Another Look at the Health Care System

Karen, I listened to your Fresh Air interview. Twice. Outstanding. Best wishes for your brother.

My inner revolutionary would have preferred to see the capitalists and bourgeoisie carried out onto the street and hung from a lamppost, but still... pretty good ad.

KT-the followup with that German-born professor from the Ivy League school was even better. Thank goodness Obama is our president at this moment in history. I shudder to think if the economy and health care were in the hands of McCain or *double shudder* Palin.

Boy did I love this ad, like Jon Stewart's engagement last night humor seems to the only truth telling device we have left in this country. As someone who had to leave a job that provided health care to take my chances in the abyss, Thanks god for Obama trying to get this thing through.
.
Of course, KT just painting a picture of how bad it is, even from a personal perspective is not enough to ensure that this thing actually happens. While you're not a media critic, that storyline I keep pitching to you about big picture comparisons of the truth tellers on both sides of this equation will go along way towards muting the GOP talking points driven media hacks like Scherer that are trying to derail health care by advancing the only palatable story line they have left.
.
Obama is doing too much - health care is a distraction please! They are pulling out all the stops to try and stop the roll towards universal health care. Don't be like the folks at CNBC, that just sat there while the gamblers on Wall Street blew our 401Ks. Join folks like Frank Rich and Eugene Robinson who have been sounding the alarm.

I thought you might find pretty funny, no matter what side of the issue you are on:
_
the ad is funny, unless you know what Wyden is actually pushing with this ad... then the humor fades.
_
In essence, Wyden's plan is a massive giveaway to the insurance industry -- there is no "public plan" option like "Medicare for all" whose mission isn't to maximize profits, but to provide the best health care possible per dollar spent.

Just a helpful reminder of how grateful I am that I actually like my job. (Though the health plan does sorta suck)

Karen, why is it that you (and the rest of the media) are ignoring all the House Democrats who favor a single payer system. The Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means has endorsed HR 676, and the other major Committee with oversight responsibility, Henry Waxman, has submitted his own single payer bill.
_
Yet the media has pretty much shut out these crucial congressmen from the debate -- focussing on Senate DINOs (like Baucus) who control relevant committees, and House DINOs (like Cooper) who don't control committees?
_
YOU and your colleagues determine the scope of the health care debate, and by marginalizing the advocates of single payer (many of whom hold very powerful positions in Congress) while "talking to" congresscritters who are practically owned and operated insurance company subsidiaries (like Wyden and Cooper) YOU determine the framework of the entire discussion.

pluk: waxman is not going to push single payer. it's not going to happen. i did bring up single payer, just a little over a week ago, by asking baucus about it directly. it was the one question i had a chance to ask him at that breakfast, and i chose to ask that one:
_
Karen, that's not the point. You sound like Jim Cramer on The Daily Show -- "I tried...."
_
And while Waxman may not "push" single payer, he does support it -- and is going to support a health care proposal that will evolve into single payer. People who support single payer should be playing a major role in the health care discussion -- not because "single payer" is going to happen, but because of all the Congresscritters who are owned by the insurance companies that don't want a "public plan" option because their insurance company sponsors KNOW that they won't be able to compete with those plans and make a profit. The opponents of the "public plan" option even say that it will evolve into "single payer" as if that's a bad thing --- not giving advocates of single payer a voice in this debate, when you do give voice to those who are critical of single-payer, is irresponsible.
_
Its not enough to ask Max Baucus about single payer -- you should be talking to Conyers about "health care reform"....and writing about what he has to say about the issue, instead of concentrating on the ideas and opinions of insurance company hacks.

I agree that it is a funny ad. But let's break down this statement of KT's to which p-luk's comment is related.

no matter what side of the issue you are on

.
There are actually three sides in this debate. First, there are those that openly oppose significant health care reform. They can generally be characterized as elected and unelected stakeholders who have been provided with a financial incentive to maintain the status quo or something approximating it.
.
Then there are those who are genuinely dissatisfied with the current system. In complete good faith, they either support a universal, single-payer system, or support serious consideration of such a system.
.
Then there are the bad-faith actors. The wolves in sheep's clothing to appropriate the language of reformers in order to preserve the key elements of the current system that provide substantial profits to insurance companies and HMOs, etc. This is what p_luk accuses Wyden of being.
.
Personally, I have a hard time watching the video and concluding that Wyden is on a secret mission to provide a "massive giveaway" to the insurance industry. Sure, a medicare-for-all system would be preferable to Wyden's plan. But Wyden's plan strikes me as better than Obama's current noises. Better than Obama's campaign plan. Better than Hillary's plan. Better than pretty much anything that isn't "medicare-for-all" or equivalent. Wyden's video tells me that he really gets it about much of what is wrong with the current system.
.
Does Wyden's plan totally cut out the "insurance" middle-man scam that drives up costs and frustrates people with unreasonable denials of services? No. But it accomplishes two key goals. First, it probably does provide some cost savings and is, at worst, cost-neutral. Second, it attacks the sacred cows that health care must be provided by the private-sector and employers in particular.
.
Like John Edwards' plan and unlike Obama' plan and definitely Hillary's plan, it is easy to envision transitioning from Wyden's plan to a better plan in the future. Since supporters of both Obama and Hillary claimed that it was politically necessary to take a cautious, incremental approach, it is critical to ask not only how good any plan is, but what the likelihood is of improving upon it.

sqr1
.
...it attacks the sacred cows that health care must be provided by the private-sector and employers in particular.
.
How so?

...and regardless of the validity of the proposal, the ad is funny, it's true.

Does Wyden's plan totally cut out the "insurance" middle-man scam that drives up costs and frustrates people with unreasonable denials of services? No. But it accomplishes two key goals. First, it probably does provide some cost savings and is, at worst, cost-neutral. Second, it attacks the sacred cows that health care must be provided by the private-sector and employers in particular.
_
Wyden's plan requires all individuals (not covered by Medicare or in the military) to buy private insurance coverage. In other words, it forces people into "health care...provided by the private sector". That's why I think he's just a shill for insurance companies.
_
While I support single-payer, political reality means that its not happening this year. What can be achieved is a plan that will evolve into single payer -- one that forces the insurances companies to compete with a "public sector" plan. Of course, the insurance companies won't be able to compete and make a profit, and pretty soon all they will be offering is "supplemental" coverage, while he bulk of health care is payed for through a "single payer" system (which is pretty much what Canada has now.)
_
By forcing everyone into private insurance plans, Wyden's plan makes that evolution impossible.

Karen, President Obama talked about insurance that was the same that congress. I do not think that a minimum package would cover much. One other thing would be co pays, they can also cause a hardship on lower income family's.
.
I agree with those that say just because reporters think that single payer will not pass, we should have coverage on this. We have not really had honest reporting about this, or very little.

pluk: however, wyden does require insurers to offer a minimum benefits package (unlike the kind my brother bought) and gives people who can't afford it subsidies to buy it.
_
Karen, do you think I don't know what the Wyden plan does and does not do? The question isn't whether Wyden's plan has "good features", the question is whether its a good plan.
_
and its not. We wouldn't be subsidizing those who couldn't afford health care, we'd be subsidizing the profits of the health insurance companies. Moreover, their "denial of coverage means bigger profits" business model would remain in place -- its a lot more profitable for insurance companies to create massive bureaucracies designed to discourage consumers from getting the care they need than to provide that care.

...and gives people who can't afford it subsidies to buy it...
.
This is going to be really tough in the medium and even short run. There's no question that keeping people out of emergency room care is a decent argument now, but "not being poor enough to qualify for help" is coming right afterward.
.
waxman...will insist upon what is now being called a "public option," which means that people who want to buy into medicare or a medicare-like plan could. this may well be the most politically difficult issue going forward.
.
Unless this happens, unless people can buy a lower-cost option that is the same price for everybody, regardless of income, we'll have a backlash against lower-income subsidies (and the horrible political fights that will engender), I'm sure of it.