Transparency Lacking in Health Care Reform Battle

5058008Thanks to the spread of misinformation from both the left and the right, there has been a great deal of confusion about what health care reform actually means. Yet while the White House is stepping up efforts to debunk what it calls untruths about President Obama's plans, the administration continues its backroom negotiations with congressmen and industry representatives.

The White House on Wednesday confirmed to the pharmaceutical industry that it stands by a deal it made earlier to keep Congress from passing on any more health care reform costs to the industry, beyond the $80 billion already agreed to, the New York Times reports. In June, Mr. Obama announced an agreement from the pharmaceutical industry to cut the cost of prescription drugs for seniors through Medicare by $80 billion.

According to the New York Times, the White House acknowledged for the first time on Wednesday that as part of the deal for the drug industry's $80 billion concession, the White House would block Congress from passing on any more costs to the industry. The deal was brokered even though the president has said time and again that cost containment is a priority for him when it comes to health care reform, and even though he has spoken warily of lobbyists.

Furthermore, the White House's dealings stand in stark contrast to the proposal Mr. Obama gave on the campaign trail to keep health care negotiations completely transparent. As the St. Petersberg Times' Web site PolitiFact.com points out, Mr. Obama said he wanted to keep all negotiations publicly televised.

"I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table," he said at a town hall meeting in Aug. 2008. "We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."

A pharmaceutical industry representative who spoke to the New York Times said that the White House told him to negotiate with Sen. Max Baucus, the moderate chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, one of the groups in Congress responsible for health care legislation.

Baucus is leading discussions among a group of three Democrats and three Republicans from the Senate Finance Committee, dubbed "the group of six," to try to reach a bipartisan compromise for health care reform. Even though other members of the Finance Committee have been shut out of the negotiations, and the discussions have been fairly secretive overall, Mr. Obama met with this group this morning to assess their progress.

The group of six's secret meetings have angered liberals in Congress who claim Baucus is conceding too much to Republicans, especially by scrapping plans for a government-sponsored insurance plan, or "public option," as the group reportedly has.

On a conference call today to promote the public option, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a strong proponent of the public plan, said with respect to the group of six, "I'm obviously not pleased with the direction of those negotiations overall."

He also expressed skepticism about dealings with special interest groups like the phramaceutical and insurance industries.

"I appreciate that they've come to the table," Brown said, but "they're out to do it their way. These interest groups are out there, as of course they would be... to keep their share and enlarge their share of the public helath care dollar. They're a big reason why this is so difficult."

Twenty-eight senators signed onto a resolution Brown sponsored in May supporting the public option.

"I think a strong public option can pass the Senate," he said.

Still, Brown added, "I'm not going to negotiate publicly on what I won't support."

He said the final Senate bill will depend heavily on Baucus' negotiations.

"I'd have to look at the whole legislation," Brown said. "If it's a co-op instead of a public option, and the subsides are too low, and the employer mandate's too weak... of course I'd vote 'No.' That's as direct as I'd think I can be."

Perhaps it would be easier for Brown -- and the rest of the American people -- to decide where they stand on health care legislation if we had some more meetings on C-SPAN.