EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Missing Voices at the Healthcare Summit
President Obama and congressional Republicans arrived at the White House health care summit with talking points -- not just for the summit itself but for the after-summit jockeying to claim the upper hand coming out of a session that always had more to do with messaging than making progress to insure more Americans at less cost.
Obama got off a good enough line about "not campaigning anymore."
Congressman Eric Cantor, the Virginia Republican who has become a "party of no" pointman, showed up with Ross Perot-style props and plenty of gripes.
Ultimately, Obama summed things up pretty well:
I think we're establishing that there are actually some areas of real agreement," he said, stopping for a minute outside the gates. "And we're starting to focus on what the real disagreements are.If you look at the issue of how much government should be involved, the argument that the Republicans are making really isn't that this is a government takeover of health care but rather that we're ensuring the -- we're regulating the insurance market too much. And that's a legitimate philosophical disagreement.
The problem, of course, is that most of the really meaningful disagreements went undiscussed.
The summit positioned Obama and a relatively united Democratic leadership against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and their "party of no" minions.
They got in the same room, and stuck around for a long time.
But they did not get along.
They did not offer much in the way of new ideas, let alone ideas that might actually meet the challenge of providing care for all Americans without breaking the bank.
What would have made the gathering at Blair House more interesting and, potentially, more useful would have been an airing -- in this C-Span aired, high profile setting -- of the range of ideas that members of Congress entertain with regard to health-care reform.
Unless Thursday's summit was a conference committee meeting, a final session for reconciling differing House and Senate measures (perhaps with some prodding from an engaged president), the product of the session was never going to be a final health-care reform bill.
So why not talk about best responses to a very real crisis?
Why not consider not just Republican alternatives to President Obama's proposal but the fix that Obama, himself, once suggested (as a 2004 U.S. Senate candidate) was the essential point of beginning for a just and equitable health-care system in a developed nation? Why not let the dozens of House and Senate members who support a Medicare-for-All, single-payer system into the discussion? Why not let House Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, D-Michigan, Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, and other members of Congress ask the questions that should be asked about Obama's compromise plan?
Instead of Republican grumbling about how Obama is going to far, why not have a rational discussion about whether Obama is going far enough?
That rational discussion could have begun with a review of the response the presidential proposal by Physicians for a National Health Program, the organization of 17,000 doctors who support single-payer, Medicare-for-All approach to reform.
PNHP leaders, including the organization's national coordinator, Dr. Quentin Young asked to be included in the Blair House session. (And this White House knows Young. The Chicago physician whose office once cared for Obama and his family and whose friendship with the future president was forged more than a decade ago.)
So, too, did congressional backers of Medicare-for-All proposals, including Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; Anthony Weiner, D- New York, and Peter Welch, D-Vermont, all made similar requests.
What might have been added to the discourse.
Consider Dr. Quentin Young's Young's assessment of the president's plan.
"Regrettably, the president's proposal is built on some of the worst aspects of the Senate bill," Young said, in an accurate assessment of Obama's approach. "For example, the president's proposal would ship hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to the private health insurance industry in the form of subsidies. And to help finance this, it would impose a new tax on health benefits of workers, especially those in high-cost states.
Added Young:
(Obama's proposal for an) individual mandate would force millions of middle-income uninsured Americans to buy insurers' skimpy products - insurance policies full of gaps like ever-rising co-pays, deductibles and premiums. Such policies already leave middle-class American families vulnerable to economic hardship and medical bankruptcy in the event of a serious illness like cancer," continued Young, citing a recent study.Even so, at least 23 million people would remain uninsured," he said. "We know that being uninsured raises your chance of dying by about 40 percent," he continued, citing another recent study. "That translates into about 23,000 unnecessary deaths each year. As physicians, we find this completely unacceptable.
"In short," added Young, "this proposal is an insurance company bonanza, not good, evidence-based health reform. The president would do better by abandoning the insurance and drug companies and instead taking up the single-payer approach."
Young and his allies are not another "party of 'no'" -- they actually propose a viable alternative that could save hundreds of billions of dollars annually by simplifying health administration.
"By building on and improving the already popular Medicare program, we could put our patients' interests first," says Dr. Young. "Were President Obama to do so, he would meet with strong public support, including from the medical community."
Dr. Young is right, and there are plenty of members of the House and Senate who agree with him.
Unfortunately, Medicare-for-All advocates weren't invited to the table.
The resulting health-care summit suffered for their absence -- as does the broader debate about how to do health-care reform right.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
125 Comments so far
Show AllI believe this entire push for so called health care reform did not start with Obama but with the health insurance companies themselves who desperately need new customers because younger healthier people are not buying their crap and now will be forced by pain of law to do so. Their public opposition is a fraud and the democrat's plan is so industry friendly that when the republicans win back the congress they won't change it at all.
Obama did the heavy lifting for the Republicans.
He delivered a goldmine to the insurance companies and cemented their control of the health care market.
Ronald F*ing Reagan only wishes he could've pulled off such a coup.
The Republicans have to pretend they hate it, while secretly high-fiving each other.
It's all playacting, a transparent charade.
I do not know that the Republicans were high-fiving each other. Sure, they probably like the policy, but they are opposed to the passage because the rival criminal gang, the Democrats, stands to receive the rewards for the crime from the insurance industry.
Yeah, but don't forget about the running subplot in which the banksters get pissed off at La Famiglia Democratto for dissing them publicly, and throw their cut of the loot to the Republicani clan.
So at the end of the day, it all evens out. And there's cannoli all around!
· Yr Obd't Servant
I'm not sure the public is in favor of the plan, as it is. What appears as a Gold Medal the Democrats will place around their necks may turn out to be an anchor.
You can expect the right-wing media to amplify each negative of the plan, and there are many, when it's signed into law.
Republicans seeking to unseat Democrats in 2010 elections won't need to resort to hyperbole or lies to make Democrats look bad...the 2400 page Obamacare Manifesto provides all the ammo the Republicans need.
"Unfortunately, Medicare-for-All advocates weren't invited to the table."
That says it all about the health "industry" hold. Nice "Fair & Balanced" meeting, huh?
The war stories about health, insurance cos, and the medical system, should provide enough information to the president if HE'D LISTEN.
Person goes to urgent care for bronchitis. Gets two x-rays and a prescription...$2500.00... that's two thousand five hundred...each x-ray...500 dollars
Another has chest tightness, goes to hospital emergency, blood draw and ekg, and told to stay over night...$7,000 ...seven thousand...next day goes to chiropractor and has adjustment to mid back, fixes the problem for $30.
Broke ankle....$60,000 but insurance only covers 80%, credit ruined with balance owed
I don't trust anyone in the insurance or medical profession to be able to fix the health care system. They just want to make sure it retains the lucrative business it is.
Here's a health plan: Only get hurt in your car. Don't eat meat. Only drink good water and nothing else. Eat fruits and veges and stay away from bread that's squishy. And find a good chiropractor who also isn't out to rip you off.
Don't count on the government to do much of anything at this point. They, quite literally, have no idea what they're doing, and no concern for you or I.
My wife has her ovaries removed. She stayed overnight. $20,000 for the hospital alone. That does not include the surgeon or the anesthesiologist.
I'll bet if you follow the money, you will find the lions share goes to bond interest to build or equip the hospital.
Not only that--but all the griping and complaining about costs and burdomsome "entitlements" like Medicare (and I have to wonder about any politician who frames them as such)without considering the crippling costs of destructive and unnecessary wars and hugh transfers of wealth to Wall Street.
Not a peep of course. Never a word.
Actually McCain put Obama in his place and Obama bristled.
Whatever happened to the "Allmighty Market" being the instrument to best allocate resources. If people are mandated to buy insurance, it should be at a rate which grossly underpaid people can afford. Using tax dollars to subsidize these death panel thieves is an affront to human decency and yet another rip-off of the poor by billionaire asshole war mongering capitlist pig creeps. Hey, as our President says "I'm a free market guy!
healt care costs
canada - 350 per month for 100% coverage
france - 327 per month for 100% coverage
usa - 850 per month for 80% coverage
The $850 per month in the US is if you have a job then your employer pays more per month. I've seen averages of $2,000 a month to cover an American.
In addition, Americans must pay deductibles plus co-pays.
Canada and France cover all citizens regardless of their employment status. Plus there are no deductibles or co-pays for medical treatment.
it took a "John Nichols" to point out that once again Obama left the progressives and anyone with a truly good idea at home and only brought blue dogs with him?
that's par for the course by now to anyone who is paying any kind of attention!
Do you honestly think a country that gives the nod for the overthrow of a Democratically elected government in it's own hemisphere (Honduras) because its President wanted to increase the minimum wage for millions of his poorest citizens would offer its own citizens authentic, quality health care for life?
Do you honestly believe the country who is the driving force behind the IMF and their debilitating "structural adjustments", which have punished millions of poor by denying them vital social services, would offer its own citizens authentic, quality health care for life?
Is it even possible to conceive that a country who'd lie to its own people in order to start illegal wars to steal the resources of distant people, depriving them of any quality of life whatsoever, would offer its own citizens authentic, quality health care for life?
I think you know better than that.
Honduras was the proverbial straw that broke this camel's back.... if Obama can't stop a military coup in honduras - one that would have taken barely lifting a finger to do - then you know 100% that obama does not support democracy, the working or middle classes, liberty or any other progressive ideal....
hell any ideal that is not CORPORTISM... ie fascism....
after honduras even the blind among us has to admit that obama is a fascist -
and take a look at haiti - people dying in masse because no aid is flowing in as the main donor countries argue about who gets the jack
Health care summits are stupid. Let the insurance companies handle it. Now gimme another plate of 5 cheese beef lasagna.
Amen, Cousin Laffing !
How long will it take Americans to fully understand that the core issue has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE. Listen to your president. He said it himself. The 'legitimate philosophical disagreement' is all about 'the insurance market' which also has absolutely nothing whatever to do with actually delivering health care to anyone except negatively.
A 'legitimate philosophical disagreement'? Really! When did outright bribery and robbery from the public purse become legitimate, philosophically or otherwise?
Basically, the insuance industry just collects money from employers and individuals and then transfers SOME of that money to the real health care providers. The only thing they 'insure' is profit for themselves by SKIMMING OFF THE TOP OF YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS prior to passing along the leftovers. And the less they pass along to those who actually do provide health care services the greater their profits.
In other words, the argument has nothing whatever to do with whether the provision of health care itself should or should not be a profitable endeavour, should or should not be "socialized", should or should not include holistic medicine, or any of the other myriad distractions. The argument, in fact, isn't about health care at all. It's about whether an intermediary process should be profitable on the basis of its entirely value-negative handling of your money.
The answer to that should be obvious to the meanest intelligence, even including proponents of the theoretical benefits of capitalism itself. Yesterday, a commentater here called it corporate communism and that seems like as good a label as any, with the possible exception of organized crime.
Another apropos label is "oligarchical collectivism" thanks to Emmanuel Goldstein.
Good comment.
Yes, it was about insurance. And if you ask the scientists of insurance, Actuaries, they will till you the lowest cost insurance happens when you spread risk across the largest possible population. Thus, Medicare for All is the lowest cost health insurance system possible - something all other industrialized countries on the planet have concluded and instituted.
Well, just to avoid any possible misunderstanding, I'm not against capitalism per se, IF it actually fulfills the theoretical benefits of a truly competitive free market system that rewards individual value-added initiatives. I'm just against a system of (non-)governance that rewards value-negative "free enterprise" no matter what label is applied.
It seems to me almost self-evident that, in some cases, where profits are being derived from value-negative money skimming, the only logical replacement is a non-profit alternative whether or not it's run by a governmental agency. That's usually called a "mixed economy" approach and seems to work reasonably well in most countries. The mere concept, however, scares the hell out of USA Incorporated (not just the insurance and pharmaceutical industries) and any such "thin end of the wedge" must be opposed at all costs.
phasor February 26th, 2010 10:18 am -- Actually, as T.R. Reid noted (http://bit.ly/Nv7ZA), various arrangements are used by the civilized world to provide universal care, not just single payer or Medicare-type programs. But I agree, we need Medicare for all, along with big reforms of our health care delivery system, which squanders billions.
True.
In the rest of the civilized world, there are 2 main variants: public plans (like Medicare, non-profit) and private plans (run by private for-profit companies).
What they have in common is that the whole population is mandated to participate. Thus public plans are funded by taxes while private plans are funded by premiums.
Countries using private plans (such as Germany and Switzerland, I believe) heavily regulate the private companies. The private companies must have plans with a government set minimum plan coverage and the government also regulates the amount of profit the companies can make.
In Germany the private option is mostly a carryover of "benevolent societies" which have been allowed to continue if they are non profit, base premiums on the same pool as the public plan and are regulated on what they must cover. 80% are covered by the public plan.
You're absolutely right, RV! The medical insurance companies SERVE NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER other than being the "middle person" between the patient and the doctor - for an outrageous price!
And to top that off - they ACTUALLY PRESUME THE AUTHORITY to tell doctors what they can and cannot do for a patient. Do you think doctors really care one whit whether or not a person has a "pre-existing" condition??? THEIR ONLY CONCERN, AS DEMANDED BY THEIR HIPPOCRATIC OATH, IS HEALING!!!
The Insurance Companies are holding Americans as HOSTAGES and demanding RANSOM for allowing treatment. WE MUST DEMAND MEDICARE FOR ALL AND RID OUR COUNTRY OF THESE PARASITES!!!
And yet it seems that many Americans would prefer to trust an industry whose motives and incentives are based entirely on withholding funds from needed health care services rather than to trust their own government to handle the collection and dispersement of those funds.
Given the recent record of the latter, I suppose that's not an entirely incomprehensible attitude, but it sure does create a dilemma for any kind of rational solution. Seems like the kind of situation where one big non-profit co-operative movement might work, but then we're touching on that whole "socialism" bugaboo again.
RIGHT: WAKE UP, AMERICA, OR DO YOU NEED A SCREAMINGLY LOUD ALARM?
Sioux Rose
RV: Good analysis. Thank you for reminding us how corporate capitalism without conscience operates in this particular venue... where compassion is needed most.
All of those clowns should be required to wear sign around their necks.. This sign would show in
big letters and numbers just how much each one took from the insurance companies.
This dog and pony show is a clear display of what is wrong with this country and what will
eventually bring it down..
The sooner it goes down the sooner we can start over..
Dog and pony show; that's it exactly. Another good metaphor to describe phony democracy.
The DEM(iserepubilkan)'s health "care" Deform is DEAD to (the rest of) US! Single-payer, INSTEAD!!
"We know that being uninsured raises your chance of dying by about 40 percent," he continued, citing another recent study. "That translates into about 23,000 unnecessary deaths each year."
Never, ever does the MSM mention this. The reporters never bring this up when questioning Obama or the Republicans.
I heard it was 45,000. But even if only 23,000, that's 23,000 who would survive if they lived in Switzerland, France, Japan, etc. The country is outraged because 34 people died in Toyotas. Something will be done about that.
23 million is the new estimate AFTER this abominable bill passes.
While the bill MAY allow some access to health care, saving lives in the short-run, how many will be harmed (or die) in the long run when this plan inevitably collapses under its own inefficiency?
The Republicans ALL seemed to agree that we need some sort of new health care legislation, and they all seemed to agree that at least some of the parts of the existing legislation contained acceptable portions… yet they all seemed to be reading from the same script by insisting that we need to “start over” on the health care bill.
It’s NOT like mixing a martini where the entire drink is bad because you used chocolate milk instead of gin… it’s more like replacing ALL of the buttons on a shirt because only SOME of the buttons are the wrong color.
Would you repaint the entire warehouse because you didn’t like the color of ONE of the walls?
Only if you were trying to delay or prevent the completion of the job!
provoice February 26th, 2010 10:30 am -- Actually, I think the Democrats would be well advised to start over. It's a lot quicker to go through the process again. Next time intelligent Democrats could stress those things that really ARE popular and give the lie to this constant refrain of the Republicans, echoed by the MSM, that Americans don't want the reforms. (Truth is, they have no idea what the reforms are and just accept the Republicans' "No" drumbeat.) Or maybe even, if we started over, single payer would have a better chance.
All the walls are ugly as shit--yes, paint them again and do it right.
Chelsea
Howard Zinn gave us a clear strategy to victory here. We need to shut their system down, to produce the numbers of people on the streets, in the halls of congress, that they will cease to be able to function without us at the table. We need to make ourselves IMPOSSIBLE to ignore.
I really enjoy common dreams, the news is invaluable, the opinions worthwhile, the comments are often more insightful yet. Critique has evolved into an art form here, and I think our posters are exceptionally articulate and astute.
But how to translate the outpouring of dynamic intellectual contribution into political capiital? How to bridge the gap between thought to action? Just what is wrong with us???
Part of the problem is that I think we have internalised the American aversion to the left. We don't believe in our own tansformational power.
We know we're right, from a multitude of analytical perspectives, and we can lay it all out with precision. But I don't think we really BELIEV Eit. We doubt our own authenticity.
How else to explain the deficit of action as 45,000 of our sisters/brothers are as methodically murdured by a profit-driven insurance industry as were the jews in nazi Germany?
IF we believe this is happening, and if we do so little, are we the equivalent of the complacent in vichy France? Are we the equivalent of the passive in 1930's Germany?
iowapinko February 26th, 2010 10:35 am -- We had various marches on Washington that made a difference. It's time for another one.
The message has to be insistently and unceasingly repeated. As the lawyers say about convincing a jury, tell them what you're going to say, tell them, and then tell them what you told them. In this case, tell the American people what the MSM and the bought-and-paid-for politicians and news media won't tell them.
Wrong. Marches do nothing. Protests, letters to congress, editors and phone calls change nothing. Elections change nothing. Change doesn't come from the top, it comes from the bottom.
Only 3 things work, all non-violent: stop paying your taxes, withdraw all your funds from the American banking system and consume only the bare minimum.
Ardath Bey February 26th, 2010 11:59 am -- I'm having a little trouble understanding how that would give a boost to universal health care.
Further, consuming the bare minimum will be no problem whatsoever, in your jail cell. Only the really wealthy get away with not paying taxes.
Our government is not working in our interests. This is very clear to the most dim of us. Our 'leaders' do not pause to give trillions of our tax funds away to the insurance corporations, the banking corporations, the weapon making corporations, the security corporations, the phamacuedical corporations, and all the rest of the bastards who pay the campaign funds for our 'leaders' to stay in office and screw us. They have no money to spend on health care for us, or creating jobs for us, or protecting us in our homes. Homeland security is not gained by killing people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen or Iran. We get security when we have a home, a job and health care.
Jill is not certain how to revent the ruling elite from running our government. I know what we can do---and what we MUST DO to take back our government. DO NOT VOTE FOR THE CORRUPT. Those representatives who are obviously in the bag with the big money boys must be put out of office. If your Rep did not support Medicare for all---a system of better health care for ALL OF US at less than we are paying now (this is done by saying "bye bye you bastards" to the insurance companies) that Representative is not representing you. Kick that paid mercenary for the corporations out of Congress. Do it now before the Supreme Court gives the corporations the right to vote.
It's not that difficult to get on any ballot in the US to run for the House. Getting on the ballot to run for president of Senate is another matter, and we don't have the power or money for those sort of campaigns. But there are 435 Congressional districts, and we can run an independent candidate in each district. There may be a few we can feel safe in, with Dennis Kucinich or Eric Massa, for instance, but probably not more than a dozen or so.
Right off the bat, with 400 or so independent candidates running on single-payer we change the game. If we managed to win even 50 districts we would shake things up considerably and if we win 100, suddenly middle of the road won't look like a good place to be.
In my district, I would need 1000 signatures of registered voters. That's it. If that seems like too much of a task, then we may as well give up now.
Jill,
Public financing of elections would be another positive change. That would help to kill the influence of lobbyists.
The whole show reminded me of two movie screens facing each other and running their own movies. Absolutely nothing was accomplished. Pitiful
The entire system has been broken by allowing lobbyists to influence every single person in the summit, including the president. Without a lobby of any kind perhaps Congress could function independently, make rational decisions using common sense instead of money sense. Without lobbyists there would be more concrete reforms that rein in greed and coruption, maybe. But, then again, maybe not. The system could be too broken to fix without a revolt, peaceful or otherwise.
Cygnus nailed it. Just wait until Obama deforms Social Security and Medicare.
The real power in the Democratic Party is Obama and Obama represents the party of "no" when it comes to public option by joining the chorus of his Republican brethren. The REAL progressive movement has noted this capitulation in article after article. Sadly, Nichols is still living in his dream world Obama apologetic nodding according to the expected script given by his handlers at the Nation. Yawn.
The Senate bill and the revisions from Obama will do little to save the 23,000 lives each year that are dying as a result of our current system. It just continues to line the pockets of the Health Insurance Industry.
Let's be logical - the Health Insurance Companies provide no real benefit to anyone but themselves (and of course those politicians whose pockets they continue to fill). Health Insurance Companies save no lives, provide no health care, nor fix any broken bones. They are only are money changers - nothing more. They are NOT needed.
A Medicare for all type of system is true Health Care reform.
Why can other industrialized nations provide health care for all their citizens, but our country cannot - GREED is replacing the heart of this country and, unfortunately, Obama and Congress have become contributors.
The republican's negativity is their way of trying to act like they disapprove of what Obama is doing so that Obama and the dumbocrats can then advocate for what the republicans want. No president in my 50-plus years has EVER done more to give the republicans what they want.
The idea that there are two parties controlling this perversity is false.
It is a one team game and the goal is to take more money and rights away from the people.
They are all pretending and John Nichols still refuses to see reality. He only criticizes republicans while Obama and the dimbocrats kiss the republican asses.