February 25, 2010
House Committee Financial Services
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Executive Compensation
Jan 22, 2010
Witnesses testified about compensation practices at financial and non-financial firms. Among the topics addressed were recent bonuses awarded to financial executives at firms that had received federal assistance and possible regulation programs. During the hearing Chairman Frank said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in their current form, are likely to be abolished as Congress looks to reinvent the way houses are financed in the United States
Pawlenty: Let ER's turn away patients to cut costs
- 02/23/10 10:57 AM ET
Emergency rooms should be able to turn patients away to cut costs, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.) said last nightAppearing on Fox News's "On the Record with Greta Van Sustren" last night, Pawlenty said the federal law that mandates ER treatment should be repealed.
"Well, for one thing you could do is change the federal law so that not every ER is required to treat everybody who comes in the door, even if they have a minor condition," Pawlenty said. "They should be -- if you have a minor condition, instead of being at the really expensive ER, you should be at the primary care clinic."
Supporters of the federal law would content that many people go to ERs precisely because they do not have the insurance to pay for a primary care physician.
Van Susteren was also skeptical about Pawlenty's proposal, pointing out that it's difficult to tell what's a minor condition without treating it.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK. OK. But you come in with chest pains, and like, you get horrible chest pains. Now, it could be indigestion, which is minor, or it could be heart, which isn't minor. So then...
PAWLENTY: You have to do a little triage. That's for sure.
VAN SUSTEREN: Right. I mean, so the problem is, it's got -- I mean, there really is sort of -- it's not that easy.
Tim Pawlenty’s Classless Comment
- 02.19.2010 - 12:51 PM During his speech at CPAC earlier today, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty said this:I think we should take a page out of her playbook [Elin Woods, wife of Tiger] and take a nine iron and smash the window out of big government in this country.I’m told from those who know Governor Pawlenty that he is an impressive and decent person, and he certainly has a fine record as governor. But this kind of talk is pretty classless — and strikes me as inauthentic to Pawlenty, as an effort to throw some “red meat” to a conservative crowd.
He doesn’t need to do that. It undermines his appeal. He should speak in an intelligent, mature, serious way to his audience. These are, after all, serious times. Humor is fine and I’m all for tough-minded criticism. But grace and class are important, too. And we don’t need to pull down our political culture with stuff like this.
Michael Steele Calls the Health Care Summit a "Death Panel for the Democrats This Fall"
WTF is Michael Steele talking about here? The Republicans just can't stop themselves from using this sort of eliminationist rhetoric can they? When asked about the Health Care Summit and how he thought it went, Michael Steele throws in some Sarah Palin rhetoric for no good reason I can think of other than some red meat for their base with his prediction for election losses. And of course Steele also doesn't think the President spent enough time listening to the petulant children in the room while they lied and repeated Republican talking points ad nauseum. Steele continues to peddle the lie that if Democrats just adopted more Republican ideas into the health care bill than they did already, Republicans might work with them.
Sorry Michael, but even if the Democrats adopted a bill that was made up of nothing but Republican ideas I think they still would not vote for it. They’ve already proven that by voting against things they championed for in the past and now pretend they didn’t time and time again. The media however continues to let them get away with the hypocrisy. I want to see Steele come on Maddow’s show and try to peddle this same crap. Won’t ever happen since she’d actually call him out for his lies unlike Blitzer.
And honestly as bad as some part of the health care bill are, does Steele honestly think that it's going to be good for Republicans if they do manage to roll it back once and if it becomes law? People thought that Romney care was awful, but it seems the people in Massachusetts are generally happy with it if the polling done on Scott Brown's election is accurate. And I'd just add if they did try to roll parts of it back, it sure as hell would not be the bad parts. These guys have got nothing to offer that helps every day Americans instead of corporations. Nothing.
Transcript via CNN.
BLITZER: Let's get to Michael Steele right now. He's the chairman of the Republican Party. Michael Steele, thanks very much for coming in.
STEELE: Hey, Wolf. Great to be with you, man.
BLITZER: Do you just assume that when all the dust settles in the coming weeks, the Democrats are going to have the up or down vote in the House and the Senate that they need to get healthcare reform passed?
STEELE: I really don't know, right off the top but I would suspect that wherever they are, it's not going to be in a good place. I mean, you had a lot of folks going into yesterday's event, if you will, calling it a dog and pony show for the president and his democrats. Well, I took a slightly different tack on that, a different point of view on it.
For me, just the whole approach of this thing represented more of a death panel for Obama-care. You know, if that wasn't enough, when you come out of this thing and you're looking at the reconciliation fight that may loom ahead of us, it certainly will have represented a death panel for the Democrats this fall.
BLITZER: I'm not exactly following. A death panel. Those were pretty sharp words. What does Michael Steele mean by those words as far as the Democrats and the health care legislation that they wanted enacted?
STEELE: Well, basically what they have done is they've sat in committee now before the nation and effectively by not listens to the American people, by trying to enforce on them a top-down health care system killed any meaningful efforts in my view to get health care done. You saw a president yesterday who interrupted more than he listened. I think that's an important aspect of this to take away from what we saw yesterday. This was a chance for him to sit back as the commander in chief, if you will, of his agenda and listen to both sides and try to find between the talking heads there in the room the common ground, the consensus among the members. Instead, he engaged as if he was a subcommittee chairman trying to beat back efforts by the opposition to get just one more piece of legislation on the table.
BLITZER: He convened the meeting, he was the chairman in effect of that session, right?
STEELE: Yeah, but you can be the chairman of a meeting and still be the one sitting back above the meeting, listening, taking in the points. Gives this is the first time he's engaged the Republicans in any meaningful way. From my perspective, Obama-care hit a wall yesterday and it will be an even bigger wall in my estimation if they go down the road of reconciliation. That's what I mean by a death panel.
BLITZER: It looks like they're going to go down that road one way or another, and Obama-care, as you call it, could be the law of the land pretty soon.
STEELE: I doubt it. The people don't want it. If they go down this road with reconciliation, then come November, there will be a whole new set of lawmakers in the land come to go Washington, because the people will speaking very loud and clear, and then we will begin to undo the damage that has been put in place through Obama-care. It's that simple. This is what the people are wanting out there, and this is what we've been talking about and fighting for. Listen to the people. They're telling you Wolf what they want, man, it's not complicated.
BLITZER: The president made the same point in his summation at the end of that session when he said, you know what? I hope in the next four to six weeks we could get some bipartisan agreement, but he also made it clear he wants 30 million more Americans to have insurance. He says the Republicans are ready to provide 3 million Americans additional insurance -- health insurance over the next ten years. He says on that issue, there doesn't seem to be any way to bridge that gap.
STEELE: But what is in that gap? What is in between 3 million and 30 million? It's money. It's who pays, it's how much. This administration has not adequately addressed that issue. The CBO numbers are all over the place. The impact on small businesses is all over the place. The level of unclarity to what this Obama plan on health care means to me, the small business owner, to me the individual just learned he has cancer, to the individual who's struggling to pay health care costs right now is unclear. So what we've been asking for the president to do, and I applaud leader Boehner and leader McConnell in their efforts to scrap the bill, scrap the bill --
BLITZER: No, the president said he's not going to do that.
STEELE: Let's start with something fresh.
BLITZER: He says he's going forward, and the Democrats are going forward. If they get their 51 votes in the Senate, they just need 50 plus Joe Biden, and Obama-care could be the law of the land pretty soon.
STEELE: It could be, but in the six hours this event went on, we had over 50,000 citizens go to our website, gop.com, and sign a petition, scrap the bill petition, 50,000 Americans in just that six-hour period, saying this is not what we want, you cannot turn a deaf ear to that, you cannot turn a blind out to what people said was a bottom-up solution, and not the bureaucracy and the programs that will come from the various institutions that will be created from it.
BLITZER: The folks will have a chance to decide in November in those midterm elections, dig on what happens in the next several weeks. Michael Steele, always good to have you here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
STEELE: Good to be with you, Wolf.
BLITZER: Michael Steele is the chairman of the Republican Party.
3,300 registered lobbyists working on health care reform
3,300 registered lobbyists working on health care reform
There are now 3,300 registered lobbyists working on the current overhaul of the nation’s health care system, which means that the health care lobbyists outnumber members of Congress (including the Senate) by over six to one.These lobbyists represent over 1,500 organizations (with three more organizations joining the fray each and every day). These organizations have spent $263 million on lobbying during the first six months of 2009, with drug makers leading the spending with $134 million alone. These totals don’t include money spent on other activities, such as the $53 million spent for TV commercials on health care, or the $20.5 million campaign contributions to federal candidates and political parties.
So, if you ever wonder why the politicians don’t listen to the majority of Americans who want single-payer health insurance, just remember that money talks.
Small Business and Commercial Real Estate Lending, Panel 3
Feb 26, 2010
House Committee Financial Services
House Committee Small Business
Witnesses testified on the condition of small business and commercial real estate lending in local markets. Panel 3: Mr. Stephen G. Andrews, President and Chief Executive Officer, Bank of Alameda, Alameda, California, on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers of America Mr. David Bridgeman, Pinnacle Bank, Orange County, Florida Mr. .. Read More
Witnesses testified on the condition of small business and commercial real estate lending in local markets. Panel 3: Mr. Stephen G. Andrews, President and Chief Executive Officer, Bank of Alameda, Alameda, California, on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers of America Mr. David Bridgeman, Pinnacle Bank, Orange County, Florida Mr. William Grant, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, First United Bank & Trust on behalf of the American Bankers Association Mr. Ronald Covey, President and Chief Executive Officer, St. Mary’s Bank, Manchester, New Hampshire on behalf of the Credit Union National Association Mr. Rick Wieczorek, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mid-Atlantic Federal Credit Union on behalf of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions Ms. Cathleen H. Nash, President and Chief Executive Officer, Citizens Republic Bancorp, Michigan on behalf of Consumer Bankers Association Mr. David A. Hoyt, Senior Executive Vice President, Wholesale Banking, Wells Fargo & Company Mr. Charles McCusker, Co-Managing Partner Patriot Capital, L.P. on behalf of NASBIC Ms. Sally Robertson, Business Finance Group Inc., Fairfax County, Virginia on behalf of the National Association of Development Companies
House Committee Financial Services
House Committee Small Business
Witnesses testified on the condition of small business and commercial real estate lending in local markets. Panel 3: Mr. Stephen G. Andrews, President and Chief Executive Officer, Bank of Alameda, Alameda, California, on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers of America Mr. David Bridgeman, Pinnacle Bank, Orange County, Florida Mr. .. Read More
Witnesses testified on the condition of small business and commercial real estate lending in local markets. Panel 3: Mr. Stephen G. Andrews, President and Chief Executive Officer, Bank of Alameda, Alameda, California, on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers of America Mr. David Bridgeman, Pinnacle Bank, Orange County, Florida Mr. William Grant, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, First United Bank & Trust on behalf of the American Bankers Association Mr. Ronald Covey, President and Chief Executive Officer, St. Mary’s Bank, Manchester, New Hampshire on behalf of the Credit Union National Association Mr. Rick Wieczorek, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mid-Atlantic Federal Credit Union on behalf of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions Ms. Cathleen H. Nash, President and Chief Executive Officer, Citizens Republic Bancorp, Michigan on behalf of Consumer Bankers Association Mr. David A. Hoyt, Senior Executive Vice President, Wholesale Banking, Wells Fargo & Company Mr. Charles McCusker, Co-Managing Partner Patriot Capital, L.P. on behalf of NASBIC Ms. Sally Robertson, Business Finance Group Inc., Fairfax County, Virginia on behalf of the National Association of Development Companies
Small Business and Commercial Real Estate Lending, Panel 2
Feb 26, 2010
Witnesses testified on the condition of small business and commercial real estate lending in local market
Witnesses testified on the condition of small business and commercial real estate lending in local market
Small Business and Commercial Real Estate Lending, Panel 1
Feb 26, 2010
House Committee Financial Services
House Committee Small Business
Witnesses testified on the condition of small business and commercial real estate lending in local markets.
House Committee Financial Services
House Committee Small Business
Witnesses testified on the condition of small business and commercial real estate lending in local markets.
Health industry lobbyists have hosted scores of fundraisers for summit attendees
By Luke Rosiak Feb 25 2010 5 p.m.
An on-the-fly analysis by the Sunlight Foundation shows that 84 lobbyists who represent a combined 266 health care and medical association interests have hosted a total of 61 fundraisers--that we know about--benefiting the campaigns of 18 of the approximately 40 Congressional leaders in attendance at today's health care summit.
That's not including fundraisers hosted by the companies' and trade groups' PACs themselves, though they also host such events. Maybe these lobbyists just wanted to make sure these lawmakers had enough funds to pay their monthly premiums?
Here's the list, compiled by matching host names from PoliticalPartytime.org with the Center for Responsive Politics' database of lobbyists and their clients (which the Center categorizes by industry, letting us limit to those groups with an interest in health care). It's organized by the beneficiaries of fundraisers, then lists healthcare lobbyists who hosted those fundraisers, followed by links to the invitations to those events. In parentheses are the lobbyists' health-focused clients.
An on-the-fly analysis by the Sunlight Foundation shows that 84 lobbyists who represent a combined 266 health care and medical association interests have hosted a total of 61 fundraisers--that we know about--benefiting the campaigns of 18 of the approximately 40 Congressional leaders in attendance at today's health care summit.
That's not including fundraisers hosted by the companies' and trade groups' PACs themselves, though they also host such events. Maybe these lobbyists just wanted to make sure these lawmakers had enough funds to pay their monthly premiums?
Here's the list, compiled by matching host names from PoliticalPartytime.org with the Center for Responsive Politics' database of lobbyists and their clients (which the Center categorizes by industry, letting us limit to those groups with an interest in health care). It's organized by the beneficiaries of fundraisers, then lists healthcare lobbyists who hosted those fundraisers, followed by links to the invitations to those events. In parentheses are the lobbyists' health-focused clients.
- Lamar Alexander
- Rita Norton (AmerisourceBergen Corp): 7/9/2009
- Charles Rangel
- John Jonas (Affymax Inc, Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care, American Ambulance Assn, American Assn of Orthodontists, American College of Gastroenterology, American College of Rheumatology, American Health Care Assn, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Christus Health, DCH Health System, Medical Device Manufacturers Assn, National Assn for Home Care, National Assn of Behavioral Health, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, Pfizer Inc, Talecris Biotherapeutics): 9/20/2006
- John D. Raffaelli (American Academy of Ophthalmology, Amgen Inc, Asociacion de Hospitales de Puerto Rico, AstraZeneca PLC, Aveta Inc, Bacterin Inc, Beverly Enterprises, Cardinal Health, Colorado Heart Institute, Golden Horizons, Health Care Service Corp, Healthcare Leadership Council, Hologic Inc, Joint Cmsn on Accred of Healthcare Orgs, P&G Pharmaceuticals, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America, Roche Holdings, Sanofi-Aventis, Specialty Pharmacy Coalition): 12/8/2009
- Dave Koshgarian (Aetna Inc, Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Elsevier, Reed, Health Care Service Corp, Johnson & Johnson, McKesson Corp, Tyco International): 2/12/2009, 2/14/2008
- Thomas Hale Boggs, Jr (Bristol-Myers Squibb): 9/20/2006
- Holly Bode (Aetna Inc, Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Elsevier, Reed, Health Care Service Corp, Johnson & Johnson, McKesson Corp, Tyco International, UnitedHealth Group): 2/12/2009
- Francis Grab (Aetna Inc, Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Elsevier, Reed, Health Care Service Corp, Johnson & Johnson, McKesson Corp, Tyco International): 2/12/2009
- Jeff Petrich (Aetna Inc, Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Elsevier, Reed, Health Care Service Corp, Johnson & Johnson, McKesson Corp, Tyco International): 2/12/2009
- David W. Jones (American Academy of Ophthalmology, Asociacion de Hospitales de Puerto Rico, AstraZeneca PLC, Aveta Inc, Bacterin Inc, Beverly Enterprises, Cardinal Health, Golden Horizons, Health Care Service Corp, Healthcare Leadership Council, Joint Cmsn on Accred of Healthcare Orgs, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America, Roche Holdings, Sanofi-Aventis, Specialty Pharmacy Coalition): 12/8/2009
- Lindsay Hooper (Amgen Inc, Federation of American Hospitals, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America, UnitedHealth Group): 3/5/2009
- Nick Giordano (Aetna Inc, Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Elsevier, Reed, Health Care Service Corp, Johnson & Johnson, McKesson Corp, Tyco International): 2/12/2009, 2/14/2008
- Shannon Finley (American Academy of Ophthalmology, Amgen Inc, Asociacion de Hospitales de Puerto Rico, Assn for Community Affiliated Plans, AstraZeneca PLC, Aveta Inc, Bacterin Inc, Beverly Enterprises, Cardinal Health, Colorado Heart Institute, Golden Horizons, Health Care Service Corp, Healthcare Leadership Council, Hologic Inc, Joint Cmsn on Accred of Healthcare Orgs, P&G Pharmaceuticals, Patient Services Inc, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America, Roche Holdings, Sanofi-Aventis, Specialty Pharmacy Coalition): 12/8/2009
- Every Republican Is Crucial PAC (ERICPAC)
- Mark Anderson (Laboratory Corp of America, Plasma Protein Therapeutics Assn): 7/31/2008
- Steve Clark (Barr Laboratories): 7/15/2008
- Sam Geduldig (Barr Laboratories): 7/15/2008
- Andrew Shore (Roche Holdings): 7/24/2008
- Ted Burnes (American College of Radiology): 7/24/2008
- Aaron Cohen (Advanced Medical Optics, Allergan Inc, Angiodynamics Inc, Astellas Pharma USA, Cephalon Inc, CV Therapeutics, EV3, Fujirebio Diagnostics Inc, Gambro AB, Gambro BCT Inc, Molecular Insight Pharmaceuticals, Orthovita, Reliant Pharmaceuticals, Roche Holdings, Salix Pharmaceuticals): 7/24/2008
- Matt Jessee (American Assn/Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Endocrine Society, Health Industry Distributors Assn, Novavision Inc): 7/24/2008
- Prosperity PAC
- Barbara Angus (Alpharma Inc, Johnson & Johnson): 6/9/2008
- Peter Begans (Medco Health Solutions): 6/9/2008
- John Mashburn (Univ Health Systems/Eastern Carolina): 3/4/2008
- John Kline
- Sam Geduldig (Barr Laboratories): 2/6/2008
- Steve Clark (Barr Laboratories): 2/6/2008
- Gary Lytle (Barr Laboratories): 2/6/2008
- John Barrasso
- Alex Vogel (Abbott Laboratories, American Clinical Laboratory Assn, American College of Cardiologists, American Osteopathic Assn, Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Ascension Health, AstraZeneca PLC, Biogen Idec, Fidelis, Forest Laboratories, GE Healthcare, Humana Inc, Mayo Clinic, Merck & Co, National Assn of Children's Hospitals, NxStage Medical, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America): 7/28/2009
- Doyce Boesch (Allen Memorial Hospital, American Assn of Ambulatory Surgery Ctrs, AQI, Bassett Healthcare, Baxter International, Berger Health System, Bingham Memorial Hospital, Bonner General Hospital, Botsford General Hospital, Cardinal Health, Catskill Regional Medical Center, Centura Health, Children's Health Fund, Chinese Hospital, Coffeyville Regional Medical Center, Community Hospital, Down East Community Hospital, Dubois Regional Medical Center, East Jefferson General Hospital, Elbert Memorial Hospital, Forum Health, Freeman Health, Gritman Medical Center, Gulf States Health Services, Healthcare Distribution Management Assn, Healtheast, Hellen Keller Hospital, Hyper Ox, Indian River Memorial Hospital, Integris Foundation, Integris Health Systems, Iowa Health System, Johnston Memorial Hospital, Joint Township District Hospital, King's Daughters Medical Center, Knox Community Hospital, Lifecare Hospitals, Mena Regional Health System, Methodist Hospital, Ministry Health Care, Mission Healthcare Foundation, Monroe Clinic, MRSSI Inc, National Alliance for Nursing Education, Neshoba County General Hospital, New Horizons Health System, Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, Northwest Community Healthcare, Norton Community Hospital, Ohio Hospice & Palliative Care Org, OSF Healthcare System, Promise Healthcare, Regency Hospital, Roper St. Francis Healthcare, Saint Marys Regional Medical Center, Sisters of Mercy Healthcare, Southwest General Health Center, Sparks Regional Medical Center, St Francis Foundation, St Joseph Hospital, St Mary's Regional Medical Center, Trinity Health, Unity Health System, University Health System, Wayne Memorial Hospital, West Park Hospital District): 7/28/2009
- Alfonse D'Amato (Calspan-Univ of Buffalo Research Center, South Nassau Communities Hospital): 9/24/2008
- John Green (MDVIP Inc, Medical Device Manufacturers Assn, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Inc, Roche Group, Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, UnitedHealth Group, University Medical Center): 7/28/2009
- Rick Murphy (AmerisourceBergen Corp, Assn for Quality Imaging, Elliot Health System, Roche Holdings): 7/28/2009
- Diane Major (American Hospital Assn, CH Boehringer Sohn, GlaxoSmithKline, Health Industry Group Purchasing Assn, Pacific Pulmonary Services, Sanford Health, University Hospitals): 7/28/2009
- Joel Oswald (AstraZeneca PLC, Wyeth): 6/10/2008
- Kirk Blalock (American College of Gastroenterology, American Physical Therapy Assn, Blackstone Group, Cltn for Competitive Pharma Marketing, Federation of American Hospitals, Generic Pharmaceutical Assn, Medco Health Solutions, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, UnitedHealth Group): 7/28/2009
- Kraig Siracuse (Calspan-Univ of Buffalo Research Center, South Nassau Communities Hospital): 10/7/2009, 7/28/2009, 9/24/2008
- Missy Edwards (Physician Hospitals of America): 7/28/2009
- Lindsay Hooper (Amgen Inc, Federation of American Hospitals, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America, UnitedHealth Group): 11/14/2007, 6/10/2008
- Louis Dupart (National Assn of Community Health Ctrs, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Visiting Nurse Assn/Healthcare Ptnrs/OH): 7/28/2009
- Shannon Finley (American Academy of Ophthalmology, Amgen Inc, Asociacion de Hospitales de Puerto Rico, Assn for Community Affiliated Plans, AstraZeneca PLC, Aveta Inc, Bacterin Inc, Beverly Enterprises, Cardinal Health, Colorado Heart Institute, Golden Horizons, Health Care Service Corp, Healthcare Leadership Council, Hologic Inc, Joint Cmsn on Accred of Healthcare Orgs, P&G Pharmaceuticals, Patient Services Inc, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America, Roche Holdings, Sanofi-Aventis, Specialty Pharmacy Coalition): 6/24/2008, 7/28/2009
- Mark Valente III (American Speech-Language-Hearing Assn, Hollister Inc, Tristate Hospital Supply Corp): 10/7/2009, 9/24/2008
- Jim Clyburn
- Daniel F.C. Crowley (Daiichi Sankyo Inc): 6/25/2008
- Marti Thomas (Health Net Inc, Novartis AG, Sanofi-Aventis): 7/29/2008
- Langston Emerson (Healthways Inc, Texas Medical Center): 7/29/2008
- Connie Jameson (Palmetto Health Foundation): 6/27/2006
- Tom Coburn
- Terry Allen (Coalition To Preserve DSHEA): 6/25/2009
- Jennifer Larkin Lukawski (Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, American Assn of Preferred Providers Org, Clarian Health Partners, Fresenius Medical Care, GlaxoSmithKline, Health Data Insights, Kinetic Concepts, MedCath Inc, Medicines Co, Res-Care Inc, Select Medical Corp, UnitedHealth Group, Village Health, Wyeth, XLHealth): 6/25/2009
- Martin Gold (Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals): 6/16/2009
- Don Nickles (American Dental Assn, Blackstone Group, Bristol-Myers Squibb, National Marrow Donor Program, Nestle SA): 6/23/2009
- Hazen Marshall (American Hospital Assn, American Society of Anesthesiologists, Blackstone Group, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cleveland Clinic, Eli Lilly & Co, Medtronic Inc, Nestle SA): 6/23/2009
- John Boehner
- George Koch (Buffalo Supply, Daiichi Sankyo Inc, Neurotechnology Industry Organization): 3/17/2010
- Dick Durbin
- Jim Link (Allscripts Inc, American Dental Assn, Beaumont Hospitals, Dispensing Solutions, Sisters of St Francis Health Services, Swedish Covenant Hospital, Team Health): 6/25/2008
- Sean Callinicos (Sanofi-Aventis): 6/25/2008
- Nancy Pelosi
- Heather Podesta (Eli Lilly & Co, Friends of Cancer Research, HealthSouth Corp, Quality Diabetes Care Coalition): 2/9/2010
- Marsha Blackburn
- Vin Weber (American Assn of Homes & Svcs for Aging, AmerisourceBergen Corp, David & Denise Bunning, Health Net Inc, Health Partners, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America, Physician Hospitals of America, Roche Holdings): 6/4/2008
- Frank Vlossak (Air Medical Operators Assn, Coalition of Air Medical Cos, Practice Greenhealth): 7/30/2008
- Dave Larson (American Dental Assn, C-Path Institute, Genaco Biomedical Products, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America, Sanofi-Aventis, Team Health): 5/20/2008
- Bill Brewster (Astellas Pharma USA, Coalition To Preserve DSHEA, Eli Lilly & Co, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Maine Coast Memorial Hospital, McBride Clinic, Novartis AG, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America, Purdue Pharma): 6/9/2008
- Susan Hirschmann (Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca PLC, Bayer AG, National Board for Certified Counselors, Novartis AG, Pfizer Inc, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America, Roche Holdings, Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Wyeth): 6/4/2008, 7/30/2008
- Eric Ueland (Amgen Inc, Health Net Inc, Novartis AG, Sanofi-Aventis): 6/4/2008
- Allison Shulman (American Interventional Pain Physicians, Dey LP): 6/9/2008
- Stacey Hughes (American Dental Assn, American Hospital Assn, American Society of Anesthesiologists, Blackstone Group, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cleveland Clinic, Eli Lilly & Co, Medtronic Inc, National Marrow Donor Program, Nestle SA, Quality Diabetes Care Coalition, Roche Holdings): 6/4/2008
- Wyoming Values PAC
- Kraig Siracuse (Calspan-Univ of Buffalo Research Center, South Nassau Communities Hospital): 11/18/2009
- Diane Major (American Hospital Assn, CH Boehringer Sohn, GlaxoSmithKline, Health Industry Group Purchasing Assn, Pacific Pulmonary Services, Sanford Health, University Hospitals): 11/18/2009
- Jon Deuser (American Dental Assn, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hercules Holding): 11/18/2009
- Alex Vogel (Abbott Laboratories, American Clinical Laboratory Assn, American College of Cardiologists, American Osteopathic Assn, Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Ascension Health, AstraZeneca PLC, Biogen Idec, Fidelis, Forest Laboratories, GE Healthcare, Humana Inc, Mayo Clinic, Merck & Co, National Assn of Children's Hospitals, NxStage Medical, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America): 11/18/2009
- Patty Murray
- Al Swift (Quest Diagnostics): 7/8/2009
- Terese Colling (Quest Diagnostics): 7/8/2009
- Amy Tejral (Aetna Inc, Healthcare Leadership Council, Medco, UnitedHealth Group): 12/3/2009
- David Camp
- Darryl Nirenberg (1-800-Contacts, American Medical Rehab Providers Assn, Consumer Healthcare Products Assn, Martek Biosciences): 10/7/2009
- Kevin O'Neill (American Assn of Orthodontists, Children's Hospita/The King's Daughters, DCH Health System, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Riverside Health Systems): 10/7/2009
- Jim Link (Allscripts Inc, American Dental Assn, Beaumont Hospitals, Dispensing Solutions, Sisters of St Francis Health Services, Swedish Covenant Hospital, Team Health): 9/27/2006
- Lawrence Willcox (Amgen Inc, Federation of American Hospitals, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America, UnitedHealth Group): 5/7/2009
- Ed Newberry (American Assn of Orthodontists, Children's Hospita/The King's Daughters, Riverside Health Systems): 10/7/2009
- Lindsay Hooper (Amgen Inc, Federation of American Hospitals, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America, UnitedHealth Group): 3/6/2008, 5/7/2009
- Paul Ryan
- Kirsten Chadwick (American College of Gastroenterology, American Physical Therapy Assn, Blackstone Group, Cltn for Competitive Pharma Marketing, Federation of American Hospitals, Generic Pharmaceutical Assn, Medco Health Solutions, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, UnitedHealth Group): 9/17/2009
- Steve Clark (Barr Laboratories): 2/23/2010
- Greg Mesack (Burnham Inst for Med Research/Lake Nona): 6/18/2009, 6/26/2008
- Susan Hirschmann (Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca PLC, Bayer AG, National Board for Certified Counselors, Novartis AG, Pfizer Inc, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America, Roche Holdings, Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Wyeth): 4/22/2009, 5/19/2009
- Sam Geduldig (Barr Laboratories): 2/23/2010, 5/19/2009
- Darryl Nirenberg (1-800-Contacts, American Medical Rehab Providers Assn, Consumer Healthcare Products Assn, Martek Biosciences): 6/4/2009
- Kevin O'Neill (American Assn of Orthodontists, Children's Hospita/The King's Daughters, DCH Health System, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Riverside Health Systems): 6/4/2009
- Lawrence Willcox (Amgen Inc, Federation of American Hospitals, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America, UnitedHealth Group): 9/25/2008
- Gary Lytle (Barr Laboratories): 2/23/2010
- Ed Newberry (American Assn of Orthodontists, Children's Hospita/The King's Daughters, Riverside Health Systems): 6/4/2009
- Doyle Bartlett (Burnham Inst for Med Research/Lake Nona): 6/18/2009, 6/26/2008
- Bryan Cunningham (Eli Lilly & Co, Pfizer Inc, Roche Holdings, UnitedHealth Group): 12/16/2009
- Lindsay Hooper (Amgen Inc, Federation of American Hospitals, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America, UnitedHealth Group): 9/25/2008
- Dan Gans (Roche Holdings): 12/16/2009
- Mark Isakowitz (American College of Gastroenterology, American Physical Therapy Assn, Blackstone Group, Cltn for Competitive Pharma Marketing, Federation of American Hospitals, Generic Pharmaceutical Assn, Medco Health Solutions, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, UnitedHealth Group): 9/17/2009
- Mitch McConnell
- Ed Newberry (American Assn of Orthodontists, Children's Hospita/The King's Daughters, Riverside Health Systems): 3/11/2008
- Frank Donatelli (American Network/Community Options/Rsrcs): 11/2/2009
- Darryl Nirenberg (1-800-Contacts, American Medical Rehab Providers Assn, Consumer Healthcare Products Assn, Martek Biosciences): 3/11/2008
- Kevin O'Neill (American Assn of Orthodontists, Children's Hospita/The King's Daughters, DCH Health System, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Riverside Health Systems): 3/11/2008
- Eric Cantor
- John Milne (Jackson Park Hospital, Minnesota Thermal Science): 9/9/2008
- David Jory (Novartis AG): 7/22/2008
- Darryl Nirenberg (1-800-Contacts, American Medical Rehab Providers Assn, Consumer Healthcare Products Assn, Martek Biosciences): 6/16/2009
- Kevin O'Neill (American Assn of Orthodontists, Children's Hospita/The King's Daughters, DCH Health System, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Riverside Health Systems): 6/16/2009
- Lawrence Willcox (Amgen Inc, Federation of American Hospitals, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America, UnitedHealth Group): 3/31/2009
- Bob Brooks (Advanced Medical Technology Assn, American College of Radiology, Boston Scientific Corp, Edwards Lifesciences, Zimmer Holdings): 7/22/2008
- Ed Newberry (American Assn of Orthodontists, Children's Hospita/The King's Daughters, Riverside Health Systems): 6/16/2009
- Bryan Cunningham (Eli Lilly & Co, Pfizer Inc, Roche Holdings, UnitedHealth Group): 1/27/2009
- Lindsay Hooper (Amgen Inc, Federation of American Hospitals, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America, UnitedHealth Group): 3/31/2009
- Dan Gans (Roche Holdings): 1/27/2009
- Peter Roskam
- Dan Gans (Roche Holdings): 6/24/2009
- Susan Hirschmann (Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca PLC, Bayer AG, National Board for Certified Counselors, Novartis AG, Pfizer Inc, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America, Roche Holdings, Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Wyeth): 6/4/2008
- Jim Link (Allscripts Inc, American Dental Assn, Beaumont Hospitals, Dispensing Solutions, Sisters of St Francis Health Services, Swedish Covenant Hospital, Team Health): 6/4/2008, 6/24/2006
- Eric Ueland (Amgen Inc, Health Net Inc, Novartis AG, Sanofi-Aventis): 6/4/2008
- Vin Weber (American Assn of Homes & Svcs for Aging, AmerisourceBergen Corp, David & Denise Bunning, Health Net Inc, Health Partners, Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America, Physician Hospitals of America, Roche Holdings): 6/4/2008
- Stacey Hughes (American Dental Assn, American Hospital Assn, American Society of Anesthesiologists, Blackstone Group, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cleveland Clinic, Eli Lilly & Co, Medtronic Inc, National Marrow Donor Program, Nestle SA, Quality Diabetes Care Coalition, Roche Holdings): 6/4/2008
- Charles Ellis "Chuck" Schumer
- Michelle Bright (American Medical Assn, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries): 4/30/2009
- Chuck Jones (American Medical Assn, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries): 4/30/2009
- Bonnie Hogue Duffy (Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care, Amgen Inc, Infection Prevention Systems, Natl Coalition For Assistive/Rehab Tech, Virtua Health): 3/25/2009
- Kevin Kayes (Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care, Amgen Inc, Infection Prevention Systems, Natl Coalition For Assistive/Rehab Tech, Virtua Health): 3/25/2009
- Erin Graefe (American Medical Assn, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries): 4/30/2009
- Xavier Becerra
- Matt Brow (US Oncology): 10/20/2009
- Geoff Werth (American College of Surgeons, American College of Surgeons Prof Assn, US Oncology): 10/20/2009
- Dale Snape (Cord Blood Registry Inc, IMS Health, Lanx LLC, UnitedHealth Group, Wyeth): 5/7/2009
- Tonio Burgos (Healthcare Education Project): 5/7/2009
Rachel Maddow Explains our Health Care System
Friday, February 26, 2010
The Real Reason Obama's Plan Doesn't Include a Public Option
The reason Robert Gibbs gives for President Obama's health care plan not including a public option -- that despite majority voter support, it can't get 51 Democratic votes in the Senate -- doesn't hold up. The real reason is that Obama made a backroom deal last summer with the for-profit hospital industry that there would be no meaningful public option.This is one of the great under-reported stories of the health reform saga. Much has been written about the Obama administration's deal with big Pharma to continue to block Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices or to allow consumers to buy cheaper drugs from Canada, in exchange for Pharma running pro-Democratic ads and giving campaign contributions to Democratic candidates. That's the reason, under pressure from the White House, that Senate Democrats voted down an amendment that would have allowed consumers to buy cheaper drugs from overseas.
But Obama's deal with the for-profit hospital lobby to insure there would be no public option has, as best I can tell, only been reported in two articles in The New York Times. On August 13, The Times reported that while President Obama had presented himself as "aloof from the legislative fray," particularly in connection with the public option, "Behind the scenes, however, Mr. Obama and advisors have been...negotiating deals with a degree of cold-eyed political realism potentially at odds with the president's rhetoric." One of the deals reported in The Times article was the Pharma deal. The other was a deal with the for-profit hospital lobby to limit its cost reductions to $155 billion over 10 years in exchange for a White House promise that there would be no meaningful public option.
According to The Times:
"Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying-Medicare rates...or controlled by the secretary of health and human services. 'We have an agreement with the White House that I'm very confident will be seen all the way through conference', one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter...Industry lobbyists say they are not worried [about a public option.] 'We trust the White House,' Mr. Kahn said."Mr. Kahn's lobbying group, with whom the White House made the deal, represents America's investor-owned, hospitals whose profits could be diminished by a public option with the negotiating clout to negotiate lower prices. To say that the deal included ensuring that any public option would not be "controlled by the secretary of health and human services" is code for saying it would not be national in scope and would lack negotiating clout--In other words, the Obama administration made a deal that a national public option on day one comparable to Medicare was off the table.
On September 9, a few weeks after The Times reported Obama's deal to gut the public option, President Obama gave his big health care speech to a Joint Session of Congress. In the speech, Obama said one of the programs he was considering was a "not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange." Supporters of the public option took this as a sign that Obama was on their side.
But Washington insiders noticed that Obama parsed his words very carefully. The New York Times noted that:
"Mr. Obama's call for a public plan, however, omitted any discussion of what rates it might pay or who might control it...'He worded it really carefully, because he said 'not for profit' and he didn't say it had to be controlled by the government,' Mr. Kahn [the hospital lobbyist] added. 'The way he described it, we could support that!"In other words, Obama signaled the private health care industry that his deal that there would be no meaningful public option still stood.
Throughout the process, the White House has given vague statements supporting the public option -- enough to keep liberals and progressive on board -- while repeatedly undermining the public option in practice. Jane Hamsher has written a useful timeline of White House efforts to undermine the public option.
There is no evidence that President Obama has ever twisted the arm of a single Senator to support a public option and plenty of evidence that he has assiduously avoided doing so, sending a message to Senators that he doesn't want a public option. When the Senate passed its version of the health reform bill, the reason the White House gave for there being no public option was that it couldn't garner 60 votes. But Joe Lieberman, who could have been the 60th vote, insists that the Obama administration never pressured him to support either a public option or a Medicare buy-in. And Sen. Russ Feingold blamed the demise of the public option in the Senate on the White House's failure to push for it.
Now the White House is saying they're not including a public option in Obama's plan because they can't get even 51 Democratic votes in the Senate. Does anyone really believe that if President Obama really wanted a public option -- if he hadn't dealt the public option away in a backroom deal with the for-profit hospital industry -- he couldn't get 51 out of 59 members of the Senate Democratic caucus to vote for it?
As a long-time supporter of single payer, I'm not the world's biggest fan of the public option and I've written about its limitations in these pages many times, included here. But at this point, when it comes to health care reform, the Democrats face a Hobson's choice of their own making between two suboptimal alternatives. Either they can use reconciliation to pass a defective health care bill that's supported by only 1/3 of the voters. Or, as in 1993, they can let health reform die for this year. The first choice means passing an unpopular bill, but at least it would show that when Democrats set out to accomplish something, they actually have the strength to do it. The second choice means admitting that their year-long efforts to pass health reform were a failure.
The most popular aspect of health care reform is the public option, which is supported by nearly 60% of voters while the overall bill is supported by only about 33%. Adding a public option to the final legislation may be the only thing that can boost its popularity among voters.
Will the Obama administration continue to cling to its deal with the for-profit hospital industry to block the public option, even at the price of public support? Or will it finally release at least 51 Democratic Senators to include a public option in the final bill through reconciliation? Its decision may be decisive in determining whether President Obama and a Democratic Congress can govern.
Yes, Obama did campaign on the public option
Oy. I'll defend the argument that the health-care bill that looks likely to pass is structurally similar to the health-care proposal released by the Obama campaign. But it's impossible to defend Obama's statement that "I didn't campaign on the public option." For one thing, it was in his campaign plan, which is to say, he campaigned on it. The proposal (pdf) assured voters that Obama's plan will "establish a new public insurance program available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers."
The White House argues that they didn't emphasize it in public speeches, and according to Salon's Alex Koppelmann, that's true. But speaking as someone who did a lot of reporting on their health-care plan, they emphasized it privately quite a bit. It was, in fact, their answer to a lot of the other flaws in their proposal. So whether Obama used it in his speeches, his campaign purposefully pushed it to, at the least, some reporters, which is to say they worked to ensure that people knew about the public option's important role in their health-care thinking.
Obama's latest statement on this is hair-splitting at best and misleading at worst. That's even more true given how often he mentioned the public option after he got elected. And it's a good example of why the left is losing its trust in Obama. Obama could have given an interview where he expressed frustration that the math of the Senate forced his administration to give up the public option but nevertheless argued that the rest of the health-care bill was well worth passing. Instead, he's arguing that he never cared about the public option anyway, which is just confirming liberal suspicions that they lost that battle because the president was never really on their side.
Photo credit: Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post.
Comments with a similar take on Public Option
Dialing Into Health Care Debate
A focus group in Philadelphia made up equally of democrats and republicans talking about the health care summit it is interesting and valid for what WE THE PEOPLE feel about the health care reform. And even though it was on Fox News with Hannity it was still good.
USA ranked 37th in the World (not Impressive)
If anyone can find newer rankings that show us any higher please let me know. I have looked and looked this is where I am
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
The U.S. ranks 37th in the world for health care.
Paul Hipp on Wednesday, September 9th, 2009 in a YouTube videoRocker in viral video mocks U.S. for 37th-best health care in world
In a music video, Paul Hipp says the U.S. ranks 37th in the world in health care.
With biting sarcasm, singer Paul Hipp says the United States should be proud of its global ranking on health care.
"We're No. 37!" he sings in a YouTube video released Sept. 9, 2009.
With some electric guitar riffs and topical references to the summer's vitriolic debate over health care reform — including Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" heckle of President Barack Obama — the satiric romp "celebrates" the United States' standing:
We're No. 37
We're the U.S.A.
We're No. 37
And we're so proud to say
We got old people crying at the pharmacy
Pay your deductible
This ain't the land of the f-f-f-free Grandma
We're No. 37
We're the U.S.A.
The number refers to the World Health Organization's ranking of the United States as the 37th best health care system in the world, out of 191 countries. In a cheeky countdown, the video shows viewers a cross-section of nations that ranked better than the United States in WHO's tally — a mix of industrialized nations in Western Europe, Scandinavia and Asia; wealthy oil producers from the Middle East; tiny realms of prosperity such as Monaco and Luxembourg; and some seemingly unlikely nations such as Colombia, Cyprus, Morocco, Dominica and Costa Rica.
It's an anthem for health care reform that even shows its sources: Hipp includes a shot of himself looking at WHO's report. So he wins points for transparency in sourcing.
But as hummable as the song is, we thought it deserved a bit of scrutiny. How did WHO arrive at the numbers? And how widely accepted is the health organization's methodology? Ultimately, did Hipp choose a good benchmark on which to base his song?
Observers generally agree on two things about the report. It was a landmark study that attracted a lot of attention around the world. And its conclusions have inspired controversy for nearly a decade.
We should point out that the ranking is actually not new. WHO, an arm of the United Nations, published the international comparison in its World Health Report 2000 , and it hasn't been updated since. (Other groups have offered their take, as we explain below.)
Five factors went into WHO's calculation:
• Health level, as defined by a measure of life expectancy, which shows how healthy a country's population is. This factor gets a 25 percent weight.
• Responsiveness, which includes factors such as speed of health services, privacy protections, choice of doctors and quality of amenities. This factor gets a 12.5 percent weight.
• Financial fairness, which measures how progressive or regressive the financing of a country's health care system is — that is, whether or not the financial burdens are borne by those who are economically better off. This factor receives a 25 percent weight.
• Health distribution, which measures how equally a nation's health care resources are allocated among the population. This factor receives a 25 percent weight.
• Responsiveness distribution, which measures how equally a nation's health care responsiveness (which we defined above) is spread through society. This factor gets a 12.5 percent weight.
Once these statistics were collected, the WHO combined them into two summary rankings. One, called "overall attainment," is the basic weighted average of the five factors listed above. The other, called "overall performance," took that number and adjusted it for how well a country's health system was doing compared to how well WHO's experts believed it should be doing based on education level and economic resources.
Using the second of the two ratings — overall performance — the United States does indeed rank 37th. But using the first factor — overall attainment — the United States does better, finishing 15th. One might be tempted to downgrade Hipp's song for cherry-picking the less favorable number, but Hipp seems to be on solid ground here. The WHO itself considers overall performance to be the more important ranking of the two. In a news release accompanying the original report, the WHO placed the 37th-place ranking right near the top and never even mentioned the 15th-place ranking. So it seems fair to us for Hipp to focus on that number.
Of course, any ranking — whether it's U.S. News and World Report 's ranking of universities or the WHO's ranking of health systems — is subject to disputes over what factors should be included. In his 2009 book, The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper and Fairer Health Care , journalist T.R. Reid finds value in the WHO's study even as he acknowledges that it is "all but impossible to design a single rating scale that would accommodate countries ranging from Monaco (population, 33,000; per capita income, $30,000 per year) to Nigeria (population 101 million; per capita income, $310 per year)."
Despite some quibbling on technical matters, most observers broadly agree that two of the WHO's five measures — health level and responsiveness — are reasonable. The first statistic gauges health outcomes, which are obviously a health care system's No. 1 goal, and the second seeks to measure how well a health system works when interacting with patients, another widely agreed upon mission.
But there is far less consensus over the other three factors. Concerns stem from a mix of methodology and ideology.
Glen Whitman, an associate professor of economics at California State University at Northridge, offers one critique in a paper for the libertarian Cato Institute. "Suppose, for instance, that Country A has health responsiveness that is 'excellent' for most citizens but merely 'good' for some disadvantaged groups, while Country B has responsiveness that is uniformly 'poor' for everyone," he writes. "Country B would score higher than Country A in terms of responsiveness distribution, despite country A having better responsiveness than Country B for even its worst-off citizens."
Whitman also joins other conservatives in taking issue with the assumption that the rich should pay a similar percentage of their income for health care as the poor do. Because basic mathematics suggests that those with smaller incomes will naturally spend a larger share on highly important items such as food and health care, doing well in WHO's rankings almost requires a steeply progressive tax structure.
WHO officials make no bones about their desire to push countries in the direction of aiding the have-nots. They gave the controversial factors that reward socioeconomic fairness 62.5 percent weight, compared with only 37.5 percent for the broadly accepted factors of health level and responsiveness.
Tweak the weighting a little bit and a country such as the United States rises or falls in the rankings. For instance, judged on responsiveness alone, the United States ranked No. 1 in the world. A bigger weight for that factor — and a smaller weight for financial fairness, where the United States ranked 54th in the world — would have given the country a much higher ranking.
Adding other factors could also change the results. A 2001 paper in the journal Science found that adding just one more variable into the mix changed the rankings dramatically for 79 of 96 countries studied.
Meanwhile, Whitman also raised questions about the WHO's "overall performance" measure — the one in which a country's health ranking is adjusted for its education level and economic resources. (This is the category in which the United States finished 37th.) The implication from the WHO itself as well as subsequent news reports, Whitman wrote, "is that the United States performs badly ... despite its high expenditures." In fact, he writes, in the WHO's statistical model, America's first-in-the-world expenditures for health care actually hurt its ranking in overall performance by setting the theoretical bar it had to reach very high. "A more accurate statement is that the United States performs badly because of its high expenditures, at least in part," Whitman writes.
Finally, a number of other critics say that WHO listened to the experts but did not measure public satisfaction with health care.
A paper published in the journal Health Affairs found the rankings did not necessarily reflect whether people were happy with their country's health coverage. For instance, Italy finished second in WHO's study, even though only 20 percent of its citizens say they were satisfied with their health care system. Meanwhile, Denmark ranked 16th in the WHO report even though 91 percent of Danes say they were satisfied.
So while Hipp is right that the United States ranked 37th in the most widely known barometer in the WHO study, it ranked 15th by another WHO ranking and, for one factor (responsiveness) it actually ranked No. 1. Still, this is a rock song, and a well-sourced one at that. So we find Hipp's claim to be Mostly True.
"We're No. 37!" he sings in a YouTube video released Sept. 9, 2009.
With some electric guitar riffs and topical references to the summer's vitriolic debate over health care reform — including Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" heckle of President Barack Obama — the satiric romp "celebrates" the United States' standing:
We're No. 37
We're the U.S.A.
We're No. 37
And we're so proud to say
We got old people crying at the pharmacy
Pay your deductible
This ain't the land of the f-f-f-free Grandma
We're No. 37
We're the U.S.A.
The number refers to the World Health Organization's ranking of the United States as the 37th best health care system in the world, out of 191 countries. In a cheeky countdown, the video shows viewers a cross-section of nations that ranked better than the United States in WHO's tally — a mix of industrialized nations in Western Europe, Scandinavia and Asia; wealthy oil producers from the Middle East; tiny realms of prosperity such as Monaco and Luxembourg; and some seemingly unlikely nations such as Colombia, Cyprus, Morocco, Dominica and Costa Rica.
It's an anthem for health care reform that even shows its sources: Hipp includes a shot of himself looking at WHO's report. So he wins points for transparency in sourcing.
But as hummable as the song is, we thought it deserved a bit of scrutiny. How did WHO arrive at the numbers? And how widely accepted is the health organization's methodology? Ultimately, did Hipp choose a good benchmark on which to base his song?
Observers generally agree on two things about the report. It was a landmark study that attracted a lot of attention around the world. And its conclusions have inspired controversy for nearly a decade.
We should point out that the ranking is actually not new. WHO, an arm of the United Nations, published the international comparison in its World Health Report 2000 , and it hasn't been updated since. (Other groups have offered their take, as we explain below.)
Five factors went into WHO's calculation:
• Health level, as defined by a measure of life expectancy, which shows how healthy a country's population is. This factor gets a 25 percent weight.
• Responsiveness, which includes factors such as speed of health services, privacy protections, choice of doctors and quality of amenities. This factor gets a 12.5 percent weight.
• Financial fairness, which measures how progressive or regressive the financing of a country's health care system is — that is, whether or not the financial burdens are borne by those who are economically better off. This factor receives a 25 percent weight.
• Health distribution, which measures how equally a nation's health care resources are allocated among the population. This factor receives a 25 percent weight.
• Responsiveness distribution, which measures how equally a nation's health care responsiveness (which we defined above) is spread through society. This factor gets a 12.5 percent weight.
Once these statistics were collected, the WHO combined them into two summary rankings. One, called "overall attainment," is the basic weighted average of the five factors listed above. The other, called "overall performance," took that number and adjusted it for how well a country's health system was doing compared to how well WHO's experts believed it should be doing based on education level and economic resources.
Using the second of the two ratings — overall performance — the United States does indeed rank 37th. But using the first factor — overall attainment — the United States does better, finishing 15th. One might be tempted to downgrade Hipp's song for cherry-picking the less favorable number, but Hipp seems to be on solid ground here. The WHO itself considers overall performance to be the more important ranking of the two. In a news release accompanying the original report, the WHO placed the 37th-place ranking right near the top and never even mentioned the 15th-place ranking. So it seems fair to us for Hipp to focus on that number.
Of course, any ranking — whether it's U.S. News and World Report 's ranking of universities or the WHO's ranking of health systems — is subject to disputes over what factors should be included. In his 2009 book, The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper and Fairer Health Care , journalist T.R. Reid finds value in the WHO's study even as he acknowledges that it is "all but impossible to design a single rating scale that would accommodate countries ranging from Monaco (population, 33,000; per capita income, $30,000 per year) to Nigeria (population 101 million; per capita income, $310 per year)."
Despite some quibbling on technical matters, most observers broadly agree that two of the WHO's five measures — health level and responsiveness — are reasonable. The first statistic gauges health outcomes, which are obviously a health care system's No. 1 goal, and the second seeks to measure how well a health system works when interacting with patients, another widely agreed upon mission.
But there is far less consensus over the other three factors. Concerns stem from a mix of methodology and ideology.
Glen Whitman, an associate professor of economics at California State University at Northridge, offers one critique in a paper for the libertarian Cato Institute. "Suppose, for instance, that Country A has health responsiveness that is 'excellent' for most citizens but merely 'good' for some disadvantaged groups, while Country B has responsiveness that is uniformly 'poor' for everyone," he writes. "Country B would score higher than Country A in terms of responsiveness distribution, despite country A having better responsiveness than Country B for even its worst-off citizens."
Whitman also joins other conservatives in taking issue with the assumption that the rich should pay a similar percentage of their income for health care as the poor do. Because basic mathematics suggests that those with smaller incomes will naturally spend a larger share on highly important items such as food and health care, doing well in WHO's rankings almost requires a steeply progressive tax structure.
WHO officials make no bones about their desire to push countries in the direction of aiding the have-nots. They gave the controversial factors that reward socioeconomic fairness 62.5 percent weight, compared with only 37.5 percent for the broadly accepted factors of health level and responsiveness.
Tweak the weighting a little bit and a country such as the United States rises or falls in the rankings. For instance, judged on responsiveness alone, the United States ranked No. 1 in the world. A bigger weight for that factor — and a smaller weight for financial fairness, where the United States ranked 54th in the world — would have given the country a much higher ranking.
Adding other factors could also change the results. A 2001 paper in the journal Science found that adding just one more variable into the mix changed the rankings dramatically for 79 of 96 countries studied.
Meanwhile, Whitman also raised questions about the WHO's "overall performance" measure — the one in which a country's health ranking is adjusted for its education level and economic resources. (This is the category in which the United States finished 37th.) The implication from the WHO itself as well as subsequent news reports, Whitman wrote, "is that the United States performs badly ... despite its high expenditures." In fact, he writes, in the WHO's statistical model, America's first-in-the-world expenditures for health care actually hurt its ranking in overall performance by setting the theoretical bar it had to reach very high. "A more accurate statement is that the United States performs badly because of its high expenditures, at least in part," Whitman writes.
Finally, a number of other critics say that WHO listened to the experts but did not measure public satisfaction with health care.
A paper published in the journal Health Affairs found the rankings did not necessarily reflect whether people were happy with their country's health coverage. For instance, Italy finished second in WHO's study, even though only 20 percent of its citizens say they were satisfied with their health care system. Meanwhile, Denmark ranked 16th in the WHO report even though 91 percent of Danes say they were satisfied.
So while Hipp is right that the United States ranked 37th in the most widely known barometer in the WHO study, it ranked 15th by another WHO ranking and, for one factor (responsiveness) it actually ranked No. 1. Still, this is a rock song, and a well-sourced one at that. So we find Hipp's claim to be Mostly True.
PolitiFact.Com
Truth-O-Meter Statements about Health Care
There are 13 pages and I can not put them all here so take a peruse and see how some statements and talking points fared.
Here are the first four
There are 13 pages and I can not put them all here so take a peruse and see how some statements and talking points fared.
Here are the first four
Statements about Health Care
"The costs for families (in the individual market) for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent."
The CBO found that the House Republican health care plan would lower premiums by "up to about 10 percent" and, for purchasers in the individual market, "those cost savings could even be higher."
"Since 1981, reconciliation has been used 21 times. Most of it's been used by Republicans."
The Democratic health care plan is a "government takeover of our health programs."
Tort Reform by a Republican Congressperson
Opinion Contributor
Bipartisan health care reform must include tort reform
Now that his yearlong partisan push for government-run health care has so far failed to produce legislative results, President Barack Obama wants Republicans to join him for another White House summit to see if he can salvage his proposals. But unless the president and congressional Democrats address the need for tort reform as a critical component of cutting health care costs, a bipartisan solution seems unlikely.
The unsustainable path of rising costs is a serious national problem. Currently, health care spending exceeds $2.5 trillion per year. By 2019, it is expected to top $4.7 trillion per year. Any hope for cost containment would involve comprehensive medical malpractice reform to end the practice of defensive medicine, close the loopholes that allow frivolous lawsuits to clog up the system, and set reasonable limits on jury awards.
The president seems to think that eliminating wasteful spending alone would get Americans on track to more affordable coverage. But the government’s track record of recouping its losses from waste, fraud and abuse leaves something to be desired. In 2008, for example, the government recovered a meager $35 million from criminal prosecution of fraud once enforcement costs were factored in. Real savings would start when Congress tackles the billion-dollar problem of defensive medicine.
Defensive medicine — when doctors order unnecessary and usually expensive tests and procedures in order to avoid lawsuits — is a major contributor to skyrocketing health care costs. As much as $210 billion is spent on defensive medicine annually — equal to $700 for every U.S. man, woman and child. This helps drive up insurance premiums that are already too high for many Americans. And the excessive malpractice litigation inevitably leads to physician shortages — especially among obstetricians, neurosurgeons and emergency room physicians.
Fewer doctors mean reduced access to medical care for everybody. New Jersey, for example, will be short 2,800 family doctors and specialists by the year 2020, according to a recent report from the New Jersey Council of Teaching Hospitals. The reason for the shortage, council President Richard Goldstein says, is a “morale problem” because of the state’s “hostile” environment for doctors and the heightened threat of malpractice lawsuits.
As long as out-of-control malpractice premiums are built into medical costs, many will never be able to afford coverage. Shamefully, it is estimated that the cost of defensive medicine and the associated liability-based medical care costs account for at least 3.4 million uninsured Americans.
Moreover, the current system is studded with irresponsible lawyers’ fees associated with malpractice claims that do not involve injury or medical error. A large share of the awards goes to pad the pockets of plaintiffs’ attorneys. Recently, the Manhattan Institute concluded that approximately 10 cents of every dollar paid for health care services goes to cover malpractice premiums, defensive medicine and other costs associated with excessive litigation.
Tort reform that reduces frivolous lawsuits and caps outrageous jury awards is a critical component of any solution to bring the cost of health care within reach of every American. So far, however, the president has barely mentioned it.
If bipartisan support is what he’s after, the president needs to do more than host Republicans at the White House for a chat. He’s going to have to get serious about the damage being done to U.S. health care by frivolous lawsuits and the cost of defensive medicine, which real reforms could correct.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
President Barack Obama wants a bipartisan deal on health reform, but trial lawyers don’t want him to deal on a top Republican priority: tort reform.
Trial lawyers defeated President George W. Bush’s push for medical liability reform and successfully lobbied to water down tort reform provisions in healthcare reform bills this Congress. But the battle is far from over.
And in an odd twist, a longtime ally of the trial lawyers could be the one to resurrect the idea -- President Barack Obama.
“I would hope this would be an area we just don’t go,” said Linda Lipsen, vice president for public affairs at the American Association for Justice, the trade group for trial attorneys.
Lipsen said. “The last thing Congress should be doing is eliminating people’s rights when the real issue is safety in hospitals.”
Obama’s hints that he is willing to make a deal with Republicans on medical malpractice reform has got physicians and trial lawyers scratching their heads.
As recently as Tuesday, Obama floated the possibility of offering an olive branch to Republicans on malpractice reform as a gesture of bipartisanship. “I've said from the beginning of this debate I'd be willing to work on that,” Obama remarked during a press briefing.
Retiring Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) has recently indicated he is open to a healthcare compromise, stressing the need for malpractice reform to be included.
The White House announced on Friday that it will post a detailed health reform proposal online before the Feb. 25 bipartisan health summit, which Gregg was not invited to. It is unclear if that plan will be Obama’s own proposal or a merged version of the House and Senate-passed bills.
In an interview on Federal News Radio on Friday, Democratic strategist Bob Weiner said Obama should strike a deal on tort reform. He noted that Gail Wilensky, head of the Medicare and Medicaid agency in the first Bush administration, recently said Democrats could have gotten Republican votes if they had compromised on medical liability.
Weiner, who worked in the Clinton White House, said, “Why don’t we give a little on that and put some limit on [caps] and then get all of this national health insurance coverage for people and protect them with it? It’s not that much of a price. That’s part of the sausage-making that I think we could done that actually might have made a difference.”
Although Obama has repeatedly cited medical malpractice reform as a possible area of compromise with the GOP, he has not explained where he sees the middle ground and, indeed, has rejected Republicans’ top priority in this area: the hard-dollar caps on lawsuit awards in malpractice cases long sought by the physician and business lobbies.
But officials from pro- and anti-malpractice reform camps agree that, beyond the modest measures already in the healthcare reform bills that passed Congress and some demonstration projects under way at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Obama has not give a clear indication of what sort of offer he is willing to make.
Asked whether they were aware of any new malpractice reform proposals from the Obama administration, these officials professed they were aware of none.
“I haven’t heard anything like that,” Lipsen said.
“Not that I know of,” said Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, a proponent of limits on malpractice lawsuit awards.
“We haven’t seen any substantial proposal that supports his rhetoric,” said Kurt Bardella, a spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who has been a critic of the Obama administration’s stance on malpractice reform. “We have been waiting for his follow through and that’s what we have yet to see,” Bardella said.
Based on Obama’s oft-stated views on federal policy governing malpractice lawsuits, the trial lawyers likely have little to worry about. “I don’t think he’ll shock the world and come out and embrace caps,” Rickard said.
Obama indicated he could embrace malpractice proposals that “make my party a little bit uncomfortable.” Unlikely though it is that Obama would reverse positions on malpractice lawsuit caps or other proposals, it would not mark the first time he aggravated his liberal allies during the healthcare reform debate.
Despite campaigning against taxation of employer-sponsored health insurance, Obama put himself at odds with unions by endorsing a Senate-passed excise tax on high-cost insurance plans that organized labor and most House Democrats passed. The White House also struck a controversial deal to win the support of the pharmaceutical industry for healthcare reform, frustrating liberals who think Obama went too light on their long-time nemesis.
The House and Senate bills each contain provisions aiming to improve patient safety and offering grants to states that develop alternate ways to resolve disputes over medical errors. Proponents of broader malpractice reforms dismiss these proposals as inadequate while trial lawyers have rejected another possible compromise, the creation of special “health courts” that would hear cases and medical errors and malpractice.
Moving toward the middle on medical malpractice reform is no guarantee of winning GOP support, however. Any concession that Republicans would view as meaningful would prompt an outcry from Democratic lawmakers and the trial bar, a close ally of the party.
“I don’t see that as a credible place to go if the object is to pass the bill,” said Lipsen, noting that legislation to enact malpractice award caps could even not advance through the Republican-controlled Senate several times in the last decade.
Moreover, Republicans have stood so strongly opposed to the Democratic healthcare bills that even full capitulation on medical malpractice reform would not produce instant bipartisanship, Rickard noted. “There are so many issues that are in dispute in this bill,” she said, “that malpractice reform in and of itself isn’t going to overcome them.”
Bob Cusack contributed to this article
A comment I found interesting
Even before it was a Republican idea - The People have been calling for TORT REFORM! Did Obama and this org Hear THAT?These Frivolous (stupid) Lawsuits are killing Healthcare - IF someone is truly negligent it's these Lawyers trying to mae a fast buck on peoples misguided ways! IF a doctor is truly Negligent, then he should pay - but also pay with his license, but he isn't going to be negligent for every LITTLE thing, some is always with the patient and MORE is what these, so-called Lawyers, do and say. REFORM in this area is a definite need OR Healthcare cost's will continue to rise! The monetary % amount that these lawyers get should be cut way, way down and then see how many cases they do - more money should go to the patient - NOT to these lawyers, remember the damage was done to the patient, not the lawyer!
Bipartisan health care reform must include tort reform
Now that his yearlong partisan push for government-run health care has so far failed to produce legislative results, President Barack Obama wants Republicans to join him for another White House summit to see if he can salvage his proposals. But unless the president and congressional Democrats address the need for tort reform as a critical component of cutting health care costs, a bipartisan solution seems unlikely.
The unsustainable path of rising costs is a serious national problem. Currently, health care spending exceeds $2.5 trillion per year. By 2019, it is expected to top $4.7 trillion per year. Any hope for cost containment would involve comprehensive medical malpractice reform to end the practice of defensive medicine, close the loopholes that allow frivolous lawsuits to clog up the system, and set reasonable limits on jury awards.
The president seems to think that eliminating wasteful spending alone would get Americans on track to more affordable coverage. But the government’s track record of recouping its losses from waste, fraud and abuse leaves something to be desired. In 2008, for example, the government recovered a meager $35 million from criminal prosecution of fraud once enforcement costs were factored in. Real savings would start when Congress tackles the billion-dollar problem of defensive medicine.
Defensive medicine — when doctors order unnecessary and usually expensive tests and procedures in order to avoid lawsuits — is a major contributor to skyrocketing health care costs. As much as $210 billion is spent on defensive medicine annually — equal to $700 for every U.S. man, woman and child. This helps drive up insurance premiums that are already too high for many Americans. And the excessive malpractice litigation inevitably leads to physician shortages — especially among obstetricians, neurosurgeons and emergency room physicians.
Fewer doctors mean reduced access to medical care for everybody. New Jersey, for example, will be short 2,800 family doctors and specialists by the year 2020, according to a recent report from the New Jersey Council of Teaching Hospitals. The reason for the shortage, council President Richard Goldstein says, is a “morale problem” because of the state’s “hostile” environment for doctors and the heightened threat of malpractice lawsuits.
As long as out-of-control malpractice premiums are built into medical costs, many will never be able to afford coverage. Shamefully, it is estimated that the cost of defensive medicine and the associated liability-based medical care costs account for at least 3.4 million uninsured Americans.
Moreover, the current system is studded with irresponsible lawyers’ fees associated with malpractice claims that do not involve injury or medical error. A large share of the awards goes to pad the pockets of plaintiffs’ attorneys. Recently, the Manhattan Institute concluded that approximately 10 cents of every dollar paid for health care services goes to cover malpractice premiums, defensive medicine and other costs associated with excessive litigation.
Tort reform that reduces frivolous lawsuits and caps outrageous jury awards is a critical component of any solution to bring the cost of health care within reach of every American. So far, however, the president has barely mentioned it.
If bipartisan support is what he’s after, the president needs to do more than host Republicans at the White House for a chat. He’s going to have to get serious about the damage being done to U.S. health care by frivolous lawsuits and the cost of defensive medicine, which real reforms could correct.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Trial lawyers to Obama: Don’t deal on tort reform in healthcare neogtiations
- 02/14/10 04:56 PM ET
President Barack Obama wants a bipartisan deal on health reform, but trial lawyers don’t want him to deal on a top Republican priority: tort reform.
Trial lawyers defeated President George W. Bush’s push for medical liability reform and successfully lobbied to water down tort reform provisions in healthcare reform bills this Congress. But the battle is far from over.
And in an odd twist, a longtime ally of the trial lawyers could be the one to resurrect the idea -- President Barack Obama.
“I would hope this would be an area we just don’t go,” said Linda Lipsen, vice president for public affairs at the American Association for Justice, the trade group for trial attorneys.
Lipsen said. “The last thing Congress should be doing is eliminating people’s rights when the real issue is safety in hospitals.”
Obama’s hints that he is willing to make a deal with Republicans on medical malpractice reform has got physicians and trial lawyers scratching their heads.
As recently as Tuesday, Obama floated the possibility of offering an olive branch to Republicans on malpractice reform as a gesture of bipartisanship. “I've said from the beginning of this debate I'd be willing to work on that,” Obama remarked during a press briefing.
Retiring Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) has recently indicated he is open to a healthcare compromise, stressing the need for malpractice reform to be included.
The White House announced on Friday that it will post a detailed health reform proposal online before the Feb. 25 bipartisan health summit, which Gregg was not invited to. It is unclear if that plan will be Obama’s own proposal or a merged version of the House and Senate-passed bills.
In an interview on Federal News Radio on Friday, Democratic strategist Bob Weiner said Obama should strike a deal on tort reform. He noted that Gail Wilensky, head of the Medicare and Medicaid agency in the first Bush administration, recently said Democrats could have gotten Republican votes if they had compromised on medical liability.
Weiner, who worked in the Clinton White House, said, “Why don’t we give a little on that and put some limit on [caps] and then get all of this national health insurance coverage for people and protect them with it? It’s not that much of a price. That’s part of the sausage-making that I think we could done that actually might have made a difference.”
Although Obama has repeatedly cited medical malpractice reform as a possible area of compromise with the GOP, he has not explained where he sees the middle ground and, indeed, has rejected Republicans’ top priority in this area: the hard-dollar caps on lawsuit awards in malpractice cases long sought by the physician and business lobbies.
But officials from pro- and anti-malpractice reform camps agree that, beyond the modest measures already in the healthcare reform bills that passed Congress and some demonstration projects under way at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Obama has not give a clear indication of what sort of offer he is willing to make.
Asked whether they were aware of any new malpractice reform proposals from the Obama administration, these officials professed they were aware of none.
“I haven’t heard anything like that,” Lipsen said.
“Not that I know of,” said Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, a proponent of limits on malpractice lawsuit awards.
“We haven’t seen any substantial proposal that supports his rhetoric,” said Kurt Bardella, a spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who has been a critic of the Obama administration’s stance on malpractice reform. “We have been waiting for his follow through and that’s what we have yet to see,” Bardella said.
Based on Obama’s oft-stated views on federal policy governing malpractice lawsuits, the trial lawyers likely have little to worry about. “I don’t think he’ll shock the world and come out and embrace caps,” Rickard said.
Obama indicated he could embrace malpractice proposals that “make my party a little bit uncomfortable.” Unlikely though it is that Obama would reverse positions on malpractice lawsuit caps or other proposals, it would not mark the first time he aggravated his liberal allies during the healthcare reform debate.
Despite campaigning against taxation of employer-sponsored health insurance, Obama put himself at odds with unions by endorsing a Senate-passed excise tax on high-cost insurance plans that organized labor and most House Democrats passed. The White House also struck a controversial deal to win the support of the pharmaceutical industry for healthcare reform, frustrating liberals who think Obama went too light on their long-time nemesis.
The House and Senate bills each contain provisions aiming to improve patient safety and offering grants to states that develop alternate ways to resolve disputes over medical errors. Proponents of broader malpractice reforms dismiss these proposals as inadequate while trial lawyers have rejected another possible compromise, the creation of special “health courts” that would hear cases and medical errors and malpractice.
Moving toward the middle on medical malpractice reform is no guarantee of winning GOP support, however. Any concession that Republicans would view as meaningful would prompt an outcry from Democratic lawmakers and the trial bar, a close ally of the party.
“I don’t see that as a credible place to go if the object is to pass the bill,” said Lipsen, noting that legislation to enact malpractice award caps could even not advance through the Republican-controlled Senate several times in the last decade.
Moreover, Republicans have stood so strongly opposed to the Democratic healthcare bills that even full capitulation on medical malpractice reform would not produce instant bipartisanship, Rickard noted. “There are so many issues that are in dispute in this bill,” she said, “that malpractice reform in and of itself isn’t going to overcome them.”
Bob Cusack contributed to this article
A comment I found interesting
Even before it was a Republican idea - The People have been calling for TORT REFORM! Did Obama and this org Hear THAT?These Frivolous (stupid) Lawsuits are killing Healthcare - IF someone is truly negligent it's these Lawyers trying to mae a fast buck on peoples misguided ways! IF a doctor is truly Negligent, then he should pay - but also pay with his license, but he isn't going to be negligent for every LITTLE thing, some is always with the patient and MORE is what these, so-called Lawyers, do and say. REFORM in this area is a definite need OR Healthcare cost's will continue to rise! The monetary % amount that these lawyers get should be cut way, way down and then see how many cases they do - more money should go to the patient - NOT to these lawyers, remember the damage was done to the patient, not the lawyer!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
There is little of humility missing here on President's part. He is doing more of 'mission accomplished', 'Iraq is the front of terror war' and 'we fight Al Qeda in Iraq so that they do not attack us at home' kind of stuff. It is all heady in President Obama's head. I guess something happens with White House - an occupant of it becomes this 'head strong, arrogant and dishonest person' with no trace of humility.
Let us start:
1. Stimulus package - it worked, but it is time for him to acknowledge that WH was way too aggressive in their assumptions and they should have listened to many other outside experts in being more down to the earth; especially while selling that package to Americans.
2. Obama could have said that HCR could have waited in this Great Recession but he still wanted to pursue for (fill in the blanks) reasons. However, he needs to acknowledge that it took more time than what he thought and that kind of eaten up time in focusing on Economy.
3. PO, he did support and he did want it. He is on record, but he needs to say simply that it is sacrificed for now so that overall the bill moves forward.
4. Iran - diplomacy has not worked and there are no chances that it would work. Task is cut out in terms what needs to be done.
5. Israel does not see merit, for wrong reasons, in American position of stopping settlements and hence we are stuck.
These are all solid blockages President Obama has encountered in his first year and he better be upfront and honest about those.
Otherwise, another most important reason why Public backed Obama - absence of foolish arrogance of Bush Presidency - will very much whittle away.
Remember, it is our this Camelot who said he expected people to hold him accountable. President, time of deliverance is here.
Ezra...I recall Obama always saying he preferred a public option but it was not essential, and you admit yourself that they played it down. I think the exchange idea that is in the bill is a much more politically sound way to go. There were really a lot of questions about how feasible a public option was, who would run it, how it would be paid for. I am disappointed that the Medicare expansion did not go through (thanks Joe Lieberman), but to suggest this bill is "window dressing" is BS. And it's a start. I am a true blue Liberal who still supports the efforts of our President. I wouldn't listen to PUMAs such a Jane Hamsher, as reflective of most Democrats. Last poll I saw had Obama's approval ratings twice as high as GWBs. He still has great support.