Obama Helps The Healthcare Industry Stack The Deck

By Steve Hynd

The big news for today is that the Obama administration, Dems on the Hill and the Healthcare Industry's fat cats have made a deal, with the latter offering to "squeeze $2 trillion in savings from projected increases over the next decade". The quid-pro-quo appears to be that single-payer won't be an option for healthcare reform under this administration.

Marc Ambinder focusses on the political implications, but Ezra Klein points out the deal being made, trading political oomph for money:

This is one of those moments when new words are being used to drown out ongoing actions. A major source of potential savings, at least in the administration's estimation, will come from comparative effectiveness review. But the pharmaceutical industry and the device industry -- both of which are represented here -- fought violently against CER when the Obama administration sought to include it in the stimulus. By the end, they had managed to win legislative language stating that comparative effectiveness studies wouldn't include cost-effectiveness and wouldn't be used to make coverage decisions. Another source of potential savings is the public plan, which can marry best practices with federal bargaining power to push down costs. The insurance industry has gone to war against this provision.

What we have, in other words, are promises of future cost containment that exist alongside concrete and continued opposition to the cost containment ideas that are actually on the table. And for good reason. A 1.5 percentage point decrease in health spending is a 1.5 percentage point decrease in medical industry profits. This commitment doesn't contain any examples of concessions that will reduce a participant's revenue streams. Conversely, every time legislators have proposed a reform that will actually cut industry profits -- and thus cut health spending -- the industry has howled in pain and anger. It's hard to sync that with promises to cut spending by $2 trillion over the next 10 years by implementing a set of unspecified reforms.

Indeed, the straight read of today's transaction is rather different. The White House gets messaging help. The health care industry secures, as Karen Tumulty says, "a seat at the negotiating table." The question is what they'll do with it.

The big test is not today. It's a month from now. In June, the Finance Committee will release the first version of its health reform bill.

But the signs from the Hill are not encouraging. You won't find single-payer advocates being called to give evidence before Baucus's committee:

Despite polling that shows a clear majority of public and physician support for a single-payer system, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, has stated on multiple occasions that single payer is “off the table” of health reform.

Today’s round table, the second of three, consisted of 15 witnesses with no single-payer advocates among them. By contrast, several witnesses have direct ties to the for-profit, private health insurance industry.

...“It’s a pretty spectacular display of raw political power,” said Russell Mokhiber of Single Payer Action. “The health insurance industry demands that not one of the 15 people who testified today shall be a single-payer advocate. And the industry gets what it wants. It’s time for the American people to storm the gates and demand – put single payer on the table.”

Indeed, when eight single-payer advocates, including doctors, stood up during the opening comments of recent hearings to ask why their viewpoint was being excluded they were removed by Capitol police.

The above link and video come via our researcher, Kat, who writes: "You gotta hear the contempt in Baucus' voice when he says 'We need more police' - and then laughs as if to say these single-payer advocates don't have a clue.

Our friend Libby Spencer gets to the heart of what's wrong with the deal, from the other end of the income spectrum:

I have news for these people. I was already priced out of the present costs over a year ago and see nothing in my future that will allow me to meet payments that are contained by 1.5 percent. On a $750 monthly payment, we're talking about what, about $11.00? Sardonic laughter.

We need a affordable single payer option. Why aren't we seeing that on the table in these sham negotiations?

Because the Obama administration and Hill Democrats have helped the fat cats stack the deck inreturn for political messaging support and campaign contributions, Libby.

Comments

[Ron Beasley]

I'm not all that worried about this yet. Even the FAUX news talking heads said the agreement was meaningless. That doesn't mean you don't need to keep letting your lawmakers what you think.

[James]

Just a reminder that The Left End of the Dial is no longer a functional blog - it's in fact been deleted. The contents have all been transferred to my new blog, Notes From Underground.

http://dasnotesfromunderground.blogspot.com/

Please update your blogroll. Thanks.