- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
AmSpecBlog
Grand Health Care Alliance Begins to Fracture
For months, I’ve been reporting on the fact that many of the industry groups that opposed past attempts by Washington to overhaul the health care system are onboard with the Democrats this time around. But suddenly, that’s starting to change.
On Thursday, the New York Times reported that the American Medical Association would oppose the creation of a new government-run plan modeled after Medicare, which is supported by President Obama. This is a significant development, even though the group subsequently released a vague statement saying it may support some variations of a government plan.
But this wasn’t the only such example.
On Thursday, representatives from several business groups appeared before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee and delivered strong statements against the idea of a mandate requiring employers to provide health coverage or pay a fine. The groups said the cost of the mandate would have to be recouped somehow, meaning either job losses or lower wages for employees.
Randel Johnson of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce called the idea a “sweeping new burden on businesses” and delivered a blistering criticism of the way Democrats were trying to ram through legislation in a matter of months. He said for all the flak Hillary Clinton received for conducting meetings behind closed doors during the 1993 health care drive, that was “a model of transparency” compared to the current process.
Taken together, this shift could complicate matters for President Obama and Democrats in Congress. For liberals, abandoning a government-run plan and employer mandate would take the teeth out of health care reform, and for some, make it simply not worth doing. The optics of Democratic lawmakers abandoning such ideas to win over industry groups would not go over well among the party’s activist base. At the same time, if Democrats insist on ramming through very liberal legislation without any Republican votes or support of doctors, insurers, and businesses, they won’t have any cover if (or I should say when) their program fails.
Comments
Leave a Comment
- Here Comes the Foreign Legion
- A Disgrace to Science
- Getting (Up) There
Bob| 6.12.09 @ 9:04AM
Philip -- again a half truth. The AMA now represents less than one-fourth of doctors. It is not primarily a lobbying organization for rich doctors. Most average and new doctors see this stogy organization as adhering to the past and not interested in public health. Most doctors today are fed up with insurance companies and don't like to spend their time trying to game the system. They also want tort reform to lower their malpractice insurance. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a similar organization. The member companies want health reform in general as the current burden is far too heavy and Republicans have absolutely no solution.
These lobbying organizations are getting less relevant because they no longer represent the majority of their industries. Trying to sensationalize otherwise does not help. Pushing for tort reform (which Obama is willing to do in trade for some support) and limiting the public option to a backstop for the uninsured would be some reasonable starting positions.
The train has left the station and being reactionary just continues the irrelevance of the party.
Philip Klein| 6.12.09 @ 9:38AM
Bob, how is anything I wrote a "half truth"? Where did I write that the AMA represents every doctor in America or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce speaks for every business? Nonetheless, both organizations have influence and symbolic importance, which is why President Obama has tried to court them heavily up to this point. And for the record, I reported on these organizations when they were saying things much more supportive of Obama's plan.
Bob| 6.12.09 @ 9:52AM
Philip... OK, point taken. However, by distinctly stating that the AMA has problems with the plan without also stating that it only represents a minority of doctors, you are misleading the readers into believing most doctors are against it. The same is true for the Chamber.
What is actually occurring here is that these lobbying organizations are experiencing decreasing relevance. In order to remain relevant, they want to have one or two issues where their lobbying has improved the plan so they can argue for more membership. They are not against the plan, they are just taking a more aggressive starting position so they can back off and get what they really want. It is just a negotiating tactic, not a real desire. I'm sure you are not naive and understand how negotiations work.
I'll tell you one of the problems, however, that is underreported. If healthcare reform is approved, the GM deal with VEBA will become a windfall for the unions. Someone should be presenting this case to the bankruptcy judge. Since you report so much on healthcare, perhaps you could raise the profile of this issue.
Dennis D| 6.12.09 @ 10:11AM
I know my Doc told me this week he dislikes a single payer system like Medicare. Doctors now have the option of refusing to work with some insurance companies who do not pay enough or are difficult to work with. My Doc just dropped Blue Cross as an HMO primary doc. With a single payer system there are no choices for anyone. Of course my Doc is Russian and lived in the Soviet Union so he understands better than most Liberals in America
Rich Berger| 6.12.09 @ 1:05PM
As far as being representative, wouldn't it be nice if the MSM pointed out that organized labor only represents about 12% of workers in every story about unions?
Bob| 6.12.09 @ 1:17PM
Rich, that is the reason organized labor is not such a big deal.... so stop putting it all out of proportion...
(You didn't think about it that way, did you?)
Rich Berger| 6.12.09 @ 2:35PM
Sorry Bob, but they are a big deal to the Democrats. Especially the NEA, the UAW, AFSCME, SEIU, etc.
Bob| 6.12.09 @ 2:48PM
Sorry Rich, but if they are so small, why are YOU worried about them other than ideology? The Dems court them because of their outsized effect on donations and campaigns -- not because they are large. It is the same reason Republicans cowtow to social conservatives who only represent about 18% of the population.
Also, the MSM includes Fox. Fox has the largest audience in cable news. On radio, the MSM is mostly conservative. This whole notion that MSM is totally on the left doesn't stand up to facts.
Pingback| 6.12.09 @ 3:23PM
Capital Research Center: links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
KevlarKevin| 6.12.09 @ 3:25PM
Bob, stop your distorting for once. Seek professional help.
Bob| 6.12.09 @ 4:46PM
So, Kevlar, your definition of "distorting" is anything that disagrees with your limited point of view? If you don't believe that Fox has the largest cable news audience or that radio belongs to the conservative right, then you are delusional. The MSM has a strong right wing presence, and you know it.
NFL jerseys| 9.7.09 @ 11:29PM
It is a wonderful article,I like it!Welcome to read following news: NFL jersey,ghd Hair Straightener,NFL jerseys,Photoshop CS2,Adobe Photoshop CS4,cheap uggs.