Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I don't think the Health Insurance Reform Act was a great progressive achievement. [View all]Sorry, I had to mimic your response -- I find it an obnoxious one and have never used it before, though I won't promise to never use it again!
SugarShack is absolutely correct! Obama brought lobbyists to the table and, not only didn't include single payer and other representatives as he promised he would, a few single payer advocate physicians were arrested when they attempted to hand deliver a letter to the President!
Obama did, indeed, have lobbyists at the table. Read and learn:
White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=1&hp|
Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.
Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.
In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.
Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.
In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.
Note here that members of Congress were making noises about bring down drug costs and Obama squelched it because he made a deal.
Obama gives powerful drug lobby a seat at healthcare table
The pharmaceutical industry, once condemned by the president as a source of healthcare problems, has become a White House partner.
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-healthcare-pharma4-2009aug04,0,711970,print.story
As a candidate for president, Barack Obama lambasted drug companies and the influence they wielded in Washington. He even ran a television ad targeting the industry's chief lobbyist, former Louisiana congressman Billy Tauzin, and the role Tauzin played in preventing Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices.
Since the election, Tauzin has morphed into the president's partner. He has been invited to the White House half a dozen times in recent months. There, he says, he eventually secured an agreement that the administration wouldn't try to overturn the very Medicare drug policy that Obama had criticized on the campaign trail.
"The White House blessed it," Tauzin said.
Since the election, Tauzin has morphed into the president's partner. He has been invited to the White House half a dozen times in recent months. There, he says, he eventually secured an agreement that the administration wouldn't try to overturn the very Medicare drug policy that Obama had criticized on the campaign trail.
"The White House blessed it," Tauzin said.
NY Times Reporter Confirms Obama Made Deal to Kill Public Option
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html?view=print
For months I've been reporting in The Huffington Post that President Obama made a backroom deal last summer with the for-profit hospital lobby that he would make sure there would be no national public option in the final health reform legislation. (See here,here and here). I've been increasingly frustrated that except for an initial story last August in the New York Times, no major media outlet has picked up this important story and investigated further.
Hopefully, that's changing. On Monday, Ed Shultz interviewed New York Times Washington reporter David Kirkpatrick on his MSNBC TV show, and Kirkpatrick confirmed the existence of the deal. Shultz quoted Chip Kahn, chief lobbyist for the for-profit hospital industry on Kahn's confidence that the White House would honor the no public option deal, and Kirkpatrick responded:
Kirkpatrick also reported in his original New York Times article that White House was standing behind the deal with the for-profit hospitals: "Not to worry, Jim Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff, told the hospital lobbyists, according to White House officials and lobbyists briefed on the call. The White House was standing behind the deal".
Hopefully, that's changing. On Monday, Ed Shultz interviewed New York Times Washington reporter David Kirkpatrick on his MSNBC TV show, and Kirkpatrick confirmed the existence of the deal. Shultz quoted Chip Kahn, chief lobbyist for the for-profit hospital industry on Kahn's confidence that the White House would honor the no public option deal, and Kirkpatrick responded:
"That's a lobbyist for the hospital industry and he's talking about the hospital industry's specific deal with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee and, yeah, I think the hospital industry's got a deal here. There really were only two deals, meaning quid pro quo handshake deals on both sides, one with the hospitals and the other with the drug industry. And I think what you're interested in is that in the background of these deals was the presumption, shared on behalf of the lobbyists on the one side and the White House on the other, that the public option was not going to be in the final product."
Kirkpatrick also reported in his original New York Times article that White House was standing behind the deal with the for-profit hospitals: "Not to worry, Jim Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff, told the hospital lobbyists, according to White House officials and lobbyists briefed on the call. The White House was standing behind the deal".
I've backed up my assertions and those made by SugarShack. And you?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
223 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I don't think the Health Insurance Reform Act was a great progressive achievement. [View all]
boston bean
Dec 2011
OP
Obama had insurance and facilities at the table instead of doctors and patients.
SugarShack
Dec 2011
#66
If you seen two people drowning but could only help one would you let them both drown?
NNN0LHI
Dec 2011
#12
It's not President Obama's fault you didn't know you could change the rules in midstream.
A Simple Game
Dec 2011
#132
I notice the article you linked to doesn't say what the maximum allowable out of pocket expense is.
dflprincess
Dec 2011
#149
After you pay your $500 or $600 payment per month that you can't afford,
A Simple Game
Dec 2011
#156
Do you know what kind of health care the chronically ill get from Medicaid?
unapatriciated
Jan 2012
#191
What makes you think I haven't read this. In fact I have read every part of this very long piece....
unapatriciated
Jan 2012
#210
medicaid and medical are two different animals did you even read what I wrote.
unapatriciated
Jan 2012
#215
They are "now insured" because Obama passed a law REQUIRING them to have health insurance.
Leopolds Ghost
Dec 2011
#116
Insurance execs who wrote the bill said "the goal is to create a captive pool of young, low-risk"
Leopolds Ghost
Dec 2011
#118
what a truly screwed up country we are. This just does NOT happen anywhere else in the civilized wo
inna
Dec 2011
#113
Do you understand that there will be subsidies for premiums, based on income?
Ikonoklast
Dec 2011
#38
I can not believe that anyone on DU would defend that mandated bs. Blows my mind.
SammyWinstonJack
Dec 2011
#93
When the offer of coverage is so high you can't afford it -- will you still be fined?
Donnachaidh
Dec 2011
#141
The subsidy is to keep premiums to 10% of gross income. Deductibles and out of pockets are another
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#190
It turned out fairly well for Connecticut's insurance oligarchy thanks to their boy Joe Lieberman.
phasma ex machina
Dec 2011
#4
That's for sure. But I guess that doesn't matter to a great many here.
SammyWinstonJack
Dec 2011
#94
According to Rahm Emanuel one of the biggest pluses of the Profit Protection Act is that it
dflprincess
Dec 2011
#39
It's NOT a Republican Lie. I was reading about this bill in the Washington Monthly at the THINK TANK
Leopolds Ghost
Dec 2011
#121
Please do not equate health insurance with health care. They are worlds apart. n/t
A Simple Game
Dec 2011
#136
I see. So if we apply your 'logic' to the republican or libertarian platform, what do we get?
Edweird
Dec 2011
#74
Bowing to the political clout of insurance companies is NOT progressive nor progress.
Edweird
Jan 2012
#182
"Insurance is how we avoid getting ourselves into situations where we need expensive healthcare"
girl gone mad
Jan 2012
#198
What makes you think having Health Insurance will keep you from losing everything?
unapatriciated
Jan 2012
#212
not very affordable for many people, myself included... but VERY VERY progressive.
Schema Thing
Dec 2011
#41
It's hardly progressive to expect people to pay for a product they can't afford to use
dflprincess
Dec 2011
#47
Sorry but the Insurance Companies were more than willing to engage in "criminal" behavior.
unapatriciated
Jan 2012
#213
Consider yourself sued. Millions are better off now, and very few are worse off...
TreasonousBastard
Dec 2011
#18
a gallup in november actually had the highest number rating quality of healthcare
Tiggeroshii
Dec 2011
#143
Actually, it does nothing for me at all. I'm sorry it does nothing for you, either...
TreasonousBastard
Dec 2011
#73
Yup, pay to play features to grease the wheels for rehash from the Heritage Foundation, Dole, Newt,
TheKentuckian
Dec 2011
#22
Highest insurance premiums in the country are in Massachusetts. That's how well it works.
kenny blankenship
Dec 2011
#95
Private health insurance companies, just in the state of Michigan alone, have to rebate 80+ million
phleshdef
Dec 2011
#30
I don't think I've heard anyone describe it as a great progressive achievement.
subterranean
Dec 2011
#32
Ok. My 2 kids and 2 step kids are healthier cause they're insured where they wouldn't be...
cry baby
Dec 2011
#33
YES- Preventing the insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions SUCKS
Nye Bevan
Dec 2011
#37
I believe 90% of the Progressive Caucus voted for it, so it was a "progressive" achievement if not
pampango
Dec 2011
#78
What health insurance reform? I call it the Health Insurance Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act
Better Believe It
Dec 2011
#85
My newborn sons would have no insurance if it weren't for AMA. Think a little harder.
MjolnirTime
Dec 2011
#99
As I remember it neither was Social Security when it was first introduced. The program was still
jwirr
Dec 2011
#111
It was a step forward because it got the government more involved in health care. Was it..
mvd
Dec 2011
#125
until last year, all my money was going to healthcare and i couldnt afford a lawyer
Tiggeroshii
Dec 2011
#142