ROBERT REICH: The Healthcare War is Now Official

[flpoljunkie]

The Healthcare War is Now Official

Yesterday the American Medical Association came out against a public option for health care. And yesterday the President reaffirmed his support for it. The next weeks will show what Obama is made of -- whether he's willing and able to take on the most formidable lobbying coalition he has faced so far on an issue that will define his presidency.

And make no mistake: A public option large enough to have bargaining leverage to drive down drug prices and private-insurance premiums is the defining issue of universal health care. It's the only way to make health care affordable. It's the only way to prevent Medicare and Medicaid from eating up future federal budgets. An ersatz public option -- whether Kent Conrad's non-profit cooperatives, Olympia Snowe's "trigger," or regulated state-run plans -- won't do squat.

The last president to successfully take on the giant health care lobbies was LBJ. He got Medicare and Medicaid enacted because he weighed into the details, twisted congressional arms, threatened and cajoled, drew lines in the sand, and went to war against the AMA and the other giant lobbyists standing in the way. The question now is how much LBJ is in Barack Obama.

The big guns are out and they're firing. All major lobbying firms in Washington -- many of them brimming with ex-members of Congress -- are now crawling all over the Hill. Lots of money is on the table. AMA's political action committee has contributed $9.8 million to congressional candidates since 2000, and its lobbying arm is one of the most formidable on the Hill. Meanwhile, Big Insurance and Big Pharma are increasing their firepower. The five largest private insurers and their trade group America's Health Insurance Plans spent a total of $6.4 million on lobbying in the first quarter of this year, up more than $1 million from the first quarter last year, and are spending even more now. United Health Group spent $1.5 million in the first quarter, up 34 percent from the $1.1 million it spent in the first quarter last year. Aetna spent $809,793 between January and the end of March, up 41 percent from last year. Pfizer, the world's biggest drugmaker, spent more than $6.1 million on lobbying between January and March, more than double what it spent last year. It also spent nearly $3.3 million lobbying in the fourth quarter of 2008. Every one of them is upping their spending.

Some congressional Democrats are willing and able to stand up to this barrage. Many are not. They need cover from the White House.

The President can't do this alone. You must weigh in and get everyone you know to weigh in, too. Bombard your senators and representatives. Organize and mobilize others. And let the White House know how strongly you feel. This is one of those battles that define a presidency. But more importantly, it's one of those battles that define the state of American democracy.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/06/healthcare-war-is-now-official.html

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[liberal N proud]

2. K&R

#5

[Pirate Smile]

3. I think the Democrats are preparing for it: "Democrats clear decks for healthcare"

Democrats clear decks for healthcare

By Ian Swanson
Posted: 06/01/09 08:01 PM

Democrats and the Obama administration are shoving aside issues that divide their party to clear the deck for healthcare reform, which is likely to dominate the rest of the legislative year.

In doing so, the administration appears to be learning from the experiences of the Clinton administration, which engaged in divisive intra-party battles over trade and gays in the military as it fought unsuccessfully for healthcare reform. It also reflects a pivot from earlier this year, when the White House brushed off concerns that its agenda was too ambitious.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-clear-decks-2009-06-01.html

[flpoljunkie]

5. Yes, but are they going to try and ram thru co-ops-instead of a real public option with teeth?

That can drive down the cost of health care. That is the question.

[Willo]

4. How can we hurt the HMOs in this fight?

I wish that a mass of people were able to cancel their health insurance, effective July 1, 2009.

[slipslidingaway]

6. We should look at who was asked to speak at the WH summit

and Congressional hearings.

If you want to fight the big guns then you need to challenge them with people who will say health insurance companies add no value to health care.

Yet those people are not invited, nor are they asked to speak.

:shrug:

:crazy:


Thread from yesterday...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8466697&mesg_id=8466697

"...Besides the lawmakers, it is interesting to note which organizational leaders he (P. Obama) called on to make statements. These included Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans; Dan Danner, president of the National Federation of Independent Businesses; and Ted Epperly, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. A few other audience members were called on for statements, including Fredette West, president of Racial and Ethnic Disparities Health Coalition, and Irwin Redliner (a recently mentioned candidate for U.S. surgeon general) from National Center for Disaster Preparedness at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.

What was my role in all of this? Despite my best efforts, I was unable to make a public statement at the meeting, although thanks to the PNHP staff in Chicago we were able distribute my prepared remarks to the media while the summit was under way..."


Groups Protest Health Insurance Heavyweights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOt5C036D_g

[flpoljunkie]

7. The Dems' Progressive Caucus say they will not vote for a plan w/o a 'good, solid public option'

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/will_the_house_progressive_cau.html

Will the House Progressive Caucus Vote Against Health Reform? An Interview With Rep. Lynn Woolsey.

The theory in health-care reform has been, thus far, that Democrats need to worry about votes on their right flank. But California Rep. Lynn Woolsey, chair of the 80-member House Progressive Caucus, has been arguing the opposite: that Democrats need to worry about their left flank. The majority of her caucus, she says, will vote against a bill that doesn't include a robust public option. That's not been their approach to legislation in the past. But as ardent single-payer supporters, they feel they've compromised enough. We spoke this afternoon. A lightly edited transcript follows.

You've recently released principles defining what the Progressive Caucus would consider an acceptable public plan option. Want to say a bit about them?

The Progressive Caucus would prefer a single-payer system -- 99.9 percent of the 80 members have said they would vote for a single-payer system before anything else. Therefore you have to know what we're looking for, bottom line, is a robust public option that could get us to single payer in the future.

What that means is a public option that's equal to anything anyone else is offering and gets the same level of support as the insurance options and that allows every American to choose that public option if they prefer it.

When you say you want a potential path to single-payer, are you implying things like Medicare bargaining rates or taxpayer subsidies? Or would you accept one of these "level playing field" options that's being talked about?

The devil is in the details, of course. But the public plan won't have the level of marketing and overhead that every one of the insurance plans has. And it won't have to have investors to pay off. The public plan will cost less period. What we are demanding is that they don't subsidize the private plans to make up for their overhead.

Have you paid attention to the co-op alternative that Sen. Kent Conrad announced yesterday?

We didn't see it before we put together our principles. I'm not impressed with that idea myself. I would prefer a plan based on the Medicare model. We know it works! Why try something that we don't know will work?

You said in the Huffington Post that a majority of your caucus would not vote for a health-care reform plan without a public option.

Without a good, solid, public option, we will not vote for it.

[vaberella]

9. Of course and this was confirmed by Nancy Pelosi on The Ed Show.

But I'm not worried about the House...I'm worried about the Senate who will fuck it up.

[slipslidingaway]

12. I'm looking at past actions as an indication of how motivated

P. Obama is about challenging the lobbyists...when you start out by silencing the group most opposed to the HC industry, one has to wonder how tough the fight will be.

:shrug:


"...The next weeks will show what Obama is made of -- whether he's willing and able to take on the most formidable lobbying coalition he has faced so far on an issue that will define his presidency..."

[vaberella]

8. Ugh...I don't know what to say. ConservaDems in the Senate disgust me. n/t

[flpoljunkie]

18. Lieberman told Al Hunt Friday on Political Capital he does not support a public option.

[chill_wind]

10. K & R. n/t

[paulk]

11. Reich has it right

the next few weeks are going to be the defining moment of the Obama Presidency.

One of the main reasons I did not support him in the primaries was a question over whether or not he had the experience or connections to push the legislation he wanted through
Congress.

I hope to God I was wrong and Obama is able to get a real public option, because - as Reich says -

" make no mistake: A public option large enough to have bargaining leverage to drive down drug prices and private-insurance premiums is the defining issue of universal health care. It's the only way to make health care affordable. It's the only way to prevent Medicare and Medicaid from eating up future federal budgets. An ersatz public option -- whether Kent Conrad's non-profit cooperatives, Olympia Snowe's "trigger," or regulated state-run plans -- won't do squat."


anything less would be a failure.

[Hutzpa]

13. Kin\cking and Recomending

Excellent....


:kick: :kick: :kick:

[Teaser]

14. Only a national co-op has a shot at working.

Show me that, Conrad, and maybe I'll not bitch too loud.

[Better Believe It]

19. If it would challenge private insurance Republicans wouldn't support it

The only thing that would work for a national co-op is that it would block a viable public option.

[Cha]

15. I love Robert Reich~

he makes his excellent points with respect and support for our admin!

[Wednesdays]

16. K&R

:kick:

[avaistheone1]

17. Kicking, recommending and organizing. As a former cabinet leader Reich knows what it takes to get

it done. :kick: