CONNECT
Truthdig / Truthdig Op-Ed
Published: Friday 22 June 2012
“More than three-fourths of Americans want their political leaders to undertake a new effort, rather than leave the health care system alone if the court rules against the law, according to the poll.”
Health Care: Give the People What They Want
The nutty thing about the health care debate that will play a prominent role in the next election is that most Americans want pretty much the same outcome: to control costs without sacrificing quality. And that’s not what either major-party candidate is offering. Few think that Obamacare, a Romneycare descendant that contains the same kind of individual mandate the then-governor of Massachusetts signed into law, will get us to that desired goal. Nor would Mitt Romney, who has been reborn as a celebrant of the old, pre-Obama system with a few nips and tucks.
As the nation awaits a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the Obama health care approach, a new Associated Press-GfK poll suggests that the vast majority of Americans want Congress to come up with a better plan. They know that the current system is unsustainable. Only a third of those polled favored the law President Barack Obama signed, but according to the AP, “... Whatever people think of the law, they don’t want a Supreme Court ruling against it to be the last word on health care reform.” The article continued, “More than three-fourths of Americans want their political leaders to undertake a new effort, rather than leave the health care system alone if the court rules against the law, according to the poll.”
That sentiment underscores the opportunity missed by Obama, who limited his ambition to what Big Pharma and the insurance giants would accept as “reform” in a system that they had so successfully exploited. Obamacare is a faux reform born of opportunism, as was Romney’s original version: Play ball with those who have profited most from the run-up of medical costs and expect them to make it more affordable.
Two dynamics doomed the experiment. First, the new Democratic president wanted to launch a bold progressive program, but rather than channel the spirit of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to address the economic crisis that he inherited, he continued the bailouts begun under George W. Bush and fixed on health care reform instead of the financial pain being suffered by average Americans.
The second dynamic that undercut the health care bill was an over eagerness on the part of the new White House operatives to collaborate with the profiteers in the very industry targeted by reform.
The email trail of cave-ins to the medical industry heavyweights is startlingly clear, and it is difficult to quarrel with the headline on a Wall Street Journal story: “Emails Reveal How the White House Bought Big Pharma.” Except, as a related editorial in the WSJ makes clear, it was the pharmaceutical industry that did the buying, with “a $150 million advertising campaign coordinated with the White House political shop.”
What the industry bought was an end to the notion of a health care “public option,” and a guarantee of no serious restrictions on drug prices, arranged by then White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who was in close communication with the lobbyists involved. The Journal article pointed to the cynical language of the emails exchanged, quoting one incriminating note from a lobbyist: “Rahm asked for Harry and Louise ads thru third party. We’ve already contacted the agent.” The American Medical Association and others also were in on the fix, yet with all of that power being exercised the public wasn’t conned. As the WSJ editorialized (it galls me to agree with that newspaper’s editorialists), “The miracle is that despite this collusion of big government and big business, Obamacare has received the public scorn that it deserves.”
But scorn for an individual mandate that compels consumers to purchase something they don’t want does not translate into a rational alternative to the current mess. Californian Gary Hess, a retired school administrator and a Republican, is quoted in the AP story about the new poll as saying that he wants the Supreme Court to reject the entire Obama plan but that he still wants the government to retain the requirement that insurance companies cover people regardless of their prior medical conditions. “There needs to be compromise on both sides,” he said. Clearly, any good compromise must include both control on costs and the availability of health care to the needy in places other than the very expensive emergency room.
Let me humbly suggest that as an alternative to a mandatory system rejected by the majority, we return to the idea of covering most people by attracting them to quality public and private programs through consumer choice, and that one of those choices be a version of the public option we now offer seniors. It’s called Medicare and it works splendidly.
This article was originally posted on Truthdig.
Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
ABOUT Robert Scheer
Robert Scheer, editor in chief of Truthdig, has built a reputation for strong social and political writing over his 30 years as a journalist. His columns appear in newspapers across the country, and his in-depth interviews have made headlines. He conducted the famous Playboy magazine interview in which Jimmy Carter confessed to the lust in his heart and he went on to do many interviews for the Los Angeles Times with Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and many other prominent political and cultural figures.
12 comments on "Health Care: Give the People What They Want"
November 15, 2012 2:46am
A health insurance broker is just like any other type of broker; this one just happens to specialize in the field of health insurance. A broker is somewhat like a matchmaker. His responsibility is to match up those seeking health insurance with health insurance companies that most closely match that person or group's needs.
www.CarsInsured.co.uk
June 26, 2012 4:23am
The two biggest problems with health care seem to be the allopathic PATENT drug system and a few incompetent providers. Both have costs in blood. Over 100,000 Americans die a year from bad reactions to prescription drugs duly prescribed and administered. Nearly as many die from other mishaps. Half of the mishaps seem to be at the hands of 5% of practitioners. If malpractice insurance could be replaced with no-fault medical mishap insurance with the insurance firms instructed to give equal weight to both compensating victims fairly and weeding out incompetent providers, whether with retraining or with transfers to less safety critical jobs, that should help. If government could grandfather the too big to fail drug firms, dividing 2.2% of GDP (20% of GDP hoping to be limit of health care spending times 11% of health spending being for drugs) among the drug firms in proportion to their market share over some base period, with FDA demoted from regulatory agency to drug order clearing house: the drug firms to just accept orders from FDA. manufacture with good quality control and ship to hospitals and national chain pharmacies; and consumers needing subsidy to afford drugs stuck with drug firm drugs while those paying out of pocket get a free market. Such a system should be better for investors than present roller coaster, would remove incentive to push product from drug firms which should reduce number of deaths from bad reactions to drugs by reducing exposure, research would be done by medical school faculty funded by federal government through NIH.
June 22, 2012 6:47pm
It is easy to prescribe something out of thin air. Do you think all legislation is born out of true goodwill considering the welfate of every citizen?Politicians strike deals all the time. They succumb to the lobbyists because they get financial sustenance from then for winning elections. If Obama took only the interest of ordinary citizens and work them into a bill it was bound to be labeled DOA (dead on arrival) at Capitol Hill. No group will support that if there is nothing in it for them, be they doctors, insurance companies, pharma companies, or congressmen (be they democrats or republicans). So the Obamacare was a compromise. It was passed by a democratic majority (that too with a lot of difficulty in the Senate due to a filibuster) with help from AMA, insurance companies, pharma companies etc. Any compromise is bound to have shortcomings. If the Supreme Court discards certain provisions as unconstitutional and keeps the rest intact that is another compromise. If they completely reject it it is pure judicial activism which is a travesty.
June 22, 2012 4:39pm
Obama "No We Can't!" took Single-Payer off his table setting way far before his Obamamaniacs flocked to the polls. Those still devoted to Obama have distorted recollections regarding the promises they falsely claim Obama was advertising, because they were so loudly cheering while he was campaign dissembling.
QUOTE: “If you’re starting from scratch, then a single-payer system — a government-managed system like Canada’s, which disconnects health insurance from employment — would probably make sense. But we’ve got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that’s not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they’ve known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside.”
— Barack Obama, in an 05/07/2007 New Yorker magazine interview explaining why Americans shouldn't properly replace a criminally corrupt insurance company profit care system that chains people to their employers, and often renders even those who have "insurance" health careless.
In that statement of his position, Obama campaign promised to protect the privatizing rot of the "legacy systems in place" that should be removed.
The disingenuous "public option" is a liberal co-option, created to protect the privatizing rot that should be removed.
"I'm hoping he [Obama] breaks his campaign promises."
— Michael Moore (Democracy Now! interview, on October 31, 2008)
None have protected and preserved this system's evils more faithfully than the "progressives" who have so successfully persuaded too many millions of people to only ever seek the least possible change — to never seek what's actually necessary, and to never "waste" their votes voting for good people's policies, rather than "intelligently" voting for the money manufactured corporate (R) & (D) party candidates' sociopathic policies.
Occupy the 2012 election with support for Jill Stein for president.
http://chenangogreens.org
June 22, 2012 4:05pm
Sorry, pal, but Obama made it very clear from the first that single payer was off the table.
June 22, 2012 4:10pm
This is a reply to 'LARRONM'
June 22, 2012 2:48pm
how to ration health care plan one those who prepay [insurance] or cash get what they can others depend on charity plan two bho 's buddy berwick you get health care dependent on who you are and who you know
ps medicare for all tax jeffrey hill
June 22, 2012 1:05pm
Germany has a Government backed health plan which is tops, I know I had a cataract operation there, along with a private health plan you can choose the private health plan if your salary qualifies. I believe it is 42000. Euros per year.
June 22, 2012 12:10pm
I must disagree. Your comments ignore the reality of the situation which confronted the president and the limited opportunity he faced. First, and foremost, it is totally clear that the Congress would not have passed a plan which contained the "public option". Although the Democrats had majorities in both houses at the time, The filibuster rules made it unlikely that such a bill could have even come to the floor of the Senate. While many on the left were (and still are) partial to a "single payer, Medicare for all" type of plan, it is inconceivable that such a plan could have made it through either house. The forces, armed with unlimited funds, against such a revolutionary idea would have had little trouble killing that idea. In short, the White House had no real options if it was to succeed in passing any form of healthcare reform. Yet they were still faced with tough opposition from the right and other and so were forced to sell the plan they adopted. In the end, it was the election of Al Franken that gave them a shot at 60 votes for cloture. Still, faced with the defection by Sens. Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landreau and Ben Nelson, it came down the consent of the the ladies from Maine to actually bring the measure to a vote on the Senate floor.
The ACA is far from the most ideal reform of healthcare in America, but it is a marked improvement over the previous catch-as-catch-can, you're on your own, non-system. Yes, it is a boon for the insurance industry, the hospital companies, big pharma, et.al. but at least it contains the seeds of reducing costs to individuals and other payers into the system. The basic concept that everyone is covered eliminates the uninsureds care costs being shifted to those of us who do pay for our care. The choices of how we deal with paying for the nation's health care are extremely limited. Those who's livelyhood depends upon the free market system of care providers, will not easily release their hold and they have enormous resources with which to protect their interests. To think that President Obama, or any other president, could bring about changes which would deprive these individuals of their fortunes, their power or their prestiege is to ignore the reality of our world as it is. Not until some catastrophy occurrs will the this nation be willing to let go of the past and adopt a true universal health care system.
June 22, 2012 4:09pm
Sorry, pal, but Obama made it very clear from the first that single payer was off the table.
June 22, 2012 11:44am
Single Payer Medicare-for-All financed by TAXING Billionaires and Milliuonaires.
June 22, 2012 11:26am
Mr Scheer!
I concur!
Do you remember the days when the government and Big Business were not involved with us choosing our healthcare. I believe you and I are about the same age. Surely you do!
Remember when a doctor handled his own paperwork with no HMO on his back? Remember when he would barter with a patient if that patient did not have the funds to pay? Remember how much less it cost to see a doctor?
I have no health insurance and that is not of my own making.
I have many disabilities. But am not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid. I am not eligible for SSI either. Yet I worked most of my life and one of my disabilities ..which is causing other disabilities....comes from my work as a police officer.
When I walk into a university clinic, it costs me between $90 to over $300 to just walk in the door and be seen(and they claim that is half price). I cannot afford it. I cannot find work because of my disabilities. Yet, I gave so much of MY life to protect the lives of the people in SC. Is this fair? Yet, an illegal alien can walk in the door of an ER and be seen and never pay the bill!
I had a kidney stone in 2008. I thought I was having appendicitis. The total bill was over $7000!! It took me years..but I paid it off in increments. I am not a slacker. I pay my bills. But today, it is getting more difficult to pay the bills when they keep going up! I am having to cut back on food and more!
We need people with chutzpah, in Congress, to stand up for us and fix the economy, along with repealing the healthcare law, and let the doctors handle their own affairs. Get rid of the HMOs PPOs etc. They are sucking us dry!