NYT article on health care plan presser tomorrow disturbing. Too much of AHIP and DLC mentioned.

[madfloridian]

I am so tired of our Democrats sounding helpless to rein in the insurance companies. We control both houses and the White House, and they say there is no way to enforce what the insurance companies do.

I have an idea...change the damn rules.

From the New York Times:

Health Industry Is Said to Promise to Rein In Costs

The mention of AHIP and the DLC in this article makes me have many doubts. The article from the NYT states that at the moment there is no way to enforce the commitment by the insurance companies. You think? Of course there is no way unless you MAKE a way to hold them accountable.

"Doctors, hospitals, drug makers and insurance companies will join President Obama on Monday in announcing their commitment to a sharp reduction in the growth of national health spending, White House officials said Sunday.

At this point, administration officials said, they do not have a way to enforce the commitment, other than by publicizing the performance of health care providers to hold them accountable.

By offering to hold down costs voluntarily, providers said, they hope to stave off new government price constraints that might be imposed by Congress or a National Health Board of the kind favored by many Democrats.

The goal set forth in the letter resembles a proposal made in December by America’s Health Insurance Plans, the lobby for insurers like Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth and WellPoint. Administration officials said the idea was broached to them by Dennis Rivera, coordinator of the health care campaign of the Service Employees International Union.

In a report being sent to Congress on Monday, two research and advocacy groups, the Center for American Progress and the Democratic Leadership Council, say that productivity growth in health care has lagged behind that of other industries.

I am getting a feeling that when Max Baucus said the only reason for a public option was to get the insurance companies to cooperate....that we are going to get screwed.

Only 21 of 59 Democrats in the Senate support a public option, much less
single payer. This article says Obama will announce the deal tomorrow. This does not bode well for the Medicare option.

Only a few support the public option.

Sen. Claire McCaskill's (D-MO) office has just issued a press release announcing that "FIVE ADDITIONAL SENATORS EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION."

This brings the total in the Senate to 21:

Sens. Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI),
Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD)
Russ Feingold (D-WI),
Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD),
Claire McCaskill (D-MO),
Sherrod Brown (D-OH), J
John D. (Jay) Rockefeller (D-WV),
Dick Durbin (D-IL),
Charles E. Schumer (D-NY),
Tom Harkin (D-IA),
Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI),
Carl Levin (D-MI),
Jack Reed (D-RI),
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI),
Bernie Sanders (I-VT),
Bob Casey (D-PA),
Jim Webb (D-VA),
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI),
Jeff Merkley (D-OR),
Ted Kaufman (D-DE), and
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).

Howard Dean spoke out and said that real health care reform rises and falls on whether the public is allowed to choose Medicare.

If Barack Obama’s bill gets changed to exclude the public entities, it is not health insurance reform…it rises and falls on whether the public is allowed to choose Medicare if they’re under 65 or not. If they are allowed to choose Medicare as an option, this bill will be real health care reform. If they’re not, we will be back fighting about it for another 20 years before somebody tries again.

I do not feel good about that article in the NYT.

I have worried about it a lot since we heard who has been working behind closed doors for months on health care.

WASHINGTON — Since last fall, many of the leading figures in the nation’s long-running health care debate have been meeting secretly in a Senate hearing room. Now, with the blessing of the Senate’s leading proponent of universal health insurance, Edward M. Kennedy, they appear to be inching toward a consensus that could reshape the debate.

Many of the parties, from big insurance companies to lobbyists for consumers, doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, are embracing the idea that comprehensive health care legislation should include a requirement that every American carry insurance. While not all industry groups are in complete agreement, there is enough of a consensus, according to people who have attended the meetings, that they have begun to tackle the next steps: how to enforce the requirement for everyone to have health insurance; how to make insurance affordable to the uninsured; and whether to require employers to help buy coverage for their employees.

The talks, which are taking place behind closed doors, are unusual. Lobbyists for a wide range of interest groups — some of which were involved in defeating national health legislation in 1993-4 — are meeting with the staff of Mr. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, in a search for common ground.

I posted a while ago that single payer advocates were apparently being excluded from health care discussions. referring to the summit. People argued, but it does look like that now for sure.

Single payer advocates apparently being excluded from health care discussions.

The president wants this process to be open and transparent, with the goal of achieving universal coverage. However, groups representing physicians, nurses, and consumers who advocate for a single-payer system of national health insurance have thus far been excluded from the summit.

..."The Clinton task force on health reform made a similar mistake of excluding the voices of those who support a single-payer system, and the result was a complicated, inadequate reform proposal that catered to the interests of insurance companies and failed to garner public support. At a time when public support for single-payer is greater than ever - more than 60 percent in recent polls - we urge President Obama not to make the same mistake. He must include single-payer advocates in the health care summit next week.

This part from the NYT article above really bothers me.

In a relatively rosy forecast, the White House said Sunday that the savings from a more efficient health care system would far exceed the costs of achieving universal health coverage, with federal subsidies for people who could not afford insurance on their own.

SO...they are saying in the WH that if we make it more efficient, we don't need to worry about achieving universal health care? Did I read that right?

That sounds like having mandatory health insurance for everyone with the choice being private companies only.

I hope I am very very wrong.

[billyoc]

1. RomneyCare redux.

[madfloridian]

2. In effect they are admitting they can not control the insurance companies.

But they can sure as hell keep us in our place, no doubt of that.

[dflprincess]

4. Not can not, WILLl not.

Actual health care reform could be done if Obama and Congress wanted to it.

[John Q. Citizen]

3. We have 21 who have supported a public pool so far. That doesn't mean the others oppose

a public pool, necessarily.

[madfloridian]

5. Partly agree. But having the press conference..

with Obama and coming out and admitting there is no way to control what insurance does, not a good sign.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. What law on the books right now lets the government control insurers. Did bush pass something i

missed?

"At this point, administration officials said, they do not have a way to enforce the commitment, other than by publicizing the performance of health care providers to hold them accountable." - Is the quote you provided.

The operative phrase is "at this point." I would agree with the administrations assessment. At this point, there is no way to hold health insurers accountable to them pledging to control costs.

That doesn't mean that after bills are passed that will still be the situation.

[madfloridian]

13. You provide another option, that is how. A public government run option

That is what we have been talking about.

The insurance companies are doing this out of fear of the public option, but do you trust them?

[John Q. Citizen]

14. I agree that it's fear pushing the insurence Co. to do something, anything. But I'm glad they

are afraid. It's about time.

And I don't trust 'em as far as I can spit.


But the fact that they see no other way than to make a pitch about how they will behave in the future is good for us who want change.



I think a tax based single payer fee for service system makes the most sense. But it's going to be a long hard road to get there.

Have you seen the Krugman piece on this precise event?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=2

[ikojo]

6. AHIP is having a webinar on May 11 and Newt Gingrich

is one of the speakers...here is what they say about the Newtster...

Newt Gingrich

Elected Speaker of the House in 1995, Newt Gingrich served twenty years in Congress, establishing a long and distinguished record of public service. Since retiring from Congress, Speaker Gingrich has worked extensively on the issues of health and healthcare, devoting the majority of his time to advocating a transformation of the entire system. In 2003, he founded the Center for Health Transformation, a collaboration of public and private sector leaders dedicated to the creation of a 21st Century Intelligent Health System that saves lives and saves money.

Jeb Bush and HOWARD DEAN are schedule to speak at a conference they are having in June in San Diego...

http://www.ahip.org/links/institute2009/glance.htm

8:30 am – 10:00 am


Welcome and Keynote Address

Governors’ Forum: Making the Right to Health Care a Reality for Every American

* Jeb Bush, Former Governor of the State of Florida
* Howard Dean, MD, Chairman, Democratic National Committee, 2005-2009; Founder, Democracy for America; Governor of Vermont, 1991-2003
* John A. Kitzhaber, MD, Governor of Oregon 1995-2003; Director, Center for Evidence Based Policy, Oregon Health & Science University

[madfloridian]

7. I saw that.

Amazing who is credible now in that field. :shrug:

[donco]

8. To me this kinda

looks like a hammer.

{ At this point,administration officials said, they do not have a way to enforce the commitment, other than by publicizing the performance of health care providers to hold them accountable.}

sorry don't know how to underline or bold a text on this forum.

[madfloridian]

10. It is meant as a hammer, probably.

But it is clear the ones involved are not interested in the Medicare option being available to those who are without health care. It would eat into their profits.

I don't like the sound of the last paragraph I bolded.

Oh to bold...put a bracket before and after b and end with the same only with / before the b.

html directions are given when you post on the html lookup table.

[ColbertWatcher]

9. To me, it sounds more like the insurance companies will be getting the banksters treatment.

And, by that I mean they will be allowed to continue in their failed business model so long as they promise to regulate themselves.

Now, now, now ... I know people will be saying that the insurance model is "not a failed business model". I disagree. Just because some in the insurance industry are making money doesn't make it successful (or even necessary) in my book. The way insurance companies operate currently are a hindrance to innovation in this country. Just like oil companies.

To the insurance giants I say, "the American people want change and we won't be giving any more bailouts to failed corporations or industries. Adapt or die."

[madfloridian]

11. They were supposed to regulate themselves years ago.

I agree pretty much with what you said.

Not comfortable about it right now.

[Blackhatjack]

15. I don't see voluntary compliance working with those who fought against health care reform up to now

It's like when Bush said businesses could do a better job of regulating pollution control than having the EPA enforce regulation of their practices.

Remember how well that worked out?

[madfloridian]

16. We are supposed to trust them to lower costs

just because they say they will.

Not gonna work.

[Blackhatjack]

17. They must be under the assumption that Bush is still President ....

... and they can do as they please with no fear of actual government regulation and possible sanctions.

[Overseas]

24. And if they can save us $2 tril over the next ten years, why didn't they do that over the last 10?

If all they had to do was rein in their projected cost increases by 1.5% per year and could have saved us $2 trillion dollars, then why the heck didn't they do that before?

And saving us $2 tril OVER TEN YEARS isn't good enough. I don't hear them say how they will cover everyone.

And I agree with others that you're just going to cut cost INCREASES ! They've already increased costs to the point that 50 million of us can't afford insurance. They've already increased us into the poorhouse.

If past performance is any indicator of future performance then they'll just cut costs by laying people off and cutting benefits. So they can keep their multi-million dollar CEO pay and various perks.

[bvar22]

18. How will the Health Insurance Racket voluntarily lower costs?

Easy.
Deny coverage and services to those who need it the most.

[madfloridian]

22. Yes, I think you may be right.

about denying service.

[madfloridian]

19. Details about the conference call...so naive, so stunning. The WH trusts the insurance industry.

This is from nyceve's highly recommended diary at Daily Kos today.

Just a few of the parts from the conference call that astound me.

She quotes The Huffington Post in one segment:

Is the Administration Being Naive About the For-Profit Health Industry's Commitment to Healthcare Reform?

. . .On Sunday afternoon, two senior Obama Administration officials called a telephonic press conference to announce a huge, positive new development in the healthcare reform effort. When I say senior, I mean pretty darn senior. And they seemed genuinely, sincerely excited about this mysterious new development - excited enough to buzz every national journalist's BlackBerry with an invitation to the conference call in the middle of Mother's Day. They considered the development significant enough to declare an embargo, forbidding journalists to write about it until 9 p.m. Eastern time. Because the President himself will be announcing this development officially tomorrow morning, they made the call - arranged by the White House press office - "on background," asking not to be identified by name or position.

The big news? Just this: a coalition of health insurance, hospital, pharmaceutical company, and physician trade groups, plus a major union, will promise the President Monday that they will reduce the rate of future growth in the cost of healthcare by 1.5% per year for the next decade.

. . .The senior administration officials were hyperbolic, if not hyperventilated. One, focusing on the political battle to enact healthcare reform, called this promise by industry trade groups "a game changer."

Here is more she quotes from the call:

Our intrepid reporter Mr. Bellows had the last question:

Bellows: "I have two questions. The first is following up on Michael Fletcher's and Eliza Marcus' questions: is the President still insistent that a public health plan will be among the options offered to people, or is that a bargaining chip in any way? And the second question, following up on Andrew Beatty's: is it correct that the cost per capita will still increase, just not as much as it previously was projected to?

Senior Administration Official #1: "On the second question, the answer to that is yes. Again, what we're talking about here is reducing the growth rate, so yes, health care costs, you should anticipate health care costs will continue to rise, but achieving a slowdown in the rate at which they increase is a, would be a huge accomplishment in terms of freeing up resources for other priorities and in terms of relieving pressure on the federal budget."

The official continued with a justification for accepting continued healthcare cost increases: "One of the reasons that you should expect health care costs to continue to increase is not only that the population is aging, which puts some upward pressure on health spending, but also that as incomes rise over time, it is natural that people want to spend part of their additional income on health care...."

Bellows: "The second question?"

Senior Administration Official #2: "On the public plan, this event with the President tomorrow is not about the public plan, we've had no discussion with this group about he public plan, in fact, if I look at the list of trade associations that are part of this, there are different views about it, but the President likes the public plan, it's part of his campaign plan "

My head is spinning trying to understand it all.

Who is running this search for healthcare? And why are they saying so many confusing things. Maybe to cloud the issues enough that we think we are really getting something.

[avaistheone1]

20. Baucas and the gang running this circus

thinks we are all stupid. And the few they don't consider stupid they consider to lazy to do anything about it.

[madfloridian]

21. It almost seems like a big joke....only it is not funny. They must think we are stupid.

I agree, they really believe we are not very bright.

[Time for change]

23. Do you know why Kerry, Kennedy and Boxer aren't on the list of supporters?

That sounds odd, doesn't it? Could it be because they don't think it goes far enough?

[madfloridian]

25. I would think they would support it. The list came from McCaskill's office.

They would have to be for single-payer if they think the public option does not go far enough....and I have not heard if they are for that.

:shrug:

It's an odd list, really.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. Use. The. Bully. Pulpit.

I think it is more likely that I will fly than the bully pulpit will help move us toward the goal line.

[madrchsod]

27. it just keeps getting worse..

what a sick joke on the american people.