Even as Obama begins to cave on real health insurance reform Blue America will push back
By John Amato Wednesday Jun 17, 2009 8:00amI wrote some nice words about Kathleen Sibelius the last few days because she was able to articulate the phony arguments against a vibrant public option, but it looks like the administration is pulling her back.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Sebelius said that President Barack Obama does not want to drive health insurers out of business, but make them more competitive by offering working families and small businesses the option of a public plan without the high overhead costs of marketing, administration and profits. "I think there is a lot of understanding that the private market has really failed to provide affordable coverage to Americans," Sebelius said. The industry has had "a lot of opportunities" to get rid of coverage restrictions and other unpopular policies, Sebelius said, and really "hasn't served Americans very well."
However, Sebelius stressed that Obama is open to compromise on the shape of the public plan, which doesn't have to be run by the government. She spoke positively of a compromise idea that envisions consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives, like rural electricity or agriculture co-ops. They would get started with seed money from taxpayers but then compete without government control. The plan by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., may end up in a health overhaul bill to be unveiled by the Senate Finance Committee this week.
---
But White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Obama is not likely to budge on his demand for a public insurance option. Axelrod said Obama isn't wedded to the public plan being either entirely funded or run by the government and is open to "variations on the theme."
Sibelius also said on NPR that the single payer plan is off the table. We knew that already, but for her to articulate it this way is awful. The fact that she says members of Congress didn't understand the health care debate just shows how either how frakkin' stupid they all are or how corrupt. They knew what they were doing when they torpedoed Clinton's plan and it was led by the Jim Cooper's in Clinton's Congress.
I'm still doing my fundraiser as we speak, but I'm also going to focus on putting pressure on all the crummy Democrats like Blanche Lincoln so that the ball is not dropped. Sure, I need to still raise funds, but I think this Blue America action is very important at this time.
We are raising money fast for our Campaign For Health Care Choice, and we plan to push on with your help. It's so saddening that with Americans voting out the teabagging republicans in astounding numbers---President Obama is allowing the debate to get away from him. We don't need the teabaggers votes or input since they already destroyed the global financial markets and everything else in their path. Their allegiance is not to the American people, but to the corporate donors that occupy the Health Care Industrial Complex.
So let's see. On Monday, in a highly publicized speech, the President tells the AMA that he wants a public option that "keeps the insurance companies honest." The leading expert on the public option, Prof. Jacob Hacker (and many others -- e.g., here, here, and here), explain why Conrad's co-op proposal is not a substitute for the public plan because it doesn't achieve the President's objectives.
But AP reports that Obama's HHS Secretary, who had already tried to give away the store, says Obama is now willing to abandon the position he took the day before? And she says the industry will blink? Are these people serious?
Yes it would seem they are very serious. That's why we are turning up the heat.
And we are always screwed by the media on everything policy wise. Whenever a republican talking point comes on the scene, they swallow it whole. Ezra Klein outTweets David Gregory because Mr. Meet the Press instantly adopted their talking points. Why would he so easily accept a falsehood? He doesn't have to worry about health care insurance I'm sure.
You can see their republican ties when as Digby writes: Cokie's Law Is Still On The Books.
Login or Register to post comments.
Where do hospitals get the money to write off $100,000K surgeries for the poor?
I mean, its great they have that but to what extent is it covered by those who pay out of pocket, or insurers?
How can a hospital discount a $10K bill to $5K if you pay cash in 90 days?
Just curious.
These are examples of the "brinkmanship" that is going on in business. (pardon me if I'm misusing the word) But a business will throuw a price at you that is not just negotiable, but if you know the ins and outs, you can make it go away completely. If you do not, you suffer and pay full price or a price much higher than others that didn't know about the hidden deal.
Banks are another good example of brinkmanship. They will throuw exorbitant overdraft charges at you that can be cut in half or forgiven with a phone call.
Is this capitalism or is it extortion?
I have read articles, in which whistle blowers explain the MO of most insurance companies: they always deny the claim.
They expect most people to just comply, and that is how they make their money. The few people who complain, have to get through a multitude of hoops to get the coverage they initially paid for.
"most insurance companies: they always deny the claim."
The Rainmaker Trailer:(2:02)
►[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLQpeUpRZHo ]
ONE-MORE-TIME.
Then go to our Congresspersons offices on the same day in groups and deliver them copies of the DVD "Sicko".
"Have you seen this documentary, Sir?"
"No".
"Well, how about let's all throw it in the teevee over there and watch it together and have a little chit-chat about it."
"I don't have time for that."
"Okay, well, I guess we'll all have to just sit down here and wait....for a week or two. Would someone please order up some pizzas??"
got arrested pretty much for just showing up.
Doing what you proposed may land you a life term in a forced labor pen in Guyana.
!
the policy holders doesn't keep the hospitals from billing the patient. They are still billed or turned over to collection agencies which causes many to file for bankruptcy.
most of the "debate" so far has been focusing on making sure the insurance companies can have their entitlement to profits intact. With a marginal (at best) side discussion on the quality of healthcare.
When you consider we have almost 50 million people uninsured, and on a per-capita basis we pay *twice* as much as the next country to get a health care which is rated in the mid 30s among the top 50 industrialized nations (what could be considered a failing grade if we use a bell curve). You would assume that the debate on health care would be based around that: the quality of healthcare. With corporate profits representing a side note (at best) in the discussion.
So it is not that the heat needs to be turned up, we haven't even turn the oven on.
Oh, and how exactly has Obama caved on any of this. He has been pretty much hands off... you know, he has all sorts of important things to keep his brilliant mind occupied. It is not that the welfare and health of the nation is something that should keep our president awake.
Obama is in the process of caving. Couple days ago he spoke before the AMA and said we need a public option. Now today, they are pulling Sebeluis back from advocating a public option. Having her advocate for the COOP idea, which is a total joke. They won't lower the price of health care at all. Which is exactly what I thought Obama would do. The problem with Obama is he's a compromiser. He has no principles or beliefs. He thinks it's better to get a seriously flawed bill passed, then none at all. In the case of health care reform, that's a truly bad approach. Because we are only going to get one shot at this reform. Whatever passes has to be the best bill possible. One that actually fixes or attempts to fix the problem of 50 million with out health insurance. That would be a public option. Because whatever does pass, that's it. Health care will be considered reformed for a generation. It will never come up again in the legislature for atleast a decade or more.
to have faith in Obama but....
;-)
A friend of his must have told him on his way to the oval office "Don't ever change."
"change we could believe in" not "change we could empirically measure" so...
I lost faith in Obama less then 2 weeks into his presidency. His refusal to prosecute the torturers did it.
majority of Americans (I've read up to 80%), this issue demonstrates better than any other that Americans are no longer in control of their government, and their government rules against them. The US government is antagonistic to the American people.
It steams me when I realize that these decisions are being made by people who now have free healthcare for life, no matter how long they're in office. That's one hell of a pension for a few years' work! Why should they care what happens to you or me? The system's working great for them.
Trouble is, I can't remember agreeing to give them that kind of a "perk".
While Barack Obama and his corporate Clintonesque toadies are busy giving the finger to Progressives and the political left, trying to appease the likes of Ben Nelson, Arlen Specter, Blanche Lincoln, and Joe Lieberman, I wonder if they've taken into consideration just who their rabid campaign workers were in 2008.
Do they think it's "loyal" blue dogs? Are the Ben Nelsons of this world going to knock on doors or make phone calls for Obama--the grunt work where angry rejection is constant?
When Obama has burned his bridges with those of us who worked our asses off to get him elected, who will be left to volunteer for him next time around?
... as long as there is no viable alternative for progressives, that Obama's base is not going anywhere. Where are we gonna go? The GOP?
Obama's strategy, maps exactly into the DLC playbook: assume the liberal vote (because we won't vote for the GOP), and court possible GOP deflectors. That is why Obama always seems to "magically" err towards the conservative side of things, but it is just a "coincidence" you see.
As long as there is not a viable alternative for progressives, I simply can't fault the Dems for taking the path of least resistance and assume our votes, without having to actually enable or support progressive agendas.
Democrats shouldn't ass/u/me a damn thing this time. This was the chance to get something real done. They're squandering it. I don't think Progressives are going to simply flock to the lesser of two evils next time around.
We've frickin' had it. My guess is that, if Obama gives away the store to appease Republicrats as he has been on so many issues, Progressives will defect, either voting for third-party candidates who haven't a hope in hell of winning, or just not voting altogether.
Will that get their Progressives elected? Probably not. But it may be enough to keep Obama from winning a second term. What good does it do? At least with Republicans, you *know* you're screwed. Democrats lie right to your face and then turn around and screw you just like Republicans do. Why take the extra step? They're exactly the same animals.
I've fuckin had it.
Unless Obama starts pushin through some progressive policies like fuckin YESTERDAY...then I will never again vote for the lesser of two evils.
I will vote 3rd party.
I don't think you're alone on this. His policies and positions so far have been a collective disappointment.
Even if some consider it "throwing your vote away," I'd rather vote for someone whose principles I can support. And if it gets Democrats turned out of office, no great loss. They're not working for the people, as they said they would, anyway. Just more pigs at the corporate trough.
I totally agree. If Obama caves on this, I'm re-registering as an independent. If it means I vote Green (or some other third party) then so be it - I'm tired of getting screwed by the Democratic Party!
If enough of us do this, maybe Obama will get the message. Who's interested in starting a new party - the Progressive Party? Maybe we can interest Bernie Sanders in joining us.
... but if you look at the last 5+ presidential elections, that has been exactly their MO.
Clinton got elected with the same playbook, luckily Ross Perot was there to syphon votes from the GOP. But as soon as that old fool with the big ears disappeared, the Dems lost in 2000.
In fact, if you think about it... that is the reason of the collective freak out by the Dem establishment in 2000 regarding Nader. They literally spent more energy blaming Nader for their loss than they did fighting Bush electoral shenanigans. Heck, even the Dem arguments assumed that the Green votes in 2000 belonged to dem, as if Nader had somehow "stole" them.
And in some senses, the Dems let us have it with Bush. I honestly think they were giving us a dose of "medicine" so we don't let a GOP in office again. And if you think about it that is basically how Obama got elected.
Both major parties are doing exactly the same thing regarding following the path of least resistance: the GOPers are whipping their perennial psychotic-religious base with fear, and the Dems are using the fear of another GOP administration to whip up their liberal base. Either case is far easier, and requires less energy, than actually enable policies (either liberal or conservative) and having to campaign on the value proposition of their own policies/achievements (that applies to both, the Dems and the GOP).
In that sense, those claiming there is just a 1 party system are missing the big picture. There are 2 very different parties, with different interests, but with similar MOs.
If someone had a car accident on the night before his election, and came out of a coma today, they'd be hard pressed to guess who won based on his policies. Drones still fly into Pakistan, hundreds of millions are still spent on the wars, the Federal Gov. still opposes equal marriage rights, Gays are still getting dumped out of the military, Wall Steet still calls the shots, military spending keeps increasing....oh, man, nothing changed. He does have a nice smile, however.
is almost as good as worthless. A country that spends 1.58 TRILLION on defense should cover the health care needs of ALL its citizens. Misplaced values, rightwing disinformation and spineless Dems combine in one colossal sick joke.
Pass this on to your congressperson.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/medi-assur/res...
"can do" attitude? Looks like the atomic easy credit bomb annihilated any remaining initiative and will.
Kinda like the one that, "annihilated " the Twin Towers on 911.
Obama is a corporatist/CFR Democrat. He's going to weasle out of doing the right thing, if he can get away with it. Donate to Blue America and let Obama know how you feel about healthcare.
This guy is putting check marks in every box it takes to assure that he's going to be a one-term president.
If it's not obvious "cutting edge" fashionista techno-triumphalist grandiosity doesn't work by now it never will be.
It goes into an electronic trash bin as junk.
wait...so the healthy economy during the 90s = healthcare reform bad? I don't follow this cause and effect theory...
Dear CNN, you don't have to present right wing talking points to show you're fair and balanced. Just present the facts.
I don't know crap about this issue; but trying to see all views I'll say this...
I've asked a few people in Pittsfield, MA, how their "everyone is covered" plan, is working out for them and though a small sampling... none of them did.
As far as Government competition against private sector.
1)►Gov. will hurt private sector health peep's
2)►U.S.P.S. vs U.P.S.
For some insight "Mitt Romney on Health Care" :-/
►[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMftJetgKD4 ](2:53)
There are many ways to look at things and come to think of it... so far the BS hasn't worked for all!
PS. I'm sick of IT! Someone call me a Doctor :)
You're a doctor.
What is it going to take to get these corporate shills to listen and do the will of the majority? Massive demonstrations in the streets?
My employer just announced yesterday that our group insurance is going to change this year and, oops, it's going to be "a lot more expensive" as an out-of-pocket cost for employees. The reason they give is that our current provider, Aetna, is dropping us because in the past year we had a decrease in participation (layoffs) and the average age of participants has "gone up dramatically" (it's the newer hires, mostly younger people who get cut first). They also claim that we had too many claims filed and that's why Aetna doesn't want to do business with us anymore.
they could cut costs by 2 trillion in 10 years they continue with the same way of doing business.
They're going to cut costs by refusing to insure anyone who might get sick.
No?
there's to much money so where is it?
You seeing any?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/natio...
quick read graph. with unemployment estimated to continue for a couple/few yrs. the uninsured and under insured demographic will continue to SHIFT the cost of unpaid medical services to the paying pool.
currently the hidden TAX on the paying pool members is about $1300.00 for a family of four. with 6 to 8yrs. of stagnate wages and increased overhead the average american has been priced out of the healthCare ins. market.
http://www.loanmine.com/xsites/Mortgage/loanm...
Wow! We're all rich!
Right?
300 Million Americans isn't enough people to fill all the jobs in this booming economy.
If the indiscriminate killing of Americans for profit is your financial model then what basis do you have for A) Staying in business? B) Not being invaded by the US armed forces (OK possse comitotis (sp?)) or C) Not being tried before US or international courts as a war criminal. If you kill us for profit you have declared war on us and you are a mercenary. If you defend them or support them...?
Any Questions? Those are mine.
Booze, babes, gambling, and golf on the public trough same thing it's always been for all Chief Executives in the US state.
private jets, not cadillacs.
this is a page from harry s. truman's book: Strictly Personal and Confidential
he writes about the opposition against a public healthCare plan same story now different actors. truman says NOT getting a a healthCare paln was his biggest disappointment
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ynfn-0BudZwC...
I think the best thing we have going for us right now is the Obama team's fear that if they completely kick the can on healthcare reform, it's gonna be an extremely HUGE nail in the potential '12 re-election campaign.
He is going to enjoy absolutely NO new support from any part of the right for this, in any way, and will absolutely get shredded by numerous groups on the left. Primarily the unions. But just go right on down the line.
do you really think the obama team or the dlc cares about what you all think?
they know the repubs are dead and there is no other party so....
this has been all brought upon by yourselves. in a rush to get rid bush you all believed the lies a politician tells without remembering lying is what a politician does best and to get elected.
if you really want change this webzine has to make sure they hold the politicians accountable with the same vigor these politicians use to lie.
you need to start a movement for the next election cycle that is determined to get rid of all incumbents.then start a third party for progressives.
but when i see a country deemed as part of the axis of evil exhibiting more democratic traits then america, i don't hold out much hope.
If Obama fails to deliver a viable public option then he is going to be incredibly vulnerable in 2012 since that crucial failure could encourage a primary challenge and also so dishearten the progressive mainstream of Democratic activists that he will have an uphill battle (assuming the GOP is able to get anything resembling a clue by then). We've just seen what taking equality for gays is bringing to the Democratic party; imagine what a healthcare sellout will bring.
Bush beat Kerry in 2004 ..
Only 28% of the eligible voters voted for Bush.
But only 27% voted for Kerry.
45% stayed home.
That's EXACTLY how Obama will lose in 2012 if he doesn't do a 180 degree turnaround.
IMMEDIATELY
If a person isn't currently dealing with chronic/sickly health issues and are otherwise healthy...go on and drop your health insurance. The health insurance complex isn't going to blink until people begin cutting off the flow of their income.
They know they've the government by the balls. And, they also know they've bred a culture of people afraid of the grand ol' 'what if' that insurers use to scare people into making a purchase.
When are we going to stop looking to convoluted elected officials for action and begin taking the fight to the corporate barons our own selves? Look, not only would dropping the 'just in case' useless expense of health insurance have a immediate impact in the boardrooms, it'd save a individual or household gobs of money to be diverted to, oh, I don't know...food on the plate perhaps? As well...we can make it two-fold and encourage individuals to begin practicing educating themselves on home medicine and or minor self-surgery.
It wasn't that long ago, when the average household bothered to only bother with doctors and hospitals when the injury or ailment was beyond their means to cope. With the vastness of the current medical library online...practicing home based healing is a no brainer. As well...lets stop looking to doctors as if they're some sort of demigod. Personally, I've had with the era of the part-time doctor, full-time golfer. And the insurers, well, they're nothing more than full-time extortive shysters.
I mean really...why do people even bother with the most crooked of the crooked?
err .. about 50 million of us have already "dropped" our health insurance ..
Excellent Chart comparing Single Payer to Public Option:
Single Payer v. Public Option Chart
"We need to realize that capitalism is not the ideal economy.. We need to combine the best and prudent from several possibilities. Capitalism flourishes because it is born of greed, and greed will give life to creativity, inventions and innovations because there is a profit at the end of it, or failure.
The financial sector does not need creativity lest we want to create the monsters that we have now encountered. Therefore I am in favor of federal banks, and for those who claim that the government can't do anything well, it appears that those in charge of the failed banks certainly can't either, and the government surely can't do worse. They are doing a pretty good job in some of what they administer, like Medicare, which serves me well enough.
Then there is healthcare. No one should become wealthy off the misfortunes of their fellow man. But there is room for both. The government should run healthcare providing essential care and preventive care for those not wanting to or not being able to choose one of the following two options. One would be a not-for-profit private enterprise offering essential care and preventive care at minimum premium, also provide other coverages at additional premiums. The other would be for the rich cats who can buy at insurance companies as they exist now. Insurance would be mandatory for every person.
Keep in mind that capitalism will not support anything that does not - as capitalists like to say - 'accumulate wealth'. With the hundreds of insurance companies, all with the same expenses and salaries, stock holders and executives siphoning off half of the premiums they collect (or maybe more) could be combined into a handful, in addition to the government run entity, where premiums go to the intended purpose, pay providers with agreed-to compensation."
As you can see, I endorsed both the single-payer and the public option. Even a third choice for the rich cats, but one of the three would be mandatory.
... why the repugs fight tooth and nail against single payer - government-run - healthcare, financing - not service. Republicans fought Social Security back in 1935, and after it evolved into successful program, the government started siphoning off funds into the general fund, putting it now in danger of insolvency 3 or 4 decades from now if not repaired.
But also be aware that the repugs tried to hijack Social Security in 2004. Had they succeeded in their plan of privatizing the system retirees without sizable resources would find themselves in the same boat as those during the Great Depression.
So why are they now so opposed?
the party that passes it will win the love of the people for decades to come. the party that opposed it as it won (Repugs) may as well dissolve and call it a day.
what is puzzling is that we have such idiot Dems in power, that instead of seeing the value of this, they are so stupid that they can still be bought off for pitiful sums in the tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions. that's what I don't get. worried about re-election? if you're part of the coalition that ACTUALLY delivers on health care in this country (if you're not from the backward South anyway) you will NEVER lose again.
and writers should avoid it at all costs. watch the speech to the AMA! Obama says "there won't be government run health care" flat-out, and they applaud. this "he said this one day, and this other thing the next" is kinda lazy and unnecessary.
does he want a strong public option or does he want to avoid the government being involved at all costs because Republicans would make fun of him over that? that's the question. has he decided this is too hard? has he given up already? or is he downplaying what the public option would mean, deliberately, to just try to force it in there, and once it's in there, blammmooo!!!! its basically single payer within the next few years?
THOSE are the real questions. what is the strategy here, and if it's the latter, what is being done to make sure it works?
Last week I wrote a comment suggesting that you be more skeptical about the ongoing health care reform discussion.
I don't flatter myself to think that my comment made a difference, but it looks like you're becoming more realistic about what is going on.
Obama has systematically undermined his own stated goals. Step by step he's made it more and more difficult for real reform and easier and easier for the kind of weak-kneed weasel legislation for which Democrats are becoming famous.
Obama took single payer off the table. With a single stroke he shifted the debate miles across the political spectrum. Now, the radical left-wing alternative is the public option plan.
Obama stated that he'd prefer 85% of what he wanted if he could get real bipartisanship to 100% if it passed with only 51 votes. Republicans must have silently thanked Obama for virtually killing a meaningful public option. Joe Lieberman, Kent Conrad, Olympia Snowe, and Kathleen Sebelius pile on to further gut the public option.
What's next? Is Obama going to state that the 75 million (or so) people who are uninsured or underinsured are an acceptable sacrifice if only we can cut costs for those who are adequately insured already and increase profits for the private insurance companies, who, after all, are justified in not wanting to insure sick people?
At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if the final legislation will be called the Private Insurers Enrichment Act of 2009. I guess they'll have to figure out how to include limiting malpractice awards to $35 plus mileage to and from the court house.
Last November, I don't think I would have believed it if someone had told me that by June 2009 I would have already given up on Barack Obama and decided that, barring some unforeseen shift, I wouldn't support him for a second term. Wow! And here I am -- teetering. Just one more small stab in the back away...
"the 75 million (or so) people who are uninsured or underinsured..."
I would argue that because the insurance industry reserves for itself the right to practice (commit the crime of) recission, that every last person with insurance is underinsured. Coverage is an illusion. It isn't coverage if they can refuse to pay based on their unwillingness to accept the risks that the insured have paid them to accept.
To Obama, the Congress and the Senate:
WHY TO YOU HATE AMERICANS?
*
Do Eric Cantor, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell understand that THEY have a publicly funded health care plan? Why isn't their health care plan "socialized medicine"? CUT-OFF HEALTH CARE IMMEDIATELY FOR ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. They MUST then develop a publicly funded plan that they MUST use. I guarantee you that a plan will be developed within 60 days AND I guarantee you that it will be a GOOD plan. Right now, these people have no incentive to fix the mess. It would be fun to see how Cantor and Boehner interact with the friendly folks at UHC to get their COBRA going.
Why would anyone want a monopoly payer plan? Monopolies give us lower quality at a higher cost. And why would we want the government, which is known for being inefficient, run such a plan?
Login or Register to post comments.