Howard Dean: How Republican Attack Dogs Plan to Thwart Health Reform

[Guest guest]

This is not a question of Republican or Democrat, both parties are corrupt, it

is about being forced to pay for abortion and euthanasia with our tax dollars.

 

Are you going to tell your parents or grandparents that they can't have needed

healthcare because they are not useful to society? 

 

Who chooses who lives or dies? Some desk jockey in Washington.

 

Read the bill and then go to the town hall meetings and ask your elected

officials and make your own decisions. 

I will. 

 

________________________________

" donna.neversurrender " <donna.neversurrender

Undisclosed-Recipient

Monday, August 3, 2009 8:26:50 PM

<< >> Howard Dean: How Republican Attack

Dogs Plan to Thwart Health Reform

 

 

 

 

FOREWARNED IS FOREARMED!

 

Howard Dean: How Republican Attack Dogs Plan to Thwart Health Reform

By Howard Dean, Chelsea Green Publishing

Posted on August 3, 2009, Printed on August 3, 2009

http://www.alternet .org/story/ 141713/

 

Editor's note: In his new book, Howard Dean's Prescription for Real Health

Reform, the physician and former presidential candidate devotes a chapter to the

forces arrayed against substantive health reform -- the insurance industry, big

business, some pharmaceutical companies and political conservatives. The

following is an excerpt in which he discusses the long fight against progress

mounted by conservatives.

 

During the early 1990s, under the leadership of Representative Newt Gingrich

(R-GA) and Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) and bolstered by the ideological support of

the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and Manhattan Institute, Republicans

successfully defeated President Clinton's health reform effort. Conservatives of

all stripes argued that healthcare reform was " creeping socialism " or " big

government, " denied the existence of a healthcare crisis, or co-opted the term

reform to push their own agendas and dilute support for a comprehensive solution

to the nation's healthcare crisis.

 

Unfortunately, today's Republicans are no less inflammatory. Relying on a very

similar playbook, conservatives are distorting progressive proposals in an

effort to obstruct reform. In May 2009, GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz authored a new

messaging memo defining the Republican rhetoric on healthcare reform. The memo,

titled " The Language of Healthcare 2009, " " is based on polling results and . . .

captures not just what Americans want to see but exactly what they want to

hear. " The memo suggests " The Words That Work " and instructs that " from today

forward, they should be used by everyone. "

 

Luntz warns that " if the dynamic becomes 'President Obama is on the side of

reform and Republicans are against it,' then the battle is lost and every word

in this document is useless. " The trouble is, the document is already useless.

Because rather than challenging the tenets of American reform proposals, Luntz

establishes a straw man argument against a nonexistent health plan. Buried amid

the usual rhetoric about government-run healthcare is Luntz's predictable

contradiction: He instructs Republicans to " be vocally and passionately on the

side of REFORM " but then urges GOP lawmakers to misrepresent and obstruct any

real chance of passing comprehensive legislation.

 

" Humanize your approach, " but argue that healthcare reform " will result in

delayed and potentially even denied treatment, procedures and/or medications. "

" Acknowledge the crisis " but ask your constituents " would you rather . . . 'pay

the costs you pay today for the quality of care you currently receive,' OR 'Pay

less for your care, but potentially have to wait weeks for tests and months for

treatments you need.' "

 

In other words, say there is a crisis but then argue that healthcare reform

would lead to " the government setting standards of care " and government

" rationing care " and would " put the Washington bureaucrats in charge of health

care. " " This plays into more favorable Republican territory by protecting

individual care while downplays the need for a comprehensive national plan, " the

memo states.

 

Readers are also instructed to conflate Obama's fairly moderate hybrid approach

to reform (building on the current private-public system of delivering

healthcare) with " denial horror stories from Canada & Co. "

 

Focus on timeliness- " the plan put forward by the Democrats will deny people

treatments they need and make them wait to get the treatments they are allowed

to receive " -and argue that Republicans will provide " in a word, more: 'more

access to more treatments and more doctors . . . with less interference from

insurance companies and Washington politicians and special interests.' "

 

But that's the major problem with Luntz's memo: It tries to obstruct health

reform by ignoring what Obama is actually offering. Instead, Luntz is attacking

an easy extreme-what he wishes the Democrats were proposing-and pretending that

the Republicans actually have some kind of healthcare solution (the memo

instructs Republicans to focus on targeting waste, fraud, and abuse).

 

For their part, Republicans have no solution to the healthcare crisis. In fact,

a recent article in Politico.com noted that the GOP is " stumbling " to find new

ideas for reforming the healthcare system. " No Republicans leading the charge .

.. . have coalesced the party behind them, " the article notes. " Their message is

still vague and unformed. Their natural allies among insurers, drug makers and

doctors remain at the negotiating table with the Democrats. So Republicans now

worry the party has waited so long to figure out where it stands that it will

make it harder to block what President Barack Obama is trying to do. "

 

To the extent that Republicans are discussing healthcare, they're relying on

trite McCain-campaign talking points and old hands from the 1990s. In other

words, they've outsourced the conversation to attack dogs and relinquished the

serious debate about how to lower costs, increase access, and improve quality.

 

The truth, and what the Politico.com article hints at, is that the GOP

leadership has little understanding of healthcare issues. In February 2009,

House Republicans formed a study group to devise so-called free-market

alternatives to President Obama's healthcare proposal. Minority Leader John

Boehner (R-OH) tapped former GOP whip Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO) to lead

the group of sixteen Republicans, including Representatives Michael Burgess

(R-TX) and John Shadegg (R-AZ). " Through this working group, Republicans will

develop real solutions to improve our health care system by putting patients

before paperwork and frivolous lawsuits, " Blunt promised. But at the group's

first meeting, " members reviewed polling data and agreed to bring in a series of

experts to discuss problems with the health care system and potential

solutions. " As of this writing, the Republicans have yet to embrace a healthcare

solution or properly diagnose the cause of the

healthcare crisis.

 

In April, the Health Policy Consensus Group, headed by the conservative Galen

Institute, published " a vision for consumer-driven health care reform " that

focuses on tax breaks for healthcare and giving Americans " control " over their

healthcare dollars. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) had proposed a similar plan

during the presidential campaign, but he never convinced Americans to abandon

their employer-provided insurance for the promise of cheaper coverage in the

individual market. Part of the problem rests in the fallacy of the theory; the

rest, in the burden of experience. After all, Americans are routinely denied

coverage in the unregulated individual health insurance market, and small

businesses are " frequently finding health policies too expensive and are

dropping coverage, sending even more people shopping for insurance. " Healthy

Americans who do find coverage enroll in bare-bones plans that offer little

substantive protection.

 

As The Miami Herald recently reported, insurers deny coverage for patients with

" diabetes, hepatitis C, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, quadriplegia,

Parkinson's disease and AIDS/ HIV. " Moreover, " some insurers will automatically

reject applicants who are using certain prescription drugs. Wellpoint denies

anyone who within the past year has taken Abilify and Zyprexa for mental

disorders as well as Neupogen, which is used to treat the side effects of

chemotherapy. Vista lists the anticoagulant warfarin and the pain medication

OxyContin. Both companies list insulin. "

 

And why not? Competition without meaningful regulations incentivizes companies

to offer insurance to only the healthiest Americans. How else could they beat

the insurer across the street? Offering coverage to sicker Americans would

attract a sicker pool of enrollees and serve as a competitive disadvantage. In

fact, free-market healthcare fits the definition of a failed market. A market

fails when these conditions exist:

 

.. A monopoly, which occurs if a single buyer or seller can exert significant

influence over prices or output. In healthcare, " insurer and hospital markets

are increasingly dominated by large insurers and provider systems, " an Urban

Institute report points out. " The increased concentration has made it difficult

for the nation to reap the benefits usually associated with competitive

markets. "

 

.. Negative externalities, which occur if the market does not take into account

the impact of an economic activity on outsiders. In the Wild West environment of

the individual health marketplace, companies leave the sickest patients without

coverage. Healthcare costs increase for everyone when patients are forced to

forgo early and appropriate care or to visit the emergency room once a condition

becomes unbearable.

 

.. Asymmetric information, which occurs when one party has more or better

information than the other party. Americans looking for coverage in the

individual market have no way of comparing different policies and rarely know

what the plans actually cover.

 

Conservative health proposals double down on this broken marketplace. They: (1)

eliminate the employer tax exemption for health benefits, (2) provide everyone

with a refundable tax credit to go out and purchase individual coverage, and (3)

loosen the already lax insurer regulations. The results are predictable. Not

only will Americans with preexisting conditions go without coverage-or, at best,

be offered very expensive plans-but as healthy Americans with bare-bones

policies fall ill, they'll discover that their insurer has little enthusiasm for

paying claims.

 

Conservatives may no longer deny the existence of a healthcare crisis, but they

sure do misdiagnose the causes of rising healthcare costs. Blunt, for instance,

promised that " Republicans will develop real solutions to improve our health

care system by putting patients before paperwork and frivolous lawsuits. " But to

identify " real solutions, " we must first properly diagnose the problem. Blunt's

argument that " frivolous lawsuits " are significantly driving up healthcare costs

misses the point entirely.

 

The total cost of malpractice constitutes just 0.46 percent of total healthcare

expenditures, and settlements have grown modestly with inflation. While

approximately 98,000 people die each year from negligent treatment, a mere 2

percent sue their physicians. As health policy analyst Maggie Mahar observed, " A

very small group of doctors are losing or settling malpractice lawsuits, but

they are losing big. " Between 1990 and 2002, " 5.2 percent of doctors were

responsible for 55 percent " of all malpractice payouts. The increasing costs of

malpractice insurance premiums are hurting doctors, but they're not the real

causes of our growing healthcare bill. In reality, the longer Republicans

obscure the real issues and obstruct reform efforts, the higher the costs will

rise.

 

Click here to buy a copy of Howard Dean's Prescription for Real Health Reform

 

Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, is the founder of Democracy for

America, a grassroots organization that supports socially progressive and

fiscally responsible political candidates.

 

© 2009 Chelsea Green Publishing All rights reserved.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet .org/story/ 141713/

 

 

[Guest guest]

We already have a single payor system here- THE VA healthcare system and

MEDICARE. Those are examples of a government run healthcare system. These 2

programs DO NOT come between the patient and the provider. I should know

because I trained within the VA system, so I know how that system runs and I

have medicare patients. I have NEVER had the government deny any medical

care for any of my medicare patients VS ALL the private medical insurance

companies that ALWAYS deny care and come between me and my patient. Think

About It.

 

----

 

Ralph Childers, Jr.

8/4/2009 8:56:55 PM

 

Re: << >> Howard Dean: How Republican

Attack Dogs Plan to Thwart Health Reform

 

This is not a question of Republican or Democrat, both parties are corrupt

it is about being forced to pay for abortion and euthanasia with our tax

dollars.

 

Are you going to tell your parents or grandparents that they can't have

needed healthcare because they are not useful to society?

 

Who chooses who lives or dies? Some desk jockey in Washington.

 

Read the bill and then go to the town hall meetings and ask your elected

officials and make your own decisions.

I will.

 

________________________________

" donna.neversurrender " <donna.neversurrender

Undisclosed-Recipient

Monday, August 3, 2009 8:26:50 PM

<< >> Howard Dean: How Republican Attack

Dogs Plan to Thwart Health Reform

 

 

 

FOREWARNED IS FOREARMED!

 

Howard Dean: How Republican Attack Dogs Plan to Thwart Health Reform

By Howard Dean, Chelsea Green Publishing

Posted on August 3, 2009, Printed on August 3, 2009

http://www.alternet .org/story/ 141713/

 

Editor's note: In his new book, Howard Dean's Prescription for Real Health

Reform, the physician and former presidential candidate devotes a chapter to

the forces arrayed against substantive health reform -- the insurance

industry, big business, some pharmaceutical companies and political

conservatives. The following is an excerpt in which he discusses the long

fight against progress mounted by conservatives.

 

During the early 1990s, under the leadership of Representative Newt Gingrich

(R-GA) and Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) and bolstered by the ideological support

of the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and Manhattan Institute,

Republicans successfully defeated President Clinton's health reform effort.

Conservatives of all stripes argued that healthcare reform was " creeping

socialism " or " big government, " denied the existence of a healthcare crisis,

or co-opted the term reform to push their own agendas and dilute support for

a comprehensive solution to the nation's healthcare crisis.

 

Unfortunately, today's Republicans are no less inflammatory. Relying on a

very similar playbook, conservatives are distorting progressive proposals in

an effort to obstruct reform. In May 2009, GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz

authored a new messaging memo defining the Republican rhetoric on healthcare

reform. The memo, titled " The Language of Healthcare 2009, " " is based on

polling results and . . . captures not just what Americans want to see but

exactly what they want to hear. " The memo suggests " The Words That Work " and

instructs that " from today forward, they should be used by everyone. "

 

Luntz warns that " if the dynamic becomes 'President Obama is on the side of

reform and Republicans are against it,' then the battle is lost and every

word in this document is useless. " The trouble is, the document is already

useless. Because rather than challenging the tenets of American reform

proposals, Luntz establishes a straw man argument against a nonexistent

health plan. Buried amid the usual rhetoric about government-run healthcare

is Luntz's predictable contradiction: He instructs Republicans to " be

vocally and passionately on the side of REFORM " but then urges GOP lawmakers

to misrepresent and obstruct any real chance of passing comprehensive

legislation.

 

" Humanize your approach, " but argue that healthcare reform " will result in

delayed and potentially even denied treatment, procedures and/or medications

" " Acknowledge the crisis " but ask your constituents " would you rather . .

'pay the costs you pay today for the quality of care you currently receive,

OR 'Pay less for your care, but potentially have to wait weeks for tests

and months for treatments you need.' "

 

In other words, say there is a crisis but then argue that healthcare reform

would lead to " the government setting standards of care " and government

rationing care " and would " put the Washington bureaucrats in charge of

health care. " " This plays into more favorable Republican territory by

protecting individual care while downplays the need for a comprehensive

national plan, " the memo states.

 

Readers are also instructed to conflate Obama's fairly moderate hybrid

approach to reform (building on the current private-public system of

delivering healthcare) with " denial horror stories from Canada & Co. "

 

Focus on timeliness- " the plan put forward by the Democrats will deny people

treatments they need and make them wait to get the treatments they are

allowed to receive " -and argue that Republicans will provide " in a word,

more: 'more access to more treatments and more doctors . . . with less

interference from insurance companies and Washington politicians and special

interests.' "

 

But that's the major problem with Luntz's memo: It tries to obstruct health

reform by ignoring what Obama is actually offering. Instead, Luntz is

attacking an easy extreme-what he wishes the Democrats were proposing-and

pretending that the Republicans actually have some kind of healthcare

solution (the memo instructs Republicans to focus on targeting waste, fraud,

and abuse).

 

For their part, Republicans have no solution to the healthcare crisis. In

fact, a recent article in Politico.com noted that the GOP is " stumbling " to

find new ideas for reforming the healthcare system. " No Republicans leading

the charge . . . have coalesced the party behind them, " the article notes.

Their message is still vague and unformed. Their natural allies among

insurers, drug makers and doctors remain at the negotiating table with the

Democrats. So Republicans now worry the party has waited so long to figure

out where it stands that it will make it harder to block what President

Barack Obama is trying to do. "

 

To the extent that Republicans are discussing healthcare, they're relying on

trite McCain-campaign talking points and old hands from the 1990s. In other

words, they've outsourced the conversation to attack dogs and relinquished

the serious debate about how to lower costs, increase access, and improve

quality.

 

The truth, and what the Politico.com article hints at, is that the GOP

leadership has little understanding of healthcare issues. In February 2009,

House Republicans formed a study group to devise so-called free-market

alternatives to President Obama's healthcare proposal. Minority Leader John

Boehner (R-OH) tapped former GOP whip Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO) to

lead the group of sixteen Republicans, including Representatives Michael

Burgess (R-TX) and John Shadegg (R-AZ). " Through this working group,

Republicans will develop real solutions to improve our health care system by

putting patients before paperwork and frivolous lawsuits, " Blunt promised.

But at the group's first meeting, " members reviewed polling data and agreed

to bring in a series of experts to discuss problems with the health care

system and potential solutions. " As of this writing, the Republicans have

yet to embrace a healthcare solution or properly diagnose the cause of the

healthcare crisis.

 

In April, the Health Policy Consensus Group, headed by the conservative

Galen Institute, published " a vision for consumer-driven health care reform "

that focuses on tax breaks for healthcare and giving Americans " control "

over their healthcare dollars. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) had proposed a

similar plan during the presidential campaign, but he never convinced

Americans to abandon their employer-provided insurance for the promise of

cheaper coverage in the individual market. Part of the problem rests in the

fallacy of the theory; the rest, in the burden of experience. After all,

Americans are routinely denied coverage in the unregulated individual health

insurance market, and small businesses are " frequently finding health

policies too expensive and are dropping coverage, sending even more people

shopping for insurance. " Healthy Americans who do find coverage enroll in

bare-bones plans that offer little substantive protection.

 

As The Miami Herald recently reported, insurers deny coverage for patients

with " diabetes, hepatitis C, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, quadriplegia

Parkinson's disease and AIDS/ HIV. " Moreover, " some insurers will

automatically reject applicants who are using certain prescription drugs.

Wellpoint denies anyone who within the past year has taken Abilify and

Zyprexa for mental disorders as well as Neupogen, which is used to treat the

side effects of chemotherapy. Vista lists the anticoagulant warfarin and the

pain medication OxyContin. Both companies list insulin. "

 

And why not? Competition without meaningful regulations incentivizes

companies to offer insurance to only the healthiest Americans. How else

could they beat the insurer across the street? Offering coverage to sicker

Americans would attract a sicker pool of enrollees and serve as a

competitive disadvantage. In fact, free-market healthcare fits the

definition of a failed market. A market fails when these conditions exist:

 

.. A monopoly, which occurs if a single buyer or seller can exert significant

influence over prices or output. In healthcare, " insurer and hospital

markets are increasingly dominated by large insurers and provider systems, "

an Urban Institute report points out. " The increased concentration has made

it difficult for the nation to reap the benefits usually associated with

competitive markets. "

 

.. Negative externalities, which occur if the market does not take into

account the impact of an economic activity on outsiders. In the Wild West

environment of the individual health marketplace, companies leave the

sickest patients without coverage. Healthcare costs increase for everyone

when patients are forced to forgo early and appropriate care or to visit the

emergency room once a condition becomes unbearable.

 

.. Asymmetric information, which occurs when one party has more or better

information than the other party. Americans looking for coverage in the

individual market have no way of comparing different policies and rarely

know what the plans actually cover.

 

Conservative health proposals double down on this broken marketplace. They:

(1) eliminate the employer tax exemption for health benefits, (2) provide

everyone with a refundable tax credit to go out and purchase individual

coverage, and (3) loosen the already lax insurer regulations. The results

are predictable. Not only will Americans with preexisting conditions go

without coverage-or, at best, be offered very expensive plans-but as healthy

Americans with bare-bones policies fall ill, they'll discover that their

insurer has little enthusiasm for paying claims.

 

Conservatives may no longer deny the existence of a healthcare crisis, but

they sure do misdiagnose the causes of rising healthcare costs. Blunt, for

instance, promised that " Republicans will develop real solutions to improve

our health care system by putting patients before paperwork and frivolous

lawsuits. " But to identify " real solutions, " we must first properly diagnose

the problem. Blunt's argument that " frivolous lawsuits " are significantly

driving up healthcare costs misses the point entirely.

 

The total cost of malpractice constitutes just 0.46 percent of total

healthcare expenditures, and settlements have grown modestly with inflation.

While approximately 98,000 people die each year from negligent treatment, a

mere 2 percent sue their physicians. As health policy analyst Maggie Mahar

observed, " A very small group of doctors are losing or settling malpractice

lawsuits, but they are losing big. " Between 1990 and 2002, " 5.2 percent of

doctors were responsible for 55 percent " of all malpractice payouts. The

increasing costs of malpractice insurance premiums are hurting doctors, but

they're not the real causes of our growing healthcare bill. In reality, the

longer Republicans obscure the real issues and obstruct reform efforts, the

higher the costs will rise.

 

Click here to buy a copy of Howard Dean's Prescription for Real Health

Reform

 

Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, is the founder of Democracy for

America, a grassroots organization that supports socially progressive and

fiscally responsible political candidates.

 

© 2009 Chelsea Green Publishing All rights reserved.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet .org/story/ 141713/