Spokane7
55°
July 9, 2009 in Nation/World
Discord over health care may jeopardize reform
Vice President Joe Biden speaks Wednesday about President Barack Obama’s overhaul of health care while Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stands beside him.
(Full-size photo)(All photos)
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration, hoping to boost its health-reform effort with financial concessions from the hospital and pharmaceutical industries, is instead confronting dissension within Democratic ranks and possible defections among key constituencies.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., lead House architect of the landmark health legislation, warned Wednesday that he is not obligated to abide by deals struck recently by the White House, Senate Finance Committee, industry executives and interest groups such as AARP.
“The White House is not bound. They tell us they’re not bound by that agreement,” Waxman, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said at a National Journal breakfast. “We’re certainly not bound by that agreement. The White House was involved, and we were not.”
Waxman’s comments came amid other warning signs for the administration, including a slipping timetable in the Senate, internal division in the hospital industry and mounting tensions between AARP and the pharmaceutical industry that threaten a detente between the two negotiated last month by the White House.
Medicare
From the outset, Obama has declined to dictate the details of a health care bill to Congress, but he and his advisers have worked aggressively to shape its parameters and build political support. At the core of their strategy has been a series of side agreements aimed at extracting revenue, neutralizing potential adversaries and signaling to lawmakers that when the difficult votes come, they will have industry support.
Wednesday, Vice President Joe Biden trumpeted an agreement by the nation’s hospitals to contribute $155 billion to the cost of health reform, but it was quickly undermined by skepticism in the industry.
Two public hospital systems left out of the talks suggested the reductions “could severely damage” hospitals that serve the poor. American Hospital Association representatives also were raising objections internally to the deal’s across-the-board Medicare cuts.
The White House campaign to disarm industry began two months ago with an announcement by six interest groups – including doctors, insurers and organized labor – that they would “do their part” to slow the rate of growth of health care spending by 1.5 percentage points a year.
Next came a proffer of $80 billion by the drug industry’s Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, or PhRMA. Drug companies pledged to increase rebates to the federal government and provide 50 percent discounts on prescription medications for seniors who fall into Medicare’s “doughnut hole.” Once seniors pass their initial coverage limit, they must pay 100 percent of the cost of prescription drugs before they reach the threshold of catastrophic coverage.
Enticed by the savings for seniors, AARP, with its 40 million members, blessed the deal with the drug industry in a photo opportunity at the White House with Obama.
But both sides now make clear that the accord was on the single issue of the Medicare drug discount, and they remain far part on other issues.
In a private meeting at the White House on Tuesday, the chief executive officers of five pharmaceutical companies informed Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and White House health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle that they have serious concerns about proposals to permit the purchase of imported medications and on regulations on generic biologic drugs, Tauzin said.
Pushing back
The administration had expected a good-news bump Wednesday from Biden’s event with the hospitals. But several state hospital lobbyists formed the “Value Coalition” to push back against a one-size-fits-all deal.
In a document distributed to the 50 state associations that make up the American Hospital Association, the group argues for a different approach.
“America’s hospitals and the communities they serve are very concerned about any proposal that relies on payment cuts as the primary means by which to fund reform efforts,” the document says.
Instead, it argues for an “incentive” system that rewards – not penalizes – hospitals that have already cut costs.
Obama to honor Medal of Freedom recipients 
liarsinnews on July 09 at 7:41 a.m.
AARP is nothing more than a insurance company which sucks in seniors. Good for, Waxman. I`m a 1929 model and refuse to waste my money with the greedy lobbyist group. When I travel, I receive the same hotel and motel rates as the AARP members by merely asking for a senior rate.
Ninch on July 09 at 7:56 a.m.
“One size fits all” is what is wrong with nationalizing (mandating) health care or ANY program such as education (NCLB). There will always be lucky winners and victimized losers in any nationalized scheme.
Take a look at tax-and-trade legislation that mandates national building codes in a nation with multiple diverse climates with highly variable heating/cooling as well as lighting needs. Think about it… mandating the same daylighting controls in Alaska (land of the midnight sun) as in Florida.
Another example: It is great that unemployment payments were raised, but the Dems (apparently with explicit knowledge of the ramifications) did not raise the income limit to be able to obtain food stamps. As a result many families found themselves getting even less support because the increase in unemployment benefits did not offset the resultant loss of food stamps… and it being a federal program… there is no way to give back/or not take the increased unemployment so that they can be eligible for food stamps.
ObamaNation(alization) is creating a flurry of Catch-22s (thus taking away individual choices)… many the result of those voting in new legislation that has not even been read as well as the Dems refusing to allow authentic debate from those who have studied the proposed laws.
There will always be lucky winners and victimized losers in any nationalized scheme. Local programs are better because they serve the needs of the community and not some rigid bureaucratic standard of service based on false assumptions.
It is NOT EQUITY that a great many hospitals who have already tightened their fiscal belts and increased efficiency will be penalized by ObamaCare with decreased Medicare and Medicaid payments. This means even further rationing of health care for the elderly and the poor… and in way too many instances will cause much needed medical facilities to close their doors (think rural communities).
Many people may not be enamored with Cuba, but when it comes to serving the basic medical needs of its population… Cuba has got it right with increased longevity, lower birth mortality, and an overall healthier population than the U.S. Sadly ironic… Obama’s health care will be expanded on the backs of the rural, poor, disabled, and elderly with implementation of Medicare and Medicaid cuts to pay for health insurance for others. If that ain’t a Catch-22 (and immoral), I do not know what else to call it.