Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWho Will Be at the Table? PhRMA and the AMA Join Forces with Insurers
During the campaign, Barack Obama promised his cheering crowds that, when he rolled up his sleeves to work on health care, he would "have insurance company representatives and drug company representatives at the table. They just won't be able to buy every chair." Now is a good time to look at just what kind of seats special interest groups are having at Obama's table and what they're doing to bring the public around to their ways of thinking. This is the ninth of an occasional series of posts that will analyze their activities and how the media are covering them. The entire series is archived here.
Advocates fixated on a public option health plan as a step toward national health insurance have spent months casting the insurance companies as bad guys-fat cats who make too much profit, choke the current health care system, and shower legislators with big bucks for their campaign chests. Most stories emphasize that insurers are fighting such a plan because it could put them out of business by offering lower premiums, controlling costs, and being more efficient. For awhile, I was beginning to think that other stakeholders-who oppose a public plan just as fiercely-were getting a free pass.
There has been no media scorn for the doctors or the hospitals or the drug companies that are considered good guys because they make sick people well. The press has not picked up on their opposition, and lobbyists have begun calling in their Capitol Hill chits. Friday, The American Prospect co-editor Robert Kuttner gave his thoughts about a public plan on the magazine's blog, unsurprisingly referring to the "immense power of the private insurance industry." No mention that the AMA, the drug companies, and hospitals don't want a public plan either. Their reason: A public plan might pay them lower prices for their services, or set other regulations they don't like, or force private insurers to pay them less, too. That's why some compromisers like New York Sen. Charles Schumer have proposed a plan that would pay these groups higher rates than Medicare, and would follow the same rules, such as maintaining reserves against future claims.
Former Clinton administration labor secretary Robert Reich, now a professor at the University of California-Berkeley, reveals that drug makers and insurers have teamed up to kill the public option, and that many moderate Dems and Republicans seem to be embracing softer versions of a public plan. Count the AMA on the insurer-drug team as well.
Most journalists, let alone the public, haven't read the lengthy comments the AMA submitted to the Senate Finance Committee, laying out what the AMA really wants. But Kuttner, Reich, and other influential bloggers and MSM reporters should take a good look, and offer a more informed discussion of the AMA's actions.
The group, which represents the hard-liners of organized medicine, has been as instrumental as insurers in blocking serious health reform over the decades-not only with their campaign contributions (the AMA ranks second only to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over the last ten years in the amount it has spent to influence Congress) but also with other forms of public pressure. Like insurers, they started out by being oh-so-agreeable. Early this year, the AMA even tried to position itself as the "Voice for the Uninsured." But look what it stands for now. Some of its proposals look like they were cloned from those of AHIP, the insurers' trade group.
According to the AMA, the magic of the market will bring insurance to all. To that end, it supports letting markets create the most attractive combinations of plan benefits and premiums. It wants to tax some insurance benefits provided by employers and shift some of the newly created tax revenue to tax credits or vouchers for the uninsured, and it supports the individual mandate, which would require people to buy insurance in the private market if they coud afford it. The individual mandate is the sine qua non of the insurers' reform agenda.
Along the way, the AMA wants to rid the market of state-mandated benefits, also high on the insurers' wish list. "Appropriate regulations and fewer benefit mandates would permit market experimentation to find the most attractive combinations of plan benefits," the docs say. No self-respecting insurance carrier would disagree. It opposes letting people between age fifty-five and sixty-four buy into Medicare, even temporarily. The AMA has a proposal for the youngsters, too. It suggests that the government offer tax credits or vouchers to parents of kids enrolled in SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, to make it easier to buy health coverage in the private market. In other words, it wants to begin eroding government coverage for poor kids.
The AMA doesn't care for a public insurance option, either. Here's what the doctors say:
The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans. A crowd-out of private insurers and the corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers.
There you have it-is this the same old AMA opposing anything that even remotely looks, smells, or quacks like an entrée to national health insurance? Is it 1948 all over again? Health care journalists should make it their business to find out.
16 Comments so far
Show AllIndeed, who is going to draw the line on the corporate control of health care access in this country? Until we drop the private insurance paradigm everyone will be vulnerable to the loss of access to health care that they can afford. Single payer would be the most ideal and most universal, but if we must compromise on this, we need the public option. We need to have the medicare model to at least keep private insurers from cornering the marketplace as they have now. The cost saving in paperwork reduction alone would be significant -- one claim form, one set of approved treatments, one drug formulary. And, because it is not profit and not insurance, there is no inherent pressure to reduce the level of service or benefit to preserve profits for their shareholders.
I would think the AMA would be concerned about getting too cozy with insurance companies especially with the new trend of insurance co's outsourcing surgery in places like India and Thailand, etc. It has already started and in its infancy stages now. Initially it is being promoted for elective surgery. Google medical tourism and outsourcing health care to educate yourself. Below are a couple excerpts of articles to get started. In my opinion, the insurance companies will do only what is required to buy them the time needed to strengthen this new business model. Of course, none of the risks or down sides are addressed in these articles. Fasten your seat belts everyone!
"The Future of Health Care: Outsourcing the Patient"
http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/dual-perspectives/2009/03/03/Outsourcing-the-Patient
“UnitedHealth, which has over 70 million Americans under its care, has already moved to make Bumrungrad International hospital in Bangkok "in network." When Aetna, with 37 million members, bought the overseas insurer Goodhealth Worldwide last year, Aetna's CEO explained the move by saying that globalized surgery is "an important emerging trend." The company has already started a pilot program to send patients abroad for hip and knee replacements.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122933146963306435.html
• DECEMBER 15, 2008, 8:39 A.M. ET
Outsourcing Health Care to India
The costs will be picked up by Serigraph's insurer, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Employees will receive travel and concierge help, including free plane tickets for patient and companion, plus post-operative care upon return to the U.S. There will be no co-payments.
It's a trial program, but the economic benefits aren't in doubt: A cardiac bypass can cost about $100,000 in a U.S. private hospital. Apollo says it can do the procedure -- and accommodate a companion -- for a tenth of the cost.”
Sioux Rose
MICHIGAN: I remember when I lived in Singapore seeing all the ads for elective cosmetic surgery at very low prices in places like Thailand and I thought maybe when I'm over 60 I'd consider such a thing. Now U.S. firms will drive up prices! Plus I'll bet they're all over the 3rd world slums looking for organs they can bargain for. In this "new world economy" one can imagine a father selling a kidney for $5000 U.S dollars, as that would be a lot of money in his nation; or would have been prior to the decline of the U.S. dollar, currently held up by a high stakes confidence game (the printing of $ by the fed, and continued volleying around of toxic "assets," etc.) that can only last so long.
It is my understanding that the AMA is actually a "union" for the doctors, dedicated to promote profit for it's members. It is NOT an organization dedicated to the good health of the general public. As for "insurance" companies, I veiw them more like money launderers for the drug dealers (read doctors) and thier suppliers (drug companies). It is quite difficult to find a doctor that does not want to hand out two or three scripts each visit for which the insurance company will gladly chip in. They will NOT however pay for health club memberships or nutritional counceling. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that any discussion on health care/insurance reform should bring to the table representatives from 'alternative' medicines, many which strive to 'prevent' disease rather than 'manage' diseases.
Whose surprised @ the AMA ( The America Money Association) it's about time someone pulled the white hat off these pricks. They're literally racking in the loot along with the INS. Vampires and the big Pharma leeches. All these forces don't want anything to change because they're growing super rich the way it is right now. Our problem is they have the Pols in their back pockets.
AMA was the same scumbag who tried to defend insurance companies back when the issue of "tort reform" came up. AMA sided with disgruntled doctors, often found to have questionable records on their practice, who kept blaming only the lawyers for rising healthcare costs. My father and father-in-law used to love the AMA and parrot their rightwing nonsense until they were about to go broke. AMA needs to be abolished. These corporate fascists joining forces will be the final nails in the coffin otherwise.
P.S.: In addition to getting a strong endorement from the US Chamber of Commerce, Sen Mark Warner was also praised by the AMA.
People depend on Pharma and Insurance so those two also need a chance at the table. Single payer is just a waste of taxpayer money and I shouldn't have to pay taxes to cover up for losers who can't take care of themselves.
What an ass.
You pay for other people's care with your overpriced premiums, too, you know--but you pay too much for lousy care. There's a sucker born every minute.
You sure do trumpet the GOP company line. I ask you, just what has the Gullible Old Party done for the average American, historically? You, obviously, subscribe to the Golden Rule. Them that has the gold rules!
Self-deception is the most insidious and toxic of all forms of introspection. You are peddling the poison that will, if you have your way, do the country in. No doubt, when we are a third-rate power on the world scene, you will still be touting the party line and wondering what the hell happened.
Try using your brain and think for a change!
Re EncinoM June 9th, 2009 12:54 pm who declares
"I shouldn't have to pay taxes to cover up for losers who can't take care of themselves."
Then we surely have your permission to stop supporting felonious losers like KBR/Halliburton, AIG, Citibank, Blackwater, McDonnell-Douglas, and all the others, who would fold up like used TP without the long-suffering taxpayer.
You had better pray that you never need to file a health insurance claim, or you'll find out exactly what your value to these parasites is.
Oregoncharles
Encino (he has other names, as well) is a lonely, unhappy person. He once told me as much. (I'm assuming this is the same guy). Because no one loves him, he comes to this site to get some attention. Don't be too hard on him, he's a sad puppy - sure, he bites, but with a little training ......
Wow what an ignorant and arrogant post! I think you answered my question on another post. Not only are you a schill for Big Banks, but Big Pharma, and Big Insurance. Here it is straight: you are part of the problem and not the solution.
The AMA has long been dominated by corporate interests to the point that it no longer truly represents the interests of those it supposedly represents: doctors. Once again, it appears as if the executive section will sell its' membership down the proverbial river.
From the article:
"The AMA has a proposal for the youngsters, too. It suggests that the government offer tax credits or vouchers to parents of kids enrolled in SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, to make it easier to buy health coverage in the private market. In other words, it wants to begin eroding government coverage for poor kids."
In other other words, the AMA supports funneling taxpayers' money through the pockets of the poor to pay off the insco scammers.
Just as Obama's solution to the financial meltdown has been a NO WALL STREET BANKER LEFT BEHIND Program that squanders trillions of taxpayer dollars to reward organized crime, Obama's "health care reform" is, with each passing day, looking more like a NO INSURANCE COMPANY LEFT BEHIND and a NO DRUG MAKER LEFT BEHIND Program that will squander ever more trillions of taxpayer dollars while delivering less health care.
Obama and Congress are elevating corporate welfare to unprecedented levels.