Health Care Industry in Talks to Shape Policy

[Thrill]

WASHINGTON — Since last fall, many of the leading figures in the nation’s long-running health care debate have been meeting secretly in a Senate hearing room. Now, with the blessing of the Senate’s leading proponent of universal health insurance, Edward M. Kennedy, they appear to be inching toward a consensus that could reshape the debate.

Many of the parties, from big insurance companies to lobbyists for consumers, doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, are embracing the idea that comprehensive health care legislation should include a requirement that every American carry insurance.

While not all industry groups are in complete agreement, there is enough of a consensus, according to people who have attended the meetings, that they have begun to tackle the next steps: how to enforce the requirement for everyone to have health insurance; how to make insurance affordable to the uninsured; and whether to require employers to help buy coverage for their employees.

The talks, which are taking place behind closed doors, are unusual. Lobbyists for a wide range of interest groups — some of which were involved in defeating national health legislation in 1993-4 — are meeting with the staff of Mr. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, in a search for common ground.

Mr. Kennedy is fighting brain cancer, and participants in the talks said his illness had added urgency to the discussions.

While President Obama is not directly represented in the talks, the White House has been kept informed and is encouraging the Senate effort as a way to get the ball rolling on health legislation.

Kennedy aides summarized discussions of the stakeholders, known as the “workhorse group,” in a recent memorandum obtained by The New York Times.

“While there was some diversity of views,” it said, “the sense of the room is that an individual obligation to purchase insurance should be part of reform if that obligation is coupled with effective mechanisms to make coverage meaningful and affordable.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20health.html?ref=politics

[Wapsie B]

1. Cut the administrative waste in hospitals and insurance companies

before there will be any meaningful healthcare reform. Both parties are trying to keep the system as close as it is right now. There needs to be a fundamental overhaul of the healthcare system in this country.

[rocktivity]

2. Behind closed doors? Where is America's seat at the table?

Why is this being done with no public/patient input? How about some hearings where everyone has a say? Didn't Gingrich's Contract On America teach Kennedy anything?

Senators, you know this isn't complicated: there can be no viable U.S. health care system as long as there are private middlemen pocketing a chunk of the overhead (which is, of course, what the mandatory insurance requirement is all about). Any profits should bounce right back into the public coffers. This is about Obama leading the way in having the will to say that it's more important to keep all Americans alive and well than a handful of them rich enough to kick back campaign contributions.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[ejpoeta]

3. why is the industry getting to shape policy!! that is just ludicrous!!

it's like letting the banks write regulation. geesh!! how is that any different than what we've BEEN doing in this country already!

[Dawgs]

4. It's disappointing that they can't have these talks with a new Sec. of HHS.

Seems like someone will be playing catch up; which is unfortunate.

[lurky]

5. I've decided they have to choose between the health of

the insurance industry and the health of the citizens. As long as they try to keep the insurers happy the people will get screwed. Mandates are back-door regressive taxation and corporate welfare, and I would be willing to bet money that any care provided under such a system will be total crap, despite all their promises.

[Bread and Circus]

6. My fear is that the Democrats are going to come up with a very "American" solution

which will basically amount to subsidizing health insurance with very little sacrifice on the health, pharm, and hospital/ancillary industries.

Costs will go up and we will get more of the corporate run around bait-and-switch treatment.

Every day I'm more and more convinced of SINGLE PAYER federal health insurance.

[Vinca]

7. Me fear, too. When profit can only be made by denying coverage,

there must be a national health insurance program that removes the profit motive.