Health Care Industry Trying To Get On Obama’s Good Side Before He Nationalizes Them

It won’t work, of course, but you can’t blame them for trying.

WASHINGTON – Top representatives of the health care industry plan to offer $2 trillion in cost reductions over 10 years in a bid to help pass President Barack Obama’s health overhaul, a source familiar with the negotiations said Sunday.
Industry officials representing health insurers, hospitals, doctors, drug makers and a major labor union plan to be at White House on Monday to present the offer. …
There is a sense among some of the groups that this may be the best opportunity to strike a deal before public opinion turns against them, fueled by anger over costs.

More likely they want to get out in front of the Obama administration, helped along by his lackeys in the national media, begins demonizing them in the same way he’s demonized investors in the Chrysler and GM deals.
Here’s what they’re afraid of. And, frankly, what you should be afraid of too:

Insurers, for example, want to avoid creation of a government health plan that would directly compete with them to enroll middle-class workers and their families. Drug makers worry that in the future, new medications might have to pass a cost-benefit test before they can win approval. And hospitals and doctors are concerned the government could dictate what they get paid to care for any patient, not only the elderly and the poor.

Here’s why you should be afraid:
If government health care plans become available then they’ll run all but the most exotic (and most expensive) health care plans out of business. That means little or no choice on health care for most of us. It’d be much like the public school system is now. With schools we’re all stuck sending our kids to the nearest public school, no matter how good or bad that school is, unless we can afford to opt out and go to a private school. Or home school. The same would be truth with health care. Unless you can afford to opt out to a private plan, you’ll be stuck with government health care regardless of how good it is.
As for medication, what cost-benefit analysis can the government possibly apply that is any better than what we have now? If a given medication will work for a patient, and if that patient can afford it, then why does the government need to be involved? This “cost benefit” stuff sounds suspiciously like the government deciding what sort of medication is acceptable for us. Once again, denying we private citizens choice. Do you want some government bureaucrat deciding what medications you can and can’t take? Because I don’t.
And finally, government price controls on health care are the worst possible thing that could happen to us. The reason why places like Canada and Great Britain are notorious for having long waiting lists to get health care is because those places ration health care. And they ration health care for the sake of price controls. You simply cannot provide an unlimited amount of health care on a finite government budget. In order for it to be workable at all, the government must control how often you use your health care. That means rationing. Now, we have rationing now in that you can only get as much health care as you can afford or that your insurance carrier is willing to pay for. While that’s far from perfect, better that than some bean-counter deciding your too old to get cancer treatment, or too fat to get knee surgery.
Also, once government price controls are in place, whose to say the best and the brightest in the health care industry won’t uproot and go places where the government doesn’t run their business for them?
My intent isn’t to put a smiley face on our current health care system. There are a lot of problems with it. That being said, Obama’s fix is worse than the problem.

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Given that my wife and I would sue the hell out of someone if we were to have children at this point in our lives, why do I need to pay for this?

    That’s the problem with health insurance. In order for it to work you have to be willing to pay for other people’s coverage.

    Now that shouldn’t stop you from self-insuring.

    OF course the health care payment system is partly to blame in the run up in prices. Having someone else to pay for it certainly takes out any reasonableness in consumer choice.

    If it were wide open, the patient pays, then you’d expect that people would be limiting care due to cost. While that doesn’t seem right I don’t see it any more appropriate to have a government thug make that decision.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    You might be able to keep your coverage, but make no mistake, you’ll be paying for other peoples.

    That is if you still have a job after Obamanomics takes full force.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Obama’s plan will make it worse.

    By the way what ever happened to Obama’s less than radical medical plan he talked about during the campaign.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    About the same as these guys that gave us a two trillion dollar deficit when they say this will save us money.

    By the way the pre-existing condition is to keep deadbeats (like Woof) from waiting until they’re sick to buy health insurance.

    I pay for the health insurance for my family. That’s the way everyone should do it.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    Load the Mule: Nancy and her friend angela were both spam. It’s camouflage to try to make them look legit while sneaking in a link to whatever they’re peddling.

  • SigFan

    That’s the problem with health insurance. In order for it to work you have to be willing to pay for other people’s coverage.

    To some extent that is a fair statement, as with any type of insurance, there is a shared risk cost built into it. I believe though that if coverages could be selected to tailor the plan to best suit your own needs that the costs would be reasonable, the coverage would be good and the insurance companies, in competition with each other rather than the state mandated near monopolies they have today would result in profitable operations for them.

    If it were wide open, the patient pays, then you’d expect that people would be limiting care due to cost. While that doesn’t seem right I don’t see it any more appropriate to have a government thug make that decision.

    I don’t see anything wrong with people making the choice for themselves. I actually don’t see it as any different than other types of insurance, you choose the deductible, the amount of coverage you want, the liability amounts, etc. You choose when or if you want to exercise your insurance. If I thought that going to the doctor for a minor thing that I can treat myself would drive my premiums up, I would simply opt to treat it myself. Same thing again with car insurance. I recently had some body work done on one of my cars. The insurance would have paid for about half the cost after my deductible, but the chances are good that they would up my premium at some time after that. I chose to pay for it out of pocket and save the insurance for a big need if it ever happens. In all of these cases though, it is/was my choice. Having the government mandate what you will or will not get in the way of medical insurance is just lunacy to me.

  • Buzz

    Insurers, for example, want to avoid creation of a government health plan that would directly compete with them to enroll middle-class workers and their families.

    What happened to competition is good? Isn’t the rant you always cry. You are just afraid that your place of business will through you to the wolfs. Once the national health care is in place all of you will be on it. Your place of work will drop you like a used rubber. We, on the other hand, in the Union are self insured and will not be affected.

  • SigFan

    If they really wanted to fix the problem, they would eliminate employer paid or subsidized insurance, require that the employer give the employee the equivalent amount in wages and allow individuals to shop for the best insurance plan for themselves and their families. This would also require that states allow insurers to compete across state lines and stop mandating that policies include coverages that people don’t need or want. For example, my current plan (employer/employee shared cost) covers things like pre and post natal care. Given that my wife and I would sue the hell out of someone if we were to have children at this point in our lives, why do I need to pay for this? There are also coverages and riders that given the opportunity to choose I would not purchase as they simply don’t apply to my life.

    I agree that the healthcare industry needs reform, but nationilzation isn’t the answer. It will only make things much worse. It would give us the benefit of everyone having equal coverage – unfortunately, it’s equally bad coverage.

  • HG

    Health Care Industry Trying To Get On Obama’s Good Side Before He Nationalizes Them

    More like Health Care Industry Selling Out

    Let’s call these opportunists what they are, sellouts.

  • Mickey

    The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.

    Everything Fauxbama talks about was attempted before. What is old is new again with a twist of charisma. The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.
    All he has done is enlarged the circle of entitlement benefactors.

    Our new “boss” has welcomed our banks and auto makers onto the plantation and they have said, “Thank you, Suh.”

    Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

    There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

    Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation. Just look what the healthcare industry is doing now.

    We saw this before from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Department of Education.

    Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 — The War on Poverty — ala President Johnson. His plan was to chart a new course. To strike at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty.

    Trillions of dollars later, little has changed.

    It’s not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama’s invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

  • LoadTheMule

    Nancy,

    What has he done–specifically–in the first 3.3 months that convinces you? I’m curious.

  • http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

    It’s called “extortion.”

  • Bat One

    We, on the other hand, in the Union are self insured and will not be affected.

    You are most certainly affected, though apparently too ignorant to recognize the fact.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    If we want health care to get better, we should quit subsidizing care by routing it through third payers.

    If we had more compeitition and individual responsibility health care would be cheaper.

  • WOOFX

    The guys who deny the public medical care (not covered, pre-existing, where’s your paperwork, first see your primary, fix the price of medications, make it illegal to buy them internationally),
    promise to save US two trillion dollars over ten years .

    What do you figure that promise is worth?

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development