How Big Medicine and Politics as Usual Sabotaged Obamacare

How Big Medicine and Politics as Usual Sabotaged Obamacare
Daniel Borman/Creative Commons
Early in his presidency, Barack Obama tried to get the youth involved in the fight for health care reform with events like this 2009 rally at the University of Maryland.

It was the winter of our discontent, 2009. A season of bank failures, massive layoffs and $5-a-gallon gasoline.

Finally, a fractured country could at least agree on one thing: This had to change.

So President Barack Obama set out to deactivate the next bomb awaiting the U.S. economy, the one ticking inside our bloated, beleaguered health system.

Occupy Wall Street protestors at Pfizer’s world headquarters in New York. The pharmaceutical giant benefits from the government’s inability to negotiate a better price for their drugs — Canadians pay about a third less for Pfizer’s Celebrex than Americans.
Michael Fleshman/Creative Commons
Occupy Wall Street protestors at Pfizer’s world headquarters in New York. The pharmaceutical giant benefits from the government’s inability to negotiate a better price for their drugs — Canadians pay about a third less for Pfizer’s Celebrex than Americans.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s home state of Kentucky has one of the most successful state co-ops, Kynect, which grabbed 60 percent of the market. McConnell, ironically, helped sabotage co-op funding in 26 other states.
Gage Skidmore/Creative Commons
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s home state of Kentucky has one of the most successful state co-ops, Kynect, which grabbed 60 percent of the market. McConnell, ironically, helped sabotage co-op funding in 26 other states.

Since the 1990s, insurance premiums had averaged double-digit annual increases. America was spending over $7,500 per person per year — 50 percent more than Norway, the next-largest contender. Health spending alone was chewing up one-sixth of the U.S. economy, double that of competitors like Japan, and putting American employers at a severe disadvantage.

Worse, we were paying Maserati premiums for something that looked a lot like a used Kia. Though pols like Ohio Republican House Speaker John Boehner loved to bray that America had "the best health-care delivery system in the world," it wasn't remotely so. The World Health Organization ranked us an embarrassing 36th, behind such notables as Costa Rica, Colombia and Saudi Arabia. Other rankings routinely put the U.S. near the bottom of the industrialized world.

"We spend one and a half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it," Obama told Congress in 2009. "This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages."

Big Medicine had done its best to keep it that way. Since 1999, it had spent nearly $6 billion on lobbying — three times what the next-largest industry, insurance, had spent. An obedient Congress had allowed it to build a system in which millions couldn't afford coverage, huge swaths of the country were essentially served by monopolies, and prices continued to go up and up.

"In the decade up to 2009, 79 percent of all the growth in household income was absorbed by health care," says Dr. Brian Klepper, CEO of the National Business Coalition on Health. "Everything in Washington is rigged, but the thing most rigged is health care, because they have even more money than the banks. Both sides take money at a rapid clip from the industry in exchange for getting their own way. So everything is done in the special interest, and nothing is done in the common interest."

But that spring, with an enraged electorate and the economy in tatters, Obama was given a once-in-a-lifetime chance to break Big Med's stranglehold. He vowed to do it the old-fashioned way: by introducing competition, forcing Big Med to earn its keep.

Everyone would sit "around a big table," Obama had told a crowd in Virginia the year before. "We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators, insurance companies, drug companies. They'll get a seat at the table. They just won't be able to buy every chair."

Five years later, it's hard to argue with Obamacare's success. Some seven million people have signed up for insurance. The sick can no longer be barred from coverage, nor can the chronically ill be kicked to the curb.

Yet Republicans still rail that Obamacare is some socialist perversion. Democrats, meanwhile, often treat the plan as an illegitimate child they'd rather not acknowledge.

What both sides neglect to mention is their complicity in sabotaging the bill, selling out an unprecedented opportunity to the very guys who created the time bomb in the first place.


There was an obvious cure

The president's ultimate goal was coverage for the country's 48 million uninsured. In places like Europe and Canada, the government pays basic health-care costs for all citizens. This type of insurance is often called "single-payer," because one payer, the government, covers basic medical care.

Anyone wondering how it might function need look no further than Medicare, which runs all senior health care in this country. It's arguably the most popular government program in America, and one of the more cost-effective.

Start with the cost of administration. Medicare's ranges between 2 and 5 percent of its budget. For private insurance, the average is 12 percent. The Government Accountability Office once estimated that this simple savings alone would be "more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage."

Moreover, a single provider would have the size to negotiate better prices from providers and pharmaceutical companies. According to a New England Journal of Medicine study, this would save another $400 billion — and provide a boon for American business, reducing labor costs by 10 to 12 percent.

A CBS poll found that 59 percent of the public favored a government health plan. Unfortunately, the body politic is more impressed with power than with the will of the people. One of the biggest players in Congress — the insurance industry — wasn't about to get squeezed out of its lucrative role as middle man.

Insurers, rightfully, see single-payer as a threat to their very existence. With a single-payer system, most health insurers would vanish overnight, so the industry set out to ensure that such a program never saw the light of day.

"Of course they don't want it," wrote Robert Reich, a former secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, in a 2009 opinion piece. "A public option would squeeze their profits and force them to undertake major reforms. That's the whole point."

1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
All
 
Next Page »
 
My Voice Nation Help
44 comments
noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

Obamacare, a/k/a ObamaScrare, was self-destructive from its start as an idea.  And, the method by which it was passed in the House and Senate only made matters worse.  (You have to pass the bill to know what's in it), the new standard of Democrats and the Obama Administration for doing the business of Congress, was the hallmark phrase of this disaster of a program -- often sold with lies, deceit, and pure ignorance.

The comparisons to the early days of Social Security and Medicare were utter garbage.  Both were though through with greater detail, both were debated in Congress, and both welcomed professional observations on all sides. 

Not so Obamacare.  Like Obama, it was shoved down our throats by Obama and Democrats in Congress, and it robbed Social Security and Medicare of over a billion dollars to help finance it - also denied by the Failure in Chief. 

No reasonable person can possibly, with a clear conscience, blame EITHER the medical community, the insurance industry, or politics.  THE DEMOCRATS HAD THE WHITE HOUSE, THE CONGRESS, AND THE SENATE WHEN OBAMACARE WAS BORN, AND CANNOT POSSIBLY BLAME ITS UTTER FAILURES ON "POLITICS" OR ANYONE ELSE. 





ewshep
ewshep

Chris Parker has Obama poop on his nose. 

cajunscouse9
cajunscouse9

Obamacare sabotaged itself. Good freaking grief.

noblefurrtexas
noblefurrtexas

The silly notion that external forces sunk ObamaCare is as ridiculous as Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy". 

ObamaScare, as it's known in many parts of the country,  has been self-defeating because of internal gross incompetence, inexperience, lack of respect for tax payers and their money, and policies made up out of whole cloth.

A majority of Americans hate it, it is trying to force a Socialistic system on what is already the best medical care on the planet, so much wrongdoing as been covered-up by the White House and Sibelius completely mishandled gluing together something she couldn't even begin to manage.

ObamaScare is the fault of nobody else other than Obama and Democrats.  They voted en mass to pass ObamaScare without reading the bill.  And NOW they are surprised?????? 

yankee011
yankee011

Nobody said Dems were perfect, don't be so sensitive, all i said is Republicans don't care about people they only care about themselves and the current healthcare debate is proof, Rick Perry didn't expand medicaid on the feds dime and PEOPLE WILL DIE, fact. So one would conclude that if I have the capability to do something that saves lives and i don't well than  one would think you don't care.You don't have a coherent answer to that , just name calling and changing the subject.

oledriller
oledriller

Just wait until the other 70% of ObamaCare kicks in that you didn't get to read about. Wait until your employer drops your health insurance over the next few years.  The "Liar N Chief" is doing his best to delay all the mandates and hidden regulations passed into law by his congressional drones before the next election. There are now more people without health insurance and jobs than when George Bush Jr. left office. Just about time Obama leaves office the U.S. economy will collapse like a Chinese lawn chair. Stagflation, increasing unemployment and Jimmy Carter deja vue all over again. The Democrats will wear the Medal of Shame around their necks for the next century. But it really won't matter. The U.S. will have transformed into the progressive libs dream of a Euro-socialist Nanny State. 

bvckvs
bvckvs topcommenter

Gosh, not only does this Dallas Observer's cover story have nothing to do with Dallas whatsoever, but also the author is some AM talk radio guy from out-of-state - a Libertarian Republican who spends all his time complaining about how much he hates Obama.


rprp
rprp

Anything that gets the Socialist vermin pi**ed off is a good thing.

yankee011
yankee011

PlanoDave political affiliation THESE DAYS has alot to do with healthcare, one side DID something to try and fix our lousy and expensive healthcare system the other side would have done NOTHING to try and fix it and for the past 3 years they have tried to STOP it. That side runs Texas where our idiot Gov. did NOT expand coverage through Medicaid therefore people will  DIE,.DIE, DIE.


And i thought bstewart1987 said the dumbest thing of the day but YOU my friend take the cake when you said "How about a person who is healthy and takes care of themselves" WOW you must be superman NEVER to get sick

Sotiredofitall
Sotiredofitall topcommenter

Ha Ha Suckers - Big Med was in on the deal from the start   The Dem's sold you out, just like the Repub's would

husbandofmoonlight
husbandofmoonlight

Just as well, after reading over half of the "ACA" it was revealed that the entire program is nothing but a 'big giveaway to big Pharma and Insurance companies"---which is why the Republicans have opposed it from the beginning; THEY did not have the chance to "give so much" to the Oligarchy.



yankee011
yankee011

Republicans do not care about people. They only care about themselves and as long as they can get discounted insurance everyone else can piss off and die. 

ewshep
ewshep

@yankee011 Republicans don't care about people is about the most ridiculous thing you libtards ever say, and you say it often. Nothing in your idiotic spewage is factual, period. 

Sotiredofitall
Sotiredofitall topcommenter

@bvckvs  Please define "Libertarian Republican" versus "Tea Party Republican"

Larry_Williams
Larry_Williams

@yankee011

If you keep repeating "Dems are perfect' long enough you'll have blown enough hot air to have actually caused the climate to change, change, change. A person of your exquisite sensibilities should be the next Ruler of the World. No doubt you have prepared accordingly. Thank you for attempting to educate us at the expense of your sanity! 

kduble
kduble

@yankee011 It doesn't matter how well one takes care of oneself. There's the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Things break, and we all grow older.

mrbusyb
mrbusyb

@Sotiredofitall  The two party system is a necessary evil.  Without it, we become ruled by a single legal party of lawyers which is the case today.  But the true advancement over the U.S. Constitution wasn't the two party system - it was brought over from the Old World after all - but, the true advancement was the American Movement process which was an awakening later on in such people as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Thoreau, Samuel Clemens, and during more modern times, Uncle Emanuel Watkins.  


Today, we are fast reverting back to the days of tyranny when a few would manufacture consent from the people.  Noam Chomsky:  "It was normal, even out in the open in the Royal family and its surrounding aristocracy for the leisure class to benefit greatly off of the easily fooled by manufacturing consent from them.  


In other words, there existed no such endeavor as organized crime apart from government before these modern times of our Founding Fathers.  In the Old World during the time of tyranny and the ruling monarchies, the government and organized crime were one in the same.  I'm talking "The Noble Savage" days before the time of John Locke and Jean Rousseau.  A lot of heavy, mysterious, and cruel Machiavellian stuff happened and was accepted as necessary.  The king had to do these cruel things in the best interest for himself, for his family, for both the aristocracy and military nobility that he established around himself for his protection, and for the simple and worthless masses of commoners under his rule (The nameless and faceless multitude).    


This is an edit of the prior post I made which I accidently posted before any revision.      

mrbusyb
mrbusyb

@Sotiredofitall  Liar, liar, pants on fire.  That means a Puritan parent of old should be willing to help his or her child until they lie to them for a third time, then they should be shunned to suffer the consequences of their actions.  The kind of lying that president Obama does has more to do with the manufacturing of consent from the people.  He is being allowed to do this because the Republican party is no longer viable today as a lot of their members have abandoned them for the new Tea Party.  As is always the case, Republican feel that their long "rich" history as a party supersedes even the best interest of the United States.  As has happened a few times before in our nation's history, the two party system today has dissolved into a lone institution of lying lawyers.  While Obama is aware that his actions have no political consequences, as he knows he won't be prosecuted for treason as the two party system is now defunct and the Republican party is dead, his lying has managed to lose the trust of his customers.


Oddly, this only goes to prove that liars who lie aren't virtuous.      

mrbusyb
mrbusyb

@husbandofmoonlight  The idea of insurance was created in the Old World and is accepted in the New World today as a necessary evil.  The idea of insurance has a long tradition in the Old World as do the political ideas of the two-party political system and that of a private centralized banking system run by a powerful elite in society.   Indeed, if the royal queen Elizabeth herself were to go off to get drunk and then ram her Rolls Royce into the back of a school bus killing every child aboard, she would surely be held blameless for the offense.  After all, as the song goes, every child victimized would be ultimately saved through her.  But, according to the new natural law declared by our Founders over here in the New World, the opposite is true.  As they declared, all men were born equally endowed with the same exact business agenda for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

God save the people.   

Filldaddy
Filldaddy

@husbandofmoonlight  See if you can find the original bill, rather than the one with the big pharma and insurance subsidies that both GOP and Dem reps added to it each one one-upping the other.  


I wonder if moonlight has a better idea of what happened or if she/he holds posseses the same flawed logic and lack of reason that you do. 

blase1
blase1

@husbandofmoonlight  If that is true (Republicans opposed the "big giveaway to big Pharma and Insurance companies") why didn't they propose and support the "public option," which most Americans wanted and which would decidedly NOT be a big giveaway to those entities?

wcvemail
wcvemail

@yankee011  
That's the sort of illiterate, learn-nothing, knee-jerk belief that keeps us all under the thumb of BOTH parties, who differ little. You did not read the article, or you would have learned about the role of Dem Sen. Max Baucus, who let his hired-gun staffer write a critical bill. Dem Sen. Ben Nelson sabotaged the co-op plan. Dem Sens Menendez, Carper, and Baucus sided with the Repubs.

Finally, the worst one of them all is proof that he and his kind can fool your kind forever: Billy Tauzin started as a Dem, switched to Repub when it paid off, then took the really big payday by going to work for the same pharm industry he had been supporting all along.

Moron, you're the kind who misspells bathroom graffiti.

ewshep
ewshep

@yankee011  Go home Yankee, we don't want or need your Lying Liberal ass here.

mrbusyb
mrbusyb

@yankee011  The worst spiritual offense isn't to kill or maim a child, but to simply stumble them up.  As the children of God, the busy people aren't here to think of such complex matters like equality, responsibility, and the legal endeavor of government, but to work at becoming more happy exponentially both for the sake of themselves and collectively for society.  Just because my disadvantaged position allows you to fool me doesn't justify your offense.  So, the true two-party system is one that is made up of those who benefit by fooling the easily fooled and those who genuinely care (love) to help in lifting them up from their disadvantaged state.      

bstewart1987
bstewart1987

@yankee011 Is it my problem they a person may smoke 20 cigs a day and chose their life path to not include healthcare?

yankee011
yankee011

@ewshep @yankee011 If you deny healthcare to people which the Republican party here in Texas has causing people to die , one with half a brain would only conclude the you don't care. Your retort consists of nothing showing how republicans care about people its only outrage and insults which tells one all they need to know about you. YOU GOT NOTHING!

Sotiredofitall
Sotiredofitall topcommenter

@mrbusyb   Blah Blah Blah  Seems a lot of overwrought faux intellectual rhetoric to just say we now live in an oligarchy

 

Filldaddy
Filldaddy

@blase1 @husbandofmoonlight  because the GOP (and several Dems) lobbied to have that verbiage added to the bill. 


Gotta earn those PAC contributions and luxury trips!  No fears, maybe moonlight has a working brain cell.

wcvemail
wcvemail

@ewshep

Yeah, because calling somebody a Lying Liberal is so much easier than actually thinking. You're as bad as he is.

kduble
kduble

@bstewart1987 @yankee011 "Is it my problem...?"


If you're a Dallas County taxpayer, the answer is yes. Your property taxes support the treatment of the uninsured, and the hospitals have always passed some of these costs on to insurers, who in turn, pass it along to their ratepayers in the form of premiums. So, yes, you do pay when insurance isn't mandated for everyone.

yankee011
yankee011

@bstewart1987 @yankee011  Who chooses not to have healthcare?  That is the dumbest statement i ever heard..YOU MUST BE A REPUBLICAN. Thanks for proving my point

ewshep
ewshep

@yankee011 @ewshep The fact is if you are called on to prove it, it is you who has "GOT NOTHING, lameass. Give us a name of a person who was denied health care due to the Republicans. Just one. You can't. Because like all libfarts, you just make this shit up.

wcvemail
wcvemail

@mrbusyb

You don't get out much, do you, and get laid even less.  

mrbusyb
mrbusyb

@Sotiredofitall @mrbusyb  That is probably because I have more of a sound education in philosophy.  Our  Founding Fathers didn't establish our new nation on political science as the cognitive sciences were still in their infancy during their time (Just consider how Immanual Kant as the recognized father of epistemology was a peer of our Founders having lived during their time and, after having his heart swept away by reading the essays of Rousseau, became an instrumental part of the French Revolution?).  And political science is a cognitive science after all.  For example, having a lot of depth in the philosophy of science, I know that a natural right originally wasn't a legal civil one, but it reduced down on the physical level (as there existed no such endeavor during Locke's time as the cognitive sciences).  During the time of John Locke, a scientist was still known as a "natural philosopher" and had to be a member of the "clergy."  Even Charles Darwin had to be a member of the clergy in order to work as a natural philosopher in the field of biology.  


You utilize terms of political science that are used commonly in the Old World.  Yet, our Founders didn't establish our new nation on the traditions of Old World legal precedence, but they utilized the scientific method of natural law.  Instead of them grabbing the biggest, strongest and smartest guy to crown and then telling the king of England to come and get him, our Founders, as members of the people, divorced the people out from under a tyrant by establishing a new natural law and then, after fighting and winning a war, were justified in remarrying us to a "more perfect (ever perfecting) union.





blase1
blase1

@ewshep @blase1 @husbandofmoonlight  Not lying.  Just trying to lead husbandofmoonlight to that conclusion without beating it over the head.  It IS what most Americans wanted.  Every poll taken during the health care debate showed that.  And because of insurance company and big pharma lobbyists with their hands in the pockets of both Republicans and Democrats, the will of the people was not done.

wcvemail
wcvemail

@ewshep @wcvemail  

The SWAT negotiator who's going to have to try to talk you into releasing the hostages will certainly earn his pay that day. 

ewshep
ewshep

@wcvemail  Well, I don't live on the internet like you do, and I recognize that to spew a couple of paragraphs to a lying liberal shill is no more effective than just calling it out for what it is. But you do what works for you since you obviously have the time to waste, given that you don't do anything productive to earn your government handout. You judge people you know absolutely nothing about. Screw you too, know-it-all.

PlanoDave
PlanoDave

@yankee011 Who chooses not to have healthcare? 


How about a person who is healthy and takes care of themselves?

Thank you for self-identifying as a Progressive, though.  Because, clearly, if somebody thinks differently than you, they must be wrong...


WTF does political affiliation have to do with healthcare need?

bstewart1987
bstewart1987

@yankee011 @bstewart1987 I neither identify with the left or the right, the red or the blue, the green or the yellow. When you tie yourself to others beliefs you become a slave to their contingency.

 
Loading...