Health Care

Benen: RESCISSION....

In light of the current policy debate, it was awfully nice of insurance industry executives to help demonstrate why a public option is so necessary as part of the broader reform effort. (via Kevin Drum)

Executives of three of the nation's largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive. [...]

An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.

It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.

The insurance industry -- you know, the one conservative lawmakers and the AMA are so desperate to protect at all costs -- has this unpleasant habit called "rescission." Customers have insurance, and they pay their premiums, but once they get sick and require expensive medical treatment, the companies drop the coverage.

And in testifying before Congress, executives of these insurers not only confirmed the rescission practice, but said they had no plans to change the money-saving tactic.

One executive said rescission is about "stopping fraud and material misrepresentations that contribute to spiraling healthcare costs." So, for example, when a woman in Texas was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, her insurer dropped her coverage because the company found an instance in which she visited a dermatologist for acne, and didn't tell the insurance company about it. This, the insurer said, was an example of "fraud and material misrepresentation."

Late in the hearing, [Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.)], the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show "intentional fraud."

The answer from all three executives: "No."

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) added, "This is precisely why we need a public option."

You don't say.

This from Gibbs is unacceptable - Weekly Standard: Gibbs Can't Name A Country Where Single-Payer Works, Says Americans Like Their Health Care

Obama, on Monday, to the AMA:

I’ll be honest. There are countries where a single-payer system may be working.

He forgot to brief Robert Gibbs on which ones. When asked at the press conference today which countries Obama was referring to, Gibbs stumbled:

"I don't know exactly the countries. I think you can if you talk to people in the countries that have those systems, they'd think their health care is pretty good."

After being pushed to give specific countries, Gibbs repeated the reporters suggestions of Canada and Britain, adding "maybe France."

He then went on to undercut the president's entire rationale for major health care overhaul:

"I don't know the exact countries. But i don't think the President is going way out on a limb to say that people in other countries have health care system that they like, just as Americans like the health care system that they have."

Obama, May 28: "I think the status quo is unacceptable."

Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, this week: "Everybody recognizes the status quo is the enemy. It's unacceptable, unsustainable."

Nancy-Ann Deparle, head of the Office of Health Care Reform, March: "There were no defenders of the status quo."

There are no defenders of the status quo. Everyone agrees we have a very serious, unsustainable problem. Except for the spokesman for the president, who says "Americans like the health care system they have."

That's a dangerous comment to make the same week Americans, many of whom may indeed like their health care system despite its faults, are hit with the "eye-popping" pricetag for an Obama-approved overhaul that may or may not actually fix the problems. It's almost as if Gibbs has been taking advice on how best to sabotage the president's message from Joe Biden himself.

Benen: RNC VS ABC, ROUND II....

If I didn't know better, I might think the RNC and far-right activists are afraid of a substantive exploration of health care policy.

To quickly review, ABC News' Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer will host a prime-time discussion on health care policy next week at the White House. President Obama will respond to questions about the reform effort, and the ABC anchors will give regular Americans -- selected by the network, not the administration -- a chance to press the president.

The RNC and a number of conservative blogs are outraged, insisting the policy forum will be an "infomercial" in support of Obama's efforts. ABC News explained why these concerns are unfounded in a straightforward, easy-to-understand letter to the RNC, which was posted online.

But the party is still flipping out.

The Republican National Committee isn't buying ABC News' assurance that its day-long focus on the Obama administration's health-care package will be unbiased.

Indeed, the RNC will open up its television studio in Washington next Wednesday -- the day of ABC's programming -- and foot the bill for House and Senate Republicans to do interviews with stations in their home districts.

Greg Sargent has the full memo.

The RNC's allies are doing their part to push the party's message. CNBC's Larry Kudlow told his viewers that ABC's programming "is going to be given over to Obama, and it's going to be in favor of Obama's health care plan." How does he know? He doesn't, but Kudlow isn't exactly truth-oriented. Meanwhile, one right-wing blogger has said ABC is now "state controlled," while one right-wing radio host has compared the network's policy discussion to fellatio.

I got an email the other night from a reader who asked me if I'd be annoyed if, in 2005, ABC hosted a discussion/forum on Social Security with President Bush at the White House. In truth, I wouldn't. The analogy is imprecise -- privatization was a long shot, while health care reform is still doable -- but if a sitting president is pushing a sweeping policy proposal that would affect the whole country; Americans have questions about what it would mean for them; and a network wanted to explore this in detail in prime time, this hardly seems worthy of a tantrum.

I'd be annoyed if ABC hosted this Social Security discussion without challenging and/or fact-checking any of Bush's arguments, but I wouldn't know this until it aired.

Sargent: Poll: On Health Care, Public Trusts Insurance Companies More Than GOP Leaders

Wow. With the health care debate gearing up, some new numbers from Gallup suggest that the public doesn’t exactly have a tremendous amount of confidence in Republican leaders on the issue. Click to enlarge:

Only 34% are confident that GOP leaders Congress will make the right decisions about health care reform — less than the insurance companies (35%) or the pharmaceutical companies (40%). By contrast, more have confidence in Dem leaders (42%), and even more trust Obama (58%).

In fairness, the gap between GOP leaders and insurance companies is within the margin of error. But still, being statistically tied with the insurance companies is pretty bad, and suggests that GOPers aren’t exactly heading into this fight with the wind at their backs.

Think Progress: Reneging on pledge to give Obama his ‘silence,’ President Bush criticizes Obama’s health care plan.

After initially stating that he wanted President Obama to “succeed” and that he owed Obama his “silence,” President Bush yesterday decided to reverse course and criticize the President. The former President took aim at Obama’s desire to introduce a public health insurance option for Americans:

“There are a lot of ways to remedy the situation without nationalizing health care,” Mr. Bush said. “I worry about encouraging the government to replace the private sector when it comes to providing insurance for health care.”

Asked by the evening emcee at the 104th annual Manufacturer and Business Association meeting if he finds the new president’s policies “socialist,” Mr. Bush started then stopped.

“I hear a lot of those words, but it depends on…,” he said, breaking off. He later offered a more diplomatic assessment: “We’ll see.”

Former Gov. Howard Dean, a strong advocate of a public plan, responded to Bush’s criticisms this morning on NBC’s Today Show. “We’ve had a government system for 50 years,” Dean said. “The Republicans didn’t like it then — it’s called Medicare. Everybody over 65 is already in the government system. Let the people who are under 65 make a choice.” Watch it:

A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds that 76 percent of respondents believe that it is “extremely” or “quite” important to “give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance.”

Benen: HEALTH CARE POLLING....

A few new national polls were released over the last 24 hours, but of particular interest are public attitudes about health care reform. The data from the new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll seems relatively encouraging.

Without being told anything specific about the Obama plan in the survey, about a third of people said it's a good idea, about a third said it's a bad idea and the rest had no opinion. When given several details of his approach, 55% said they favored it, versus 35% who were opposed.

There was also support for the Democratic push to let people sign up for a public health-care plan that would compete with private companies, one of the toughest issues in the health-care debate. Three in four people said a public plan is extremely or quite important. But when told the arguments for and against the plan, a smaller portion, 47%, agreed with arguments in support of the plan, with 42% agreeing with the arguments against it.

Americans are, in other words, open to persuasion. They don't know they like Obama's approach, but approve when they hear about it. The public option fares very well -- 75% support is tremendous -- but hesitate when confronted with conservative arguments. If the White House has a powerful communications strategy in mind, now would probably be a good time to launch it.

The same poll found majority support for requiring all Americans to get insurance, but majority opposition to taxing health benefits.

Gallup, meanwhile, also issued an interesting poll, which asked respondents to say whether or not they have confidence in various groups and names involved in the health care policy debate. Doctors, hospitals, and President Obama all fared pretty well, with majorities expressing confidence.

At the bottom we see pharmaceutical companies (40%), insurance companies (35%), and congressional Republicans (34%).

That's right, GOP lawmakers fared even worse than insurance companies.

With these results in mind, mcjoan asks the right question: "So, for the 432nd time, why do the Democrats feel it is so critical for 'bipartisanship' on this one? No one is demanding it except Republicans who keep showing, time, and time, and time again that they are not going to help."