A Huge Red Flag Endorsment for Kathleen Sebelius for HHS -

[debbierlus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/us/politics/19health.html

If you read the above article, you will come to this endorsement:

‘Karen M. Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, said Ms. Sebelius would be “a very smart choice” for health secretary’…

So, who is America’s Health Insurance Plans & who is Karen Ignagni?

Here is the Wiki on America’s Health Insurance Plans.

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) is a national political advocacy and trade association with about 1,300 member companies that sell health insurance coverage to more than 200 million Americans.<1> AHIP was formed through the merger of Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA) and American Association of Health Plans (AAHP).<2><3><4><5> AAHP was formed through a merger between two Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) trade associations, Group Health Association of America and American Managed Care and Review Association.
I
n 2006, AHIP spent over 7 million dollars on lobbying,<6> and its 2005 television ad "Shark Bait" drew harsh criticism for its claim that "lawsuit abuse" by American trial lawyers cost the typical American family $1,200 a year.<7>

The AHIP Center for Policy and Research is the trade association's research arm.<8> The center publishes research on a variety of forms of private health insurance, often based on survey data gathered from AHIP member companies. The forms of insurance studied include disability income and long-term care insurance as well as different types of medical expense insurance.

And, who is Karen Ignagni, again - here is the rest of the wiki entry….

AHIP President Karen M. Ignagni<9> frequently serves as a spokesperson for the views of the insurance industry,<10> recently taping an episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show opposite Michael Moore to discuss Sicko.<11> In response to a past statement by Senator Hillary Clinton that insurance companies "spend tens of billions of dollars a year figuring out how not to cover people" and "how to cherry-pick the healthiest persons, and leave everyone else out in the cold", Ignagni asserted the AHIP endorses the goal of universal coverage, that insurers deny only 3 percent of claims, and that many of those are for experimental procedures that employers do not cover.<12>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%E2%80%99s_Health_Insurance_Plans

I don’t know about you, but it is a HUGE glaring bright blood red flag to have the woman who debated against universal single payer health care, and President of the political lobby for the health insurance industry praising this choice.

Democrats need to get on the same page with this one. We need a single payer universal health care system. Mandatory health insurance is not health care. It doesn’t give equal coverage. And, it doesn’t address the profiteering of the health insurance industry. I live in MA (the blueprint for mandatory health insurance), and our state plan will be financially insolvent in two years as the cost will DOUBLE to implement in the next three years.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2008/02/03/subsidized_care_plans_cost_to_double/

Here is a excellent source to understand the MA system:

http://www.healthcare-now.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/massreform.pdf

We need universal single payer health plan. Period. It is the plan supported by the majority of physicians, nurses, and health care workers in this country. It is the plan that makes the most sense. We must fight for this now.

[tosh]

1. Thanks for this info. I agree.

We need a concerted effort to be heard for single payor.

[grantcart]

2. I agree about single payer health plan but was unaware that the majority

of physicians in the country supported it.

[debbierlus]

5. Indeed they do - Link below

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN31432035

[grantcart]

21. wow that is great news to me.

[Sebastian Doyle]

8. Why wouldn't they?

The insurance industry criminals create as many headaches for the doctors (and their office staff) as they do the patients.

[grantcart]

20. I grew up in a medical family and most of them were very reactionary

far right,"If they add one more law I am going to quit being a doctor".


They should be if they were interested in advancing their own self interests but, as we often see, that doesn't happen all of the time.

[bvar22]

30. Not just the majority of physicians...

...but the majority of American Citizens, Democrats & Republicans.

In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

(2005)
http://alternet.org/story/29788/

So WHY does the Democratic Party leadership REFUSE to even discuss "Single Payer" ?

The rest of The Developed World has managed to institute a system where HealthCare is a RIGHT,
but American citizens will just have to settle for less because Single Payer is just too hard?

Mandatory For Profit Health Insurance is NOT HealthCare...It is a REPUBLICAN SCAM. (RomneyCare)

I prefer a Democratic Plan...Expand MediCare to cover ALL Americans...NOW!

[Occam Bandage]

3. Obama is in favor of universal health insurance with government assistance.

I expect his HHS nominee will be the same. If you don't like that, write/call Obama and your Congressional representatives.

[debbierlus]

4. I have written Congress and Obama, and I am writing here to inform the DU community

Mandatory health insurance is not the solution. Massachusetts is proof of that - I will continue to speak out on this issue, at all levels through the coming fight. Go to some of the links in the above posts, if you are interested in learning more about mandatory health insurance.

[stillcool]

7. What's wrong with Massachusetts?

Do you live here?

[Sebastian Doyle]

9. Mandatory corporatist healthcare is no solution to anything.

That's why Hillary's plan sucked too....it was basically a retread of what Mittens did in Massachusetts.

[stillcool]

14. It helps if you're sick..

[eridani]

24. No, it doesn't. The fucking useless expensive premiums eat up your pay

--before you even get to the uncovered expenses. The only people in MA who like it are comparatively well off people who have never been expensively sick.

[stillcool]

27. My husband is self-employed..

and can now go to the Doctor if he gets sick. While that may mean nothing to you, it does to us.

[eridani]

32. It means worse than nothing to lower income people in less than perfect health

Naturally the more affluent and healthy would prefer that they all fuck off and die.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/september/health_reform_failur.php

And 244,000 of Massachusetts uninsured get zero assistance - just a stiff fine if they don’t buy coverage. A couple in their late 50s faces a minimum premium of $8,638 annually, for a policy with no drug coverage at all and a $2,000 deductible per person before insurance even kicks in. Such skimpy yet costly coverage is, in many cases, worse than no coverage at all. Illness will still bring crippling medical bills - but the $8,638 annual premium will empty their bank accounts even before the bills start arriving. Little wonder that barely 2 percent of those required to buy such coverage have thus far signed up.

While the middle class sinks, the health reform law has buoyed our state’s wealthiest health institutions. Hospitals like Massachusetts General are reporting record profits and enjoying rate increases tucked into the reform package. Blue Cross and other insurers that lobbied hard for the law stand to gain billions from the reform, which shrinks their contribution to the state’s free care pool and will force hundreds of thousands to purchase their defective products. Meanwhile, new rules for the free care pool will drastically cut funding for the hundreds of thousands who remain uninsured, and for the safety-net hospitals and clinics that care for them. (Disclosure - we’ve practiced for the past 25 years at a public hospital that is currently undergoing massive budget cuts.)

Health reform built on private insurance isn’t working and can’t work; it costs too much and delivers too little. At present, bureaucracy consumes 31 percent of each healthcare dollar. The Connector - the new state agency created to broker coverage under the reform law - is adding another 4.5 percent to the already sky-high overhead charged by private insurers. Administrative costs at Blue Cross are nearly five times higher than Medicare’s and 11 times those in Canada’s single payer system. Single payer reform could save $7.7 billion annually on paperwork and insurance profits in Massachusetts, enough to cover all of the uninsured and to upgrade coverage for the rest of us.

[debbierlus]

11. Yes, I live here

First, it is not financially solvent. Costs will double in three years. At that rate, it will be bankrupt in two years and given the loss of revenue from the economic downturn, most likely sooner.

The main problems are covered in the link in the original post - the pdf that goes over both the benefits and problems with the system. A single payer universal system would solve many of the problems while keeping the benefits.

Basically, politicians won't touch it because they don't want to take on the insurance lobby and the zillion dollar industry. Our health care is not something that should be for profit anyway.

[stillcool]

13. I know why politicians won't touch it...

but I think that any steps taken on our way to a solution are a good thing. I prefer that people who need help get a little now, even if it is only a respite, rather than holding out for the ideal solution. The all or nothing approach to policy kills.

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. See? DU'ers don't even agree that universal coverage is a good thing. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. What definition of "universal" are you working from?

He is in favor of insurance without "mandates".

This, to me, means optional.

Universal coverage will require significant public pressure on congress.

[kath]

23. Dammit - we don't need universal insurance. We need universal HEALTH CARE.

Eliminate the fokkin' parasitic insurance companies. ASAP!!

[WinkyDink]

28. EXACTLY! What's so hot about enriching the INSURANCE COMPANIES??

[patrice]

6. If I were Inagni, afraid of Single Payer, I'd praise anyone likely to deliver it. nt

[depakid]

10. Americans need to get used to the fact that they're not going to get substantial health care reform

from a center right government.

That said- picking Sebelius was a politically foolish- as it tosses away a decent chance to have added a Senator from a decidedly red state.

Heck of job.

[Every Man A King]

12. your track record on predictions is pretty poor n/t

[depakid]

15. Really?

I've said all along that Obama would govern like Clinton without the deregulatory focus and that's precisely what Americans have gotten.

Like I said, get used to it. Substantial healthcare reform that addresses the core issues is neither in the cards nor on the table.

[Every Man A King]

16. No i mean you thought Obama would lose the GE

and that anyone who disagreed was "drinking the koolaid".

[depakid]

18. Go back and review my comments

That's not what I said- though it is true that until the economic meltdown, the Obama campaigns strategy had them behind in the polls.

[EraOfResponsibility]

19. did the b*** pay her taxes????

that's all I care about. :rofl:

[Jennicut]

22. Sebelius also took on Blue Cross Blue Shield as an insurance commissioner

She is not fantastic but not horrible either.

[eridani]

25. If insurance companies like her, she's wrong for the job

I'm sick of being fucked over by those parasites.

[jonestonesusa]

29. I agree that we need single payer,

but I still like Sebelius as a choice because she's an effective administrator that can get results in expanding health coverage in the current political environment. Howard Dean would be a potentially stronger advocate for single payer, but President Obama isn't on board with single payer either. There still needs to be a paradigm shift in the Democratic thinking on this issue, at least on the part of the national party.

So, I don't view the expression of support at the end of that article as necessarily a strike against Sebelius. It's an indication that some meaningful action on this issue may be possible.

[crimsonblue]

31. hmm.. this line of argument lacks any true connection.

Person A endorses Person B. Therefore, Person B is in favor of the views of Person A. This is a weak link, and logically invalid. If you actually took the time to review Sebelius's record, you will see that she has fought for the people of the State of Kansas for much of her career. She would be a great HSH secretary. However, I do not want her to take the job, if offered. I'd much rather prefer she ran for Brownback's vacant senate seat in 2010. Plus, we need her right now in Kansas, as she is the only line of defense against a GOP controlled legislature (which wants to slash education, taxes, and build dirty coal plants).