THE STASH AUGUST 5, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The Journal argues that it is:
What has fueled the lobbying surge is that President Barack Obama has left the details of the health overhaul to Congress. That means interest groups have plenty of decision-makers to badger. It also makes any legislation vulnerable to death by a thousand cuts.
The implication is that, had the White House provided Congress with a plan that resolved every detail, there would be far less lobbying, which strikes me as somewhat hard to believe. What trillion dollar piece of legislation (or, for that matter, $100 billion piece of legislation) has ever gone from the White House to Capitol Hill without endless legislative tinkering and around-the-clock special-pleading by K Street? Even the Bush tax cuts had more than their share of these things.
The Journal piece lists a number of specific lobbying efforts--by oncologists, device-makers, small-business groups, realtors, rural hospitals, urban hospitals, etc. Which of these groups would have sat out the fight--or even scaled back their efforts much--had Obama sent Congress a detailed plan?
Relatedly, the piece has an example of why you can't trust anything insurance companies say:
The health-insurance industry said Tuesday it is launching an effort to send insurance-company employees to public meetings nationwide this month to rebut increasing criticism of the industry from the White House and top Democrats. "Attacking our community will not help get anyone covered," said Karen Ignagni, chief executive of lobbying group America's Health Insurance Plans. ...
Hmmm. This seems pretty counterintuitive to me. If Obama can pass near-universal healthcare reform by making insurers into the bad guys, he will almost literally have gotten people covered by attacking the insurance community. It may not be the most honest or ennobling way to go about it (though hardly the least honest or ennobling)--so Ignagni may be on firmer ground if she wants to make a normative claim. But, as a statement of fact, it sounds completely wrong.
--Noam Scheiber
5 comments
I'm one of the average, politically moderate, suburban insured who is at least reasonably satisfied with my insurance company. How are you going to convince the other ~70-80% satisfied insured like me that insurance companies are so malevolent that their collective evil pales in comparison to the cost and inevitable tax burden of universal healthcare?
I don't think you can. Insurance companies certainly aren't saints, but casting them as diabilical evildoers doesn't resonate with me (in fact, it strikes me as a bit desperate,)
I'll jump on the Obamacare bandwagon if you can show me how the CBO estimates are/were wrong, and how the quality of my (and my childrens') care will go up, given the increased demand for my Ped's and Gyn's medical services. Until then....call me skeptical.
- CelinesEgo
August 5, 2009 at 4:47pm
what if you were to find out that your insurance company denied a co-worker coverage for a life-threatening illness? or that your monthly contribution to your health plan was going to go up 10 percent a year for the next five to ten years? or that your insurer decided it just wasn't economical to cover your company any more? or that it abruptly announced that you could no longer see any of the doctors you'd been seeing for years--if you wanted your doctor's visits and treatments covered, you'd have to see someone on an anemic-looking list, with whom it could take months to get an appointment? i don't know anything about your insurance situation, but none of these scenarios is far-fetched in the least. even if they haven't happened to you, most people probably know someone who's experienced this kind of thing.
all of which is to say, i don't think it's very hard to stir up anti-insurance company resentments--for good reason. there's a lot to resent.
- Noam Scheiber
August 5, 2009 at 7:12pm
Noam,
There are two problems with your response to CelinesEgo. First most people have had pretty good experience with their health insurance, and second most people don't believe you need a massive redistribution of income or a government insurance program to fix the problems you have identified.
People are catching on to the fact that the "progressive" wing of the Democratic party is not interested in health care reform if it does not advance the agenda of of socializing medicine and redistributing income. It's too bad because this is going kill health care reform this time around.
- dtohmatsu
August 6, 2009 at 4:43am
It seems to me lobbying would be much more profitable if there were fewer decision makers involved - it's cheaper to woo a dozen white house staffers than hundreds of congresspeople
- Simon Greenwood
August 6, 2009 at 5:21am
dtoh:
I can say "yes" to almost all of Noam's points. And I have worked in large corporations while living in the US. I don't know a lot of people who haven't either had a problem with their insurance company or haven't noticed that the prices continue to march up very steadily.
What has happened to the conservative calls for individuals taking more responsibility? If you know the price of your insurance continues to rise far quicker than your wages, it is irresponsible and naive in the extreme to believe that this can continue indefinitely without something significant changing. Individual responsibility means you need to be looking to fix this. Since I have never had anything but the most parsimonious options in my health care through my employer, the only real option is to shake up the system politically. And no, buying it on the open market is not really an option.
"People are catching on ... is not interested in health care reform if it does not advance the agenda of of socializing medicine and redistributing income".
That would be an odd thing to catch onto, since the socialised approach, which I support, is not even on the table. As for redistribution of income - what do you think those tax breaks I and my employer get for providing my health care are? I get a very nice top-up to my income through this fringe benefit for which I pay no taxes, and my employer gets a tax break!
How is that not upward redistribution?
- Nari224
August 6, 2009 at 11:01am