Support BMG PAC!
About BMG PAC
Make a secure credit card contribution using Google Checkout:
$
Or send a check to BMG PAC, PO Box 877, Medford, MA 02155.
View BMG PAC's latest disclosure report


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?



FREE COPY OF BOB'S BOOK Barack Obama for Beginners to every 50th Facebook Friend!
BMG on Facebook

About
About us
Rules of the road - please read!
Formatting and multimedia tips
Email us
RSS feed

BMG TRAFFIC REPORT
Blue Mass. Swag
Creative Commons License

Event Calendar
February 2010
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 * * * * * *
<< (add event) >>

Active Users
Currently 30 user(s) logged on.

Search




Advanced Search


Blog Roll
Massachusetts Left
.08 Acres
Below Boston
Berkshires Blog
Blue News Tribune
Chimes at Midnight
Eisenthal Report
Granby 01033
Health Care for All
Left in Lowell
MA lefty blogs
Marry in Mass.
Mass Engagement
Massachusetts Liberal
Michael Forbes-Wilcox
My Dedham
Progressive Mass.
Quriltai on the Shore
Ryan's Take
Someday I Will
ShrewsBuried
Talking Stoneham
The Fray
Universal hub

Differently-Winged
John Daley
Mass. Pro-Life
No Looking Backwards
Peter Porcupine
Pundit Review
Red Mass Group
Scaling the Hill 2010

Mass. Media
David S. Bernstein
Cambridge politics
CommonWealth Unbound
Globe bloggers
Herald bloggers
Hub Blog
Jon Keller
MassBeacon
Media Nation (Dan Kennedy)
Open Media Boston
Adam Reilly
Toll Talk (Mary Connaughton)
Weekly Dig Blog

Legal
ACS Blog
Balkinization
Election law
How Appealing
SCOTUSblog
Volokh Conspiracy

General
Accountable Strategies
Billionaires for Bush
Blue Works Better
Crooks and Liars
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democracy Arsenal
Eschaton (Atrios)
Glenn Greenwald
Grist (environment blog)
Hullabaloo (Digby)
LiberalOasis
MyDD
Oliver Willis
Pandagon
Political Animal
Political Critic
Political Wire
Poor Man
Progressive Blog Digest
Real Climate
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Tapped
Talking Points Memo
Think Progress
Truth and Progress
Turn Maine Blue
Wonkette

www.BlueMassGroup.com

The case for Howard Dean at HHS

by: Bob Neer

Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:10:58 AM EST


Barack Obama for Beginners publisher Chip Fleisher (among many, many other books) makes the case well at TruthDig.com:

The position of HHS secretary would play to Dean's proven strengths-his medical training and his ability to work within budgets, to name just two. And no one could bring more passion to the job. To my mind, an old congressional hand, a Washington insider-another nominee like Tom Daschle-who knows how to wheedle and stroke egos and trade this for that in order to make things happen the old-fashioned way would not achieve meaningful reform on health care. There are just too many entrenched interests, and Washington insiders are congenitally incapable of making things happen with so many well-connected players trying to affect the game's outcome. If people think insurance company paper pushers are doing more harm than good as they take decision-making powers out of doctors' hands, imagine the damage that could result from an effort led by a career politician with no understanding of the dynamics at play in our health care system, let alone the human organism.  After so many years of fruitless rhetoric by politicians, why not let a medical doctor with proven success as a political operative and a record for plain talk and common sense have a chance?

What do you think?

Bob Neer :: The case for Howard Dean at HHS
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
About the paper pushers... (5.00 / 2)
Why must we save every job in Detroit, and create new jobs in construction - and allow millions of female clerical workers at insurance and financial industries to fend for themselves?

Just asking.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican


Because: (5.00 / 5)
A. Auto workers and construction workers actually produce something of value.

B. The insurance industry does not.

C. Implying that only female insurance company employees might lose their jobs is dishonest and stupid.

D. The quantity "millions" is one that you pulled out of your ass.


Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?


[ Parent ]
Jesus, youre not a misogynist are you? (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
I'm glad you realize that. (6.00 / 1)


Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

[ Parent ]
PP is talking about herself.... (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Broad brush (0.00 / 0)
"the insurance industy [produces nothing of value]"

What a bizarre statement!  Care to share the reasoning?


[ Parent ]
Reasoning: (0.00 / 0)
Within the context of this discussion, which is about health care, the insurance industry adds no value. In fact, their activities interfere with the efficient and equitable delivery of health care, and make it more expensive.  

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

[ Parent ]
within context of this discussion, which is about health care (0.00 / 0)
it seems to me insurance is more relevant than autos or construction.  Do autos and construction affect the "efficient and equitable delivery of health care"?

[ Parent ]
You'll have to address that question to Peter (0.00 / 0)
since he's the one who brought them up.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

[ Parent ]
Sorry-Wasn't thinking (0.00 / 0)
sometimes i forget we're all not just friends.

[ Parent ]
Bad reasoning (0.00 / 0)
The insurance companies are actually a large constituency (the only other one with similar sway is the government) with the systems and incentive to push for cost containment.  You won't get support for cost containment from health care providers - many are small business people who get paid by the procedure.  Even when that crass incentive doesn't apply, they may order procedures with low likelihood of benefit to give a patient some hope that something is being done or defensively to forestall litigation.  Insurance companies are popular targets, but they do foster evidence-based care and utilization management.  Disclosure: I work in the insurance industry.  

"Perseverance is a great element of success. If you knock long enough and loud enough at the gate, you are sure to wake up somebody." -Longfellow

[ Parent ]
The only costs that the insurance companies try to contain (6.00 / 1)
are their own. The cost to patients that they don't have to pay for are of no interest to them, and nobody with any clout does much to try and contain them. Example: my 3-mile ambulance ride was going to cost me $1000 until they caught up to the fact that I had insurance. The insurance company paid $120 for my ride.

A single-payer system could be an effective system-wide cost containment mechanism. A fleet of self-interested corporations is not.  

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?


[ Parent ]
It sounds like your example proves my point (0.00 / 0)
A provider - ambulance service - would charge you $1K for a service the insurance company had effectively negotiated down to $120.  

Insurance companies have been consolidating, making them players with the clout to negotiate better pricing from the fragmented market of healthcare providers and services.  
A government single-payer program could wield the same clout - if not prevented from negotiating prices by politicians in the pocket of constituencies that make more money if they don't.  Take the prescription drug bill, for example.  

"Perseverance is a great element of success. If you knock long enough and loud enough at the gate, you are sure to wake up somebody." -Longfellow


[ Parent ]
No, it doesn't (6.00 / 2)
Insurance companies are not reducing the overall cost of health care - they're using their clout to reduce their part of it. The rest of the cost is then shifted onto those who are unable (the uninsured) or unwilling (the government) to exercise clout. Meanwhile, insurance companies increase the overall cost of health care by diverting some of the money to profit, by forcing providers to pay for billing staff that deals with the insurance companies' Byzantine requirements, and by denying payment to their subscribers whenever they think they can get away with it.

If you're not in the insurance industry, it's a lose-lose situation.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?


[ Parent ]
See my comments later in this thread (0.00 / 0)
The idea that somehow everything would be better if no insurance companies were involved is delusional.

When the company I work for takes over administration of medicare and medicaid programs for a state, we cut fraud, manage costs and raise utilization.  States hire us, although we "divert" some money to profit, because we can manage the programs better than they can.

Insurance cos. aren't to blame for high costs and fees charged to provide health care services.  Insurance cos. have invented the models of utilization management, fraud detection, negotiated rates and efficient administration that would need to be followed under a hypothetical single-payer model to contain costs.  I think in any "single-payer" healthcare reform we are likely to see, in fact, that insurance companies and third-party administrators, far from being out of the picture, will be contracted by the government to administer the programs.  

High costs stem from inefficient systems, market fragmentation, poor utilization management and lack of evidence-based care on the provider side - as well as our own unhealthy lifestyles and aging population - there are lots and lots of medical professionals and institutions that get paid and are incented based on visits made or procedures performed, rather than on healthy outcomes.  Ultimately the financial incentives need to be set up better on the provider side, and not just the number of payers reduced, to make any headway on healthcare costs.  


"Perseverance is a great element of success. If you knock long enough and loud enough at the gate, you are sure to wake up somebody." -Longfellow


[ Parent ]
Thanks for the insurance industry view. (0.00 / 0)
Your vested interest generates a huge grain of salt.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

[ Parent ]
You obviously don't have insurance. (0.00 / 0)
You are too intelligent to pay good money for something you have deemed of no value.  The auto and construction industries, along with all others, have decided insurance provides them with something of great value, without which they would probably not be able to "produce something of value".

[ Parent ]
Actually, (0.00 / 0)
the auto industry seems to have decided that they get better value building cars in Canada, because they don't have to buy their workers health insurance there. The construction industry doesn't have the option of moving operations across the border.

I did not say that there's no value to having health insurance. I said the insurance industry does not produce anything of value. The value in health insurance is that it pays a large portion of medical expenses. That quality is not uniquely dependent on there being a health insurance industry, and there are other, cheaper ways to achieve it.

 

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?


[ Parent ]
Insurance has value (6.00 / 5)
but produces nothing of value.  Neither do mortgages.  Health insurance's value is of reducing financial risk, not of health care.


But there's a greater point here.  People don't want health insurance.  They want health care.  In the process of going from bad health to good health...
* Receptionist organizes queue for medical service, makes sure that medical records are in order
* Nurse takes blood pressure, temperature, etc.
* Doctor makes diagnosis
* Pharmacist provides medicine (pills, bandages, whatever)

In that process, each added value to the process of going from bad health to good health.  Nowhere in the "added value" chain is some paper pusher in Dubuque Iowa looking at a stack of papers and deciding if or how much money will be transferred from one pile to another.  That process adds no value to the person's health.

To put it another way, you can't get from sick to healed without those four bullet points -- but you can without the insurance industry.  It happens in over a dozen nations thousands of times each day.


[ Parent ]
Nitpick (0.00 / 0)
Insurance doesn't reduce risk.  It may reduce individual risk, but more accurately equalizes risk.

Frankly, given the perilous games that we've seen insurance agencies play, one may claim that it increases overall risk.  The rate/severity of accidents is unchanged, but AIG and friends add a significant fiscal risk in trusting these companies with your money.

The difference between insurance and blackjack -- where the house barely wins, makes the rules, and survives on volume -- isn't always that broad.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...


[ Parent ]
Further nitpick... (0.00 / 0)
... it doesn't equalize risk, it spreads financial risk.  The AIG debacle was precisely because Credit Default Swaps were not regulated as insurance.  AIG then went right ahead and over-leveraged (beyond what would be maximum had they been classified as insurance) themselves on CDSs on top of not really understanding the risk profile of the mortgage backed securities the CDSs were designed to hedge for.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

[ Parent ]
I was referring to financial risk (0.00 / 0)
insurance reduces financial risk for an individual.  That's the point.

[ Parent ]
Uh-huh (0.00 / 0)
And if the insurance industry transfers risk from individual medical/auto repair bills to part-ownership of a staggering government debt, how much better off is everyone?  The risks aren't diminished, they're just less intimidating.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...


[ Parent ]
Much conversation around health care... (0.00 / 0)
... can get quite distorted on account of treating insurance (for discussion purposes) as if it were a regular commodity or product, which it isn't.

Excellent phrasing:  "Health insurance's value is of reducing financial risk, not of health care. "  

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)


[ Parent ]
Healthcare providers get paid for their work (0.00 / 0)
Fraudsters get detected.
Risk is distributed across a pool.

These aren't the same as directly providing care, but they have a value.



"Perseverance is a great element of success. If you knock long enough and loud enough at the gate, you are sure to wake up somebody." -Longfellow


[ Parent ]
They have a value but at a cost (6.00 / 1)
To get health care cost containment and risk spreading you have to pay:
- insurance company profits
- insurance company marketing costs
- insurance company competition costs (multiple companies duplicating the same work)
- cost of hospital/health care providers' billing departments (at least the cost of the extra people needed to bill multiple insurers)

If the government provided these services this money would be saved.  And a single payer plan provides a larger pool over which to spread the risk.

Speaking here for myself only


[ Parent ]
It's a mistake to think that in a single-payer governmental system (5.00 / 1)
The government will directly administer the program and somehow that will be more cost-effective.  Look at how Medicare and Medicaid are handled by the states today - typically they are contracted to companies who administer the programs either on a risk basis (insurance model) or for a fee per claim paid (administrative service model).  You can bet that a hypothetical national single payer program would also work this way, because the insurance companies and third-party administrators already have invested and own the IT and administrative systems to pay claims efficiently.  When the company I work for takes over administration of a state program, we can both raise utilization and reduce costs, through focus on preventative care, more efficient claims processing, and reduction of fraud and abuse.  States hire private companies like the one I work for because they can run programs more cost-effectively than the state can.

Medical billing, while still complex, is less of a hairball than it used to be due to the standard identifiers and transactions that all participants must support under HIPAA.  And much of the remaining tangle is on the provider side - a plethora of small business people paid on a fee-for-service model.

Personally, I don't think single payer alone would effectively contain healthcare costs.  What is needed is to pay providers on a salary or capitation basis, rather than fee-for-service.  Not that the AMA would ever let that happen!  The current financial incentives are all on the side of providers selling more services, rather than assuring healthy outcomes for patients.

"Perseverance is a great element of success. If you knock long enough and loud enough at the gate, you are sure to wake up somebody." -Longfellow


[ Parent ]
Perfect for the job (0.00 / 0)
I think he'd be perfect for the job.

He already did major health care reform in Vermont that turned out very successful, and gained very broad support.  Until Massachusetts, the Vermont system was probably the best in the country (so it's now second best, IMO), but it has some features Massachusetts doesn't: the early childhood intervention/prevention & support for pregnant women and new mothers.

Dean has already demonstrated the ability to move the public on this issue, which will be a big deal when this gets fought out on the federal level.  He's largely responsible for kicking off the sea change that took us from no major candidates of either party proposing universal health care for a couple of election cycles, to it having become an absolute necessity for any candidate wanting to be taken seriously on the Democratic side this time around.  Dean was the first candidate to propose it in the 2003/04 cycle (he did so in 2002, actually), and eventually all the other major candidates who did so did it because he was successful and they needed to emulate his key positions somewhat.

Dean has extensive relevant experience in that he spent a decade as both a part time state legislator and a full time family doctor simultaneously, and then six terms as Governor.

And he's got experience with and strong connections to the netroots, and the support and loyalty and familiarity of hundreds (at least) of active grassroots groups around the country.

He's also shown a keen, hard-headed understanding not only of budgets, but of real long term thinking about Government policy; an ability to see what to adjust now to have desired effects in 5 years and 10 years and even longer.  Additionally, he was an effective pragmatist who altered his plans in order to get them passed while keeping his key goals intact.

And, of all the top tier possibilities for this job, he's probably the most passionate about and committed to health care policy.  It has always been a top focus of his political career.

P.S. If you think this is a good idea too,



Perfect for the job. (5.00 / 1)
Unfortunately, Dean is unlikely, from what I've read, to even really be seriously considered because he is viewed as too partisan for the job.  To my thinking, Dr. Dean would be a terrific choice (given his background) that would go a long way to assuaging the fears of the left that Obama is too conciliatory and too concerned with making friends with Washington's established elite and congressional Republicans.  

 

Dean would be EXCELLENT--- (5.00 / 1)
As far as medicine is concerned he has seemed to me to be
on a fairly even keel. You need someone that has at least tangential experience working in medicine. Like some many other appointments in the history of Washington and politics generally, political hacks get the job and they screw it up to a fair the well.  We wonder why it costs government three times as much as the private sector to get the same job done? Leon Panetta comes to mind. CIA? Wait until we have our first biological attack and all the kids that never got a smallpox vaccination start dying like flies.  

Depends (5.50 / 2)
As an administrator of current and future health care programs, Dean would be excellent.  He knows how to work with a budget, and he has a good knack for picking good people as staff.  Though his Vermont and DNC experiences have limited relevance, Dean has demonstrated that he can successfully manage a large enterprise, and do it well.

As a shepherd for legislation, I don't think it would work that well.  Dean is a success, and doesn't always have much time for failures, something that includes a lot of dead-enders in both parties.  Since so much of legislation is soothing tissue-thin egos, Dean would be the wrong choice.  Starting in 2003, he has hurt too many fragile feelings -- witness Rahm Emmanuel's problems with him, not to mention lingering hostility from Kerry's people and the consultancy's whining.  And that's just "our" side.

I'd rather have someone such as Daschle, Podesta, or Gephardt get the legislation passed, and have Dean run the resulting program.  Unfortunately, as long as Dean is the face of the reform, it will probably fail due to petulance on both sides of the aisle.  Dean for HHS in 2010.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...


Look at his actual record (0.00 / 0)
At the DNC, his job was to be partisan.  But he's also got a nice long record of six terms as a governor, and before that, a decade as a part time state legislator while practicing as a doctor.  Look particularly at his record as Governor, because it's the most telling.  You'll find that you're wrong.

Dean was very practical and pragmatic, excelled at coalitions and building support among groups that disagreed with each other, occupying the political center while redefining the overton window such that his key goals were part of that center, and winning over the respect and support of even those who opposed his policies.


[ Parent ]
I am looking at his actual record (0.00 / 0)
Don't get me wrong -- I admire the man tremendously.  I remember talking with you at the HQ in Cedar Rapids in 2004.  However, Vermont Republicans are different creatures than southerners, and machine Democrats are different that Vermont Democrats.

I am just pointing out that many people on Capitol Hill have an ignorant, fossilized impression of Dean.  Yes, he was doing his job, but in the process he alienated a lot of people, including people on both sides of the aisle needed to push this forward.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...


[ Parent ]
There might be an Obama / Dean problem (5.00 / 2)
From Ezra:
The dream names I'm hearing from health care activists are Howard Dean and former Oregon governor John Kitzhaber. I like both men. Neither will get the job. Dean and Obama have a poor relationship. Obama didn't keep Dean at the DNC, and he didn't even put Dean on the stage when he announced Gov. Tim Kaine to replace him. I'm not entirely sure where the distaste comes from, but it's there. And you really don't want the lead health reformer to suffer from a chilly relationship with the president.


"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

lame reasoning (0.00 / 0)
Ezra Klein's handwaving is pretty weak here.  There's no actual evidence I know of.  What I do hear is that Rahm Emmanuel dislikes Dean.  That may be true (though also speculation) but isn't a good reason not to pick him.

Regardless, it's certainly not a good reason for not suggesting the choice.  Ezra Klein's fiat (I've got this vague impression, so obviously it won't happen, so let's not talk about it) is IMO idiotic.


[ Parent ]
I remember people taking... (0.00 / 0)
... not of Dean's absence during the hand-off.  Lots of people were talking about it as an obvious diss, not just Ezra.  I've never seen a 'plausible explanation' for his absence since.  I doubt very seriously that, if it was a diss, that it was just because Emmanuel disliked him.    All that being said, I agree that this is just speculation at it's heart, but it's speculation that was established on multiple blog fronts at the time and never seriously challenged.  Something is probably going on there.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

[ Parent ]
There might still be bad blood (0.00 / 0)
When Rahm Emanuel was DCCC chair he clashed with Dean over 50-state vs. targeted strategy.

[ Parent ]
Dean would be an excellent candidate. (0.00 / 0)
He's proven he has the capacity for bold and innovative management, as he was largely responsible for resuscitating the party with his 50 State Strategy. He has substantial experience in BOTH medicine and government. He was highly successful at managing Vermont's budget at a time when much of the country was struggling. And most importantly, he was one of the foremost champions of universal healthcare BEFORE it became one of the number one Democratic talking points. If the way he transformed Vermont's health care system is any indication of what he would do for the country, we'd be lucky to have him.

That said, he's an arguably divisive figure and his feud with Rahm Emanuel certainly isn't going to make it easy for him to get the nomination. Unfortunately, I think this one is more of a longshot than it should be.


I like Dean, but... (0.00 / 0)
My husband and I were talking about this last night. He was a certified Deaniac, so anything to see Dean back in the national political arena, is a good thing to him.  I think putting a provider with political in HHS would make an interesting combination.  Though I am not 100% sure about his track record from Vermont, as Vermont Blueprint for Health for Chronic Care management was not founded under him--but I am not a VT expert, so someone correct me if I am wrong.

Who I think would be a thoughtful, insightful and pragmatic HHS Secretary is Dr. Atul Gawande.  Now I think he has the right mix of policy and patient, so to speak.  I also think his ideas on health care reform (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_gawande) are pragmatic, and even politically feasible.


Politics for People with *Progressive* Minds


From the huffington post... (6.00 / 2)
Others are concerned that a major netroots movement to appoint Dean will actually turn the White House off the notion. They don't want it to seem like they are "bending to the demands of the left," as one Democrat put it.
 

Of course, because it's so much more appropriate to pander to the right.

When are we going to grow a pair a embrace the fact that WE WON? Bipartisanship doesn't mean always rolling over and taking it.


Bush's prank (0.00 / 0)
He didn't pop the w's off keyboards.  He laced the water system with downers.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...


[ Parent ]
I'm a huge Dean fan but (0.00 / 0)
when I was advocating for this, a good friend told me Dean was vehemently opposed to needle exchange programs when he was governor.  Does anyone have more information on this?

Pat D., Holyoke

Maybe yes, (0.00 / 0)
maybe no:
On the other hand, as Vermont governor, Dean supported successful 1999 legislation establishing needle exchange programs in the state. But neither he nor his successor has encouraged the legislature to fund the two existing programs.


Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

[ Parent ]
weird info you have (6.00 / 1)
Not that I find it super-relevant, but Vermont passed a needle exchange bill when Dean was governor, and he supported the bill.

[ Parent ]
Apparently he was opposed at one point, but (6.00 / 3)
isn't any longer:

A quote (thanks, Google Books) on the subject:

The good thing about being a doctor is that you are results-oriented.... Facts are very important. I used to be against needle-exchange programs, because I thought they might spread addiction.... Then the Yale studies came out around 1993 and 1994, and I changed my position almost overnight.... Sometimes I get impatient with emotional arguments that are not based on anything. I like to cut to the chase.


[ Parent ]



I support WWF


Political insider ad network Law blog ad network
Advertise Liberally









Powered by: SoapBlox