren't to be trusted. But up until now, it's been hard to make the charge stick, since the insurance lobby -- a.k.a., America's Health Insurance Plans -- has been cooperating with the White House and its allies. AHIP's new paper, though, may have changed things." That change is reflected in this presidential weekly address. Reformers disagree on a variety of policy details, but their common foe is now obvious. —Steve Benen 11:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)Comments
Good. Give Democrats without a spine someone to blame so they can vote for the public option. If that's what is needed - so be it. Posted by: Vokoban on October 17, 2009 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINKLovely speech -- shame it won't matter. On the left, anything other than single-payer, brought to fruition by a judicious mix of executive orders and signing statements, is an intolerable compromise. On the right, getting 60% -- or less -- medical cost ratios written into the Bill of Rights is the minimum acceptable package, with a side order of the application of leeches and faith-healing accompanied by readings from Science and Health, with Key to the Collected Works of Hayek. I don't envy the man his job. Posted by: Davis X. Machina on October 17, 2009 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINKglad the gloves are off -- now he can handle the baseball bat with greater dexterity... git to it, barack -- altho, hell, if davis x aint just frustrated, i'll be happy to wait for an executive signing statement that brings in single payer health care (er, could i also have a pony?) Posted by: neill on October 17, 2009 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINKA good first step. Now, drop the comity ( courtesy and considerate behavior toward others) and start naming names on the Other Side. "I'm calling YOU out, Grassley, et al, for your LYING to the American people." -I'm not holding my breath. . . Posted by: DAY on October 17, 2009 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINKAnd they're earning these profits and bonuses while enjoying a privileged exception from our anti-trust laws, a matter that Congress is rightfully reviewing. So repeal the anti-trust exemption. The bill wouldn't have to be long, full of of contradictory and obscure promises, kept in secret. See how it works out. Posted by: MatthewRMarler on October 17, 2009 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINKNeil, the speech introducing the executive order left out ponies. Ponies may be mentioned in the text of the order itself. Posted by: Davis X. Machina on October 17, 2009 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINKWow. The Prez is actually calling a liar a liar in Washington. If it catches on, it could be the most revolutionary change in our political discourse in decades. Mark this moment up in your live journals! What next, allowing liberals to sit in on important policy meetings? Prosecuting corrupt politicians and lobbyists? An interview with Rachel Maddow? Did anybody else catch CNN's editing of Obama's speech in SF last night? Check this out: http://bicsplace.blogspot.com/2009/10/at-least-he-still-has-sense-of-humor.html Posted by: Bic on October 17, 2009 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINKThis is really good practive for Obama and Congressional Dems, 'cause sooner or later they are going to have to confront Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, and all the Wall St looters. Obama may have to stand in the eye of a really big hurricane, fire Geitner and Summers and remain standing after has says "NO", proceeds to break up TooBigToFail, and protects the taxpayers money from the RobberBanks. Insurance companies are smallish potatos compared to what might be coming next. Posted by: bcinaz on October 17, 2009 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINKand yes I know that last comment was a lot of wishfull thinking, though I'l like to believe that even Obama has a breaking point when it comes to this massive transfer of wealth and usurpation of his power. Posted by: bcinaz on October 17, 2009 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINKbcinaz, I'm afraid you're right with regards to 'wishful thinking'. When I was a boy, you danced with the one that brung ya. -of course, I'm an old fart. . . Posted by: DAY on October 17, 2009 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINKbcinaz, the god damn banksters can go ahead and thrive for now, and they can keep feeding their crustless shit sandwiches to the likes of paul sullivan of the ny times. 'cause he's right, my anger at them has given me dizzy spells and shortness of breath. besides, they apparently keep the otherwise-unemployable, like sullivan, off the streets... timmy, larry and barack better git on the job-creatin' stick. 'course they could nab the 21 billion in bonuses from goldman et al, to start up a job program...that'd be nice. (davis x, thanks for the pony-hope!) Posted by: neill on October 17, 2009 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINKLmao, this is a joke. The Republicans can't stop healthcare, only other Democrats can. We don't have a common enemy. We aren't all reformers. There are people who actually support reform, and then there are people who support passing anything at all and hoping nobody notices that it doesn't reform anything. TARP probably killed any sense of unity this party could have ever had, just like NAFTA killed it 20 years ago. Maybe Democrats will be smart enough not to turn half of their base into independants next time out. Posted by: soullite on October 17, 2009 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINKIs it simply "activists on the left" who say insurance companies can't be trusted? The White House's own pollster Joel Benenson "figured out that people like the idea of competition versus the insurance company, and that's why you get a number like 72 percent supporting it." (WaPo) Insurance companies make a good villian because they are WIDELY distrusted, not just on the activist left. I can't really think of too many people other than right wing activists who hold up insurance companies as trust worthy so I'm not sure what Suzy Khimm is getting at with that bit about the left. Khimm's selective description of who says insurance companies can't be trusted is incomplete at best. There is no Democratic party, and never has been in my lifetime, nor as far back as I can trace it. There are and always have been, only Democratic parties, plural. Coalition government has always been the Democratic norm -- slaveholders and mechanics; prairie populists and Southern revanchists, Southern populists and urban ethnics; McGovernite reformers and the last of the New Deal barons -- now it's DLC'ers and the tribunes of various historically powerless communities. It may be lamentable, but it isn't new. What is new is that the formally equally fissiparous Republicans are -- take your pick -- unusually united, or reduced to a single faction. Which simplifies life, especially in the opposition. Posted by: Davis X. Machina on October 17, 2009 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINKAll this back and forth (esp. Harry Reid's appearance as a "witness") is merely a head-fake until proven otherwise. I want to see results (a PO), or this is all BS. Posted by: Chris__ on October 17, 2009 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINKThe health insurance companies recent admission that they will raise rates if health care reform is passed provides the perfect opportunity for the president to explain why the "public option" (i.e., high quality, low cost, government-backed insurance anyone can choose if they are dissatisfied with their present plan) is necessary. Yet, I didn't detect any reference to a plan that Obama has said in the past he would prefer to see included in the final bill. If we get a half-a--ed bill as the result of this process there will be a lot of democratic voters (and get-out-the voters) who will be deeply disappointed. Posted by: William Bibb on October 17, 2009 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINKI'm with Chris. Lets see some results. I've heard this sort of thing from Obama before (telecom immunity comes to mind). Fool me once.... Posted by: jeri on October 17, 2009 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINKAs a few WH rep's said recently - when your opponents claim the man you work for is an illegal alien who's assumed the presidency on false premises, and who is bent on destroying the USA -- there's not much room for bipartisanship. So screw that. In a USA where Joe Wilson raises twice as much as Miller, for calling Obama a liar in Congress -- there's not much room for bipartisanship. So screw that. In an America where the insurance companies behave like the worst arm of the Mafia, when the Mafia was in its heyday -- there's not much room for bipartisanship. So screw that. To get respect from these shits, you actually have to teach them lessons. There's no other way. Posted by: SteinL on October 17, 2009 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK"So repeal the anti-trust exemption. [...] See how it works out. I agree the monopoly talk is just populist bluster, and rather lame. Premiums could, theoretically, go up if insurers were forced to take all applicants and to do away with pre-existing condition exemptions. Obama's team is probably also correct that IF you give tax credits to insurance buyers (and perhaps subsidies to the ins. companies) that premiums might not go up. But it is still costing more money, just from taxes. So it's true that a study that doesn't take those into account and claims premiums will rise is dishonest, I guess. But the HCR bill won't generate that much savings. Cost cutting, trimming the fat? Please. Our total, public and private, healthcare expenditures, as % of GDP, might come down slightly from more preventative care and less ER visits for non-emergencies. But the real savings in our system would come from eliminating the 20-30% overhead that insurance companies add to our system, as compared to the 7% that Medicare adds. This would require, effectively, eliminating insurance companies, or a robust public option that changes the way companies compete. And it isn't going to happen. Posted by: flubber on October 17, 2009 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINKThe health insurance companies recent admission that they will raise rates if health care reform is passed provides the perfect opportunity for the president to explain why the "public option" is necessary" Totally agree. Apparently allowing people to (effectively) buy into Medicare is too easily demagogued as *socialist takeover* buy politicians and think tankers bought out by corporate cash. Posted by: flubber on October 17, 2009 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINKThe health insurance companies recent admission that they will raise rates if health care reform is passed... Perhaps the insurance companies were hoping that the public would mistakenly infer that they would not raise their rates if reform failed. The 25% of the public that supported GWB after eight years of proof of incompetence would be likely to make such an inference. This is the base that screams socialism. So...IMHO, the insurance companies were trying to gin up support with an illusory carrot of not raising their rates. Of course, it would be another lie in a string of many, but then the 25%-ers have always cherry picked their "facts" to support their pre-determined conclusions against their own best interest. Posted by: jcricket on October 17, 2009 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINKNeill said it for me. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Posted by: Cal Gal on October 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINKWhat a great idea, repeal the anti-trust exemption on health insurance companies that was passed in the 1940s and then start prosecuting all the insurers to drive them all out of business so that no one has any health coverage! What a genius Mr. Obama is! And I'm sure he meant it and didn't use rhetoric to score cheap political talking points off an industry that is an integral part of each of the plans currently before the House and the Senate. No, he would never do that.. If he meant it then I guess we can all just sign up for the public option, why not, everything from the government is free, isn't it? Including the unicorns. re jp @ 5:43 PM: "...repeal the anti-trust exemption...passed in the 1940s" "...and then start prosecuting all the insurers to drive them all out of business..." "...so that no one has any health coverage." "What a genius Mr. Obama is!" "...an industry..." "...that is an integral part of each of the plans..." "Then I guess we can all sign up for the public option..." "Everything from the government is free, isn't it?" "Including the unicorns." If we get a half-a--ed bill as the result of this process there will be a lot of democratic voters (and get-out-the voters) who will be deeply disappointed Spot on. I'm one of them. I gave hundreds of dollars to Obama during the campaign and I am already somewhat disillusioned. But if he allows a bill to pass without a public option (with, say, a trigger instead) then I'll leave the Democratic Party. We all know that a trigger will never be pulled, and health care will remain in the hands of a private insurance cartel, with individuals mandated to buy their products. Disgusting, completely anti-democratic (small d) endgame. And it won't fix what's wrong with our health system. And I'll never understand why the public option wasn't included. But I won't listen to any more Democratic party nonsense about giving them 60 votes to get change, yadda yadda. 30 years of Reagan/Bush Republicanism has destroyed the fighting effectiveness of Democrats. To their eternal shame. Posted by: nyc on October 18, 2009 at 7:50 AM | PERMALINKPost a comment
February 2010
January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
