I am so tired of our Democrats sounding helpless to rein in the insurance companies. We control both houses and the White House, and they say there is no way to enforce what the insurance companies do.
I have an idea...change the damn rules.
From the New York Times:
Health Industry Is Said to Promise to Rein In Costs The mention of AHIP and the DLC in this article makes me have many doubts. The article from the NYT states that at the moment there is no way to enforce the commitment by the insurance companies. You think? Of course there is no way unless you MAKE a way to hold them accountable.
"Doctors, hospitals, drug makers and insurance companies will join President Obama on Monday in announcing their commitment to a sharp reduction in the growth of national health spending, White House officials said Sunday.
At this point, administration officials said, they do not have a way to enforce the commitment, other than by publicizing the performance of health care providers to hold them accountable.
By offering to hold down costs voluntarily, providers said, they hope to stave off new government price constraints that might be imposed by Congress or a National Health Board of the kind favored by many Democrats.
The goal set forth in the letter resembles a proposal made in December by America’s Health Insurance Plans, the lobby for insurers like Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth and WellPoint. Administration officials said the idea was broached to them by Dennis Rivera, coordinator of the health care campaign of the Service Employees International Union.
In a report being sent to Congress on Monday, two research and advocacy groups, the Center for American Progress and the Democratic Leadership Council, say that productivity growth in health care has lagged behind that of other industries.
I am getting a feeling that when Max Baucus said the only reason for a public option was to get the insurance companies to cooperate....that we are going to get screwed.
Only 21 of 59 Democrats in the Senate support a public option, much less
single payer. This article says Obama will announce the deal tomorrow. This does not bode well for the Medicare option.
Only a few support the public option.Sen. Claire McCaskill's (D-MO) office has just issued a press release announcing that "FIVE ADDITIONAL SENATORS EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION."
This brings the total in the Senate to 21:
Sens. Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI),
Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD)
Russ Feingold (D-WI),
Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD),
Claire McCaskill (D-MO),
Sherrod Brown (D-OH), J
John D. (Jay) Rockefeller (D-WV),
Dick Durbin (D-IL),
Charles E. Schumer (D-NY),
Tom Harkin (D-IA),
Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI),
Carl Levin (D-MI),
Jack Reed (D-RI),
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI),
Bernie Sanders (I-VT),
Bob Casey (D-PA),
Jim Webb (D-VA),
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI),
Jeff Merkley (D-OR),
Ted Kaufman (D-DE), and
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).
Howard Dean spoke out and said that real health care reform rises and falls on whether the public
is allowed to choose Medicare.If Barack Obama’s bill gets changed to exclude the public entities, it is not health insurance reform…it rises and falls on whether the public is allowed to choose Medicare if they’re under 65 or not. If they are allowed to choose Medicare as an option, this bill will be real health care reform. If they’re not, we will be back fighting about it for another 20 years before somebody tries again.
I do not feel good about that article in the NYT.
I have worried about it a lot since we heard who has been working behind
closed doors for months on health care.WASHINGTON — 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.
I posted a while ago that single payer advocates were apparently being excluded from health care discussions. referring to the summit. People argued, but it does look like that now for sure.
Single payer advocates apparently being excluded from health care discussions.The president wants this process to be open and transparent, with the goal of achieving universal coverage. However, groups representing physicians, nurses, and consumers who advocate for a single-payer system of national health insurance have thus far been excluded from the summit.
..."The Clinton task force on health reform made a similar mistake of excluding the voices of those who support a single-payer system, and the result was a complicated, inadequate reform proposal that catered to the interests of insurance companies and failed to garner public support. At a time when public support for single-payer is greater than ever - more than 60 percent in recent polls - we urge President Obama not to make the same mistake. He must include single-payer advocates in the health care summit next week.
This part from the NYT article above really bothers me.
In a relatively rosy forecast, the White House said Sunday that the savings from a more efficient health care system would far exceed the costs of achieving universal health coverage, with federal subsidies for people who could not afford insurance on their own.
SO...they are saying in the WH that if we make it more efficient, we don't need to worry about achieving universal health care? Did I read that right?
That sounds like having mandatory health insurance for everyone with the choice being private companies only.
I hope I am very very wrong.