Obama, Democrats Shift Health Debate to Target Insurance Companies

[Enrique]

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/23/obama-democrats-shift-health-debate-to-target-insurance-compani/

In a new turn, Democrats are using public mistrust of insurance companies as a tool in the health reform battle. The tactical shift is clear in their rhetorical shift.

We're suddenly hearing about health insurance reform instead of health care reform. And who doesn't have a frozen spot in their heart for insurance companies? Who wouldn't like to see them forced to change?

President Obama made the switch Wednesday night at his press conference and sustained it Thursday at a town hall meeting near Cleveland. In addition to changes in energy and education, he said, "We are pursuing health insurance reform so that every American has access to quality, affordable health coverage."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is on the same page, or getting there. "What is important is the American people need health care reform - health insurance reform," she said at a news conference Thursday.

The Democratic National Committee is leading the way. It used the phrase "health insurance reform" six times Thursday in announcing a new national cable TV ad that warns of "the cost of doing nothing." One of the alleged costs: "Insurance companies dictating more and more medical decisions, denying you coverage while their profits soar."

(...)

[HopeOverFear]

1. Yes!

[mirrera]

2. I do not see this as a good frame.

I see this as a way to get us to think Insurance reform is good enough. It isn't. We need Health Care reform and that means acknowledging what the Insurance Companies are costing us in blood and treasure.

[FrenchieCat]

3. You are missing the point in this.

Most folks don't like insurance company and would like some reform where they don't get to make as much. Same folks are relatively content with their health care, so they might not support something that sounds like what they have might be changed or "reformed".

[PretzelWarrior]

4. you would be wrong.

[smoochpooch]

9. People aren't able to make decisions right now, the insurance companies do.

That will be the answer for when critics say "People don't want government making decisions for patients." It's just a way to channel people's frustration and remind them that things are already messed up and government involvement can't really make it any worse.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

12. we know that we want health care reform

you have to start somewhere. First melting down the health insurance companies.

[Riverman]

5. Health Ins Reform? Easy: Get Insurance Corps out of Medical Care!

Reach down and grab some balls, Mr. President! Stand and fight for what you knew when you ran for State Senate that the only reform was single-payer medical treatment. And the only way to get that, you said, was to elect a democratic Congress, Senate and President! Hey, that's what we have thanks to you and the people who put you all in office. So, tell the insurance and Big Pharma corps to get lost, now!

[nightrain]

6. For me, it's a troubling turn of a phrase. I'd much prefer

to see the insurance extortion corporations out!

I believe it's incredibly naive to think that these corps can be "managed".

I picked up on the change in the phrasing too. Subtle, sneaky, gollum-like.

[debbierlus]

15. Health insurance reform - get RID of the leeches?

[4lbs]

7. Actually, there's a private health insurance plan I'd love to have, except for my pre-existing

condition.

It's actually almost the exact same health insurance I had when I worked for a company right before Dubya was selected.

It was great, and the premium was only $150 a month. Even purchasing it myself, it would have cost only $180 a month and pretty much cover everything.

So, the health insurance reform could be simple.

Force insurance companies to cover ANYONE that applies, pre-existing condition or not, and not charge them extra for pre-existing conditions.

We have health insurance companies making record quarterly profits, yet they complain that being forced to cover certain people would spell their doom. I don't see it.

They should also be limited to how much they can charge doctors for malpractice insurance. Doctors pay $50K to $90K annually for malpractice insurance. Limit it to $24K annually, and you'll see the entire AMA and every doctor in America fully behind the President.

[madville]

11. Why not have a public option for malpractice insurance

Doctors could pay in a thousand or two a month and be covered. The government would have to limit payouts on lawsuits but it would benefit doctors and maybe lower costs for consumers.

[Diamonique]

8. They should have been using this term all along.

They were always talking about health "insurance" reform and calling it health "care" reform. Now at least they're using a term that actually describes what they're trying to do.

If they really wanted to reform/improve our health care system, they'd give us single payer and get the greedy insurance companies out of it altogether.

Instead, they've always been talking about reforming the system so everybody can have access to health insurance.

[MarjorieG]

10. If we can't use Medicare as the public option due to economy and unwillingness, what will it be, if

not another insurance?

I like the discussion we're having, end of life choices, facing some other choices, seeing big picture, but I honestly think whatever we do as a govt expense needs to phase in, and companies regulated immediately. Face the financial fallout from no pre-existing, no ending it because we get sick or change jobs. That's a real change. Obama said there's agreement there.

[nightrain]

13. yes, the phrase is now "health insurance reform" rather than

health care reform. That's just not good enough... like throwing good money after bad. Short term bandaid.

[depakid]

14. Seeing as how they're reporting obscene profits- and passing on double digit pemium increases

This is a no brainer- and SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE FOCUS FROM THE START.