Health Insurance Articles

Democrats Promote Their Points On Health Care Coverage Vs. Costs

2009-10-07

In trying to treat the ill-fated health care program in America, and knowing where the insurance companies stand, President Obama went to the heart of the issue and asked for a second opinion from the medical community by inviting representative doctors to the White House for further consultations. Clad in white coats, the group reminded one of officials preparing to vaccinate America. But this disease is not swine flu. It is far more threatening to the lifeline of America. Thus the reason for the very public calling of health care officials to the White House lawn: bad prognosis for health care. If only such a vaccination existed.

Democrats realize that doctors know most about services needed, what is acceptable and what is pseudo medicine. This is opposed to health insurance companies whose self-interest is funding high-cost, low-payout programs. That makes good business sense. But does it make for good health coverage? That is another question, and one best answered by the medical community. That is not to say that insurance companies should not be part of the mix and have their say. But the feeling among Democrats is that the companies have had too much to say so far, and a balance with the medical community should be sought.

Why the doctor convention? President Obama accomplished a few things by inviting doctors to the White House. Madison Avenue would say "white coats" at the "White House" serves as a strong subliminal connection. You could also stretch the point to say the grounds of the White House represent the common ground the administration seeks. The second point comes from the President's comments. His slant was one of asking "not telling" the doctors to spread the word of how they felt about health care coverage. He was confident that they felt as he did.

Democrats are seeing the third point of the gathering as sending a message to insurance companies that the administration is looking to health care practitioners for guidance, and that the health care coverage practices of the past will not suffice in the new world. Minimal coverage language needs to be worked out so that a patient actually has a chance to get better courtesy of the suggested treatment. Minimal coverage wording does not mean the government will be dictating treatment. It means minimum treatment. That's a big difference.

So while Congress debates the issue, and America sits in waiting rooms, the President keeps the issue at the forefront of government priorities, perhaps hoping, as a result of his public efforts, that sooner than later, there will be "doctors in the House" proving their own views of needed health care coverage.