Health Care: The Industry Steps Up. Maybe.

The complete lack of specificity in this announcement should tell you that its to be treated with the utmost skepticism -- AHIP hasn't explained, for example, how it going to reduce the 30% plus overhead costs of its members (compared to 3% for Medicare), nor has PhRMA acknowledged that one of the biggest wastes of health care dollars is the result of PhRMA's advertising campaigns for new drugs that treat diseases we didn't know existed (like "restless leg syndrome"... now, every time my leg twitches, I'm worried about that) or provide so little additional benefit over generic drugs that they aren't worth the much higher price (promoting lower risk of side effects that are infrequent in generic-available medicines to begin with -- and I'd bet big bucks that advertising that emphasizing the the side effects of these generic drugs greatly increases the reporting of those side effects to doctors).
_

Puh-leeeeze -
.
This is good news only in that it shows somewhat the lay of the land -- that the industry is scared that reform is actually going to happen. Other than that this is just pretense -- a PR salvo to show that they're supposedly "doing their part," hoping that the MSM and various legislators latch on to this as a reasonable, serious-minded, and level-headed alternative to BHO's wacko-socialist ideas.
.
Don't take the bait.
.

I too simply take this a s a sign that the Insurance industry wants to board trhe train before it leaves without them. I don't share some people's reflexive distrust of business but I do look forward to the the day when use of the phrase 'pre-existing condition' only results in confised stares rather than knowing nods.

It makes me wonder how much more they have squirrelled away now that they have shown such largesse by whipping out this particular bone.
.
I honestly think it's a load of crock, myself. I remember years ago the military was skewered relentlessly on and off the stage over $900 hammers and $15000 toilets - but nobodey is really investigating the inefficency and corruption I think exists behind the mere $2 cotton ball. Must be because $2 cotton balls are so much cheaper. Never mind that there are a lot more of those...
.
As for RLS, pluk, I've seen it, and it isn't very pretty. I felt the same way you did. I was wrong on that.
.
But I do agree that they are way overboard on the advertising. Besides, if it's a good drug, the doctor should prescribe it, otherwise, no. Why the elaborate ads?

"major players in the health care industry are vowing to "do our part"
.
That should read the major players who make tremendous amounts of money off of the health care industry. Because they are not providing health care. They are denying health care in the pursuit of profits. This is the way our system works and any insurer who does not operate in that manner will be out of business pretty darn quickly. So I expect that the majority of these savings the major players are not disclosing are the cost cutting measures that will in the end hurt Americans in need of health care and the doctors and nurses who actually provide that care when all is said and done.
.
This in the end is about protecting the status quo with smoke and mirrors so don't be too suprised when the horror stories start coming in the years ahead.

I agree with you all that these major players are trying to protect their interests.
.
I do think this is great as they cannot back out now and say that the savings will not be there if a public plan is added.
.
What will the Republicans have for a major talking point now?

"What will the Republicans have for a major talking point now?"
.
That Wanda Sykes was a big meanie for picking on Rush Limbaugh.

The proposal, which lacks specifics, is merely cover for the pro for-profit health-care industry and their congressional pawns.

The translation for "reigning in costs" is the denial of coverage and services to more people.

The Lewin group estimates that more than 130 million Americans would opt for the government plan with it's lower overhead costs and resultant lower costs for us. Gee, I wonder why? Is it because we know we've got a broken system that gouges us or is it because we've all developed a taste for socialism? It's just another example of changes being forced down our throats that we're demanding. The public plan would kill their business model? Isn't their business model based on prying every last nickel they can out of us because we have this selfish fixation on staying alive? The major players in the healthcare industry can cut costs by 1.5% a year IF they get to help shape the changes? That's nice of them. If there's a public option they'll have to cut costs far more than that if they expect to compete. What they're basically saying is that if they get their way and we keep things pretty close to the way they are now we'll get a peck on the cheek after they rape us financially. Let's hold out for a shower, breakfast and a box of chocolates.

The Powers That Be in the health care/health insurance industry manipulate price escalation with alacrity. The only relation to anything, internal or external, would appear to be that health care costs and pressure for health care reform increase and decrease together. Since they can control the former, they use this flexibility to tamp down the latter. This practice tends to prove that costs are drastically inflated, but we rarely see anyone taking notice of that part of the issue.
.
The message from the industry, which seems inexplicably to work time and again, is "We get it now. You can trust us to do better. Oh, and nobody needs all that government remedy stuff that limits our options."
.
As Clueless Leader once said, "Fool me twice…"

Krugman's article is very realistic but encouraging. I find it highly amusing that at the end of his article he adopted the term "medical-industrial complex," a term he'd attributed to the administration at the start. It's a great label, evoking images of Eisenhower issuing dire warnings. I hope the Obama admin sticks to this nomenclature; it's one of those phrases that has the potential to shape the public debate to their advantage.

I concur with the ambivalence here, but might suggest it is unquestionably better for the industry to come out like this than not.
.
As for Sykes/Limbaugh, Joe Sudbay offers some useful context on the msm reaction: Pundit ponders whether Rush will go ballistic over Wanda Sykes.

The key to any successful social structure is to align things so that "looking out for number one" and "doing the right thing" happen to correspond.
You can all complain about the greed of insurance companies but all they are doing is operating exactly as designed. The larger problem is the coziness between business leaders and the Governement entities that are supposed to be keeping an eye on them.
.
All the shouting about 'socialism' you've been hearing lately is just the whining of the kid who's hand has been caught in the cookie jar.

PD, speaking of "socialism", I find this article by Sara Robinson to be one of the most clear and concise pieces on the Canadian system: 10 Myths About Canadian Health Care, Busted

[...] are “voluntarily coming together” to present President Obama with a letter promising to reduce the growth rate in annual health spending by 1.5 percentage points a year over the next 10 years, lowering spending overall health care [...]

I concur with the ambivalence here, but might suggest it is unquestionably better for the industry to come out like this than not.
.
wvng,
.
Oh, I agree totally. Just remember that EVERYTHING is a PR/marketing problem with thse groups. Morality only enters into the discussion insofar as how it fits into their marketing plan. They will be "morally" outraged (or it will be the "moral" and "ethical" thing to do) if the plan calls for it.
.
Above all, hold onto your wallets while you are dealing with them They don't have YOUR welfare as their PRIMARY (or even secondary) concern.
.
Everyone that is saying that they are trying to gain a seat at the table in order to affect parts of the coming legislation to their advantage is spot on.

"Leave us alone -- we'll regulate ourselves. We promise!!!"
Sounds familiar, huh?

wvng-From your link. Are you friggin kidding me? Anonymity granted to remark about Wanda Sykes? No that's down right offensive.
.
Another GOP strategist who spoke only on the condition of anonymity said that Sykes's remarks about Limbaugh were "way beyond the pale" adding: "In essence she was saying, 'He's an anti-American terrorist and I hope he dies.' It's hard to see how that's in good fun."

The key to any successful social structure is to align things so that "looking out for number one" and "doing the right thing" happen to correspond.
.
Paul,
.
It's that definition of "doing the right thing" that's the stickler. Whose definition do you use?
.
For some, "doing the right thing" means upholding free market principles above all. For others, it's an issue of giving coverage to as many citizens as possible using whatever philosophy that works. And also throw in a few variations between the two.
.
We've got a number in this country who have managed to meld their religion and economic principles. They have managed to convince themselves that God meant for them to have as much as they want of everything - that "looking out for number one" IS "doing the right thing".
.
How do you deal with those who have rationalized their greed and coated it with a religious fervor?

"...more than 130 million Americans would enroll in a government plan -- which private insurers say would effectively kill their own business model."
.
Dean Baker has useful thoughts on what exactly is wrong with their business model: http://bostonreview.net/BR34.3/baker.php

On the one hand you have the public and businesses that can no longer afford medical costs that have skyrocketed. On the other hand you have the monolithic healthcare industry that is going to do everything they can to keep things the way they are. People are going to overwhelmingly back a system that allows them to keep more of their money regardless of any abstract labels that get thrown about. When a single major illness can ruin a family financially, scare tactics are the least of their worries. They're already scared. Living in dread that someone in the family gets sick and your life savings are going to vanish almost overnight is going to render bumper sticker slogans like socialized medicine and nanny state government meaningless. Ask senior citizens if they hate being covered by Social Security or Medicare. Ask them if they hate the idea of cheaper prescriptions. Ask them if they'd like more money in their pockets so they can afford to eat better or not have to choose between food and medicine. The system doesn't need tweaked. It needs changed. Sometimes there is a perfect storm that changes everything.

[...] about the news that health care industry folks said they want to do their part to cut costs. Time’s Karen Tumulty points out that it’s a pretty vague promise and gives her take on what it actually means. She [...]

OT Purified Repub party. h/t David Shuster via Twitter
.
http://www.markfiore.com/political/party-purifier

OT, but Dilbert nailed the Financial Industry in this Sunday's strip.
.
Might fit many of the others too, come to think of it.

If there was ever a time to get something done, now is the time. With the republicans distracted by their own personal apocalypse, some meaningful reform just might be able to get accomplished. I'm out of here. Gotta donate blood before work. Have at it folks.