Columnist writes of United Healthcare's existing Death Panels, that denied cancer care to her husband

I return from southern Europe (France and Italy), with some of the best World Health Organization-rated national health insurance systems,
to the madness of America, with the same histrionic lies that were in FoxNews when I left two weeks ago.
There is a terrific column, of a tragically tight-fisted insurance policy that denied care to a columnist's ailing husband. Nationally syndicated columnist Froma Harrop (based at the "Providence Journal" in Rhode Island) wrote of the already existing rationing of care, of death panels that we have with the private system.
Read this column, "Here's the real `death panel' for you," posted August 20, 2009, linked from the "Miami Herald:"

''Death panels''? I'll tell you about death panels.

My husband faced one some years ago, and it didn't involve any government bureaucrat. It was run by our private insurer, the sort of corporate entity that foes of healthcare reform say will give you anything you want.

My husband was diagnosed with liver cancer. We were ``insured'' by United Healthcare. The deal was as follows: You had to use doctors on its list, but if you needed specialized care outside the network, United's health-maintenance organization would pay for it. Fair enough.

A liver expert within the network said point blank that for my husband's case, there was but one place to go, a specialized chemotherapy program at Deaconess Hospital in Boston. Fortunately, it was only 50 minutes away.

But United Healthcare refused to pay for it. Instead, it directed us to a small, local hospital unequipped to deal with this kind of cancer. Our liver specialist warned, ``Don't waste your time.''

We naively tried to go through United Healthcare's appeals process. We would call the number and speak to a handler who said our case would be reconsidered. Days later, a one-sentence letter would arrive by slow mail saying that we were being denied, but call this number to challenge the verdict.

Around and around we went. We could never speak to anyone making the decisions. No one would even talk to our doctor, who at one point whispered to us, ``Mortgage the house.''

I became convinced that the insurance company was trying to run out the clock on my husband's life. Had it issued an outright No, we would have gone to Deaconess, paid for the care ourselves and fought the insurer later. But it always pretended that a possible Yes could be around the corner.

Having already lost precious time confronting this cancer, we simply rushed to Deaconess. On hearing the story, the head of the chemo program told us: ``HMOs don't care whether you live or die. They just want to save money.''

My husband underwent the arduous chemo. Meanwhile, powerful people were pulling strings for us with the insurer. Upon learning we had ``connections,'' United Healthcare finally said it would pay.

The cancer came back. This treatment was never a sure thing, but I often wonder how much the delay affected the outcome. An ex-Marine, my husband was a tough customer. Toward the end, he said to me, ``You know, fighting the insurance company was worse than fighting the cancer.''

A year after my husband died, I was still receiving medical bills for some of the treatment that United Healthcare had agreed to cover. Oh, they eventually paid. The game is to break you down.

An economic note: In 2006, William ``Dollar Bill'' McGuire, CEO of parent-company UnitedHealth Group, walked off with a $1.1 billion golden parachute (on top of the $500 million he had already raked in) -- though he had to return some of it in an options backdating scandal.

What we wouldn't have done to have traded Dollar Bill's minions for a government bureaucrat. The bureaucrat would have given a simple Yes or No based on official guidelines. He or she would have had no personal stake in denying you care.

By the way, a government-run program doesn't tell you what treatments you may or may not have. It tells you what the taxpayers will subsidize. You are free to go out with your own money and buy whatever you want. We would have been prepared to do that. Instead, we got tied up in a private insurer's web of tricks.

Believe me, ``death panels'' already exist, and they have nothing to do with the government.

Town Hall mobs suggest "It can happen here" / Leaked memo discloses aggressive anti-intellectual strategy for disruption

Mobs have converged on Congressmen in different states this summer. Of course these mobs are not members of a fascist party bent on engaging in pogroms. Yet, they have eerie parallels to fascist mobs. They are aggressive, they oppose intellectual debate, they follow a strategy that seeks to squash civic discussion and dialogue on public health reform, specifically, the Democrats' "public option" plan. They make demogogic arguments based on lies, distortions, and not even half-truths.

The buzz word that brings up these mobs in web searches and on the radio is "Town Hall".
This is not a spontaneous popular group. As Rachel Maddow indicates in the video at the right of this page, corporate lobbyists are behind these disruption campaigns.

And in leaked memos indicate, right-wing agitation groups set out a deliberate anti-dmocratic strategy, aimed at squashing honest discussion. I quote at length from the origin site at mydd.com
The story in the Austin American-Statesman:

Back in Central Texas while Congress is on a month-long recess, Congressman Lloyd Doggett faced an angry reception at a town hall meeting at an Austin Randalls store yesterday.

Doggett, D-Austin, spoke at the Randalls at Brodie and Slaughter lanes on Saturday. A video of the event on YouTube shows many in the crowd showed up with signs denouncing President Obama's proposed health care plan.

Witnesses say that when Doggett was asked if he would support the plan even if he found his constituents opposed it, Doggett said he would still support the plan. From there, the crowd began chanting "Just Say No," and overwhelmed the congressman as he moved through the crowd and into the parking lot.

"The folks there thought their voices weren't being heard," said Kathy Acosta, a Bastrop resident who attended the meeting at Randalls and another one later that day in her hometown. "They were angry, but they were respectful. There wasn't any violence."


Doggett, D-Austin, spoke at the Randalls at Brodie and Slaughter lanes on Saturday. A video of the event on YouTube shows many in the crowd showed up with signs denouncing President Obama's proposed health care plan.

Witnesses say that when Doggett was asked if he would support the plan even if he found his constituents opposed it, Doggett said he would still support the plan. From there, the crowd began chanting "Just Say No," and overwhelmed the congressman as he moved through the crowd and into the parking lot.

"The folks there thought their voices weren't being heard," said Kathy Acosta, a Bastrop resident who attended the meeting at Randalls and another one later that day in her hometown. "They were angry, but they were respectful. There wasn't any violence."


No violence? Well, isn't that a relief? Conservatives sure do have an odd definition of what constitutes respectful behaviour. Nor is the above an isolated incident. In a town hall held back in June in his Long Island district, Politico reported that right-wing protesters surrounded Congressman Tim Bishop, Democrat of New York exhibiting such foul-mouth, abusive and threatening behaviour that police officers had to escort the beleaguered Congressman to his car for safety.



After that June 22 event held in Setauket, New York, in which protesters dominated the meeting by shouting criticisms at the Democratic Congressman for his positions on energy policy, health care and the bailout of the auto industry, Congressman has chosen to temporarily suspend holding town hall meetings even though he has held over a hundred since first being elected to Congress in 2002.

"I had felt they would be pointless," said Congressman Bishop adding that "there is no point in meeting with my constituents and [to] listen to them and have them listen to you if what is basically an unruly mob prevents you from having an intelligent conversation."

More from the Politico story:

At a health care town hall event in Syracuse, N.Y., earlier this month, police were called in to restore order, and at least one heckler was taken away by local police. Close to 100 sign-carrying protesters greeted Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) at a late June community college small-business development forum in Panama City, Fla. Last week, Danville, Va., anti-tax tea party activists claimed they were "refused an opportunity" to ask Rep. Thomas Perriello (D-Va.) a question at a town hall event and instructed by a plainclothes police officer to leave the property after they attempted to hold up protest signs.

The targets in most cases are House Democrats, who over the past few months have tackled controversial legislation including a $787 billion economic stimulus package, a landmark energy proposal and an overhaul of the nation's health care system.

Democrats, acknowledging the increasing unruliness of the town-hall-style events, say the hot-button issues they are taking on have a lot to do with it.

"I think it's just the fact that we are dealing with some of the most important public policy issues in a generation," said Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), who was confronted by a protester angry about his position on health care reform at a town hall event several weeks ago.

"I think in general what is going on is we are tackling issues that have been ignored for a long time, and I think that is disruptive to a lot of people," said Bishop, a four-term congressman. "We are trying, one by one, to deal with a set of issues that can't be ignored, and I think that's unsettling to a lot of people."

Freshman Rep. Dan Maffei (D-N.Y.), whose event at a Syracuse middle school was disrupted, said that he still planned to hold additional town halls but that he was also thinking about other options.

"I think you've got to communicate through a variety of different ways. You should do the telephone town hall meetings. You should do the town hall meetings. You should do the smaller group meetings," said Maffei. "It's important to do things in a variety of ways, so you don't have one mode of communication."

"You're going to have people of varying views, and in this case, you've got the two extremes who were the most vocal," Maffei said of the flare-up at his July 12 event.


The targets in most cases are House Democrats, who over the past few months have tackled controversial legislation including a $787 billion economic stimulus package, a landmark energy proposal and an overhaul of the nation's health care system.

Democrats, acknowledging the increasing unruliness of the town-hall-style events, say the hot-button issues they are taking on have a lot to do with it.

"I think it's just the fact that we are dealing with some of the most important public policy issues in a generation," said Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), who was confronted by a protester angry about his position on health care reform at a town hall event several weeks ago.

"I think in general what is going on is we are tackling issues that have been ignored for a long time, and I think that is disruptive to a lot of people," said Bishop, a four-term congressman. "We are trying, one by one, to deal with a set of issues that can't be ignored, and I think that's unsettling to a lot of people."

Freshman Rep. Dan Maffei (D-N.Y.), whose event at a Syracuse middle school was disrupted, said that he still planned to hold additional town halls but that he was also thinking about other options.

"I think you've got to communicate through a variety of different ways. You should do the telephone town hall meetings. You should do the town hall meetings. You should do the smaller group meetings," said Maffei. "It's important to do things in a variety of ways, so you don't have one mode of communication."

"You're going to have people of varying views, and in this case, you've got the two extremes who were the most vocal," Maffei said of the flare-up at his July 12 event.

These disruptions, these unholy poisoning of our national conservative, are the latest tactics of the conservative tea party that aims to impose a tyranny of the minority. From Think Progress:
This growing phenomenon is often marked by violence and absurdity. Recently, right-wing demonstrators hung Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) in effigy outside of his office. Missing from the reporting of these stories is the fact that much of these protests are coordinated by public relations firms and lobbyists who have a stake in opposing President Obama’s reforms. The lobbyist-run groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, which orchestrated the anti-Obama tea parties earlier this year, are now pursuing an aggressive strategy to create an image of mass public opposition to health care and clean energy reform. A leaked memo from Bob MacGuffie, a volunteer with the FreedomWorks website Tea Party Patriots, details how members should be infiltrating town halls and harassing Democratic members of Congress:
– Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: “Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.”

– Be Disruptive Early And Often: “You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”

– Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”
The memo above also resembles the talking points being distributed by FreedomWorks for pushing an anti-health reform assault all summer. Patients United, a front group maintained by Americans for Prosperity, is currently busing people all over the country for more protests against Democratic members. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the NRCC, has endorsed the strategy, telling the Politico the days of civil town halls are now “over.” Meanwhile, AHIP, the trade group and lobbying juggernaut representing the health insurance industry is sending staffers to monitor town halls and other right-wing front groups are stepping up their ad campaign to smear reform efforts. The strategy for defeating reform — recently outlined by an influential lobbyist to the Hill newspaper as “delay” then “kill” — is becoming apparent. By delaying a vote until after the August recess, lobbyists are now seizing upon recess town halls as opportunities to ambush lawmakers and fool them into believing there is wide opposition to reform.
It should come as no surprise that FreedomWorks is chaired by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey. That FreedomWorks is involved with Tea Party Patriots dispels any notion that these are some sort of citizen activist grassroots organizations. These groups and these disruptions are orchestrated by the leadership of the Republican Party and it is time to expose them and their tactics of mob rule.

United Health had 155% profit in 2nd Q report; Blue Cross Democrat Mike Ross (Ark) on the take

On the "Ed Schultz Show" it was announced that United Health got profits of 155% in the second quarter
-a major detail that you will never hear from Fox News and similar right-wing, pro-Republican biased media. Here is the link, to hear audio archive of Schultz's first occasion to announce these outrageous profits.
And the MSNBC transcript page, of Ed's announcement there, 6 PM, Wednesday night.

MIKE ROSS, Blue Dog Democrat, ooh, make that "Blue Cross Democrat," has made millions from prescription drugs.
Scroll below the following story for Mike Ross' work to oppose public health reform.
From Blue Dog Lake, the Blue Texan's blog, Wednesday, July 22, 2009. Read the story. Ross has some gall to profit from drugs and also stall the health bill, THEN CALL HIS OFFICE, AND TELL HIM TO LET PUBLIC OPTION pass.

Every Blue Dog who claims to be "concerned about the costs" of health care reform is really just concerned about preserving their gravy train.

Rep. Mike Ross was at the White House Tuesday demanding Democrats produce a health-care bill that keeps costs under control. Mr. Ross is himself a Democrat -- and a powerful one. He is bringing together fellow party members on the crucial House Energy and Commerce Committee in rebellion against the health bill backed by House Democratic leaders.
...

There are 51 Blue Dogs in the full House, Mr. Ross pointed out, more than enough to kill the health bill if they join the Republicans.

Thanks, Mike! Your commitment to the financial well-being of our country is admirable.

This is probably just a coincidence.

A pharmacist, Ross founded Ross Pharmacy Inc. He sold the business in 2007, but according to his 2008 financial disclosure form, he and wife Holly still "own 100% of stock" in the company, which pays dividends over $100,000 a year. Holly Ross is also listed as employed by Super D Drug Acquisition Co.

And while Ross rakes it in, nearly 1 in 5 residents of Arkansas are without health insurance.

Guess who's his biggest sugar daddy?

The health industry was the #1 sector contributing to Ross last year. OpenSecrets.org lists $261,000 in contributions from individuals and PAC's from health care businesses.

Shocker.

Tell Mike Ross to stop putting his personal interests before his country's.

Office:

1-800-223-2220

202 225-3772

(202) 225-1314 Fax

Email:

mike.ross@mail.house.gov

"Mike Ross and the Blue Dogs Sell Their Souls"

. . . Yes, Ross seemed to take particular pleasure in letting real Democrats and Americans who desperately need real reform know that he plans on selling them out in every sense of the word:

Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross, a key negotiator on health care for moderate Blue Dog Democrats, has warned that "there's no way they can pass the current bill on the House floor. Not even close."

"I suspect we'll have all the time we need, given they don't have the votes to get it out of committee," Ross said

Well, I am so glad you have so much time Mr. Ross. Your healthcare is a sweet deal and is provided by us. Unfortunately for many of us who you hold in such low regard we do not have that luxury. We cannot afford to see a doctor to get stitches to sew up the wound from your stab in the back.

And of course when it comes to raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans Mike Ross by his own words might as well be Rush Limbaugh:

The conservative Arkansas Democrat also objects to the surtaxes included in the bill, saying, "I don't like the idea of raising taxes in the worst economic crisis since World War II."

http://www.politico.com/news/s...
***
HEALTH COMPANIES' BOY, MIKE ROSS, BLOCKING HEALTH REFORM:
. . . .

A leader of the Blue Dog Coalition of conservative House Democrats said Thursday that he and six others in the group would vote together to block the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee unless changes were made to slow the growth rate of federal health care spending and to ensure that rural hospitals are adequately reimbursed for treating new patients under the legislation.

"We simply are demanding a bill that contains costs so that health care can grow at the normal rate of inflation and that addresses many of the rural health care concerns that (hospitals be adequately reimbursed) and that we don't put small businesses out of business through an employer mandate," Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., said in an interview.

In response to the Blue Dogs' demands, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said that there would be opportunity for members to make additional "structural changes" to the bill to address cost concerns.

"Can there be more (savings)? I think so," she said. "And that is what the legislative process is about. You don't write the whole bill, introduce it, and then go to the floor. This is the time now for an open process of bipartisan review of the bill in the committees. So, I am hopeful and optimistic that there will be more savings."

Ross, chairman of the Blue Dogs' health care task force, said the six other Democrats who'd vote to block the bill are Reps. Zack Space of Ohio, Baron Hill of Indiana, Charlie Melancon of Louisiana, John Barrow of Georgia, Jim Matheson of Utah, and Bart Gordon of Tennessee . . . .

* * *
If that's not enough, MIKE ROSS AND OTHER BLUE DOG / BLUE CROSS DEMOCRATS TAKE TIME OUT TO RAISE FUNDS,
as the Sunlight Foundation's politicalpartytime.org reported this week:

Blue Dogs party as planned

The Huffington Post’s Arthur Delaney reports that canceled health care hearings this week cleared the calendar for Blue Dogs to fundraise as planned:

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce was supposed to be the third leg supporting health care reform legislation already approved by two other House committees. Instead, this week it’s become more of a fifth wheel. The committee’s markup sessions for Tuesday and Wednesday have been canceled in the face of opposition to the bill from the panel’s conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats.

So Monday’s markup may have lasted past midnight, but on Tuesday evening the committee’s Blue Dogs were free to party, and party they did! Reps. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) and Jim Matheson (D-Utah) feted fellow Blue Dog Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.) at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse in Northwest Washington from 6 to 7:30 p.m. Ross is the lead Blue Dog on health care reform.

Read more here [in Huffington Post].

ED SCHULTZ INSISTS OBAMA PLAY CHICAGO POLITICS ON PUBLIC OPTION

"I don't know if I can support Obama in the next election if he caves in on public option."

"I cannot support President Obama if he does not play Chicago politics."
{{{Call the White House, say no to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's trigger option. No to giving the health insurance industry seven to ten years to clean up their act. Go back to President Barack Obama's original public option idea. 202-456-1111 --as Jack and Jill politics says and Daily Kos says}}}

WE GOT ED!

Ed Schultz, the Rush Limbaugh-sound-alike on Air America Radio drew the line in the sand on public option, Friday, July 10, 2009. (Also on MSNBC .)

A snippet from a recent Huffington Post piece on Big Ed last month (June 24, 2009), Bill Mann, " 'Big Ed' Schultz Is Keeping Dem Senators' Feet to The Fire":

Big Ed's moved from being a publicity-hungry blowhard (remember "John McCain is a warmonger" last fall?) to expressing daily the kind of much-needed real passion for this critical legislation far too many Democrats (and, some might argue, the President) are lacking. Ed's gone on the attack. Someone has to do it.

The one-time pro football player is running interference for the Democrats who are actually doing something to move the ball toward the goal of meaningful national health care by calling out those playing footsie with HMO's and big pharma.

GET INVOLVED: MOVEON.ORG IS ORGANIZING ON THE YES ON PUBLIC OPTION ISSUE, AGAINST EMANUEL'S CAVING IN.

TALKING POINTS ON PUBLIC OPTION
Last December from Paul Waldman of Media Matters, writing in American Prospect:
The basics:

Although the public option wasn't the topic of a great deal of discussion during the campaign, for many progressives it amounts to a beautiful jewel hidden amidst a pile of compromise and disappointment. Ask average progressives what they think ought to be done about health care, and many will reply, "Well, a single-payer system would obviously be the best thing. But since that's politically impossible…" At the end of 2008, some things seem a little more possible than they used to.

That isn't to say a public option is just a modified single-payer system. It would be one option among many for individuals and businesses, and would leave the private insurance system in place (you can read more on the benefits of the public option here). But it does crack the door open for expanding the number of Americans who get their health insurance through the government. And this is what terrifies the insurance companies and conservatives. Their fear is that it will actually work. If the program operates well, more and more people will make the rational decision to choose it over private insurance (what we're supposed to do in a market, after all) and the insurance companies will lose customers.

For all their paeans to the power of private enterprise, we know that private insurers simply can't compete with the government, because they offer an inferior service at higher prices. We know this because of the example of Medicare, which operates more efficiently than private insurance (Medicare spends only around 2 percent of its costs on overhead, a fraction of what private plans do) and gets higher satisfaction ratings. We also know this because the government set up a program to allow private companies to compete directly with Medicare.

It's called Medicare Advantage, and the "advantage" was supposed to be that by allowing private companies to handle insurance for Medicare enrollees, costs could be reduced. Using their free-market mojo, the private firms would naturally bring in the coverage at a lower cost than having the big, bureaucratic government do it.

EXISTING SITUATION ESSENTIALLY MONOPOLY CONDITIONS IN CERTAIN GEOGRAPHIC MARKETS
From: "Health-Care Market Characterized By Consolidation, Not Competition"
By Zachary Roth - June 29, 2009:
Key excerpt:

But the notion that most American consumers enjoy anything like a competitive marketplace for health care is flatly false. And a study issued last month by a pro-reform group makes that strikingly clear.

The report, released by Health Care for America Now (HCAN), uses data compiled by the American Medical Association to show that 94 percent of the country's insurance markets are defined as "highly concentrated," according to Justice Department guidelines. Predictably, that's led to skyrocketing costs for patients, and monster profits for the big health insurers. Premiums have gone up over the past six years by more than 87 percent, on average, while profits at ten of the largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007.

Far from healthy market competition, HCAN describes the situation as "a market failure where a small number of large companies use their concentrated power to control premium levels, benefit packages, and provider payments in the markets they dominate."

So extreme is the level of consolidation, in fact, that one former top Federal Trade Commission official working with HCAN has sent a letter to the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, asking for an investigation into the health insurance marketplace.

The problem is most acute in small rural states, according to the report. In Shelby's own state of Alabama, the biggest insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, controls 83 percent of the statewide market. There, and in nine other states -- Hawaii, Rhode Island, Alaska, Vermont, Maine, Montana, Wyoming, Arkansas and Iowa -- the two largest health insurers control at least 80 percent of the market. So much for Shelby's "marketplace for health care."

The report doesn't consider how this reality stands to affect the forthcoming congressional battle for reform. But extreme consolidation may actually be making it harder, not easier, to win support from lawmakers for a public option.

That's because insurers who control large swathes of a given market stand to see their bottom lines particularly threatened by the introduction of a lower-cost public option. So, in turn, they'll be particularly aggressive in pulling out all the stops to pressure lawmakers to oppose the plan. Given the healthy amount of campaign dollars that some wavering members take in from the major insurers, that's hardly encouraging.

OPPOSITION TO PUBLIC OPTION COMING FROM PROPAGANDA POINTS FROM INSURANCE COMPANIES
Note that the right wing buzz via Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh feeds into voters/listeners; and that IT COMES FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANIES that fear loss of profits.
Josh Marshall, "Bottom Line on Public Option" in TalkingPoints Memo noted this, June 29, 2009:

This won't come as the slightest surprise to those versed in health care policy issues. But I fear it's only barely permeated the health care reform debate in the country, certainly in Washington. And that's this: the opposition to a so-called 'public option' comes almost entirely from insurance companies who have developed monopolies or near monopolies in particular geographic areas. And they don't want competition.

Interpreting Obama's cabinet picks

Today's "New York Times" has a lead analysis piece, interpreting President-elect Barack Obama's cabinet choices as indicating a pragmatic, rather than ideological, direction: "Obama Tilts to Center, Inviting a Clash of Ideas".

I would say that this holds for some posts and not for other posts. In this tumultuous economic crisis period, he is inclined toward finance choices that are not lurching into new directions. His choice of New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner for Secretary of the Treasury is representative of these choices. (Note conservative commentator Larry Kudlow's gushing over Geithner over this choice. --"Lawrence" at his blog.)

And, yes, centrism and continuity is at work in Obama's choice of defense choices:

"[T]he names racing through the ether in Washington about the choices to follow also suggest that Mr. Obama continues to place a premium on deep experience. He is widely reported to be considering asking Mr. Bush’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, to stay on for a year; and he is thinking about Gen. James L. Jones, the former NATO commander and Marine Corps commandant, for national security adviser."

Yet, as one blog noted, the appointment of Tom Daschle (former senator from South Dakota) has been over-shadowed by the all-but certain appointment of Senator Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State, and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson to Secretary of Commerce, I would add. Obama's choosing Daschle for Secretary of Health and Human Services indicates an interest in a progressive, "change"-oriented (to use the slogan/tired cliche from the campaign) approach to the health care crisis.
Note Dashle's phrase "we can't afford not to" [cover everyone] below, quoted in a "Publisher's Weekly" review:

The U.S. is "the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee necessary health care to all of its citizens," and as former senator Daschle observes, "Skeptics say we can't afford to cover everyone; the truth is that we can't afford not to" because U.S. economic competitiveness is being impeded by the large uninsured population and fast-rising health costs. Daschle's book delineates the weaknesses of previous attempts at national health coverage, outlines the complex economic factors and medical issues affecting coverage and sets forth plans for change. Daschle proposes creating a Federal Health Board, similar to the Federal Reserve System, whose structure, functions and enforcement capability would be "largely insulated from the politics and passion of the moment," in addition to a merging of employers' plans, Medicaid and Medicare with an expanded FEHBP (Federal Employee Health Benefits Program) that would cover everyone. "There is no more important issue facing our country," Daschle asserts, "than reform of our health-care system," and the book's "health-care horror stories" bring this immediacy home.