Sebelius makes case for new U.S. health plan

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Washington Post/Reuters

Sebelius makes case for new U.S. health plan

By Donna Smith
Reuters
Wednesday, May 6, 2009 3:42 PM



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Wednesday said a proposed government health insurance plan backed by President Barack Obama would compete with private insurers rather than lead to a socialized system as Republicans claim.

In her first appearance before a congressional panel since taking office, Sebelius fielded questions about a new government health plan that would help cover the estimated 46 million uninsured Americans.

"Dismantling the private market ... is not something the president supports. He supports moving forward and filling the gap, not disrupting the entire market," Sebelius told the House Ways and Means Committee.

Republican and private insurers argue that a government-run plan would drive insurance companies out of business. Sebelius said it would inject competition in the market, keep costs low and help cover the uninsured.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/06/AR2009050602639_pf.html

[peace13]

1. And so it goes.

They were holding Sebelius up not only for her early views on abortion but because she is willing to work with Obama to get Americans the health care that they need. It's all so clear now.

[vaberella]

5. yeah....but for some DUers...sigh. It's never enough. n/t

[lamp_shade]

2. I watched the hearing. She gave a highly impressive performance.

She's one smart cookie.

[vaberella]

4. I love her. Pass me to her video. n/t

[lamp_shade]

28. Repeats at 8:00 tonight - cspan-2 (2 hours)

[vaberella]

29. thanks...i'll bookmark this thread as a reminder. n/t

[vaberella]

3. Technically both the Repubs and Sebelius are right.

Eventually Crowd-Out will happen no matter what. So private insurance will eventually be driven out of business because they wouldn't be able to compete and even though businesses get tax breaks from using private insurance...Common sense will say they will drop private insurance by having their workers on the government plan affecting the private market and resulting in crowd-out. Fine. So eventually the government entity will reighn supreme in the end. However, before the full on group of people join the government plan---it will inject major competition in the market and lower cost basically dismantling Big Pharma who will have to lower costs. In the end everyone wins EXCEPT private insurance.

[Soylent Brice]

7. i like it.

it's not exactly what i want, when i want it. but damn i hope you're right. it would be sweet if it worked out that way.

[vaberella]

12. Hmmm....I've studied and discussed this..it's an eventuality.

Eventually private insurance gets eliminated..or becomes so small that they are obsolete because the government ends up basically controlling medical care and ALL doctors will approve this form because they will always get paid. It's like getting paid by HMOs---nice set paycheck every month in large amounts.

Most people who fear that if it's not single-payer it's nothing are being extremely silly. I find it ridiculous to be honest. Because the government run will become dominated while the paid insurance will slowly be dismanteled and doctors cared about getting paid. Plus they'll get paid every time you go...so in the end the Doctors win. The real issue is about the whole transplant situation---but through this new government plan you'd have government agencies that would be monitoring the whole "transplant" issue so doctors and hospitals will not be at liberty to be discriminatory as to who gets the transplant in the case of those with private insurance over those without.

England has a small private insurance and so does Canada. But I can tell you if the people were to have their public insurance/public government removed there would be an uproar since probably about 98% of people are on the private plan.

[droidamus2]

9. If that's the case

If the case is that ultimately private insurance will be eliminated why go through the interim period and just go to 'single payer'. If President Obama's ultimate intent is to push the private insurers out of business and he believes in being open and transparent then why doesn't he just come out and support 'single payer'? This sounds a lot like the typical Democratic milktoast approach of 'its too hard to get single payer right now. We might even lose so we won't even try'. When will the party grow some balls and take advantage of their superior numbers and do what is right?

[vaberella]

18. Politics....and the good majority of people who are on the fence for single payer.

There's politics and you seem a bit unaware of this nations fickleness. Polls are always shifting when it comes to single payer. It's not about it being "too hard" it's about keeping public interest in it. Let's be serious this was discussed when HRC was promoting it. Her gains were ruined by a few good commercials and there was total upheavel. In order to do a slow transition it's to basically maintain public support for this. If you want your private...give them the option until others who are on the government plan say the positive points it brings and those people will swtich over without a complete backlash against it.

I'm surprised you'd make your statement, because if you think logically he's breaking the arguments of the private insurance companies who have deep pockets, and huge influence not only in the Repub party but also the Democratic party who could push things towards the insurance companies. By doing this he covers his bases. He ignores their arguments because the private companies will still be intact but the public run will eventually take hold and provide for those who are don't have it and that will also take on peoples who can't afford to maintain private insurance and later businesses who will see it cheaper to have their people on public. This goes for the small businesses who definitely have their workers flood the public market.

Logically it's a smart move and i agree. It's not about having balls, it's about having brains.

[droidamus2]

38. See your point

In the many years I have watched the play back and forth between the parties one of the techniques the Republicans have used is to get the Democrats to pass a watered down version of a program and then they spend the next 10 years bitching about it not living up to expectations and berating it to the point they convince the public it was a bad idea to begin with. So I guess what I am saying there is a risk either way gradual or right now. I still don't see why single payer isn't at least on the table. They can always fall back to the public/private option as a matter of fact they would be a good trade off. Put single payer on the table and when they get down to negotiating if they have to make a compromise that is what they could give up. That way they might be able to get the strongest version of public/private possible. One question, if a person opts for the public version is that going to be just signing up for medicare with maybe some kind of payroll deduction to cover it or will it be just like private insurance but run by the government. Personally I would rather do the payroll tax with guaranteed coverage for the unemployed.

[vaberella]

41. But that's ultimately the main problem.

Remember when the stimulus bill was being passed and the stupid Republicans picked on this and that and used it as leverage to water it down to oblivion? To the point where 900 million towards infectious disease meds were off the table?! That's what O needed.

There was an article a few weeks back about how the Repubs met with O about the reconciliation process. And O wanted to go around them. Apparently in the article a REpub official stated that O spent the whole time stating that they obstructed his bill over and over again even when they worked to try to get them on board. And over and over for everything else they have said no...and yet they don't want reconciliation. Well O said, pointed out their actions and that he was keeping tabs.

Later on someone stated an interview with O where he stated as a candidate that he gives people the benefit of the doubt...if he sees people taking advantage of that and using it against him, he would (and I quote), "crush them"...people laughed but you could tell he was serious.

O did all he did so that he could push reconciliation which is on the table. That means that he won't be watering his plan by that much...unless it's in financing. If the Repubs can't handle it, he'll basically pass it with the 51 votes and say fuck them. I definitely have maybe a bit of faith that is more than most in my President, but he hasn't failed me yet. Even when I thought he has, he has come through. So in this regard though, his moves are on point.

You demand single payer without seeing the major political ramifications. HRC pushed Universal healthcare to the demise of her objective before it even got started. Taking it off provides a cushion, a comfort zone of sorts. People rail and rave...but all you have to do is look back on HRC's past and you'll see what would have happened to O. By having him going on record to state single payer---in the strictest sense is not an option due to the situation we have. Then you have Dean redefining single payer to something similar to the universal health care in Europe...it provides maneuverability. Room to make the changes you want.

All together it seems that you might be open to his plan after my statements on it, but just want single payer listed. Why? Why must it be there when we know very well the Senate OVERALL won't buy it. We know they won't and it would make O's argument ineffectual. He's making his argument as strong as possible...without having it run out the way HRC's was (which was a great plan). He's understanding the political climate and then using that to his advantage.

Overall, and I've watched Sebelius her argument supports the fact that no matter what private insurance will be taken out of the picture. She can say what she wants but a public option on a national level undermines the state level and makes it open to everyone. It will be flooded no matter what. The way the interview went it seemed that she calmed a few nerves but any logical person knows it basically puts universal plan ahead.

Added to the legislation---I hope McDermott proposes---it will lead to massive and I mean massive scale changes in the system and make universal healthcare even more inevitable---possibly over time leading to private insurance being phased out and diluting Big Pharma, to allow room for generic drugs from government entities. This will be a break through in all things medicine. Making medicine cheap and encouraging O's plan for community participation.

As I stated earlier the key is to go for "low hanging fruit" and we all know that single-payer is NOT low hanging fruit.

[droidamus2]

47. I trust Obama too

It is not so much that I distrust Obama I think he is doing his job and probably will get pretty much what he wants which is obviously better than nothing. I am willing to try it his way but the ones I don't trust are whoever follows him. We'll see if slow drowning the insurance companies actually works. As to the HRC plan I felt the wedge issue that was used most effectively by the Republicans was the fact that it was being done behind closed doors with the questioning of Hillary's qualification running a close second. Though killing single payer may have been the real focus I don't remember it really being the center of the debate. Who knows I'm gettin' older maybe I just 'misreremembered' it.

[SkyDaddy7]

30. So try what you want knowing it won't work?

I think Obama is in the White House because he knows what he is doing...Just a guess.

[peace13]

10. Ultimately private is out because they don't want to insure sick people.

Kinda like only insuring cars without engines.

[vaberella]

22. You could say that but my statement is on an economic trend of what would happen. n/t

[rocktivity]

14. America has survived the "crowding out" of

the horse and buggy
8 track tapes
non-digital cameras
gaslights
streetcars
typewriters
Atari
Pet rocks
cloth diapers
variety shows
fountain pens
bell-bottomed jeans (at least twice)

America can survive the crowding out of for-profit health care. We DON'T want to crowd it out? WHY???

:headbang:
rocktivity

[vaberella]

21. uh...of course we survive crowd-out...

It's not about surviving..it's about shutting up Republicans. Hence O takes away the argument of crowd-out that will most definitely happen. Anyway most of the workers who worked in private insurance will move to public insurance firms and hospitals...so they will survive just fine. The whole point...again is to have the Repubs keep quiet and so those commercials and arguments that were used against HRC in the 90s won't hold any sort of water today because private insurance will have their businesses. At the same time people will flood the private market. All people on cobra, all people who pay for health insurance, probably all people on medicare, and then you have the 46 million people move into 150 million. This doesn't even count the fact that it would be cheaper for small businesses to push their workers on the public plan even though they get tax rebates....it's not enough compared to their expense.

It's a good plan.

[kaygore]

19. "Everybody wins except insurance companies" AND don't forget

those blood sucking, lying, cheating,arrogant, greedy, murdering drug companies!

[vaberella]

23. I didn't forget them. I mentioned Big Pharma. n/t

[kaygore]

33. I know; I was just reemphasizing as you did with the ins. companies.

Was not meant as criticism. I was agreeing with you.

[vaberella]

36. Oh...

I didn't take it as criticism...just that you probably missed it in my post. Yeah...Big Pharma is a bitch. I hate those guys...selling people sicknesses.

[droidamus2]

6. Why, why, why?

Why do these fools think it is their responsibility to 'protect the market' I thought the whole idea was to lower the cost of 'health care' not protect insurance companies. If the time has come to end the idea of 'health' insurance in this country so be it. Yes, it would have economic ramifications but that is the way of progress. When a product or service becomes antiquated or unneeded anymore it makes no sense for the government to prop it up for a few more years or decades just because it used to have value. What they should be looking at is not what is good for 'the market', the HMOs, the hospitals and the doctors but what is good for the patients. They can't let the 'insurance companies' go down but will the government option keep people from being bankrupted by catastrophic health care costs. That should be the primary question does it lower the cost of general health care and protect citizens from losing their life savings due to catastrophic health problems. I think making it so everybody has or has to have insurance is about the least they could possibly do. Washington does this all the time so for the next 10 years they can say 'oh we already addressed health care we don't need to visit that again now we have more pressing things to do'.

[Pharaoh]

11. The insurance companys are

nothing but middle men. They produce nothing but paperwork and prey on the suffering of others. They are for profit, not for people.

[vaberella]

26. they are not protecting the market. Where are you getting this information?

Did you not read there is a competitive public plan? Where is the rationale for transition to make public opinion resounding. People are bloody fickle in this nation about single payer and taht's for those who have an idea about. There's a good 40 some odd percent who dont' ahve a clue but know their against it because of Repubs. This is to make sure that the public plan is on the table and that will in and of itself dismantle the private insurance. This is why progressives are rarely successful in their ventures. They don't have a clue about low hanging fruit. You make sure that you have success on a small scale...once people start seeing the positivity of public plan and the way it provides and meets their need...PEOPLE will move into the public plan which would destroy the private plan. If you force it on them thinking it's the best for them...you don't get anywhere. when you give them the option people are more welcoming to the idea and makes change easier.

Your plan would not be successful and you'd face the same fate as HRC's plan did.

[droidamus2]

40. Just read

On another thread they are saying that the insurance companies are 'suggesting' that Congress add more rules and regulations to the health insurance industry but drop the public option. This is what I mean about the 'reasonable approach'. When you do that you are establishing that as a beginning point for negotiations, that is if you want to give the opposition any say on the final legislation. So go ahead and keep everything on the table and discuss all of it otherwise your going to get way less than you want or expect. On the other hand so far President Obama and his staff have been really good at playing these political games so I think I will just sit back and see how they counter act the industry lobbyists and gets this stuff implemented.

[vaberella]

43. The insurance companies can suggest what they want..

Did you hear O at the health summit or listen to what Sebelius said and a lot of the Dems were saying about health care and even some Repubs. Public option will remain on the table and fuck the insurance companies. When O was helping Chrysler what did he say to the American people?! He's not there for the lobbyists or the banks or big business. He was there for the American people and the workers who keep this nation going. That being said, and I've said before, I trust my President to stand by his word has he has many times before and he, Sebelius, Dean, and everyone else around him and himself have said---and he promoted on the campaign---a public option is on the table.


I mean we had a shitty President for 8 years so I respect the fact you are weary to trust any politician. That I can't blame. But looking at O's record and what he's stood for and done in the past---he's come through many many times and still continues to come through. He stands firm on a public option AND so does his HHSS. Plus he has enough back up to get things through...so the insurance companies will have their voice...but O is listening to ours...46 million+ which drowns out the voice of 10 health insurance companies.

[droidamus2]

48. You misunderstand

I don't have a problem with Obama I think he will try to do everything he says he will and be successful at most of them. The real people I have a problem with are the Democrats in Congress and the effect lobbyists have on them. I think Obama is one of the better Democratic politicians I have seen strategically and tactically and going to the American people to build support is a great idea. The problem is that in my life the Democratic congresses have had this perverse habit of giving Democratic presidents almost as much crap as they give the Republicans. I don't support politicians toeing the party line 100% of the time I don't think that is their job but when a big opportunity (having a strong president and control of Congress with possibilities of further gains) like this presents itself I would hope they would put their own power games aside and see this as the opportunity it is to get some things the people have wanted for a long time done. Again I have learned through the years that no President or politician is going to be able to keep a person happy all the time I guess this is one of those cases that I'll just have to sit back and see if Obama's way works.

[thesquanderer]

34. transition is necessary

Government can't just abolish an entire industry overnight by taking over its function. It's better to let the old companies try to compete, adapt, find market niches, and see if they can somehow survive as well. Remember that those companies themselves employ many people, their stocks are in many 401ks, etc., etc. There would be lots of negative consequences if all those companies just folded. And practically speaking, any new government program will take time to implement. Things will run more smoothly if the current system can continue to function and "overlap" with the beginning of the new alternative.

[newinnm]

45. How long would you like to see an overlap?

[mike_c]

8. half-assed "reform" that protects profits of the blood-sucking insurance corporations....

Same as it ever was.

[vaberella]

24. You have absolutely no clue if you're making that statement. n/t

[mike_c]

39. sorry-- I want REAL reform....

Single payer universal health care. NOT another flavor of "insurance." I will not support anything less, and I'll urge my representatives to do likewise.

[vaberella]

42. You don't want real reform. You want what you want.

Real reform starts with small changes. My professor in Urban Planning spoke about how progressives want things. He worked in the field with environmentalists and he was one. He got a job working for the EPA and did some major changes in NYC. The environmentalists were calling for this and that. He said clearly to them if I don't do what I can well then I won't be able to do the major stuff later. You need to manage the political world. You saw how the political world when Bush got elected twice, both of which were basically stolen from Dems. Yet, you think screaming it has to be this and ONLY this will be change...then you don't have a clue as to how change can happen in the US. It takes time---it took O two years, and it takes 8 years of failure in order for us to change.

We need to move where we can and follow the system. You'll NEVER get things done the way you're going. You'll just be running around in circles while the world around tries to manage.

[madfloridian]

13. That's what Dean has been pushing for basically.

Isn't it?

So we are against that public option now as well?

DU confuses my mind.

[Politicub]

15. Yes! They're going for it - the competitive gov't plan

I love it.

[WatchWhatISay]

16. If we now have private insurance via a small businees employer

but it is ridiculously high ($15,000 and year for three people) and doesnt cover a lot, with very high deductibles and lots of exclusions, will we be able to get on the government plan?

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. Dismantling the private market

is exactly what needs to happen.

[vaberella]

27. +1. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

51. And that is exactly what the President promised not to do during the campaign

[Infomaniac]

20. I thought the NOPers believed competition was a good thing.

Apparently not when it comes to protecting their campaign contributions.

[Old Coot]

25. Everyone should be required to have health insurance.

The concern I have about the President's plan is that there is no requirement that everyone have health insurance. This means that many young or otherwise healthy will choose to NOT have coverage and not pay into the system. The older and unhealthy will be expensive to insure.

In order to work, everyone should have health insurance and all health plans must cover anyone who applies for coverage. Otherwise, the people who need health care will not be covered unless the government plan will cover anyone with no regard to health. If so, the the government plan will not be able to compete with private insurers who would continue to NOT insure the people who really need coverage.

I don't understand why the President is against everyone having insurance.

[harun]

50. Insurance is not equal to coverage. Why does anyone still think this?

If you have insurance that doesn't pay for the procedures you get what good is it?

There is a reason why every industrialized nation DOES NOT HAVE insurance, because it is stupid and they make more money when they don't pay for coverage.

H.R. 676.

[quidam56]

31. Health care needs a cure

In Tennessee and Virginia, Profit Care comes ahead of Patient Care.

http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=62

[Old Coot]

32. Post removed.

[OwnedByFerrets]

35. We dont need a GD fucking NEW plan....

Medicare/Medicaid works just great...It should be available to EVERYONE!! But that would piss off too many corporations who make money by DENYING care to sick people. So, of course, we wont do it. We are so fucking stupid in this country.:mad:

[vaberella]

37. Read post # 3 and # 18. You're wrong. n/t

[Merlot]

44. Are there 46 million people working in the insurance industry?

Because otherwise, we're saving the jobs of a few at the expense of the many who are uninsured.

"Republican and private insurers argue that a government-run plan would drive insurance companies out of business."

[HughBeaumont]

46. People being bankrupted for the unfortunate crime of illness don't have time for "baby steps".

This transition better include the caveat that, FROM THIS DAY FORWARD, it would be considered predatory and illegal for insurers to pursue cases where a person will likely lose their life savings, house and livelihood, or be an indentured servant to the insurers, for the crime of getting sick.

This is corporate bullshit at its most callous.

No more "Sicko" stories. People are suffering enough thanks to wages that haven't risen to match the cost of living since 1979. They DO NOT NEED this.

[harun]

49. They talk about driving insurance companies out of business like it is a bad thing.

It's the frickin solution.

[Odin2005]

52. Driving the insurance companies out of business is a BAD thing?

Idiots.

YAY SEBELIUS!!!