This Time Around, Health-Care Revamp Has Wings

[question everything]

NOVEMBER 20, 2008

This Time Around, Health-Care Revamp Has Wings
By LAURA MECKLER
WSJ

WASHINGTON -- The effort to overhaul the nation's health system will begin next year with one clear advantage over previous attempts: A wide variety of interest groups are rooting for it to succeed rather than plotting to kill it. That is a stark contrast to the last big health-care initiative in the early 1990s, when many of the same groups helped block any major change.

In addition, Barack Obama's choice of Tom Daschle, a former Senate Majority Leader, as Secretary of Health and Human Services, puts a skilled navigator of Capitol Hill in charge of the president-elect's bid to establish universal health care, which he has made a top priority. He goes in with good will from key interest groups that have been working behind the scenes to build momentum for health reform, an effort not seen since 1993-94 when President Bill Clinton tried and failed to pass a universal-coverage initiative. The groups include lobbyists for both the insurance industry and small businesses who led the fight against the Clinton effort.

On Wednesday, the insurance industry's Washington trade group issued a statement saying it could accept new rules requiring companies to cover sick people, as well as healthy ones, as long as all Americans were required to have insurance, with subsidies for those who need them. The declaration by America's Health Insurance Plans is a switch from the industry's long-time opposition to rules that bar the common practice of weeding out customers who are likely to rack up too many bills. In another sign of an early push for change, the powerful prescription-drug lobby has a new television ad out this week. "Early diagnosis and preventative treatment can save lives and lower health-care costs," spokesman Montel Williams says in the ad. "That's why everyone should have affordable health insurance." Motivations vary depending on the interest group. Business groups want to reduce the cost and improve the quality of care. Consumer groups and labor unions want subsidies to help people afford insurance. Doctors and hospitals would benefit if more patients had insurance and could pay their bills. It is far from a done deal. For starters, the various players find it much easier to support a general concept than to support legislation creating a vast array of winners and losers.

(snip)

Mr. Laszewski pointed to the issue of physician payments. Many in both parties want to boost quality and reduce costs by measuring the quality of health care delivered and tying payments to results, but there is no consensus on how to do that. Once doctors see the details of this idea, Mr. Laszewski predicted, "you'll see the ugly side of health-care reform." Further, the nation's dire financial situation makes any big spending plan difficult. During the campaign, Mr. Obama estimated his plan would cost some $100 billion per year. Some argue that the tough economic times make a major health-care initiative, particularly efforts to reduce costs, all the more urgent.

(snip)

The leaders in the Senate, Democrats Max Baucus of Montana and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, are both moving toward the sort of plan Mr. Obama proposed in his presidential campaign. The basic concept is this: A government-organized exchange would let individuals and small businesses buy coverage from private companies, or from a new government-run, Medicare-like plan. Subsidies would aid lower-income people. Large employers would be required to offer coverage or pay into a fund. Small employers would get a tax credit if they provided insurance. And a host of initiatives would be launched to reduce costs and improve quality. Procedurally, both Sens. Baucus and Kennedy have signaled that they will push the issue early next year, not waiting for Mr. Obama. In 1993, a months-long delay in introducing the Clinton health plan was one of many factors later blamed for its demise.

(snip)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122711567037241219.html (subscription)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. Nice

:eyes:

And how many people have had to suffer needlessly and die over the course of the last 14 years because they couldn't afford insurance coverage, had crappy insurance coverage that was little better than not having any at all, couldn't get preventative care that could've lead to an earlier diagnosis of a serious condition, couldn't get the medications they needed to survive - all because a bunch of right-wingers and other groups who had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo (at the time) scared enough people away from supporting meaningful reform with the horrifying specter of "socialized medicine"?

I don't know how good or bad "socialized medicine" might work in practice in other countries (although most evidence suggests it works quite fine) but, hell, I STRONGLY doubt that it could be any worse than the current for-profit corporate owned and operated health care system we currently have today and, thankfully, SOME people are beginning to realize it.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Have to read this later..

[global1]

3. Here's A Link To A Thread Where We Discussed - Single Payer Universal Insurance Here On DU......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4507724&mesg_id=4507724

I really think we need to lobby to take the private insurers out of this. The only reason it looks like they are coming around to supporting any type of plan is because they know that change is coming and they want to continue their existence. However, when the private insurers are involved - health care costs will continue to skyrocket due to the inefficiencies that they themselves bring to the table.

Single payer - universal is the only way to go.

Please let's continue this discourse.

[question everything]

6. It will never work if you take the insurance companies out

I have often compared it to public schools. We all support public schools with our taxes, but the ones who choose to pay for private ones, can do it.

We want to offer health care to everyone, but you cannot prevent the ones who want their private doctors and private rooms, etc., from having them.

[magellan]

4. Screw the insurance companies

The only thing this smarmy groveling by the insurance companies proves is that they've been needlessly killing and bankrupting people. As long as they remain part of the health equation, Americans will continue to suffer. That's the simple, ugly truth.

[Delphinus]

5. Correct.

Single payer, Universal Health Care, HR 676 NOW.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Exactly. There are plenty of other things for them to insure so let them do that instead.