No, that wasn’t the latest in gifts for the man who has everything, an elbow rest about 10 inches high. That was a proposal for our health care reform. Why don’t we just pitch it in the trash and start over? For one thing, let’s eliminate an 18 BILLIAN DOLLAR package for Health Care Clinics that includes Planned Parenthood. Is it any wonder that we can’t agree and this is just one of the roadblocks.
The Republicans are being seen as the party of “NO”! I think it should be called the party of “HELL NO”.
Some of the things we need are;
- Tort reform. That would mean that Lawyers would not make as much money when there are caps put on lawsuits. Just one of the many benefits. Keeping the costs down.
- Interstate portability. Why not? We are the United States of America. It affects everyone and the federal govt. regulates much of it anyway. Get rid of the monopolies.
- Healthcare fraud.
Hopefully there will be a comprehensive constructive action plan real soon that will represent all people AND BOTH PARTIES!
0 like
Permalink: http://www.vibrantnation.com/work-money/healthcare-reform-now/
p.s. I dropped your name on Gina's post, Barb. ;)
They have intention of passing the health bill one way or the other. I concur with Tort Reform and Interstate Portability and see where it goes.
GgGGGrrrr
I’m mad at all of them. But let’s face it: What is on the table is NOT healthcare reform. It is health COVERAGE reform. It does nothing to reduce costs, it only increases costs and no one — literally NO ONE — can explain how we are going to pay for it.
The republicans are the party of no. The democrats are the party of SPEND SPEND SPEND and TAX TAx TAX and not reform either.
Geez, I’ve posted multiple times over what needs to happen. Tort Reform. Interstate competition. Outlaw pyhysican owned hospitals (and the self referral that goes with that). (By the way, heard this week that one is a big NO WAY because behind closed doors in Washington the lobbyists from the various states/insurance companies have wielded inteir infuennce….this from a friend that serves on a natl health policy board in washington…..arrrrgggghhhh)
This is what is going to happen: The Democrats will use the rules on budget to get this things slammed in from a non fillibuster perspective. They’ll get kicked out of office in the next election. THe republicans will reverse it. And they’ll get kicked out because healthcare isnt reformed.
We will swing wildly to and form between the parties in power, voting the incumbent out of office of pure disgust with the status quo…..and meanwhile the fiddler fiddles and Rome burns.
Sorry, I know thisis negative and perjorative and a lot of things. But I am PISSED OFF with crap.
I have just joined this site and am very excited to see like minded people in regard to this topic. It is very arrogant of BO to cast aside the wishes and wisdom of the American people. We are speaking up loud and clear but he chooses not to listen. My worst fear is that this Health Care Reform will pass and the nation will just be stuck with a very harmful healthcare system. Medicaid is growing even as we speak and this reform is coming in the back door. States have been given incentives to put more and more people on the Medicaid roles. The federal match appears to be decreasing which is causing more of a burden at the state levels. Many states are already in trouble financially. I too feel negative when I get on this subject but facts are facts and they cannot be ignored!
Welcome Sandy. We are glad to have you! Trust me there is plenty of political diversity on this site–we have had some pretty strong debates through the months….so you’ll find plenty with whom you agree and plenty with whom you won’t.
I only wish I could ignore it….I work in a healthcare related field, so I am living with it as a consumer, and I am living with it in my professional career……
And so we fight on…
So true. Facts according to who? That’s the problem. I agree, you can’t ignore them. What I’m seeing is they are being ignored. If it’s ignored long enough, we are on to something else.
In my opinion, BO is in way over his head. He’s thinking of the next election. He knows he’s losing the confidence of his party. The words are written on the wall.
Welcome Sandy!
As Dallas said, you will find all sorts of points of views on this site. If you like spirited debate, you won’t be disappointed. You will also find a lot of caring support when needed.
Olga
I watched [almost] the whole thing. I am angry as well. Being a great believer in people to the point of naivete, I really thought that something could have come of the meeting yesterday. The biggest reason this whole healthcare thing has been such a quagmire is that it’s not about one side wanting it and the other not, it’s about a basic difference in philosophy. And the president himself talked about a fundamental difference in philosophy.
The President (not all Democrats) is a progressive. One of the tennets of progressivism is the belief that government administration should be in the hands of trained administrators (bureaucrats). Another tennet is that people need to be protected from corporations. Republicans (not all, but in general) believe that the individual has the right and capability to self govern. They believe in free markets with minimal regulation. So, how do you reconcile those two philosophies?
The way you do it is how the Rep representative (don’t remember his name) said that he and Ted Kennedy had crafted joint bills. You start with your goal and you both work on the plan. You do NOT put forth a plan and then tell the opposition ‘ok, you can stick a few ideas in there’. It was extremely obvious that the Dems were not interested in doing a bipartisan plan.
(I thought it was interesting that Nancy Pelosi said that the people don’t care about the process, only about results (that progressive elitism). She doesn’t realize that it IS the process that we care about. The process that will be put in place that will affect how we obtain healthcare.)
61 Percent Say Start from Scratch on Health Care Reform
But Elisa, the people don’t know what they want. Only the educated elite know what’s best for us.
Besides tort reform and interstate portability, I would like to see some goverment oversight or rules. Meaning if you have an existing pre-condition and the insurance co. refuses to insure you, the government should apply some penalties. In other words make the insurance companies should be held accountable.
Me too! And also see some regulation where insurance fraud is concerned. Pre-existing conditions is like saying we’ll cover you as long as you’re healthy. I’m tired of hearing bs about making profit. They should be what they are and not a stockholders golden egg.
Yes, time is wasting and Pelosi is up there telling nursery rhymes. Spider girl. How fitting. A spider with lipstick. GF (go figure)
I also thought it was interesting to see BO off script. Thought his behavior toward McCain and Cantor (to name only two), was rather un-presidential at best, rude at worst. And distracting.
With the urgency we’re facing with this health care crisis, he should be working with everyone. Nothing will happen as long as he “puts” people in their place demanding respect. I have to ask myself when I see him act this way to his fellow members, if it is meant to be a distraction or if he has confidence issues and feels that he should keep up the facade. Either way, it’s unbecoming for our Chief to act unprofessional. I imagine him there speaking to all the little children and actually waiting for him to send McCain to his room. Without desert. He continually wants us to know he’s on a higher level, therefore the rest of us should just listen, do what he says. How dare anyone not agree with him.
The web is being spun. I’m just waiting for the words HUMBLE to show up. Think it will happen? (Charlotte’s Web)
That bit about I get to talk more becuase I’m the president made me want to throw something at the TV. What is this a junior high student council meeting? I screamed “no you @$$ you get to LISTEN MORE because you are the president and you work for us!”
But it fell on deaf ears. My cat looked at me like I was crazy.
He’s in over his head and now he’s over compensating. We’re in trouble more than we know. On the world front, we look, well, stupid.
He apparently didn’t listen when Warren Buffet warned him about ramming things down people’s throats about a year ago:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/03/09/obama-buffetted.aspx
I’ve never seen a president who loves to hear himself talk and be in front of the camera more than this one. Maybe he should have moved to Hollywood for an acting career!
Might make Arnie nervous.
LOL…somehow I dont see them going up for the same roles!!!
Where’s the beef!
Arnie should be nervous since he is getting a little old for the “Terminator” role. BO could slide right in after his first term is over!
The last thing on earth I want to hear BO say is “I’ll be bbaaaaccccckkkkk”
haha
hahaha, you were inspired!
He could be proof that Michelles obesity drive is working.
Lol…..That was funny! It’s nice to have a little fun on this forum, and I’ve definitely had some good laughs. Just don’t say the S.P. word!
It’s the progressive mindset.
You know Olga, I’m not sure I can clearly see the difference between the progressive mindset and socialism.
Socialism is such a negative connatation in the US that I think most politicians aovid it for the obvious reasons…..Now progressive sounds better and doesnt come with the history or the baggage.
I’m not sure i need the labels anyway…..Because I dont vote on platforms or philosophies but on POSITIONS.
But if you can help me better understand a distinction between progressive and socialist (here in 2010, not the historic evolutio of both) I’m certainly open to better understanding it~!
From what I’ve read, I think the only difference is that socialism is more concerned with economics, such as worker ownership of the means of production. Progressives are actually into perfecting society through government control. (hey, they were responsible for prohibition). IMHO, there is little perceptible difference in the actual mindset. It still comes down to a certain elite knowing best what is good for society; it’s about collectivism vs. individualism. And both socialists and progressives are collectivists.
I agree we should vote positions, but it is the philosophy that determines the position in the end.
You may be right about a philosophy determining a position. Its just that my philosophies lead to positoins…..and none of my positions land squarely in the realm of democrat or republican. So I wind up holding my nose and voting for the “least objectionable” in the moment based on their positions of matter of utmost importance at the time.
And then fighting against all the rest of it.
I think most people vote that way any more, myself included. Sad.
I thought his comment to McCain was a cheap shot and very un-presidential. It seemed like he was saying ha ha I won and you didn’t.
“the people” are a lot of people with different points of view. We can agree to disagree, but the fact is that this country needs something done with healthcare and it should be done soon. I hear if we do nothing it is going to crash anyway. Nobody can take all the increments of the healthcare industry, small businesses cannot afford it, we the people cannot afford it either, so what is the next step? As long as we all agree that we need healthcare reform then we can go forward, asking our reps in washington to get their act together. The system will crash, and we are going to have to deal with it one way or another. BTW ALL of the politicians are thinking of the next election, that is why they are not thinking of you and I. The people are left with nothing. When we demand that both parties start thinking of THE PEOPLE, instead of thinking of their own pocket and own positions then we can get pass this. Right now, we are fighting each other and nothing gets accomplished. We must demand action, send in your suggestions to them, and demand that something gets done. Some of you may not need this reform personally, but we need to think of others. And we do not want FREE, we want affordable insurance and it is something that cannot be found. I just received my bonus and $7,000 of my bonus went to taxes. So i am not a person sitting at home waiting for FREE, i am a person waiting for fairness, and sadly it is not forthcoming because we are not demanding our elected officials to sit down, talk like if this was Corporate, and get something done. The dems fight the Reps because neither party wants to give credit to the other that something good happened while the other was in office. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!
Then I say let it crash. Let’s start fresh. Had that happened to GM, we would’nt also have that to deal with. Minus the money. He’s trying to cram it down our throats. If they start fresh, it may happen before total crash. Then we can pick up the pieces and deal directly with the reconstruction. If that is what has to happen for this, so be it.
You’re exactly right! We need to start over, and if he forces it down our throats BO and the democratic party is done!
Where do i sign up?
Can someone educate me a little more on Interstate portability and how it actually works? The more I read the more confused I become. First I have it and then I don’t. Does this have to do with HMOs and PPOs or just the difference in rates offered in individual states?
Right now certain insurance companies sell only in certain states. Removing the barriers would allow competition and more choices. The prices would go down. Sounds good to me. You would also be able to chose a provider that suits your needs.
I have heard of all this before but where can I find more in-depth information? Certain states have lower rates because reimbursement rates are lower therefore allowing lower premiums. What prevents the insurances that are lower now from raising their rates when they sell across state lines where reimubursement rates may be higher? In know I am missing something. Anyone have any good references on the internet that I can access?
FYI, the current bill being pushed through right now doesn’t have this so if you’re interested, you may google it and I would be interested in knowing what you find.
While I support pulling down the walls between states, I will remind everyone that the local cost of healthcare will still drive the costs. Just because a national company is selling a product they will price it differently in different markets.
What doctors make in your market, what hospitals make, how doctors practice (are they using evidence based medicine or not), the amount of competition (or not) in your state, whether your state has tort reform, how many uninsured, how many illegal aliens, etc. all play into the cost of healthcare in your market.
Hence the pricing will still vary. Will there be greater competition? Sure. Will that help the rates? Hopefully. But no one should expect consistent pricing, because the variables are too many and it is community specific.
Thank you for the clarification Dallas Lady. It’s all unproven and may not ever be part of it but we can dream.
For the record: I support it too. It cant hurt and it might help~!
Thank you. I have not yet had a chance to research this further but what you are saying is exactly what I expect would happen. I too work in the healthcare field and even though I am for taking down the walls across state lines, etc I do not think it is the cure-all. It is merely one piece of the puzzle. I am still furious that the government wants to change healthcare and insurance as we know it in order to accommodate a group that are paying overpriced premiums or are unable to get insurance. Let’s thorw this voluminous bill out the window and get realistic about access to healthcare and insurance for the above mentioned group. Should it be government run? Heavens no! Medicare, Medicaid, Tri-Care and VA have and continue to fail miserably. Not a good track record.
Lets add eliminating pre-existing conditions. Competition will help with this. More amenities, more clients.
All I can say, Moongoddess is: You said it all. More choices for consumers based on free market principles and no government intrusion. You go, girl!
;^)
Everyone in our great country is entitled to express opinions and to disagree. However PLEASE get your facts straight. You MUST read in order to have informed opinions. For example, your defintion of progressive is totally wrong in the previous posts.
I voted for Barack Obama. I believe in his policies. I read and make sure I am totally informed to be able to support my opinions. I just wish everyone else would too.
Progressives’ main objective is to change the status quo. If the country is isolationist, they are expansionists; if the country’s economy is industrial, they favor a return to agrarianism. They favor small government in a time of big government programs and government intervention in big money-markets. They are not revolutionaries because they believe in American democracy and the responsibility of government to address the needs of its citizens. (http://www.ehow.com)
Kelly, I think you’re a little confused. Olga is the one defining progressives, backed up with resource links. I’m not sure what you are talking about. However, there are always different takes on everything.
Many of OB supporters have changed their minds about him. It could be the change they see is not the change they voted for.
I voted for GWB, twice, and was very disappointed in his behavior about a year into his second term. People’s ideas change. Thank God. I’m willing to say I made a mistake. There is more honor in that than in insisting that everything is as it should be. It’s not. We are in trouble, I also believe that 24 hrs is a long time.
BTW, we are not a democracy, we’re a republic. Democracy engages the terror of the mob.
“Democracy engages the terror of the mob”. So true. So I would like to see less of “the majority has spoken”-based comments on these threads. (Not you personally. Just that your quote provoked my thoughts).
Our country was set up to protect rights of the minority, as well. What the population wants is not always what it needs and often constricts the rights of others. Based on the very simple PEW quiz from ECC’s post 9link below), and some of the posts I have seen, the masses are pretty ignorant and not really qualified to determine what’s good for the country. (Note – all accusations of me being elitist are pre-acknowleged and I pre-respond with “I don’t feel qualified myself on complex subjects. But at least I read up on what I am talking about. The founders were elitest. So if I am, I’m in good company”). While I would not cite ehow to make a point, Kelly is dead on when she implores people to read and get the facts straight.
http://www.vibrantnation.com/conversations/68147-think-you-know-whats-going-on/
Kelly,
Please read the entries which define progressivism on the following post:
http://www.vibrantnation.com/conversations/66919-is-president-obama-a-progressive-or-a-socialist/
My feeling is that our system is Illness care and not health care. There should be tax incentives for people that eat whole foods, don’t smoke, don’t do drugs, get exercise and can sleep w/o sleeping pills. ie people who practice health care. There should be a 2000.00 tax credit for money spent on a person’s health. That could include a vacation.
Good idea, Gayle. They give tax credits for making your home more efficient; why not for doing things to make ourselves more life efficient?
Wow, did you actually read the proposal? It’s short and online.
The only thing the govt. does is set rules to make sure everyone is covered and insurance co.s stop getting away with murder. Just like they set a level playing field fo the free market – everyone agrees that contracts are enforceable, and there are penalties if you don’t live up to the terms. That’s a free market: capitalism with rules. Capitalism without rules is chaos. We need a voice as a group for some things – building roads, making sure there is a fire Dept., offering Medicare. People under 65 deserve the same kind of plan we all get when we turn 65.
Most states have tort reform already, including limits on payments to lawyers. This reduces malpractice insurance premiums for docs, sometimes, which is ok. It does nothing to reduce spending on health care, or over-ordering of unnecessary tests, or even the number of times doctors actually commit ma;practice – usually this goes undetected by patients and doesn’t end up in court, according to studies of docs and nurses.
People are desperate to stop dying and going bankrupt because they don’t have insurance. The Republicans had 8 years of running everything and never did a thing about it, plus over a year of hearings in full view of the public and the chance to offer amendments. All they can say is they want to start over,aand turn Medicare into an unfunded voucher program, and that Obama is a socialist. Very lame.
Please provide a link. It isn’t short so what you could be seeing is a “Cliff’s Notes” The devel is in the details.
Right now, there are 11 Democrats who will not vote for it in it’s present form. It funds abortions on demand. Just one example of many things wrong with that bill.
There isn’t any one answer to everything. All of my original post and add pre-existing conditions, is not even considered in his plan.
Obama is a Socialist. By his actions.
Clinton had 8 years before Bush. He turned it over to Hillary. There is more history if you check into it.
Lame?
The Library of Congress posts all legislation that has been introduced in Congress. You can find it at thomas.loc.gov
The full bill as passed by the Senate on Dec. 24:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590eas.txt.pdf
<!–end gem–>
The official summary:<!–gem:tlx.tlx.filedownload–>
http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc-sen_health_care_bill.cfm
Abortion is a legal procedure. There is no fail-safe method of birth control and many women (at least 2% of sexually active women)experience unintended pregnancies despite careful precautions. Sadly, it is not covered under this bill. The Sections starting on p. 118 of the bill prohibit federal funding for abortion, going beyond existing law, which at least allows federal funding for abortion in the case of rape, incest or threat to a mother’s life. The bill language is too long to insert here but it begins like this:
SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES.
(a) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.—
(1) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this title (or any amendment made by this title), and subject to subparagraphs (C) and (D)— (i) nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title), shall be construed to require a qualified health plan to provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of its essential health benefits for any plan year; and
Not sure what you mean by the post “devil” but if you are threatening me I hope this service will monitor and block your posts.
I believe Moongoddess was correcting the spelling of the word devil in her own post (she had spelled it ‘devel’).
Thank you Olga, to my rescue again I see. Haven’t been able to spend the time I need. Love your picture btw.
First let me say that I am not in favor of the government being in any woman’s body. That being said, pregnancy is not an illness. The fact that a woman may not not want the child and the fact that abortion is legal, does not make abortion a medical necessity (except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is at risk). I would call it an elective procedure.
OMG, I hope you didn’t think I was calling anyone devil. Opps and awshi* I haven’t had the time to pour over your post but will soon. I think it deserves an answer worthy of the time you put into it. Thanks for your comments.
devil
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Thanks.
Since you appear to be somene who likes to be well informed, let me clarify your information re Republican proposals (or lack thereof). Following is a link to MANY proposals:
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare
I hope you will read them.
BTW, I have read the President’s latest proposal, if that is what you are referring to. It is a concept paper, with very few details. The CBO has said that it cannot cost it out as there are not enough details.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/
New York Times March 7 Editorial
If Reform Fails
As the fierce debate on President Obama’s plan for health care reform comes to a head, Americans should be thinking carefully about what happens if Congress fails to enact legislation.
Are they really satisfied with the status quo? And is the status quo really sustainable?
Here are some basic facts Americans need to know as Congress decides whether to approve comprehensive reform or continue with what we have:
HOW REFORM WOULD WORK: Let’s be clear, the changes Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress are proposing are significant. But, despite what the critics charge, this is not a government takeover. And the program is not only fully paid for, it should actually reduce the deficit over the next two decades.
Under the new system, all people would be required to have health insurance or pay a penalty. If you are poor or middle class you would also get significant help through Medicaid coverage or tax credits to pay the premiums.
The legislation would create exchanges on which small businesses and people who buy their own coverage directly from insurers could choose from an array of private plans that would compete for their business. It would also require insurance companies to accept all applicants, even those with a pre-existing condition. And it would make a start at reforming the medical care system to improve quality and lower costs.
46 MILLION AND RISING: If nothing is done, the number of uninsured people — 46 million in 2008 — is sure to spike upward as rising medical costs and soaring premiums make policies less affordable and employers continue to drop coverage to save money.
The Congressional Budget Office projects 54 million uninsured people in 2019; the actuary for the federal government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services projects 57 million.
It should be no surprise that people without insurance often postpone needed care, and many get much sicker as a result. That is morally unsustainable. It is also fiscally unsustainable for safety net hospitals — which foist much of the cost on the American taxpayer when the uninsured end up in the emergency room. As the number of uninsured rises, that bill will rise.
The Senate’s reform bill would reduce the number of uninsured by an estimated 31 million in 2019. The Republicans’ paltry proposals would cut the number by only three million.
BUT I HAVE INSURANCE: While most Americans have insurance, many pay exorbitant rates because they have no bargaining power with insurers.
That includes many of the tens of millions who buy their own insurance — the unemployed, the self-employed, and those whose employers do not offer insurance. The recently announced plan by Anthem Blue Cross in California to raise annual premiums by 35 to 39 percent for nearly a quarter of its individual subscribers is a chilling harbinger of what is to come if reform fails.
There are another 48 million people who work in relatively small firms that often cannot get the better rates of large-group coverage. All of these groups should be able to get a better deal if they can buy their insurance through new, competitive exchanges.
If current trends continue, the number of underinsured Americans — those who have coverage too skimpy to pay substantial medical bills or protect them from high out-of-pocket spending — will also rise from an estimated 25 million in 2007 to 35 million in 2011, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a respected research organization.
That will increase the risk that this group will forgo needed care and will expose many more of them to potential bankruptcy if they cannot pay huge medical bills. Some 72 million adults currently have medical debt or problems paying their bills even though most of them have insurance. Reform would help them by setting minimum standards of coverage and providing subsidies to tens of millions of low- and middle-income people to help pay their premiums.
BUT I LIKE MY INSURANCE: Most Americans get their insurance through large companies, with large group bargaining power. While they complain about premiums and paperwork, most seem satisfied with their coverage.
For them the real fear is what happens if they lose their jobs or decide to change jobs. Will they be shut out of coverage because of a pre-existing condition or forced to pay high rates to buy their own insurance?
For this group, the real advantage of reform is security. If they get laid off, decide to be self-employed or switch to a smaller employer that offers no insurance, they will still be guaranteed coverage — even if they are a cancer survivor or have heart trouble or any other pre-existing condition. And they will be able to buy insurance on the exchanges.
I’M JUST WORRIED ABOUT COSTS: You should be. The cost of medical care is rising far faster than wages or inflation. And despite all of the talk about reform “bending the curve,” no one is yet sure how to do that.
Many reforms that people instinctively believe should cut costs — computerization of medical records, paying doctors for quality not quantity of services, and prevention programs to promote healthy living and head off costly illnesses — cannot yet be shown to lower costs.
Pending reform legislation, specifically the Senate bill, would launch an array of pilot projects to test reforms in delivering and paying for care. It would also create a special board to accelerate the adoption of anything that seemed to work. That seems a reasonable way to go and a lot better than standing by as costs continue to spiral out of control. The Republicans’ proposals — including their call to cap malpractice awards — would make only a small dent in the problem.
WHAT ABOUT THE DEFICIT?: Republican critics of health care reform have done an especially good job of frightening Americans with their talk of bankrupting the Treasury. The truth of the matter is that the pending reform legislation has been designed to generate enough revenue and savings to more than offset the substantial cost of expanding Medicaid and providing subsidies to the middle class.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Senate bill would reduce deficits over the first 10 years by $132 billion and even more in the second decade.
What critics certainly do not talk about is what happens to the deficit if Medicare costs continue their relentless rise. That is something that should keep Americans up at night.
The pending reforms would cut the growth in Medicare spending per beneficiary in half — from 4 percent a year to 2 percent — by demanding productivity savings from Medicare providers and cutting unjustified subsidies to the private plans in Medicare.
There is some skepticism that Congress will stick to its guns if health care providers say they cannot survive on the reduced rations. But Congress has stood by most previous Medicare cuts (physicians excepted) and should have its spine stiffened by new pay-go rules requiring that any Medicare increases be offset by other savings or taxes.
If reform is defeated, it seems likely that most of the proposed experiments designed to cut costs — first within Medicare and then throughout the rest of the health care system — will die as well. The legislation needs to be passed to establish a structure to force continuing improvement over the years. That is the best chance of restraining soaring medical costs that threaten the solvency of families, businesses and the federal government.
•
Any change as big as this is bound to cause anxiety. Republicans have happily fanned those fears with talk of “dangerous experiments” on the “best health care system in the world.” The fact is that the health care system is broken for far too many Americans. And the country cannot afford the status quo.
The following is not an editorial, but a researched article from the Cato Institute which addresses some of the misconceptions about the costs and the deficit ‘neutrality’ of the house and senate plans. Yes, it was written in Nov, but the basics apply nonetheless and there are many citations that have done actual number crunching and budget analyses. Following is the introduction. The entire document can be found at : http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-58.pdf
The health care plan approved by the Senate Finance Committee is supposed to reduce budget deficits over 10 years by $81 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.1 Similarly, the House version of health legislation would reduce 10-year deficits by $104 billion, according to the CBO.2 Supporters of these health care proposals thus argue that the plans are fiscally responsible.
However, enacting a $1 trillion entitlement program would greatly increase the burden of government spending. In addition, promises of lower deficits are a triumph of hope over experience. Government forecasters have a very poor track record of predicting costs. More realistic assumptions suggest that health legislation could easily push up 10-year deficits by $600 billion.
Government-run health care will cost more than the politicians are telling us. The tax increases will not collect as much money as the politicians think. And, to put it mildly, promises of future spending restraint are naïve. The following are some of the reasons why current federal health proposals will mean not just more spending and higher taxes, but also larger deficits and added debt.
These statements about government spending are not supported by evidence. Cato has a point of view that is skeptical of government, which is an importamt one to air in a democracy. There is no reason to trust Cato’s predictions of the future more than the Congressional Budget Office.
The new program is not government-run health care, though government-run programs like Medicare are very popular and effective. (And Medicare will be in trouble too if we don’t find a way to cover more of our 45 million uninsured and control costs.) The proposal uses government funds to assure that everyone can buy insurance, and puts rules in place so that the insurance industry has to stop ripping off us paying customers. This includes outlawing the practice of charging women more than men, which is now legal and harms older women especially.
It could not possibly be more expensive for individuals or the country than what we have now. This is a desperate problem we must solve now. The only winner from defeating the current proposal will be the private insurance industry, and even they are likely to collapse if there is no remedy this year. Women over 50 have a lot to gain from health reform. We should be informed and we should be sure it passes.
I beg your pardon, the statements in the Cato article are backed up by references to CBO figures and reports among others. I might state that the author of your post has very few references in his editorial, thus I don’t think there is any more reason to trust his predictions for the future.
I would argue that your figure of 45 million [truly] uninsured is misleading. The truth is that, when we hear about 45 million Americans without health insurance, it conjures up the notion that all of those are born without health insurance, die without health insurance, and are never insured in between. The reality is that most people without health insurance are uninsured for a relatively short period of time.
Only about 30 percent of the uninsured remain so for more than a year, approximately 16 percent for two years, and less than 2.5 percent for three years or longer. About half are uninsured for six months or less. Notably, because health insurance is too often tied to employment, the working poor who cycle in and out of the job market also cycle in and out of health insurance.
The above info is from Cato, but since you don’t trust them, here is another link:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090623160905.aspx
You say ‘it could not possibly be more expensive…..’. You have no way of knowing that. One of the biggest criticisms of the current plan is that it does nothing to address the costs of healthcare. Even Warren Buffett, a supporter of Mr. Obama is extremely critical of the plan and has advised Mr. Obama to start over.
Implying that the insurance industry is to blame is not accurate. There are many other contributors to the high cost of healthcare. I believe Dallas Lady has already posted on the issue.
One thing we definitely do not know, is what the outcomes will be if this plan DOES get passed. That I know of, there are no outcome measures in place to measure any types of successes.
Don’t know about Cato figures. Had time to look at the 2nd article you cite, and rgw facts are pretty close to my report. Your source says:
“Fact: Anyone who reports that there are more than 46 million uninsured is exaggerating since the Census Bureau puts the number of uninsured at 45,657,000 people.”
That’s 46 million uninsured at any one time. As you rightly point out, some people cycle on and off of insurance, ofren when they change or lose jobs. So the total number of people who are uninsured at some time during the year us closer to 90 million,
Sure other industries share the responsibility for driving up health care costs. Drug co.s, etc. They will mostly also do ok under reform. the insurance co.s do better with no reform.
Warren Buffett is a very smart man but if he counseled waiting on reform, he probably doesn’t know a lot of women over 50 who’ve been turned down for coverage due to pre-existing cinditions, and doesn’t have kids who as young adults can’t afford health care. Will try to post tomorrow on criteria for success.
Republican proposal is meaningless, would cover 3 million people at best. There is no reason to delay passing the bill proposed by the President..
One other thing – the point is that there are real and serious consequences to the high number of uninsured, as well as the high price of insurance and unrestrained ability of insuranco co.s to deny coverage and care: over 50% of bankruptcies are related to unaffordable medical care; and lack of insurance is associated with 22,000 excess deaths a year (more than wd have occurred if the people were insured).
Danita, if you have actual DATA that is backed up by research and analysis, I am willing to discuss. You conveniently ignore or condemn actual DATA, rather than refuting it with your own. In fact, I could give you DATA to show you that the claims you make in this last post are not substantiated, yet, why bother, based on your previous posts, you will only respond opinion and generalities. Sorry, takes more than that to convince me to allow the gov’t to control 1/5th of the nation’s economy.
I have given you many documented reasons why the president’s bill should be delayed, yet you choose to ignore them, rather than refute them with actual information. Therefore, I assume that you have no real evidence for your opinions. The only see I’ve seen so far is White House talking points. Conversation over.
Well that is interesting, and thanks for the invitation. You gave me Cato and business and media.org. I quoted your own reference to document my point that there are many (about 46 million) uninsured. The data about medical bankruptcies and excess deaths due to uninsurance have been published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of American Public Health. There are endless articles showing that over half the states have medical malpractice reforms in place with no impact on heath care costs.
Yeah health care is a big part of our economy. The reform doesn’t let the government run it. It does put the same kind of rules in place that generally assure the effective operation of the rest of our economy. It will move health care, and especially health insurance, towards operating based on fair acountable rules, instead of gouging us and denying claims and coverage, practices that now make life increasingly difficult for health care providers and us patients.
If you’re suggesting that we’re not likely to convince each other, I’ll agree to that. I don’t know if lots of others are still with us at this point. If you’re dropping off, I thank you for a stimulating challenge, and hope you will consider the data, as you’ve offered to do. and express thanks also to those who’ve chimed in, in response to my posts. It’s an historic moment. We’ll all be watching; I’ll be here.
OK, you’re right that we won’t convince each other. I just want to clarify the numbers, as I have read them, for the record. You apparently missed the next fact on the business and media site, which states:
Fact: Nearly 10 million (9.7) of the 45.7 million uninsured are “not a citizen.” That makes every media claim of uninsured Americans higher than 35.9 million is wrong.
Now, in addition to that, the Kaiser foundation in estimated that 12 million of those unisured are eligible for government programs because they are below the poverty level. Also, approximately 10 million of those uninsured are people who can afford insurance, but choose not to purchase it. So you see, the actual number is closer to 13 million. Which is about 5% of the population.
As for your statement that the new system won’t be govt run,I didn’t say gov’t run, I said government controlled. True, the gov’t will not be the direct provider. However, they are making the rules for the insurance companies, setting the standards for what insurance coverage will be provided and who will be covered and limiting consumer cost sharing (deductibles, etc.). In addition, the bill also establishes a federal HealthBenefits Advisory Committee, which will have the power to develop additional minimum benefit requirements. The bill is also mandating insurance purchase by individual (constitutionality of this is questionable). While it may not be gov’t run, it is government controlled.
In addition, the plan does nothing to bend the cost curve downward, in fact, it bends it upward……..what the cost curve is currently doing. In the long run, the only way to spend less on health care is to consume less health care. And, since the current trajectory for health care spending is unsustainable, this will invariably neccessitate refusing to pay for some services or procedures (rationing), particularly with programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
So, it will be the gov’t ‘making life increasingly difficult for healthcare providers and us patients’ (your words in italics) instead of the insurance companies. Having worked in a gov’t healthcare system for 30 years, I’d rather take my chances with the private sector.
So, there you have it. My two cents worth………..for now.
I used to quote the 50% figure, too, and more recently, the 62% figure. However, I have read articles that indicate that the study that produced the 50% figure, was seriously flawed. They counted almost anyone who had unreimbursed medical bills greater than 1K or unpaid time off from work greater than 2 weeks as a medically caused bankruptcy. The person may have had staggering gambling debts. But with 5 grand in medical bills, it was categorized as medical. One of the reasons for this may be that the principals conducting the study are single payer insurance proponents. I guess it proves that even a Harvard study can massage numbers. This article is a year old now. But I haven’t found anything more recent that refutes it.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2009/03/medical-bankrup.html
Interesting blog. Here’s more from that site:
Worth keeping in mind is the fact that no one (apparently) disagrees about the pain medical expenses can cause to uninsured Americans. Prof. David Dranove of Northwestern University, who wrote the 2006 paper picking apart the Harvard study, noted that he has a new paper in the works showing that uninsured people who have a severe illness lose a substantial portion of their retirement assets.
“There is general agreement: Being uninsured and getting sick in the United States is really a bad thing,” Dranove told me today. “But for academics the validity of the research matters.”
There’s been a fair amount of academic back-biting about this issue. On one hand Himmelstein, the lead Harvard researcher, is a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, created to promote a government-run single-payer health system. On the other, Dranove took $5,000 from the nation’s health insurance industry for his report, which he says he now regrets for the criticism of his impartiality it’s engendered. Both papers were peer-reviewed.
“It stinks to be uninsured. I don’t want to be quoted saying anything else,” Dranove says.
Intersting. Here’s more from the blog you cite:
Worth keeping in mind is the fact that no one (apparently) disagrees about the pain medical expenses can cause to uninsured Americans. Prof. David Dranove of Northwestern University, who wrote the 2006 paper picking apart the Harvard study, noted that he has a new paper in the works showing that uninsured people who have a severe illness lose a substantial portion of their retirement assets.
“There is general agreement: Being uninsured and getting sick in the United States is really a bad thing,” Dranove told me today. “But for academics the validity of the research matters.”
There’s been a fair amount of academic back-biting about this issue. On one hand Himmelstein, the lead Harvard researcher, is a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, created to promote a government-run single-payer health system. On the other, Dranove took $5,000 from the nation’s health insurance industry for his report, which he says he now regrets for the criticism of his impartiality it’s engendered. Both papers were peer-reviewed.
“It stinks to be uninsured. I don’t want to be quoted saying anything else,” Dranove says.
Interesting. Here’s more from the blog you mention:
Worth keeping in mind is the fact that no one (apparently) disagrees about the pain medical expenses can cause to uninsured Americans. Prof. David Dranove of Northwestern University, who wrote the 2006 paper picking apart the Harvard study, noted that he has a new paper in the works showing that uninsured people who have a severe illness lose a substantial portion of their retirement assets.
“There is general agreement: Being uninsured and getting sick in the United States is really a bad thing,” Dranove told me today. “But for academics the validity of the research matters.”
There’s been a fair amount of academic back-biting about this issue. On one hand Himmelstein, the lead Harvard researcher, is a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, created to promote a government-run single-payer health system. On the other, Dranove took $5,000 from the nation’s health insurance industry for his report, which he says he now regrets for the criticism of his impartiality it’s engendered. Both papers were peer-reviewed.
“It stinks to be uninsured. I don’t want to be quoted saying anything else,” Dranove says.
So sorry for repetition. Computer glitch!
It’s my opinion that one bankruptcy due to lack of health insurance is one too many. And that it contributes to bankruptcies (and lowers the standard of living for countless others) along with other unpayable expenses. But the criteria used for the study sets a low threshhold in order to label a bankruptcy related to medical expenses. Based on that, I think it’s still OK to say that lack of insurance “contributed” to 50% of bankruptcies.
The magic word is ‘contributed’, not caused. And it is really more the cost of healthcare that contributes. This bill does nothing to contain or decrease costs. In fact, it will most likely increase costs. The way costs are controlled now is through risk adjustment (not covering/minimally covering high risk cases). If you insure everyone, you cannot adjust your risks and your costs will go up.
WIth due respect, this is exactly backwards. The only way to truly control costs is to cover everyone, so that you don’t get caught out having to pay catastophic costs for the sick person who happened to buy insurance, while all the healthy people are outside the system and not paying in. We do try to control costs now by not covering high risk cases = sick people. Turns out – surpirise! – sick people can’t get covered, they go bankrupt, etc. If you cover everyone, you can even out how much everyone pays. Works like a charm.
Vote no on Reconciliation
http://article.nationalreview.com/427579/obamas-rationing-plan/the-editors