Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Washington Talks About Health Care, But Doesn't Offer a Cure

By John Nichols, The Nation. Posted March 9, 2009.


Obama's Forum on Health Reform was so narrowly focused and uninspiring that it almost made Hillary Clinton's bumbling efforts of the 1990s look good.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Immigrants and Health-Care: What Part of LEGAL Doesn't Washington Understand?
Marielena HincapiƩ

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Ugly Truth: Most U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by John Nichols

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Health care reform is a vital and engaging concern for America - and for Americans.

But you would not know it from Thursday's White House Forum on Health Reform, which was so narrowly focused and uninspiring that it almost made Hillary Clinton's bumbling efforts of the 1990s look good.

President Obama sounded some of the right notes:

 

Now I know people are skeptical about whether Washington can bring about this change. Our inability to reform health care in the past is just one example of how special interests have had their way, and the public interest has fallen by the wayside. And I know people are afraid we'll draw the same old lines in the sand, give in to the same entrenched interests, and arrive back at the same stalemate we've been stuck in for decades.

But I am here today because I believe that this time is different. This time, the call for reform is coming from the bottom up, from all across the spectrum - from doctors, nurses and patients; unions and businesses; hospitals, health care providers and community groups. It's coming from mayors, governors and legislatures - Democrats and Republicans - who are racing ahead of Washington to pass bold health care initiatives on their own. This time, there is no debate about whether all Americans should have quality, affordable health care -- the only question is, how?

Unfortunately, that is a mighty major "only question."

And the people who in the past have answered it wrong were in the room and at the table Thursday. Indeed, they were bragging about their successes in blocking past reform initiatives. "I don't see what happened in the '90s as a failure," Congressman Joe Barton, the Texas conservative who is the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told a breakout session at Thursday's forum.

Barton was not an outlier.

The East Room at the White House was packed with the political players, union leaders and corporate lobbyists -- some of them good, many of them bad -- and a few administration-designated "Everyday Americans," who helped to illustrate the depth of the crisis that the insiders have allowed to metastasize over the past decade or so.

Only a handful of serious reformers got in the room.

Thanks to pressure from the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Healthcare, Physicians for a National Health Program, Unions for Single Payer Health Care and the Progressive Democrats of America, an invitation was extended to House Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, D-Michigan, the sponsor of H.R. 676, legislation that seeks to create a the single-payer insurance program that would take profiteering out of the health care system.

A few other real reformers were heard from -- including Californian Congressman Pete Stark.

And Dr. Oliver Fein, the director of Physicians for a National Health Plan was in the room.

But right before the doctor from Physicians for a National Health Plan on the White House list of "Community Leaders and Stakeholders Expected to Attend" were the CEOs of Pfizer and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).

And while the doctor was not included on any of the lists of breakout session speakers, the CEOs were, along with representatives of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, America's Health Insurance Plans, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and the Business Roundtable.

In other words, the overwhelming weight of opinion at what was supposed to be a wide-ranging discussion of health reform was -- at best -- on the side of tinkering with the existing for-profit system.

Change we can believe in was not on the agenda.

Who could have put it there?

Dr. Quentin Young, the Chicago physician who served as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s personal physician and whose medical office once included a young Chicago activist named Barack Obama on its patient list, ought to be at the table. Here's Young discussing his support for single payer.

And where, on the lost list of members of Congress present, was the name of U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin? Elected to Congress as an outspoken advocate for single-payer health care, the Wisconsin Democrat is a member of the key committee in the House that deals with health care issues -- Energy and Commerce -- and she has succeeded in developing bipartisan coalitions that allow for state experimentation with various reform plans. In other words, she's a principled yet very practical player in the debate.

Baldwin should have been speaking.

So, too, should have been the working nurses of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee (CNA/NNOC), the union that represents 85,000 RNs in all 50 states.

Ardent advocates for real reform, CNA/NNOC members correctly argue that: "Insurance-based reform will fail, and undermine public trust; only Medicare for All can achieve administration goals"

Here's what the nurses are saying:

 

While welcoming President Obama's call for achieving "comprehensive" healthcare reform this year, "a laudable commitment and a huge departure from the dismal healthcare policies of the past eight years," the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee warned that most of proposals floating around Congress would default on the promise and principles set by the administration.

"And, they would almost certainly fail to contain the rising costs that put so many families in peril or to repair our broken healthcare system," said CNA/NNOC Co-president Geri Jenkins, RN.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: obama, health care

John Nichols is The Nation's Washington correspondent.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
All of you whinners and cry babies need to
Posted by: TruthBeTold on Mar 9, 2009 12:49 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SHUT UP. I for one am tired of your whinning because the President hasn't done what YOU want, forgetting that there are millions of people in this country who NEED.

Use your voices to go after the Reich-winged republicans who don't care what you WANT or NEED and who are doing everything in their power, alone with the excuses that pass for journalist in this country, to undermine any effort the President makes.

If you can't do that, then try keeping your mouths closed and let the adults try to find solutions. You have not offered any.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What are you whining about? Posted by: bthespoon
Giving health unsurers a seat and a voice
Posted by: bthespoon on Mar 9, 2009 12:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
at the table to help us solve the problem of health care injustice in America, but not Dr. Quentin Young, is like giving the KKK a seat and voice at the table to help us solve Civil Rights, but not Dr. Martin Luther King.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

John Thornley
Posted by: MsVeganee on Mar 9, 2009 1:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What this country needs is a Surgeon General that understands humans are herebafores. The single payer health insurance should focus on preventing premature generative diseases.
Most people are eating faux food sold in markets,etc. and are not concerned with the components of proper nutrition; they believe the most delicious and stimulating cooked foods to be the healthiest. It took me many years of research to find out what my body really needs. This information should be the main part of our governments health plan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama says "NO" to single payer
Posted by: bthespoon on Mar 9, 2009 1:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Helen Thomas asks real questions

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
March 5, 2009

PRESS BRIEFING
BY PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS


Helen Thomas asks:

Q In that respect, I want you to reconcile two things.

MR. GIBBS: Okay.

Q In prepared remarks the President said every voice must be
heard. He also said, "I want it to be clear at the outset, everyone
has a right to take part in the sessions." But you have barred two
people who are strongly for single-payer. And Conyers had to beg to
come.
MR. GIBBS: Who was barred?

Q You barred Dr. Angell -- Marcia Angell and Dr. Quentin Young,
both staunch advocates of single-payer Medicare for all.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I am pretty sure that their -- those viewpoints are
represented in that room.

Q Why were they barred?

MR. GIBBS: I will certainly check on -- I told Chip we rented a big
room, but we didn't get the Nationals' baseball stadium. There's a
lot of people that are involved. There were a limited number of
seats, but a lot of different viewpoints. We could have had 535
members of Congress, in addition to all these stakeholders, because I
think everybody is going to be involved in this.

I would also say I think this is the first of many discussions and
many issues --

Q I think it was quite an insult to Conyers.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I -- look, there were a lot of members of Congress
that wanted to come and were added to the list. Again, I thi! nk
there's a lot of people that are involved in this process; the bill
will go through many committees and I think -- I think a lot of
different viewpoints will be expressed today. And I think many of
those viewpoints will have somebody to make them.

Q Why is the President against single-payer?

MR. GIBBS: The President doesn't believe that's the best way to
achieve the goal of cutting costs and increasing access.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FAIR:Media Blackout on Single-Payer Healthcare
Posted by: mmckinl on Mar 9, 2009 2:51 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"March 07, 2009 "FAIR" -- Major newspaper, broadcast and cable stories mentioning healthcare reform in the week leading up to President Barack Obama's March 5 healthcare summit rarely mentioned the idea of a single-payer national health insurance program, according to a new FAIR study. And advocates of such a system--two of whom participated in yesterday's summit--were almost entirely shut out, FAIR found.

Single-payer--a model in which healthcare delivery would remain largely private, but would be paid for by a single federal health insurance fund (much like Medicare provides for seniors, and comparable to Canada's current system)--polls well with the public, who preferred it two-to-one over a privatized system in a recent survey (New York Times/CBS, 1/11-15/09). But a media consumer in the week leading up to the summit was more likely to read about single-payer from the hostile perspective of conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer than see an op-ed by a single-payer advocate in a major U.S. newspaper.

Over the past week, hundreds of stories in major newspapers and on NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, NPR and PBS's NewsHour With Jim Lehrer mentioned healthcare reform, according to a search of the Nexis database (2/25/09-3/4/09). Yet all but 18 of these stories made no mention of "single-payer" (or synonyms commonly used by its proponents, such as "Medicare for all," or the proposed single-payer bill, H.R. 676), and only five included the views of advocates of single-payer--none of which appeared on television.

FAIR:Media Blackout on Single-Payer Healthcare

Last week on Washington Week Nina Tottenberg mentioned single payer as the only answer to our health care problems. This last weekend she wasn't there on Washington Week. Coincidence?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's just about paying claims
Posted by: ergo3 on Mar 9, 2009 8:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me the argument for private v. public health insurance misses the point. In either system, the primary function is to pay claims for services rendered. That's it! That's what Medicare does, that's what private insurers do: pay claims. The only real question is which system can pay claims more efficiently and less expensively. Clearly, public systems win this "competition" in a landslide.

The public system (Medicare and S-CHIP) does not ration care. Nearly every health care provider in the US is part of the pool, so the insured can select any provider he/she wishes. Medicare takes everyone eligible regardless of current health status; the private system does not. The private system rations care and provider pools. The most cost-effective private coverage, an HMO, severely limits which providers the insured may choose. Private insurers determine the type and amount of medical attention you may receive, determines what is the "reasonable cost" they will participate in (off-loading what they deem to be above their unilateral determination of "reasonable" back on to the insured), decide what is considered "experimental" and whether a treatment recommended by your medical team will be paid for, in part or at all. Ask your own personal physician how much time he/she spends fighting private insurers to pay for their patients' recommended treatment compared to their Medicare patients.

In addition, the Medicare payment system is transparent. Medicare publicly publishes their reimbursement rates. Try getting this same information from a private insurer. You will be told that this is proprietary information, the private insurer's equivalent of "Go to hell!"

So ...which insurer should be the bill-payer of health interventions: The one which can pay bills at less cost, has a larger provider pool from which you can select, and makes reimbursement rates transparent; or one that is secretive, restricts the choice of health providers you may go to (i.e. "out of network"), decides which procedures recommended by your medical team are eligible for reimbursement, rations care, and is from five to ten times more costly to administer?

If you were going to buy a car, why would you intentionally pay Cadillac prices for a Corolla and have your choices of make and model restricted and the dealer you can buy the car from? It really is as simple as that when it comes to health care too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm learning to hate doctors. I have already learned to hate hospitals, big pharma, and
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Mar 9, 2009 10:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
health insurance companies. That is just about everybody in the health care system. Why shouldn't I?

In the 1990s the polls showed 70% of the citizenry wanted federal help for health care. In the ensuing argument the 30% won. Why should I forgive them? The question right now is what will happen when 90% of the citizenry wants federal intervention? Will the 10% win?

Experience tells us that it not what is said but rather the tone of voice it is said in. I am covered by medicare. I am poor. I have no supplementary insurance. The doctor usually makes me the last patient of his day. We usually waste a little time in conversation. So there I am sitting in the waiting room by myself reading and I overhear a conversation. One of the staff asks the other what there is left (me). The answer was we have only one and he ONLY HAS MEDICARE. This was said in a tone dripping with contempt. Surely the tone would have been better suited for ax murders or child molesters. I just did not go back for a year. I'm 70. I guess I really should have checkups. They made me mad. They were insulting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tiffany & Co sliver jewelry and diamonds provider.Selections include silver rings, silver necklaces
Posted by: tiffany_jewelry on Mar 12, 2009 7:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tiffany and Co. has an unsurpassed reputation for sophisticated luxury. The tiffany jewellery is exquisite.
tiffany necklace
tiffany earring
tiffany pendant
tiffany ring

Store your Tiffany sterling silver jewelry in tarnish prevention cloths or bags . The treated cloth slows down the tarnishing process and

keeps the tiffany jewelry from rubbing against harder jewelry that can scratch it. Try to to keep your tiffany pendants in a cool, dry

place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement