Stand Out Stories of the Week

See Cartoons by Cartoon by J.D. Crowe - Courtesy of Politicalcartoons.com - Email this Cartoon

The Health Care Industry's PR Scam: Will Obama Fall for It?

From Mother Jones comes a big spoonful of Castor Oil Reality:


— By James Ridgeway | in MoJo on Mon May 11, 2009

In a much-anticipated statement today, Barack Obama announced what is largely a public relations end-run by the health care industry, designed to trim a few scraps off of the nation’s porcine health care budget, while preserving its basic system of medicine for profit.

In a letter to Obama that was released over the weekend, executives from the Advanced Medical Technology Association (the medical device manufacturers lobbying group), the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, as well as the Service Employees International Union, pledged to “do our part” to reduce health care costs. Their vague, pie-in-the sky promise amounts to just a 1.5 percent reduction in the growth rate of health care spending. Such is the explosion in health care costs that even this miniscule reduction represents a potential $2 trillion saving over 10 years. But there’s no guarantee this figure will be achieved. As the Washington Post points out:

The groups did not spell out yesterday how they plan to reach such a target, and…they offer only a broad pledge, not an outright commitment….In addition, White House officials said, there is no mechanism to ensure that the groups live up to their offer, only the implicit threat of public embarrassment.

“Public embarrassment”? From Big Pharma and the health insurance companies–-two of the most shameless industries in the history of corporate capitalism? In any case, even if the $2 trillion reduction is achieved, it clearly won’t come out of industry profits. The Post reports:

Signers of the letter said that large amounts could be saved by aggressive efforts to prevent obesity, coordinate care, manage chronic illnesses and curtail unnecessary tests and procedures; by standardizing insurance claim forms; and by increasing the use of information technology, like electronic medical records.

So let’s get this straight: Saving all this money depends on getting Americans to eat less? Good luck with that one. And the other brilliant cost-saving measures involve getting doctors to create computer records of all the overpriced drugs they prescribe, and giving patients easier forms to fill out before they get turned down six times by their private insurance companies?

Do you see a pattern here? None of these changes would make a dent in the industry’s bottom line--and what’s more, they could even enhance profits, by encouraging government-funded programs to help private companies streamline their bloated bureaucracy (much of which would instantly become superfluous under a public, single-payer system). The letter to Obama suggested this when it said: “We are committed to taking action in private-public partnership to create a more stable and sustainable health care system.” We all know by now that “private-public partnership” usually means public investment for private profit.

It all adds up to a brilliant move, when you think about it. It makes the private health care companies look cooperative and proactive, rather than like the greedy obstructionists they really are. It gets these companies on the inside track with the administration, and creates common cause with the unions. In particular, it establishes a solid place at the table for the health insurance industry, the blood-sucking middlemen who ought to be kicked out of the health care system altogether.

And what might the industry get in return for this generous “cooperation”? The Kaiser Daily Health Policy report today rounded up the possibilities:

The [Wall Street] Journal reports that although the groups did not ask for anything in return for the pledge, many of the factions are looking to prevent regulations that could “pose new burdens” or affect their profitability. For example, the health insurance industry is seeking to offset any reductions to their payments by obtaining new rules that would require all U.S. residents to have health coverage, according to the Journal. The Journal reports that health insurers have made several concessions intended to prevent a public option — which they fear could affect their profitability — as part of reform legislation (Wall Street Journal, 5/11). According to the AP/Philadelphia Inquirer, drugmakers are hoping to avoid a requirement that new drugs pass a cost-benefit test before receiving regulatory approval. In addition, hospitals and physicians are looking to avoid a system in which the government would dictate their payments for all patients, not just those under Medicare or Medicaid (Alonso-Zaldivar, AP/Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/11).

In other words, the underlying purpose of this PR stunt is to slow or block any meaningful health care reforms, which could actually improve care while reducing the price tag by a lot more than 1.5 percent. These include regulating the cost of pharmaceuticals and medical devices, curtailing or eliminating the role of the insurance companies, or introducing single-payer, which allows other developed countries to deliver superior health care for 20 to 40 percent less--all of which make $2 trillion in weight-loss programs and paperwork reduction measures look pretty pitiful by comparison.

All we can hope for is the possibility, remote as it may be, that Obama himself is also playing a PR game--making nice with the industry shills while planning some kind of genuine reform that will hit them in the only place that counts, and the only place where truly meaningful savings reside: their profit margins.

Jindal: Selfish Child Politico

Part 5 in a series,
"Jindal, What's Up With THAT?"

Crapaud's across town homeboy, Joseph in Louisiana, over at Blagueur had this post in the last day or so.
The Crapauds think his wish is coming true.


Bobby is acting childishly less grownup than his childhood doppelgänger.

Blagueur Sez:
OH, PLEASE Bobby. Please turn the money down.

GOP Governors Consider Turning Down Stimulus Money

U.S. Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., the No. 3 House Democrat, said the governors _ some of whom are said to be eyeing White House bids in 2012 _ are putting their own interests first.

"No community or constituent should be denied recovery assistance due to their governor's political ideology or political aspirations," Clyburn said Wednesday.

In fact, governors who reject some of the stimulus aid may find themselves overridden by their own legislatures because of language Clyburn included in the bill that allows lawmakers to accept the federal money even if their governors object.

He inserted the provision based on the early and vocal opposition to the stimulus plan by South Carolina's Republican governor, Mark Sanford. But it also means governors like Sanford and Louisiana's Bobby Jindal _ a GOP up-and-comer often mentioned as a potential 2012 presidential candidate _ can burnish their conservative credentials, knowing all the while that their legislatures can accept the money anyway.

Jindal said he, like Perry and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, is concerned about strings attached to the money even though his state faces a $1.7 billion budget shortfall next year.

Well, Blaguer, it seems your fondest wish is coming true. Bobby says too many strings attached to increasing unemployment compensation, and it would be too hard on businesses.

Li'l Bobby''ll just turn down that $98,000.000.00 right up front. What a compassionate dispassionate calculating little christian his Hindu parents have spawned.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Bush's Pandering to Religious Right: Hypocrisy Pure and Simple

Day #6 in the Countdown to the Termination of the Bush Term

On the Bush legacy of politicizing religion, having gained enough votes with the support of Christianistas to send the 2000 election to the supreme court and thereafter governing with a most un-Christian attitude, delivering only lip-service and multiple government grants to the Talibangelicals, CRAPAUD SEZ: HYPOCRISY! HYPOCRISY, I SAY!

A dictionary definition of hypocrisy, with synonyms: noun

A show or expression of feelings or beliefs one does not actually hold or possess as in:

Bush's claiming he want's to "leave no child behind," then vetoing health insurance for uninsured children 3 times, is an example of hypocrisy.

synonyms: phoniness, sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, tartuffery, two-facedness, assholism.

What, six whole days left before he leaves, SHEEE-E-E-EEESSSHH!

*****