An early win for Obama on health care
Most of the big players in the health-care industry — the doctors, the insurance companies, the hospitals, the big pharmaceutical companies — have apparently decided to join rather than fight President Obama’s health-care reform effort.
In an appearance at the White House taking place right now, industry representatives are pledging to save $2 trillion over the next 10 years, much of it through changes pushed by Obama. The goal would be to apply those savings to help extend health-care coverage to the nearly 46 million Americans without insurance.
What does it all mean?
It means the health-care industry believes Obama has the muscle and the will to force serious change, and that their interests are better served by working with Obama. It means that Republicans fighting the change may not have much industry backing in that effort, and won’t be rewarded with industry campaign funds for doing so. It means Obama will probably be able to claim a very large success, at least politically.
In substantive policy terms, the impact is far less certain. Will the industry — can the industry — actually carry through on its savings commitment? It’s way too early to tell, and doubt is all too justified.
And while in some ways the decision looks like an industry surrender of sorts to Obama, in reality it merely shifts the scene of the upcoming fight. The industry hasn’t given up; it has merely decided it is better off being part of the drafting of the bill.
I’d also imagine that the various sectors of the industry were played off each other to get this result. If the hospitals were at the table negotiating in their own best interests, for example, doctors knew they needed to be there too. If the drug companies were helping to write the bill, insurance companies had to be there too.
Final analysis? I’d say today’s announcement has the potential to be important, but only that. They’re a long, long way from any kind of actual deal or plan.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
228 comments Add your comment
Mrs. Godzilla
May 11th, 2009
1:17 pm
Are we gonna’ get a seat at the table for single payor advocates?
jewcowboy
May 11th, 2009
1:18 pm
“industry representatives are pledging to save $2 trillion over the next 10 years”
If they can do that now, why could they not have done this during the past 10 years?
Taxpayer
May 11th, 2009
1:37 pm
Well, Jay, the initial proposal from the health care industry doesn’t look that great to me but it sure beats the GOP strategy of just saying no and getting in the way of others that at least try to earn a little of their pay.
Their proposal to cut expenses by 1.5% per year for ten years will not make health care affordable. At best, it may make a little dent in future cost increases due to inflation. At least they did put something on the table to kick around and get things started though. I think the fed should become the insurance underwriter for catastrophic coverage, for one thing. They already are for all forms of natural disasters and many man-made-possible disasters.
Dave R
May 11th, 2009
1:39 pm
Maybe because they decided that if Hope & Change can blatantly take over car companies in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, they felt it would be better to knuckle under to the Socialist hammer than to fight against it.
Socialism – it’s good for what ails ya – in the short term.
Joe Matarotz
May 11th, 2009
1:43 pm
This change is going to initially save me 500.00 annually, and will grow to 2500.00 annually. By saving me 500.00+ per year, that will enable insurance coverage to be extended to others who currently have no insurance coverage. Am I the only one who senses something wrong in the math here? I was taught as a youngster that when something seems too good to be true, it usually is. And when it’s insurance companies that are saying this, I just don’t think it’s going to work out the way it’s being presented. In fact, this one sticks to high heaven.
Dave R
May 11th, 2009
1:43 pm
Of course, until the bill comes due . . .
Cherokee
May 11th, 2009
1:44 pm
DaveR if you think it’s a “direct violation of the Constitution”, I’m sure you’ll be filing a lawsuit to end such shenanigans?
Bosch
May 11th, 2009
1:47 pm
Dave R.,
Do we even need laws?
Susan Myers
May 11th, 2009
1:47 pm
Shameful!
Some patients with serious illnesses have discovered their insurance companies are dropping them and charging them for treatment after the fact.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5005000n%3fsource=search_video
Dave R
May 11th, 2009
1:47 pm
If only I had the money to do so.
Ah, well. I’ll just have to let my vote speak for itself. With any luck, those with funds sufficient will feel the need to file suit. It’s certain you’ll never see the ACLU file against the government on this one, as it increases the size and scope of it.
Dave R
May 11th, 2009
1:48 pm
Only a few, Bosch, only a few.
TnGelding
May 11th, 2009
1:50 pm
Dave R
May 11th, 2009
11:48 am
Of course they could have. But there was no need to. They had a Republican majority in Congress doing their bidding. And like Jay said, it’s a long way from a done deal.
The proposals they’ve agreed to accept are very modest. They see the handwriting on the wall and don’t want a government run system. Plus, a fight would be very costly.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 11th, 2009
1:17 pm
There are plenty of them in Congress and I assume, the administration.
The whole truth
May 11th, 2009
1:50 pm
Boston Globe — Although the offer from the industry groups doesn’t resolve thorny details of a new health care system, it does offer the prospect of freeing a large chunk of money to help pay for coverage. And it puts the private-sector groups in a good position to influence the bill Congress is writing.
It’s unclear whether the proposed savings will prove decisive in pushing a health care overhaul through Congress. There’s no detail on how the savings pledge would be enforced. And, critically, the promised savings in private health care costs would accrue to society as a whole, not just the federal government. That’s a crucial distinction because specific federal savings are needed to help pay for the cost of expanding coverage.
Costs have emerged as the most serious obstacle to Obama’s plan. The estimated federal costs range from $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years, and so far Obama has only spelled out how to get about half of that.
The industry groups are trying to get on the administration bandwagon for expanded coverage now in the hope they can steer Congress away from legislation that would restrict their profitability in future years.
Susan Myers
May 11th, 2009
1:51 pm
I asked all 11 of my Canadian friends if they’d trade their system for ours. The answer? HELL NO!
Bosch
May 11th, 2009
1:52 pm
Dave R.,
Yeah, maybe we should go back to the days of the Wild West and let everybody just make up their own justice and their own ideas of what’s right. Man, those were the days.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 11th, 2009
1:53 pm
TN
Yes, but they were not allowed to speak at last weeks hearing nor have they been invited to the next.
Susan Myers
May 11th, 2009
1:53 pm
Single payer all the way!
Dave R
May 11th, 2009
1:53 pm
So Gelding, by your comments I take it you agree with my statement that they are knuckling under to the inevitable pressure this administration would put on them if they didn’t?
Nothing like the takeover of a few private businesses to get the rest of the nation to fall into Socialist line . . .
Susan Myers
May 11th, 2009
1:55 pm
Socialism, here we come! And not a moment too soon!
jewcowboy
May 11th, 2009
1:56 pm
On a off-topic note:
Iowa Senator Tom Harkin appeared on Iowa Public Television’s Iowa Press program over the weekend and told the hosts that his perspective has changed since he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1998. Harkin called the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision on marriage equality “enlightening” and said he would vote against any proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, though he believes the issue will “fade” before it gets to voters.
Said Harkin: “We all grow as we get older and we learn things and we become more sensitive to people and people’s lives and the more I’ve looked at that I’ve grown to think differently about how people, how we should live and I guess I’m at the point of live and let live.”
If only many more people would get to that point.
david wayne osedach
May 11th, 2009
1:57 pm
I lived in London (UK) as an expatriate for three years where they have the National Health System. If you get sick doctors and hospitals are free: prescriptions will cost you one British Pound – the equivilant of a $1.50. Everyone is covered including expatriates.
Dave R
May 11th, 2009
1:57 pm
Susan, I’m shocked!
First, that you can count to eleven. Second, that you have any friends that aren’t plastic.
Most of my family is in Canada, and those who will speak of it say that their pay system is great, while the actual medical care is fair to good – but not exceptional.
Those than can’t speak to it have died while waiting for adequate care to be assigned in time.
Dave R
May 11th, 2009
1:59 pm
Bosch, you, of all people, should know better than to put words in my mouth. You know I never suggested that we make up our own ideas of what is right or wrong.
Play nice. You’re getting to be as snarky and useless as Taxpayer with those kinds of comments.
RetLTC
May 11th, 2009
2:00 pm
Maybe Dave R, what the health care moguls are saying is that they could have done this all along. The difference now is that they are scared $#@&^!* and it’s about time.
Bosch
May 11th, 2009
2:00 pm
Dave R.,
Or maybe they just died – people do that, ya’ know. That’s a boogy man argument from the right – “OMG!!!!! WE’ll all die waiting on health care.”
Ba-loney.
Bosch
May 11th, 2009
2:01 pm
Dave R.,
Maybe I’m just in a snarky mood today – hehehehee. Working with numbers does that to me.
TnGelding
May 11th, 2009
2:02 pm
Dave R
May 11th, 2009
1:39 pm
The boards of directors are running the auto companies. They agreed to certain stipulations to try to avoid bankruptcy. They didn’t have to take the government investment.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/02/autos-detroit-bailout-biz-manufacturing-cz_jf_0102flint.html
Dave R
May 11th, 2009
2:02 pm
“and I guess I’m at the point of live and let live.”
jewcowboy, if Harkin truly believed that, he would leave the Democrat party immediately.
Bosch
May 11th, 2009
2:02 pm
Dave R.,
But if we have few laws, wouldn’t that be what we’d be reduced to? Or do you honestly think people will just play fair?
Susan Myers
May 11th, 2009
2:03 pm
Send free faxes requesting single payer.
http://www.1payer.net/campaigns/stop-obstructing-health-care-reform.html
Taxpayer
May 11th, 2009
2:03 pm
Socialism or the GOP approach. Socialism wins. Maybe the GOP should try offering up something that works. Oh. Wait a moment. They offered up tax cuts…again. But, not just any tax cuts. They offered up trickle-down tax cuts. Hmmm. Sounds vaguely familiar. In fact, it is more of the same old failed GOP policies wrapped up and presented to we the people by the new faces of the GOP — McCain and Gingrich and Cheney. hehehehe. Excuse me. I can’t help myself. HAHAHAHA. New faces. hehehe. Do their taxpayer paid insurance policies cover face transplants. That’s the only way they could claim the title of “New Faces” of the GOP.
Redneck Convert
May 11th, 2009
2:04 pm
Well, I’m with Sister Dusty on this guvmint health care stuff. If everybody gets insurance I will have to wait longer in the waiting room to see my Dr. I could even be late for my golf match.
What I want to know is how cutting costs over the next 10 years is going to get coverage for people that don’t have insurance now. I mean, the rest of us might could see lower bills for Drs. and insurance but it’s for danged sure we ain’t going to spend our savings on paying for somebody’s else’s Drs. and insurance. It sounds a little like the old story about the two crazies that got outside the mental hospitle and were trying to figure out how to get over the tall wall around the place. One said, I’ll hold the flashlight and you climb up the beam to the top of the wall. The other one said, Think I’m crazy? You’ll turn it off when I get halfway up.
Anyhow, this all sounds like a con job to me. No amount of cutting costs is going to get a person that ain’t covered now covered. These insurance cos. and Drs. and such just want to get in on the ground floor so their butts are cushioned by any guvmint health care that comes out.
That’s my opinion and it’s very true. Have a good p.m. everybody.
TnGelding
May 11th, 2009
2:05 pm
jewcowboy
May 11th, 2009
1:18 pm
My 1:50 should have been to you.
Sorry David R.
Bosch
May 11th, 2009
2:06 pm
I wish RW was here so I could tell him how much fun we had with the “National Days” list yesterday at my mom’s.
I guess he’s hungover from the Full Flower Moon celebration.
RetLTC
May 11th, 2009
2:07 pm
Also Dave R, what about those here in this country that have died because some mid level insurance company hack denied coverage or treatment? Kind of like the rock and the hard place, huh? The beauracrat or the profiteer. No matter what side of this issue one falls on, it doesn’t take a genius to understand that health care costs has gotten beyond the means of millions of Americans.
Dave R
May 11th, 2009
2:07 pm
Gelding, c’mon. You don’t REALLY believe that, do you? UAW pension plans are given priority over lenders. CEO of GM is sacked by Hope & Change. Banks are told they cannot give back TARP funds, and instead must convert loans to common shares of stock.
Democrats hated Republicans for using fear of terrorist attacks to get elected and get their programs through. How is this ANY different, except Democrats are using fear (and threat) of government takeover to get their agenda through?
TnGelding
May 11th, 2009
2:08 pm
Mrs. Godzilla
May 11th, 2009
1:53 pm
Do any of the three plans being considered by the Senate include it? Yeah, I posted the video where they got thrown out of the hearing.
Susan Myers
May 11th, 2009
2:09 pm
irrelevant one @ 1:57,
I don’t have time for you right now, sweetcakes, you’ll have to take care of your needs on your own, and you know what I mean.
Bosch
May 11th, 2009
2:09 pm
And before anybody yells at me for my comment @ 2:00 – I happen to be in the camp of folks who feel we spend WAY too much money to keep people alive.
Dave R
May 11th, 2009
2:10 pm
Bosch, people would play fair if they either had the option of paying through their nose any damages they caused, or being sent to jail for real, live crimes against people.
The problem is that people have become so reliant on government to do what they should be doing for themselves, because it is easy to let those with the guns do the dirty work, rather than doing it themselves and defending their life, liberty and property on their own.
Bosch
May 11th, 2009
2:10 pm
“what about those here in this country that have died because some mid level insurance company hack denied coverage or treatment?”
AMEN!!! Take that Dave!!!
jewcowboy
May 11th, 2009
2:11 pm
TnGelding,
Your right, of course. A day late and a dollar short in my opinion, but at least they see the handwriting on the wall. They see healthcare reform as inevitable, and they want a seat at the table. They know they’ll be the odd man out if they stick to the party of no.
Bosch
May 11th, 2009
2:11 pm
Dave R.,
“The problem is that people have become so reliant on government to do what they should be doing for themselves”
Only in your imagination. The government doesn’t do crap for people much anymore – look around.
Bosch
May 11th, 2009
2:13 pm
Also Dave.,
“the option of paying through their nose any damages they caused, or being sent to jail for real, live crimes against people”
That’s the guvmit’s fault? No, that’s the lawyers fault – ya’ got the $$$, you get out of jail.
Susan Myers
May 11th, 2009
2:14 pm
Congress has free, government run health care. I say if it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for the rest of us.
DebbieDoRight
May 11th, 2009
2:14 pm
If they can do that now, why could they not have done this during the past 10 years?
“Cause it wasn’t in their best interests!!! They had “friends” in high places and knew the status quo wasn’t changing anytime soon. Now however…….
Dave R., Maybe because they decided that if Hope & Change can blatantly take over car companies in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution,
I would LOVE for you to show me where in the constitution you found that ^^^. Please reference the paragraph. Oh PLEASE!!!
TnGelding
May 11th, 2009
2:14 pm
Dave R
May 11th, 2009
1:53 pm
I would say they’re being prudent in trying to save their companies. Looks like the effort is going to be in vain with GM, just like it was with Chrysler. Hopefully Ford will endure. Its stock is nearing the $7 mark I predicted last year.
This was really a tough call. If not for the millions of jobs involved I’m sure the government wouldn’t have butted in.
Dave R
May 11th, 2009
2:15 pm
RetLTC, the difference is that the quality of care here is far superior to that of those countries that have socialized medicine. You don’t wait months for an MRI here – usually just days, if that. Cutting-edge procedures are developed here more often. I want superior care for me first, not average care for everybody.
No system is perfect, but I’ll take ours over anyone else’s any day.
Dave R
May 11th, 2009
2:17 pm
Susan, please.
Congress has “free” healthcare?
Obviously, you failed to pass Civics 101 back in the 1930’s.
TnGelding
May 11th, 2009
2:17 pm
Dave R
May 11th, 2009
1:57 pm
Why prolong the inevitable. Death awaits us.