Obama Healthcare Plans Unlikely to Get Much Traction
President Barack Obama’s administration is rolling back into universal healthcare land just like Hillary Clinton tried to way back when. We’ll see if he can survive the shark infested waters any better than she did.
Come on in, the water's fine.
In case you are Rip Van Winkle or someone dropped you on your head so you don’t remember, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton got torn to shreds by insurance lobbiests and other special interest groups. Remember the Harry and Louise ads funded by the Health Insurance Association of American (HIAA), where they sit around fretting about how to pay for their mandatory healthcare insurance?
Now the health insurance guys are whining again. They say they don’t want a “Medicare for all” plan cuz it will drive them all out of business. Or if there is an expanded healthcare they don’t want the government to have the chance to negotiate contracts with doctors and hospitals (unlike them). Oh, and if the government can negotiate with doctors and hospitals they will go out of business too. But isn’t that anti-capitalist to be against negotiating prices? What they might as well say is that they are bloated and inefficient and couldn’t compete with any alternative system. I call the organizations that represent hospitals, insurance, doctors and drug companies the evil Gang of Four.
Clockwise from upper left, AMA, HIAA, PhRMA, AHA
Did you know that Ronald Reagan made promotional videos for the American Medical Association (AMA) that they showed to their members way back in the day, about how they should fight against Medicare, because it was socialized medicine? The AMA really has a disgraceful history and I am glad that their flagship journal, JAMA, is running into rocky shores. The insurance guys and their pals the hospital lobby (American Hospital Association, AHA), the AMA, and pharma (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturer’s Association (PhRMA) are gonna do what they can to confuse and confound. But in the meantime, they have offered to not charge people more for insurance who have pre-existing medical conditions, if everyone is required to buy insurance. This looks like a crumb they are throwing out to try and avoid any new government insurance program or expansion of Medicare.
Here is a handy little chart comparing the pros and cons produced by the New York Times.
Hmmm, do we want more government control, or less of it? More government control, or less? Hmmm.
Maybe we should set up an office pool to see how long “healthcare reform” lasts this time around.
8 Comments
Other Links to this Post
-
Before You Take That Pill Top 10 Blog Posts for 2009 | Before You Take That Pill — December 31, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By Viola, March 25, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
When I was at the National Forum meeting last week I heard an illuminating talk from a writer who has gone around the world comparing different health care systems. Did you know that the UK, with their despicable health care system run by the government (AKA socialized medicine), have overheads <5% on their health care, while the US has 25%? And did you know that France has a insurance-based system, but overheads are still much lower (and overall healthcare costs) than the US? How is it possible? There is a little detail: France’s health care insurance companies are non-profit. Also, as in the case of UK (and many other countries), the system is centrally regulated, which adds efficiency. Until we take the for-profit enterprises out of health care, we will never solve this mess. Many other countries have understood this. Is a never-ending infatuation with capitalism that makes the US so retarded?
By Doug Bremner, March 25, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
Yes, we pay twice as much as any European country and the only one that has worse outcomes is, oddly, Germany. Yes it is an absurd infatuation with capitalism and over influence of special interests which doesn’t make sense for them to say that you shouldn’t be able to negotiate prices.
By Gianna, March 25, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
given I hate western medicine and the only time I would use insurance at this point in my life is in the event of a catastrophic accident I sure as heck don’t want to pay for something I won’t use.
the medical care I choose is all alternative and insurance, unless it changes drastically, will not cover virtually anything…
so I feel very different about this now then I did even 5 years ago when I actually had some faith in western medicine.
By Viola, March 25, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
alternative medicine.. uhmmm… sounds good, but… that’s a business too (with even less scrutiny). well, let’s not get into this disussion.
By JR, March 29, 2009 @ 11:53 am
Living in the UK, I can say our system is far from perfect. Some hospitals have truly third world standards of care, especially if you are elderly. On the other hand our local care from our own doctor’s surgery is generally good. Would not swap for the US system but other European countries e.g France are known to be much better
By Melanie Stephan, October 29, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
The Obama Morning After Pill is going to prove in-effective after Barack screws America over on his Socialist Health Care Plan.
When America wakes up the day after they are going to be sorry they ever let him in their bedroom and/or voted for him.
A Pill can’t cure the problems America will be in if his Bill Passes.
By henry, November 1, 2009 @ 1:38 am
Melanie,
I gather you work for a pharmaceutical or an insurance company. The only intelligent people who are happy with our present system work for one or the other. The rest of us are “screwed” on a daily basis to the tune of billions of dollars a year and are either too dumb to realize it or wondering where we went wrong. I am not happy with the idea of the government having to intervene in health care, but the same self destructive greed that brought us to our knees with the latest financial crisis is operating within the health care system. I have to work with predatory insurance companies on a daily basis and they exert far more control over people’s lives than what the government is proposing. All in the name of free enterprise of course.