Democratic Message For August: Insurers Are The Enemy
Over the August recess, Democrats--with the support of the White House outside groups like the Service Employees International Union, and Health Care for America Now--will be taking a simple message to voters in their districts: insurance companies are the enemy.
"Hold the insurance companies accountable," reads a strategy memo distributed to members of the House Democratic caucus.
Remove them from between you and your doctor. No discrimination for pre-existing conditions. No dropping your coverage because you get sick. No more job or life decisions made based on loss of coverage. No need to change doctors or plans. No co-pays for preventive care. No excessive out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles, or co-pays. No yearly or lifetime cost caps on what insurance companies cover.
According to the memo, they've coordinated this strategy with the Obama administration and a number of sympathetic groups. "The Leadership is working in close coordination with the White House and outside groups (including but not limited to HCAN, Families USA, AFSCME, SEIU, AARP, etc.) to ensure complementary efforts during August."
And they'll be taking the message into the Hispanic community as well: "The Speaker's office will work to book Hispanic/Spanish speaking members of relevant committees on Spanish-language radio and TV. Democratic Leadership will also be available to assist with Hispanic-focused district events, including town halls, telephone town halls, and calls with Hispanic media reporters."
The memo, which you can read here, provides a clear look at the Democrats' strategy as they try to keep momentum for health care reform alive through the summer doldrums.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
They need to bag the wonkish generalities. People respond to stories. There's no shortage of absolutely obscene horror stories about what insurers have done to their victims- pick a few and rub voters' faces in them over and over, with the message "YOU could be the next victim."
July 31, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Details bore the hell out of modern Americans - easily, as a group, the people of the world with the shortest attention spans. Narrative is much more powerful and emotionally resonant, and emotion trumps reason far more often than the other way around.
One more illustration of the need to be able to rec comments as well as posts.
July 31, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. our own "Harry and Louise" but with true stories. People thrown out of their homes through health care bankruptcy. People getting their teeth pulled in free dental events. A tent was set up somewhere recently for that). A president of the United States recalling what it was like for his mother when she was dying of cancer....
July 31, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes and we are surprised WHY? Insurance Co's profits have gone up 428% since 2000!
The public option is the only thing that will stop the Corporate gouge and greed...Call Congress 1.866.220.0044 or 1800.828.0498...
Co-Ops are a ruse from Conrad...they take years and thousands of members to be effective!
July 31, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this should have been the message long ago.
July 31, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank God. Message coordination and a strategy for responding to the coming August onslaught of insurance industry funded fearmongering, at last. And their message has the possible advantage of being true. (Not saying its possibly true. I'm saying the fact that its true may possibly be an advantage).
I think they, uncharacteristically, got caught flat-footed without a contingency plan on this one.
They wanted bills out of committee by August because that nearly guarenteed a floor vote on a conference bill in both houses would occur. That would have been much more difficult for the insurance companies to derail with scary lies over the August break than a multitude of unreconciled bills still bottled up in committee in both houses. The administration, and its allies clearly didn't have a Plan B for what they'd do if pre-recess floor votes didn't happen, despite the fact that the insurance industry was putting all its chips on making sure that precisely that scenario occurred.
Possibly they deliberately chose not to have a Plan B for fear news of it it would leak and Congress would take it as permission not to move bills out of committee by August. Regardless, it's been clear that the other side has its sith together and the good guys have been scrambling to improvise a response they already should have had planned, at least in outline form.
July 31, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
They should run an ad showing health insurance companies profits, while telling the true life stories of the insured denied coverage. People worry that their coverage won't be there when they need it.
July 31, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's about time! Health insurers are the tobacco companies of this decade. Responsible for more deaths than anyone, except maybe snack food manufacturers. If the coming reform doesn't have a poison pill to eventually eliminate private insurers, it's a failure.
July 31, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
We owe this change to Nancy Pelosi. She is the only one who has come out with this, and it is oh, so true. Everyone else is couching it in fluffy language.
If the insurance industry wanted to solve this problem it would have been solved 20 years ago. Instead it has gotten worse, because these leeches thought they should get as much as they could for as long as they could, and they all want to ride the gravy train for as long as they possibly can. Now it is up to their republican and blue-dog cohorts to scare everyone else into believing that private insurance is our only salvation!
Now I hear Axelrod saying that insurance can't exclude pre-existing conditions...as though that were the answer. Right now, you can get insurance with pre-existing conditions. Guess what? You only have to pay thousands a month to be covered if you have a pre-existing condition!
Don't be fooled! They are trying to put something over on us!
These compromises suck!
July 31, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
From my standpoint, No Rationing Is Required.
In case you are a doctor, and your pay is dependent upon your patient's outcome, you will more likely strive to prescribe the best medicine for your patient, let alone avoiding unnecessary cares, and hope your patient will feel better as promptly as possible.
Studies have documented that nearly one half of physician care in the United States is not based on best practices and that at least 98,000 Americans die of a 'medical error' each year.
Under the new health care program, practitioners are expected to eagerly and 'voluntarily' implement the 'recommendations' to work best for them, I think.
Nowadays, we can't imagine the society without IT SYSTEM, just to think of the bank that lacks it, presumably what we should fear most would be the medical institutes without A MUST. I think measurable savings in the transformative health program might be reached.
Thank So Much !
August 2, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The innovative idea of 'a pay for outcome' will most likely prompt team approach and decision, as at Myo clinic, and the result is a greater likelihood of correctly diagnosing and effectively treating a patient earlier in the process.
Studies have documented that nearly one half of physician care in the United States is not based on best practices and that at least 98,000 Americans die of a 'medical error' each year.
Under the 'pay for outcome' pack, supposedly best practices as 'recommendations' would simply help them make a better decision, and the government won't still have to meddle in the final, actual decision-making process as a non-expert.
Thank You !
August 3, 2009 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The 'innovative' idea of a 'pay for value / outcome' pack came after the CBO had previously pointed out this health care reform wouldn't work without 'fundamental' change in the out of date system. It is said that as much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients, and this 700 billion dollars a year can cover a lot of uninsured people.
The expected Benefits of this 'innovative idea' are as follows ;
1. Meet the objective of revenue-neutral.
Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and 'improve'
care, that means more than $1trillian over next decade, and virtually needs no other resources including tax on the
wealthiest. Supposedly even the 'conservative' number of such savings might be able to meet the objective of
revenue-neutral.
2. Quality and affordability.
If you are a physician, and your pay is dependant upon your patient's outcome, you will most likely strive to
prescribe the best medicine earlier in the process, let alone skipping the wasteful, unnecessary treatments.
3. No intervention in decision-making.
The innovative idea of 'a pay for outcome' will more likely prompt team approach and decision, as at Myo clinic.
Under the 'pay for outcome' pack, for good reason, best practices as 'recommendations' would simply help them
make a better decision, and the government won't still have to meddle in the final, actual decision-making
process as a non-expert.
4. Speed up the introduction of IT SYSTEM.
The pay for 'Outcome' pack is most likely to expedite the introduction of Health Care IT SYSTEM.
The synergy effect of the combined Health Care IT & a pay for 'outcome' system may allow the clinicians to
'correctly' diagnose and effectively treat a patient earlier in the process so that it can measurably scale back the
crushing lawsuits and deter the excuse for unnecessary cares to make fortunes.
5. Accelerate the progress in medical science, in return, it saves more cash.
6. Settle the regional disparity.
7. Reduce the emergency room visits & save immense costs.
Public health insurance plans such as Medicare and Medicaid paid for more than 40 percent of U.S. emergency
room visits in 2006, according to government figures released recently. Many experts say reducing these hospital
visits would be an important way to lower the enormous, and growing, expense of U.S. health care.
Thank You !
August 5, 2009 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
-Some say we don't have faith in government, others say, we will be forced out.-
What kind of music does this reform dance to ?
I share the opinion that unlike the insurer-friendly, baseless senate plan by 'some' members, only a 'strong' public option will be capable of getting the premium inflation under control and saving the U.S in turbulence.
To my knowledge, a dual system tends to deliver better results than a pure single payer system. Supposedly, to be or not to be might be up to the innovations like a pay for value program, otherwise, the forthcoming start-ups may fill the void with competitive deals. The competition based on 'fair' market value would be a beauty of true capitalism, not monopoly, an objective for anti-trust.
August 5, 2009 4:48 AM | Reply | Permalink