Obama Zeroes in on Consumer Protections in Health Reform

By: Stephanie Condon
Topics: Health Care

5192097While the main battle over health care reform -- creating a government-run insurance plan versus some other coverage mechanism -- is coming to a head between conservatives and liberals in the Senate, President Obama is pressing ahead today with his call for health insurance reform -- focusing on the consumer protection elements of reform that face less controversy.

At his two events in North Carolina and Virginia today, Mr. Obama will emphasize that reform will create more security and stability for families, including those that already have health insurance, according to White House officials. He will focus on eight specific consumer protections expected from a reform package: an end to discrimination for pre-existing conditions, a cap on out-of-pocket expenses, an end to cost-sharing for preventive care, prohibiting insurers from dropping coverage for serious illness, the elimination of gender discrimination, an end to annual or lifetime caps, an extension of coverage for young adults and guaranteed insurance renewal.

The White House will continue its push through e-mail campaigns and messaging on social networking sites, officials say.

Health care reform hinges on the support of Americans who already have health insurance, Drew E. Altman, president and chief executive of the Kaiser Family Foundation, told the Washington Post. "This debate will turn on people like this trying to answer the question 'Will this benefit my family?' " he said.

The president will be able to appeal to that audience with the specific set of consumer protection reforms he will discuss today. His remarks regarding broader reform proposals have been lacking in detail as he waits for Congress to decide on a specific plan.

Meanwhile, speculation about what the overall reform package might contain has muddled Mr. Obama's message. That much was clear at his tele-town hall meeting with members of AARP on Tuesday when a woman asked if Medicare reforms would force people to choose how they want to die.

"Nobody's going to be forcing you to be making decisions on end of life care," the president responded.

Stephanie Condon
Stephanie Condon is a political reporter for CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

20 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 20 Comments


by sjulty July 30, 2009 9:16 PM EDT: It looks like most of my original comment got inadvertently deleted before I finished my thoughts...

The point I wanted to make was it seems that everyone I speak to who is opposed to the so-called "Obamacare" plan has some form of employer sponsored or subsidized insurance, but here's the thing..No one is bulletproof or recession proof & while they may have secure jobs with a generous benefits plans, that could change at their employer's whim and I guarantee that the moment ANY of them loses their job and subsequently, their insurance, they WILL be singing an entirely different tune! In my case, I have a full time job & my employer co-pays the requisite amount of FICA and all other required deductions are taken from my paltry paycheck, but they do NOT offer me any sort of medical insurance, so I must dig deep into my pockets to pay for it myself. In my opinion this is a clear case of the haves and the have-not's with the real root of the problem being what the media refers to as "Big Pharma" How is it that the pharmaceutical and the rest of the health care industry feels it has a "right" to RAPE myself and the rest of the American public by charging whatever it feels like for life sustaining health care? Don't we as tax paying American citizens have a right to comprehensive and affordable care without being taken to the cleaners?; Reply to this comment


by sjulty July 30, 2009 8:36 PM EDT: "right" to charge whatever they wish for essential, life sustaining carew?; Reply to this comment


by TheMasses2009 July 29, 2009 2:04 PM EDT: How does Maobama's health reform effect birth control in the schools?

Okay, forget that; what does he think about Favre retiring?; Reply to this comment

by debinok1 July 29, 2009 1:54 PM EDT

Here is a scenario for everyone, when you read it, really stop and think about how far you would let this go.

You are a business owner, You have hired employees for your business, you pay those employees every week, you supply them with good health insurance and awesome perks.

You walk into your business one day, and your employees inform you that they have decided that from now on THEY will vote on their own pay raises, you will have no say in it, but will be required to pay them those raises.

You walk into your business a month later, and your employees inform you that their health care is not good enough, they have found the best health care available and that is the health care they will be using from now on, again you have NO say in it, but will be required to pay for it.

You walk into your business after another month has passed, and your employees inform you that those perks are just not good enough, they want full retirement benefits, with the same health care and at the same wages they have decided you owe them, you still have no say in it, but will be required to pay for it.

Another month passes and you walk in, and your employees inform you that since you smoke and they do not want you to, they are going to charge you a certain amount every time you buy them, you still have no say, but you are still required to pay for it.

Another month and they inform you that those sodas you drink are affecting them and since they want to control your weight they will be charging you for them, you still have no say, but you are still required to pay.

Another month goes by and they inform you that YOUR health care is costing them to much, therefore they will set a policy they decide on in place for you, again you have no say, but you will be required to pay for it.

You walk in again, only this time they inform you that they have decided you will no longer have any say in the business, they know what is best for it and will be making all decision, you no longer have any say in it, but you are still required to pay for it.

At some point during this scenario most people would think "I would fire the whole bunch", with that in mind, think back over what those EMPLOYEES did and compare that to Our government, who are EMPLOYEES of the people, they are HIRED by US to do a job, that JOB is to be OUR VOICE. Over the years they have removed OUR say in OUR government while STILL requiring US to pay for it.

Time to take BACK OUR government.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/are-we-confident-our-government-is-working-for-us

Reply to this comment


by jon2012-2009 July 29, 2009 2:50 PM EDT: Business owners are people who live in this country too. We tell anyone who's here to pay taxes, among thousands and thousands of rules and regulations that govern the functioning of society.


by actornaught July 29, 2009 1:37 PM EDT: If you lose it because you're too sick to pay for it, it was NEVER Health Insurance, it was just subsidizing CEO's lifestyles...; Reply to this comment

by usa3world July 29, 2009 1:14 PM EDT

Even if it were 1 million uninsured that would be too many.

Reply to this comment


by jon2012-2009 July 29, 2009 2:44 PM EDT: by jgg00000008 July 29, 2009 1:29 PM EDT
I agree, but you do not change the other 299 million to accomodate the 1M
-----------------

jgg00000008, in developed countries where a public option is the primary coverage for their citizens, I don't hear them complaining about the quality of care or coverage. I mentioned elsewhere that in those countries, 70% pronounced themselves satisfied. In the U.S., that figure is a shrinking 56%. People in other developed countries say they wouldn't trade their health care for the world. If they're thinking of health care in the U.S., you can't blame them, can you?


by jsd330 July 29, 2009 10:15 PM EDT: How many of those uninsured that could afford health insurance don't want it. Obama want's to take their choice away, by government regulation that you have to have health insurance or pay a penalty. That's taking away freedom of choice. I can't find anywhere if people who have MSA'S or HSA'S are counted as having or not having health care. MSA's and HSA's are not considered health insurance, therefor if they are counted as being uninsured that brings the numbers up to. The idea behind mandantory auto insurance was supposed to bring rates down, that never happend.So what makes everyone think it's going to work with health care.


by endurorob July 29, 2009 1:09 PM EDT: ibsteve2u July 29, 2009 12:39 PM EDT
lollll...I should have said:

"to include mandatory premium payments by all Americans who can - on paper - scrape together the dimes to do it"

Because you KNOW they'll go just by gross income, and any other factor - such as unexpected losses due to your house burnt down or your car was in an accident involving an uninsured driver - will not be considered as they are levying a penalty payment upon you for not paying your premium.

By the way: That levying of insurance premiums? First they hit us with mandatory car insurance, and it looks like mandatory health insurance is in the pipeline.

Net effect is an upwards bump in the cost of living of many Americans, but particularly those Americans that fall into the "working poor" and lower middle class.

The working poor and lower middle class will likely be eligible for sibsidies since Obama has steted that subsidies will be available for a family of 4 making up to $88K a year.; Reply to this comment

by ibsteve2u July 29, 2009 12:28 PM EDT

Any health care bill surely does need consumer protection; the former is shaping up to include mandatory premium payments by all Americans who can scrape together the dimes to do it, and there is absolutely no proof that any large corporation can be trusted to put the good of the American consumer or even the law foremost in their decision process.

Quite the contrary.

Without consumer protection legislation, a health bill would just be an income generator for the insurance corporations with no reciprocal benefit to the American consumer; the insurance corporations would continue those unsavory practices - such as "losing" the paperwork of individuals who need operations until after their deaths - that they employ to make such massive profits now.

Reply to this comment


by ibsteve2u July 29, 2009 12:39 PM EDT: lollll...I should have said:

"to include mandatory premium payments by all Americans who can - on paper - scrape together the dimes to do it"

Because you KNOW they'll go just by gross income, and any other factor - such as unexpected losses due to your house burnt down or your car was in an accident involving an uninsured driver - will not be considered as they are levying a penalty payment upon you for not paying your premium.

By the way: That levying of insurance premiums? First they hit us with mandatory car insurance, and it looks like mandatory health insurance is in the pipeline.

Net effect is an upwards bump in the cost of living of many Americans, but particularly those Americans that fall into the "working poor" and lower middle class.

Now I am in favor of national health care, but anything that raises the cost of living of the American worker/consumer affects his or her competitiveness on the global labor market.

As our costs our legislated upwards, our ability to compete with people whose costs of living started out being 1/10th of ours drops correspondingly.

The American economy is in a mess because of inequitable free trade, and that mess includes our ability to pay for health care.

Until we get a leader with the gonads to put America first and address the differing costs of production nation-to-nation, the American consumer/worker should continue to maintain a firm grasp upon his or her ankles.

by schotzy81 July 29, 2009 12:10 PM EDT

Yes, please keep insisting on this moronic idea. It's driving Obama and the other Dem's approval ratings into the sewer.

The US doesn't have a crisis. We have very few American citizens who want health insurance but don't have it despite what the alarmists say. (And no, the "50 million" number isn't intellectually honest because it includes illegal aliens, people eligble for Medicare/Medicaid and just don't apply, and people that can afford insurance but choose not to.)

Americans have started waking up to the soaring rhetoric that spews from the left and realize it isn't any more intellectually advanced than what an 8-year old feels.

2010 can't come soon enough.

Reply to this comment


by jon2012-2009 July 29, 2009 2:29 PM EDT: What facts can you put forward to justify the continued place of private insurance in U.S. health care? C'me on, show us. Private insurance doesn't add value to care, it only assumes responsibility for payment. The government can make that moot by guaranteeing universal coverage. It can do that without the high costs that beset private insurance: CEO's and executives who get paid $2,000/hour while their workers try to live on $16/hour, marketing costs, consulting fees to lobbyists, legal fees to fight patients and regulators, fines and awards resulting from lawsuits and violations, obscene profits, etc., etc. A government-run health care does not face these costs.

In every other developed country, there is a public option and health care costs are half as much as ours. Their health care also delivers much better outcomes. How? We are last in longevity, infant mortality and medical errors leading to death. We are #1 in costs, where we don't want to be. Our health care occupies 37th slot according to a WHO ranking of countries around the world.

The preponderance of facts and arguments surrounding health care reform is on the side of those in favor. The only arguments from the other side are bogus: illegals (see my comments), rationing (we have them today in the U.S. with almost 50 million uninsured, 20% of those with insurance forego care to avoid out-of-pocket costs), "socialism" (if market solutions don't work, I say ditch them).

by jon2012-2009 July 29, 2009 12:03 PM EDT

Health care reform is essentially reforming private health insurance or eliminating it as a major player in health care. Without a public option, we will continue to let private health insurance impoverish families and put an unmanageable burden on the economy. Private health insurance is the single biggest cause of rising health care costs and poor outcomes.

Reply to this comment


by actornaught July 29, 2009 1:34 PM EDT: sgtfc, why so much scare talk?

Health Insurance companies will never go out of business.


by jon2012-2009 July 29, 2009 2:00 PM EDT: In both France and UK, two developed countries that spend half as much as we do on health care and cover all their citizens, private health insurance exists although it plays a much reduced role. SgtFC, better bone up with the facts and then come back.