Rahm Emanuel: Ready to Deal on a Public Plan
Over and over again, President Obama has expressed his commitment to the establishment of a government-run "public plan" as part of health reform, saying it is needed to keep the pressure on private insurance companies. Just as often, we have pointed out here that this kind of general statement can mean a lot of different things to different people. Today, we hear yet more evidence that the White House is quite flexible in how it views the whole idea of a public plan.
White House Chief of Staff tells the Wall Street Journal that it is far more important to create competition among private health insurers than to it is to establish a robust government-run option. And he sounds supportive of an idea being talked about by Republicans like Olympia Snowe, in which a public plan would be established only if private companies failed to step up to the plate. A similar "trigger" was included in the 2003 Medicare prescription drug plan, and has never been used:
Mr. Emanuel said one of several ways to meet President Barack Obama's goals is a mechanism under which a public plan is introduced only if the marketplace fails to provide sufficient competition on its own. He noted that congressional Republicans crafted a similar trigger mechanism when they created a prescription-drug benefit for Medicare in 2003. In that case, private competition has been judged sufficient and the public option has never gone into effect.
Mr. Obama has pushed hard for a vigorous public option. But he has also said he won't draw a "line in the sand" over this point.
UPDATE: This is what is known as a "clarification":
Statement from the President on Health Care Reform
"I am pleased by the progress we're making on health care reform and still believe, as I've said before, that one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest. I look forward to a final product that achieves these very important goals."
UPDATE2: Ezra Klein has an interesting point with respect to the precedent that Emanuel cites:
Putting aside the success, or lack thereof, of Medicare Part D, this is a bit of a weird comment. In 2003, Republicans controlled the White House, the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate. As such, when they tried to pass their legislation adding a private prescription drug benefit to Medicare, they allowed a small concession to Democrats: a weak public plan that would be activated if certain conditions weren't met by private industry.
What Emanuel is saying here, however, is that in 2009, when Democrats control the White House, the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate -- and have larger margins than Republicans ever did in the latter two -- that they are interested in settling on the same policy compromise: a weak public plan that would be activated if certain conditions aren't met by private industry. That's a bit weird. Weren't elections supposed to have consequences?
-
1
Why don't we just quit and just let the insurance companies have an arm and a leg. Perhaps if we commit to spending 20 hours a week of our "free time" each week fanning insurance CEO's and feeding them peeled grapes, they may allow the Senators they bought to allow us to get treated for a debilitating illness for a reasonable price.
-
2
[...] Option”? Fuhgeddaboudit! The Obama Administration is ready to cave on [...]
-
3
They are spending $1.4 million a day (the health care lobby) to defeat any change. Members of Max Baucus' staff have been hired on. Dick Armey and Dick Gephardt are lobbying for the same pharma firm.
.
This is just hopeless. I am utterly cynical about the fact that 72% of Americans want a public option but it doesn't matter. Our politicians are bought and paid for by corporate interests. -
4
I do. not. understand why they are giving the authority to Republicns on this, even "reasonable" ones like Snowe. Losing never looked so good. I swear Congressional Republicans have more power now than when Bush was in office. Grumble.
-
5
Do you suppose they're waiting for the public to demand the public option?
-
6
I'd say this is a compromise that wins at least 60 votes in the Senate. The president's base will be ticked like heck, but that hardly matters.
-
7
They are spending $1.4 million a day (the health care lobby) to defeat any change. Members of Max Baucus' staff have been hired on. Dick Armey and Dick Gephardt are lobbying for the same pharma firm.
.
This is just hopeless. I am utterly cynical about the fact that 72% of Americans want a public option but it doesn't matter.
_
you want to know why its hopeless? Its because of reporters like Karen who rely on 'push polls" to write stuff like "this kind of general statement can mean a lot of different things to different people"---and who refuse to include the facts about who is being paid off by the insurance companies when writing about health care reform.
_
So while you may understand that there is massive public support for truly effective health care reform, Karen is more concerned with muddying the issues involved by parroting Frank Luntz approved talking points in the interest of "unbiased", "impartial" coverage. Truly impartial coverage makes it clear that one side has public support, and the other side is supported only by slush funds collected out of the profits of the insurance industry. -
8
yes, pluk, it's all my fault.
-
9
which part of "reporters like Karen" don't you understand?
-
10
.
At least you admitted it, KT. (No I'm not serious, I'm being a wise-@ss.)
.
However, I will take this opportunity to link to Bob S.:
.
Total health expenditures per capita, 2003United States $5711
Australia $2886
Austria $2958
Belgium $3044
Canada $2998
Denmark $2743
Finland $2104
France $3048
Germany $2983
Ireland $2466
Italy $2314
Japan $2249
Netherlands $2909
Norway $3769
Sweden $2745
United Kingdom $2317
.
Those are astonishing data. Over the past fifteen years, they've almost never been discussed.
~ -
11
The below numbers are from 2003, 2004 & 2005. These numbers are rarely if ever discussed in tandem and in a coherent understandable way by our news media in order to give people a full picture of some basic facts. We are already over paying for less health care and its already rationed and that is without a public option for all Americans.
.
Per capita in 2003 healthcare cost for the below nations were:
.
United States $5711
Australia $2886
Austria $2958
Belgium $3044
Canada $2998
Denmark $2743
Finland $2104
France $3048
Germany $2983
Ireland $2466
Italy $2314
Japan $2249
Netherlands $2909
Norway $3769
Sweden $2745
United Kingdom $2317
.
Healthcare CE0 compensation 2005 and over a five year period:
.
United Health Group
CEO: William W McGuire
2005: 124.8 mil
5-year: 342 mil
.
Forest Labs
CEO: Howard Solomon
2005: 92.1 mil
5-year: 295 mil
.
Caremark Rx
CEO: Edwin M Crawford
2005: 77.9 mil
5-year: 93.6 mil
.
Abbott Lab
CEO: Miles White
2005: 26.2 mil
5-year: 25.8 mil
.
Aetna
CEO: John Rowe
2005: 22.1 mil
5-year:57.8 mil
.
Amgen
CEO: Kevin Sharer
2005:5.7 mil
5-year:59.5 mil
.
Bectin-Dickinson
CEO: Edwin Ludwig
2005: 10 mil
5-year:18 mil
.
Boston Scientific
CEO:
2005:38.1 mil
5-year:45 mil
.
Cardinal Health
CEO: James Tobin
2005:1.1 mil
5-year:33.5 mil
.
Cigna
CEO: H. Edward Hanway
2005:13.3 mil
5-year:62.8 mil
.
Genzyme
CEO: Henri Termeer
2005: 19 mil
5-year:60.7 mil
.
Humana
CEO: Michael McAllister
2005:2.3 mil
5-year:12.9 mil
.
Johnson & Johnson
CEO: William Weldon
2005:6.1 mil
5-year:19.7 mil
.
Laboratory Corp America
CEO: Thomas MacMahon
2005:7.9 mil
5-year:41.8 mil
.
Eli Lilly
CEO: Sidney Taurel
2005:7.2 mil
5-year:37.9 mil
.
McKesson
CEO: John Hammergen
2005: 13.4 mil
5-year:31.2 mil
.
Medtronic
CEO: Arthur Collins
2005: 4.7 mil
5-year:39 mil
.
Merck Raymond Gilmartin
CEO:
2005: 37.8 mil
5-year:49.6 mil
.
PacifiCare Health
CEO: Howard Phanstiel
2005: 3.4 mil
5-year: 8.5 mil
.
Pfizer
CEO: Henry McKinnell
2005: 14 mil
5-year: 74 mil
.
Well Choice
CEO: Michael Stocker
2005: 3.2 mil
5-year: 10.7 mil
.
WellPoint
CEO: Larry Glasscock
2005: 23 mil
5-year: 46.8 mil
.
Wyeth
CEO: Robert Essner
2005:6.5 mil
5-year: 28.9 mil
.
Imagine adding vice presidents, Board of Directors, stock holders and the other 200-300 other companies all cashing in on your health to that total at the bottom.
.
If you are using United Healthcare, well congrats, your insurance company paid their CEO one man $324,000,000 over a recent five year period.
.
BTW: 10% of 14.9 billion is 1.4 billion. If basic insurance costs $8,000/year for a family then taking 10% from just these CEO salaries would insure 35,000 Americans a year for five years. That is a lot of people that can be helped just by 23 men. Looking at the companies as a whole that profit from health care, we can probably pay for every uninsured person in this country for decades to come.
.
http://www.forbes.com/static/execpay2005/rank.html
.
And for those who want to make the ration argument. Yglesias makes a good point:
.
It's also really important to just make a simple conceptual point. Right now health care is rationed by your ability to pay.
.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/07/the-truth-about-foreign-health-care.php -
12
"Exactly what circumstances would trigger the option would have to be worked out."
.
Uh huh. I'm sure it will be a trigger everyone from the insurance industry to Max Baucus can get behind.
.
At least Senator Schumer is *sounding* like he's serious about a public option. -
13
I give up!
.
We are going to twaddle in trash for a while I guess before someone upstairs finally realizes that we cannot continue with the same old sheist!
.
I hiketh my leg and fffffffffffffffaaaaaaaarrrrrrrt! -
14
Somehow I didn't expect Emanuel to be the one to wave the white flag of "victory."
-
15
There are two items in this comments section that should get widespread coverage. The per capita costs of the "socialist" medicines delivered in Europe and Australasia and the pay of CEOs. I have not seen articles in depth on both issues; just the usual superficial gasbaggery from Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs, etc. The WSJ leads the charge on the Bogus Arguments front.
We have never had an honest debate on health care costs because our politicians don't want one. For every Schumer there are three Carpers. The Delaware Senator was interviewed by David Shuster yesterday. And while he was dishing out his prepared misleading "analysis: the screen showed him getting $200,000+ from Health Care and $100,000 plus from Pharmacare. When asked about it did he cringe? not at all, he continued with his bafflegab.
So: KT, can we ask TIME to do a couple of Specials: Who has given what to Congress (say the committee members with oversight over health) and how much CEO's of Health Care/Pharma receive over the last 3 years..
There is a lot of that in the comments section here. Will TIME highlight that after checking?
The Post has some info on the "Pals" and "Former Employees" who are now lobbyists. The system is corrupt.
-
16
Mr. Emmanuel said ONE OF SEVERAL WAYS. I think that this is important here.
.
I am not sure that this line is Rahm's quote or WSJ
Mr. Obama has pushed hard for a vigorous public option. But he has also said he won't draw a "line in the sand" over this point. -
17
Then, perhaps KT can call Rahm Emmanuel and interview him about where he stands on this issue. This would not be the first time Rahm has been "misquoted". Or is this a flagging operation? There are vested interest who are ready to blow smoke.
-
18
Bitter: I agree that Mr Emmanuel needs to be asked for a clarification. Lots of people are blowing smoke; and the WSJ has a vested interest in the status quo.
-
19
"yes, pluk, it's all my fault."
Excellent, Karen - this is the important first step! Now, don't feel too bad; we still love you, and we'll be with you the whole way through the process of rehabilitation and recovery...
-
20
Brian Beutler at TPM has a piece on Sen Baucus and his former staff members-turned lobbyists which goes back to yesterday's article in the Post. He awaits a response from the Senator's office. Undercurrent: lots of ego all round, with Baucus being Ego-in- Chief?
-
21
Given the numbers from Gunny (8:28), the fact that we have the lowest rated and most expensive (compared to GDP) HC system in the industrialized world, the millions of uninsured/underinsured citizens, that retroactive denials of coverage are a significant part of insurance companies' business plan… one wonders what exactly these “triggers” would be.
-
22
Here is a link to Jonathan Cohn's article in the Boston Globe concerning France and Netherlands systems. The below really stood out for me.
.
Last year, I had the opportunity to spend time researching two of these countries: France and the Netherlands. Neither country gets the attention that Canada and England do. That might be because English isn't their language. Or it might be because they don't fit the negative stereotypes of life in countries where government is more directly involved in medical care.
.
Over the course of a month, I spoke to just about everybody I could find who might know something about these healthcare systems: Elected officials, industry leaders, scholars - plus, of course, doctors and patients. And sure enough, I heard some complaints. Dutch doctors, for example, thought they had too much paperwork. French public health experts thought patients with chronic disease weren't getting the kind of sustained, coordinated medical care that they needed.
.
But in the course of a few dozen lengthy interviews, not once did I encounter an interview subject who wanted to trade places with an American. And it was easy enough to see why. People in these countries were getting precisely what most Americans say they want: Timely, quality care. Physicians felt free to practice medicine the way they wanted; companies got to concentrate on their lines of business, rather than develop expertise in managing health benefits. But, in contrast with the US, everybody had insurance. The papers weren't filled with stories of people going bankrupt or skipping medical care because they couldn't afford to pay their bills. And they did all this while paying substantially less, overall, than we do.
.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/07/05/healthy_examples_plenty_of_countries_get_healthcare_right/?page=1
.
Here's a link to the recently release Business Roundtable Health care study the results of which show that US workers and employers receive 23% LESS value from our health care system than the average 5 leading economic competitors-Canada, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and France (G-5) and 46% LESS value than the average emerging competitors Brazil, India and China (BIC group)
.
G-5 countries spend 63 cents for every dollar the US spends yet the US lags the G-5 by 10%. The three BIC countries spend 15% of what we do, yet the US workforce trails the BIC countries by 5%.
.
Per Capita the US spends $828 more per person than the G-5 and $1,654 more than the BIC countries.
.
http://www.businessroundtable.org/sites/default/files/Health%20Study%20Talking%20Points%20FINAL.pdf -
23
A “line in the sand” indeed…keep exposing those bratty selfish kids who won't share the sandbox, thanks KT. If we let insurance companies run fire departments the way they do our health care, we'd be toast, literally. Or military-industrial insiders like Blackwater / Xe/ whatever running our police, but I digress.
-
24
Clarifications are always good, but I'm not at all surprised by Emanuel's comments. This is entirely consistent with his history.
.
Single-payer may be politically unfeasible and it's fine, although a little chicken and egg, for politicians and journalists to emphasize that. But they should also acknowledge that anything else is economically unfeasible in the long-term. People are getting older, health care costs are rising with scientific innovations, and the businesses of every other industrialized country will be far better able to handle those challenges.
.
It's absurd to suggest that maintaining the essential character of a health care system that will inevitably cripple American businesses is "realistic" or "pragmatic". -
25
Karen I cannot see Rahm ready to deal on public plan right now. They are still making deals with health industry.
.
I really think that this line is misquoted or WSJ
.
Mr. Obama has pushed hard for a vigorous public option. But he has also said he won't draw a "line in the sand" over this point.
.
I hope this was his way of letting us know how bad this option is.
Most Popular »
- "Personal Sins Should Not Require Press Releases"
- False Economy: Think You're Saving Money? Think Again
- The 'Alice' Interview: A Very Different Brand of Wonderland
- Congress's Tepid Reaction to Obama's Afghanistan Plan
- Tiger Speaks
- Gleeks and Shrieks: Fox Unveils Midseason, Glee Gone Until April
- State Dinner, Uh, Fashion
- White House Hypocritical Attack on Politico
- The Dreaded X
- First Look: 'Lovely Bones' and Peter Jackson's Virtuoso Vistas
- Can Attack Dogs Be Rehabilitated?
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Rachel Uchitel: Tiger Woods' Alleged Affair Connection
- Italian Town Dreams of a White (No Foreigners) Christmas
- Europe's Secret Nuclear Weapons: What Should NATO Do?
- Why Fritz Henderson Resigned as GM's CEO
- Ireland: Lack of New Catholic Priests Spurs Campaign
- The End of the 2000s: Goodbye to a Decade from Hell
- Study: Loneliness Can Be Contagious
- Could White House Party Crashers the Salahis Go to Jail?














RSS