creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
David Sirota
David Sirota
29 Aug 2014
Should Companies Have to Pay Taxes?

Reading companies' annual reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission is a reliable cure for insomnia. … Read More.

22 Aug 2014
Journalists on the Government's Blacklist

As states move to hide details of government deals with Wall Street, and as politicians come up with new … Read More.

15 Aug 2014
Is Corruption a Constitutional Right?

Wall Street is one of the biggest sources of funding for presidential campaigns, and many of the Republican Party'… Read More.

Health Care's Enigma-In-Chief

Comment

The most stunning and least reported news about President Obama's press conference with health industry executives this week wasn't those executives' willingness to negotiate with a Democrat. It was that Democrat's eagerness to involve those executives in a discussion about health care reform even as they revealed their previous plans to pilfer $2 trillion from Americans.

That was the little-noticed message from the made-for-TV spectacle administration officials called a health care "game changer": In saying they can voluntarily slash $200 billion a year off the country's medical bills over the next decade and still preserve their profits, health care companies implicitly acknowledged they were plotting to fleece consumers, and have been fleecing them for years. With that acknowledgment came the tacit admission that the industry's business is based not on respectable returns, but on grotesque profiteering and waste — the kind that can give up $2 trillion and still guarantee huge margins.

Chief among the profiteers at the White House event were insurance companies, which have raised premiums by 119 percent since 1999, and one obvious question is why — why would Obama engage those particular thieves?

It's a difficult query to answer, because Obama is a health care mystery, struggling to muster consistent positions on the issue.

Listening to a 2003 Obama speech, it's hard to believe he has become such an enigma. Back then, he declared himself "a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program" — i.e., one eliminating private insurers and their overhead costs by having government finance health care. Obama's position was as controversial then as today — which is to say, controversial among political elites, but not among the general public. ABC's 2003 poll showed almost two thirds of Americans desiring a single-payer system "run by the government and financed by taxpayers," just like CBS's 2009 poll shows roughly the same percentage today.

In that speech six years ago, Obama said the only reason single-payer proponents should tolerate delay is "because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."

This might explain why when Illinois contemplated a 2004 health care proposal raising insurance lobbyists' "fears that it would result in a single-payer system," those lobbyists "found a sympathetic ear in Obama, who amended (read: gutted) the bill more to their liking," according to the Boston Globe.

Maybe Obama didn't think single payer was achievable without a Democratic Washington. And when in a 2006 interview he told me he was "not convinced that (single payer) is the best way to achieve universal health care," perhaps he was following the same rationale, considering his insistence that he must "take into account what is possible."

Of course, even as a senator aiming for the "possible" in a Republican Congress, Obama promised to never "shy away from a debate about single payer." And after the 2008 election fulfilled his single-payer precondition of Democratic dominance, it was only logical to expect him to initiate that debate.

That's why the White House's current posture is so puzzling. As the Associated Press reports, Obama aides are trying to squelch any single-payer discussion, deploying their health care point-person, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., to announce that "everything is on the table with the single exception of single-payer."

So it's back to why — why Obama's insurance industry-coddling inconsistency? Is it a pol's payback for campaign cash? Is it an overly cautious lawmaker's paralysis? Is it a conciliator's desire to appease powerful interests? Or is it something else?

For a president who spends so much time on camera answering questions, these have become the biggest unanswered questions of all.

David Sirota is the bestselling author of the books "Hostile Takeover" (2006) and "The Uprising" (2008). He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future. Find his blog at OpenLeft.com or e-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.



Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
Advocates for health care reform are fighting on two fronts. The first front are those opposed to reform at all as a matter of principle. This group includes republicans who hate the democrats more than they love their country, the health insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry , and the corrupt politicians beholden to these interests. The second front are what I call the "Obama-ites". Obama-ites are people who really do believe that our president wears a cape. They believe he has "something up his sleeve" and will play his health care cards at the last minute delivering, on his promise of CHANGE. These poor misguided people have no tolerance for others who question or criticize their fearless leader. They trust him blindly and completely. Wasn't this a big problem for our country with the last Administration?
As Obama leads us all down the health care reform primrose path, he will be flanked by those who hate him and those who love him. HOPEfully, those who oppose him will have the chance to meet him face to face on the path.
Comment: #1
Posted by: lauren serven
Sat May 16, 2009 6:12 PM
I am almost paralyzed over the issue of healthcare reform in the US. The countries that do this right, are Social Democracies. Not staunchly Capitalistic countries first. Healthcare in Western European nations and Canada is a nonprofit entity. If costs go up and, subsequently quality decreases, Obama and Democrats will be blamed and Republicans will be back. Worse, if that's possible, I don't see us reforming healthcare in a way that won't do more harm than good. I hope I'm wrong.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Nicki
Sat May 16, 2009 10:25 PM
We need to do something with health care, even if it's wrong! The big problem, so far, has been the attitude of most Americans, "I got mine, and to Hell with everybody else." Well, what happens when you (or your child, brother, parents, etc.) gets laid off? It certainly changes perspectives. There is no reason why quality health care cannot be available at reasonable cost to everyone who gets sick or hurt in this country, citizens and visitors alike. Just take the money that the drug companies and insurance companies have been using to fight any kind of reform that would cut into their huge profits and put it to better use.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Paul M. Petkovsek
Mon May 18, 2009 2:45 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
David Sirota
Aug. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 3 Sep 2014
Thomas Sowell
Thomas SowellUpdated 2 Sep 2014
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 2 Sep 2014

22 Mar 2013 Call It What It Is: A Class War

14 Jun 2013 Permanent Washington's Backlash to Edward Snowden

5 Sep 2008 Making Goliath Walk