Study: Health reform a boon to small biz
June 19, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Behavior, Employment law, Health care, Special Report
Based on the results of a study, an MIT economist insists that Obama-style healthcare reform would give small and midsize businesses a big boost.
The economist, Jonathan Gruber, did the study for the Small Business Majority, a nonprofit healthcare advocacy group. The study was done against the backdrop of data indicating that small businesses in the United States at one time were major providers of health coverage: 67% offered coverage to employees in 1995, compared to 38% in 2008.
Here are the conclusions of the study — and apparent benefits for small businesses under healthcare reform:
- Reduced costs. Small businesses would pay less to provide health insurance to their employees.
- More jobs. The study concludes that if we stick with the current system, healthcare costs will cause a loss of 178,000 small-business jobs by 2018. Introducing reform would save about 120,000 of those jobs.
- Better wages. The study cites exploding healthcare costs as causing cuts in wages at small businesses. With reform bringing these costs down, more money would be left to pay wages.
- Better profits. Reform would bring down costs, thus increasing profits.
- Better applicants. Workers who feel tied to their jobs because they fear not finding comparable benefits would be freed up to change jobs. Small businesses providing health care would have a greater talent pool from which to choose employees.
The study assumes three components of a reform package, with variations:
- An obligation on some or all employers to contribute to employee coverage.
- Penalty payments for those that don’t.
- Tax credits for those that do.
Here’s the full study.
June 22nd, 2009 at 8:45 am
What planet did these researchers come from? In the real world, government healthcare does NOT provide cost savings or increased wages for working individuals. Government healthcare DOES take away the incentives of the free market to regulate costs and individuals ability to choose. Just another way for the government to steal from hard working individuals and redistribute the wealth in this great nation once known as the United States of America!
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:03 am
How does the current plan of group (employer) provided health care allow consumers to act as consumers in a free market? (it doesn’t)
Get employers out of the health care business and let the market do it. If gov must regulate that insurance plans cover anyone, and everyone must have insurance (to create one large group) so be it.
PBS/NOVA recently had a very eye opening story.. eye opening to those who have always been in a large group. After watching that I asked my brother (self-employed)…. it turns out he’s currently locked in his current plan and can’t get new coverage due to his wife’s mammogram callback which turned out negative. It’s only a matter of time until his current company cancels his plan and forces him to get a new one (but he can’t get a new one).
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 am
When are people going to wake up and realize that we can’t keep going down the road we’ve been on? We’re a small non-profit and health care costs are killing us. We’ve had double digit increases for the past 8 years (every year I’ve been here). Martha is spouting the same old progranda that we’ve been hearing for years. Do you know that a car made in the U.S. costs approximately $6000 more than one made right over the border in Canada – only to pay for health coverage for the auto workers? Let’s give Obama a chance – let’s see what he proposes. We’re already paying huge amounts of money for health care – either with premiums through private insurers or through current government programs – which is what employees who don’t make enough and can’t afford health coverage join anyway (think Wal-mart). We need a serious debate in this country about health care – ways to cut costs and provide good decent coverage for everyone. We won’t get anywhere with the kind of hysterical, same old, same old that we’re hearing from the likes of Martha!
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:43 am
I agree with Martha for those that keep thinking Obama is going to save the Health Care issues well you are living in a bubble. ALL the past presidents Democrates and Repulicans have tried to put something in place. I am in the Benefit field and I have had folks tell me they rather not enroll because they can get free coverage through their State. Well who do you think is paying for that?
I will give Obama a chance if he can come up with a plan like Safeway. Not Socialized medicine. Research other countries and see what the government has done to their health insurance. Yes everyone is covered but at what cost? Why do people come from other Countries to get treated here in the United States of America? Take a look at Canada, Brazil etc
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:44 am
We do need some revisions to our current healthcare system but name me one country with healthcare run by the government that is successful! And please, give me examples why you think so……..just one. Press secretary Gibbs couldn’t and personally I have been unable to find one. So please someone enlighten me.
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:47 am
This is a tough one.
One of the lead arguments for reform is the 47 million unisured. We won’t go into the fallacy of this one here but I mention it because the CBO looked at the Obama plan last week (aka Kennedy plan). They said it will cost $1.6 trillion more in the next 10 years AND we will go from 49 million uninsured to 37 million unisured over the same period. So, we have a reform plan that will cost more and not accomplish the primary objective – the lead phrase in every argument proposed for reforming – the unisured. Couple the $1.6T dollar added expense to the deficits CBO is projecting in the next 10 years (over $9 trillion at the end of the period without reform) and you have a disaster waiting to happen. CBO already thought the deficits (without reform) would fry the economy in less than 10 years (and small business), now the added burden of “reform”. Congress is considering tossing the CBO estimates in favor of the more favorable White House estimates. We know how good they estimate – recall that without the stimulus plan, the White House said unemployment would hit 8%. It is at 9.4% with the stimulus now, and will be over 10% in a few weeks. Biden said “I guess we all got it wrong”. No – you got it wrong Joe. Why entrust this group with estimating the true cost of reform?
I’ve studied Gruber’s report – don’t see calculations or basis for savings – small business will be overwhelmed by the impact of massive deficits on the economy. Interest rates and inflation will soar with that much deficit. It won’t be a question of affording healthcare, they won’t be able to afford capital in the market-place and they won’t survive.
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:49 am
We are not a socialist society. The current system is very good, but needs to be improved considerably. Government plans do not work and are exorbitant to run. Medicare will be out of money in a few years and now the government is floating the idea of a single system. To Mary, I suggest you find a much better broker/consultant. No reason a small firm should experience such increases. You are probably paying way too much money for what your organzation needs. Do some homework and make an effort and then you will not have to complain about the costs.
Lastly, smokers direct health care costs in excess of $100 billion a year yet they only represent 20% of the population. Let them pay for all the uninsured. Charge $50.00 a pack and then they can choose.
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:57 am
Take a look at Massachusetts if you think the State or Federal government should take over the plans. no one looks at the failure of socialism, which is what this is. One of the reasons for small business NOT to provide health insurance as they had in the “old days” is that the Government took away all the tax credits. I work for a comapny that is self insured and the company pays about 65% of the total cost. That is a great benefit and if we can get the government to think tax breaks versus raising taxes on everyone and everything, we could pay for it.
Look at the CBO’s report which states that the total cost to get the people who are “uninsured” would be 65,000 dollars per person. Why don’t we just give everyone 65,000 and be done with it
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:03 am
It sounds like Martha has been listening to a lot of the GOP’s analysis, commentary and/or propoganda about healthcare reform. As an executive for a small business that does offer health insurance to our employees, I understand that some sort of a rebate/tax incentive would certainly help small businesses that are struggling to compete with big business. I’m not sure how that translates to redistibution of wealth… I get to write off my mortgage interest on my personal tax return, as do most “hard working individuals”. Does that constitute a redistribution of wealth?
And Letty, just because others have tried before and haven’t been able to get the job done doesn’t mean that no one else should try. I think it’s those who believe that Obama is some sort of evil force who is trying to destroy America who are the ones living in a bubble. The man is trying to repair a boat that has lots of leaks and has been neglected for years.
Without change there cannot be improvement and I personally believe that our current healthcare system is in serious need of improvement.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:09 am
This new buzz word “socialism” is being bandied around by anyone who disagrees with the current administration. Leaving buzz words aside, the real issue here is expectations. Americans have grown very used to a system where they take no responsibility for anything including their own health, and expect the employer or the government to pay. Any system implemented that does not address the issue of wellness and a more healthy lifestyle is just a fool’s errand. The employees for whom I am a Benefits Specialst think that the company should pay for everything they need and for things they don’t need. They see it as their right to demand this type of care and will throw in my face other companies for whom they’ve worked (usually 10 X larger than this one) where they have received some benefit that we cannot provide and about which they are angry. They don’t want to make any changes to accomodate changes we make to our coverage to try to save money (like a $10,000 per member max we added to our RX plan where they could make out better by choosing generic options and refuse to do so in some cases).
None of the proposals I’ve heard, neither government-run, nor market-based do I see as the answer to this problem. Both so-called solutions are in my opinion, based in fantasy. Until the citizens of this country at least try to take some responsibility for themselves we are wasting our time and a lot of money.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:13 am
When will everyone start taking responsibilty for our own impact on health care costs. If 30% of the population was not obese that would drastically cut costs. As long as we live on fast food and sit in front of the TV or computer all day health care cost will not go down. Every single one of us needs to face reality when it comes to our own responsibility. My husband owns his own firm (14 people) and our insurance has increased 9-11% per year also. My husband works 12 hours a day just to pay taxes and insurance. After owing his own business for over 20 years he will lose it all due to the cost of insurance or the taxes to fund programs. The hardworking minority cannot continue to support the non-working uninsured. It’s too easy for lots of people to let the state pay for it but sooner or later the state won’t have money either when all the small businesses are gone!
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:14 am
As a small business person, you should be alarmed at the deficits being projected for the stimulus package and “reform”. They are not sustainable. Change yes – but do it the right way and don’t deceive people along the way. We create crisis after crisis – worse economy since the depression, global warming (we’re serious now) – must have cap and trade, 47 million uninsured – must have reform, 8% unemployment unless we pass the stimulus bill, etc… The sky isn’t falling….
I’ve managed a mid-size health insurance policy for my employer for many years. We’ve had no increases in the last 5 years and I don’t expect one this coming year. As Mark says, find a better broker/ consultant. Its doable with a little effort. I’ve formed employer coalitions and coops to leverage size to lower cost. That’s what all of you can do.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 am
@Donna
Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation’s public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.
Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country’s population. The United States ranked 37.
The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:21 am
@ Donna
Virtually all of Europe has publicly sponsored and regulated health care. The public plans in some countries provide basic or “sick” coverage only; their citizens can purchase supplemental insurance for additional coverage. Countries with universal health care include Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal,[68] Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine[69] and the United Kingdom.[70]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:21 am
Can someone please explain to me how government ran healthcare will do anything to change the current problems in health care? Let’s all face it. The problems with healthcare are 2 fold. First, there is a large number of people who have stopped taking responsibility for their own health and expect someone else to pay for it. They don’t lead healthy lives, by eating the right things, exercising, and adopting bad habits. Their bad life choices lead to expensive health costs, but they expect someone else to pay for those things. Obesity and other lifestyle problems have lead to a tremendous increase in health care needs in this country. So, it is a supply/demand issue with the demand going up each year.
The second problem is that there are many more people using health care than are paying for it. So, until we address the issue of people using the benefits and not paying for them, we will continue to see people, who can oay, paying more than they should, in order to cover the people who can’t.
I don’t see how government ran health care is going to address those two main problems. It will continue to be a matter of those who can pay (the taxpayers), paying for the people who can’t (the unemployed welfare takers).
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:28 am
Mike – the numbers other countries report as cost aren’t necessarily true costs so its hard to compare. For example, many countries don’t report capital costs in the healthcare like we do, so be cautious on making direct comparisons. I just returned from an extended period in France, Italy and Greece. I asked the locals about their systems – uniformly they each told me about their national healthcare system (with a sigh) and the private system that people must buy into if they want decent, quick, reliable healthcare.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:28 am
Come to New York and maybe you’ll understand double digit price increases. We do have a broker and get estimates from 4-5 different companies each year, with many different plan options. We’re community rated which doesn’t leave us a lot options. My point is, we as a country are already paying a fortune for health insurance. We need to find a way to take the money we’re already paying and spend it more wisely. A combination of private/government, as Obama (who did not put together the Kennedy plan) is proposing may work. Obviously, what we have is NOT working.
I couldn’t agree more with Janice – people need to start taking responsibility for their own usage of health insurance with their own doctors – who also need to start making some fundamental change in how they administer health care. The attitude so far is that the health insurance well is a bottomless pit. Well it’s not, and we all need to take some responsibility for changing the system. And using alarmist terms like “socialist” and “hardworking (me not you)”, etc., etc. just dilutes the discussion that is really needed.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:29 am
Janice summed it up perfectly! Entitlement or Responsibility?
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:29 am
I am in New York Mary.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:42 am
Would also remind you that since a government plan like Medicare price fixes reimbursements. Thats why doctors restrict or do not take Medicare patients. They can’t make a living on them. Those that do take them, pass the cost on to all their other patients – a estimated $1800 per non-Medicare insured each year. So by price-fixing, the government has simply moved the cost to the private sector. That’s not “reform”. Doctors from Canada come to the US because they can only earn 42% of the average American doctor in Canada – why? Because of price-fixing in the Canadian system.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:51 am
I agree with Martha. I am curious to see how these researchers came up with their numbers. Forget about the deficit a government-run healthcare program would get us into for generations to come! We are talking about “health INSURANCE for everyone” under the Obama plan. Now let’s talk about “health CARE for everyone” on a stretched-thin government program… Well, that will be a different story. Months of waiting for an appointment; delays in waiting for a procedure; drugs that are not preferred drugs and are unavailable to patients; etc etc etc. More rules and regulations instilled by the government onto private insurance and doctors. In a utopia, this program may work. In a reality with the proven failure of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, that’s a different story.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:59 am
Janice makes good sense.
I did a piece a few months ago called “Rugged Entitlement vs Rugged Individualism”. It started with a quote from Theodore Roosevelt:
“The first requisite of a good citizen in this Republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight – that he shall not be a mere passenger.”
My conclusion was we are fast becoming a society of passengers, with fewer and fewer pulling their weight. Until that is addressed, no amount of reform, stimulus, cap and trade, etc… will solve this nation’s problems.
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:40 am
Jim,
I would love to read “Rugged Entitlement vs Rugged Individualism”. Where can I find it?
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:44 am
Not sure we’re allowed to include links here so simply click on my name and search through the April posts and you’ll find it there. Its not a lengthy piece – just intended to get people to start thinking about what has been happening over time.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Thanks, Jim. I know what half of the country I would live in.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Holy Cow. I read this and thought, “Who are these guys, and what kind of research are they doing???” I also thought, “You’re going to take away my companies strategic recruiting advantage!” Right now we’ve revamped our compensation package so that we are virtually one of very few companies that provides the kind of medical/dental benefits that we do. It allows us to recruit and retain employees better than anybody else. That’s important to me! If everybody has the same benefits run by the government, of what advantage is that to the company that wants to be better, and spend their profits on the employees? The competetive market differentiates us. If the government wants to provide a health care plan to those interested in taking advantage of it, let them. But make it a bare-bones bottom line plan, and so the only thing it competes against is the lousy company who didn’t want to give any benefits in the first place. Don’t in any way penalize, tax, fee, or compete against those companies already doing it well! That’s a disincentive in a big way.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I agree what we have is not great, its expensive and a burden on business, but if Government gets in the Health insurance business how exactly will competition be enhanced? Who can compete with Government? Nobody! It will become a monopoly just like Canada and England…both of whom told the USA at the recent G8 meeting “…don’t do what we did…”. England’s House of Commons & Prime Minister said the entitlement program costs are kiilling them financially and they wish they could undo it! Find me someone on Medicare that feels they have a better QUALITY of care than they did when they were covered on private health insurance. I don’t want the government to stand between the doctor and patient but the truth is today we already have the insurance company standing between doctor and patient.
I saw a story on ABC this morning that said in 1965 the OMB projected Medicare over 25 years would cost 12 billions dollars, the actual cost over 25 years was 107 billion. No one knows what the future holds, so making government bigger and involving them in health care as the solution to competition and driving costs down makes no sense at all.
What about some radical new thoughts? Let’s make doctors and hospital exempt from malpractice lawsuits and/or at least set low limits on the awards, after all its only lawyers who win in those situations…infrequently do those cases flush out bad doctors or irresponsible providers of care. Dennis Quad did more to prevent doctors and hospitals from giving the wrong dosage of heprin to infants by going public with the Texas Hospital’s mistake than any suit would have done. (in case you’re not familiar -the solution was to color code infant dosages differently from adults…not expensive and easy do at the drug manufacturer level!) Today there is only incentive to hide mistakes not fix them from happening again in future. Lawsuits drive costs up, malpractice makes doctors fearful of human error or even practicing certain kinds of medicine (OBs I am referring to here).
In 2007, 75% of health insurance costs are related to preventable and/or chronic illness associated with obesity and bad lifestyle choices. Let’s work on the problems, not just throw money at solutions that will cost a fortune and other countries already testify don’t work for them. Incentivize people to lose weight, stop smoking, and address stress. There has to be another way than looking to government for all things; that is not how this country was begun and at the end of the day…it is never the best way. I have faith in the market and in people, our solution is not government to provide health care or deliver services to the uninsured.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
So Sandra, are you saying that not everyone should have access to adequate healthcare because it would put too much of a strain on our system? So if some young parents want to take their child who has severe flu symtoms to the doctor but can’t afford to because their employers don’t offer health insurance, that’s good because that helps keep the wait times down at the emergency room? Should the have-nots just suck it in, because you don’t want to me incovenienced…
And Lynn says that government intervention into an ailing healthcare system might damage her company’s competitive advantage, which is apparently unthinkable. Putting the well being of people ahead of corporate profits? That’s not the American way!
Does anyone here know anyone who has not been able to afford health insurance and has suffered because of it? If not, maybe you don’t really have a good perspective on the situtaion. It’s not all people on welfare sitting around watching Judge Judy on TV. Some of them are young people trying to get ahead in a tough economy. Some of them were laid off and are now uninsured because of the current recession through no fault of their own. Get the stereotypes out of your head people and think about those who may not be as fortunate as yourself. It’s not all about you.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I can only go by my experience as a benefits administrator & HR Director for more than 25 yrs. I have had many, many many applicants for mundane jobs apply to my places of business because we have, in all my employment, solid committed health insurance programs. Many young entrepreneurs and self-employed tradesmen in local communities aksed for jobs for the health insurance benefit once they had families to cover. This alone is a big drawn down from potential new and expanding business. Not having guaranteed good health coverage for all is a negative for the nations economy and innovation.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I agree with Jim. If each person had to pull his own weight to get something in return, the US would be a better place. We give handouts to almost anyone who asks for one and the hard worker pays for it. Small business, who I work for is trying to doggie paddle to find solid ground to survive, if yet another wave hits us, we will probably drown.
If eveyone who asked for a handout got a job tasked to do before they got the money, you would see who really is in need and not wanting a free ride. How about cleaning the floor in a doctors office if you get free healthcare.
I’m still proud to live in the US, but I’m certainly not proud of many that do.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
dritchie- Our system as it is does give care to those who need care, even if they do not have insurance because they cannot affort it or because they do not have a job. Laid off workers? The stimulus package pays 65% of COBRA, making the monthly cost for a laid off worker sometimes more economical than for an actual employed worker.
You ask for an example of someone who did not have insurance or could not afford it? I have one. A friend of ours –not even an American–came to the US for a visit and a week into her trip had to be hospitalized for an emergency. She was in the hospital for over two months and guess what? She got the care she needed and once her travel insurance would not pay any more, she still got the care from the US. So, to reply to your post, it’s not the American way to get us into a debt or a failed system that we’ll smother for years to come.
Once you get nationalized health insurance, private insurance companies will begin to suffer due to steep rules and regulations that the government will impose to favor its system; those of us who get health insurance (pre-tax) from our employers will be taxed for it to raise money to pay for national insurance; and the “new” system will only get too big and too bureauticatic to provide what it promises today. At that time, it will be too late because private and public companies will have “cut off” millions of workers off their employer insurance since they have a nationalized system that although it’s not better, it will cost companies nothing because all of us, taxpayers, will be paying for it.
With all these millions of workers in this new system, it will be too late and impossible to reverse when it fails. For generations to come we will have to continuously fund the mistakes of today. Perhaps at another time we would have trillions to pay into such as system–surely not today. And it is all about us and our future.
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Dritchie
You misunderstand me. In a competitive environment, in order to keep employees, one HAS to provide a BETTER benefit than anything the government could come up with. And as I raise the standards of our company, our competitors MUST raise the standard of theirs, or they will also not be competitive. THAT is the American way. I am not putting company profits ahead of health care. In fact, I was able to convince our upper management that the only way to be profitable was to make sure that health care was not only provided, but free to our employees AND had to be a very good plan.
There will always be lousy employers who don’t do what they ought to. Instead of making them provide something they will also be lousy at administering, how about providing healthcare to all OUTSIDE of the confines of workers. Aren’t there a lot of people who don’t work who also need health care? If the government wants to get involved in that, it makes a lot more sense to provide and outside-of-business plan for anyone who wants it, rather than getting into the buisnesses and taking away the competitive advantages. Good businesses take that competitive advantage and strive to do better than the government can, with our own profits and our own dollars instead of tax payer dollars. Let tax payer dollars be used for those who can’t get benefits from their lousy employers. Hopefully the lousy employers will either learn to be better employers, or they will go away, leaving room in the market for people with a better social conscience. Profit is not the enemy of the people – it should be the vehicle to better benefits and pay.
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
I wrote this recently and it is important in this discussion. We have groups of people in this country who declare “rights” to all kinds of things like health care, houses they can’t afford, etc… Last check of the Constitution finds none of these. If the people in Washington want to give people rights then do it the correct way – lets sit down as a country and define exactly what rights people have: education, health care, jobs, that big gas-guzzlin’ SUV, etc… But politicians are afraid of the process because it requires more than a simple majority, and it cannot easily be rammed through Congress like a stimulus bill.
————————————————————————
REPUBLIC vs DEMOCRACY
A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution).
A democracy is direct government ruled by a simple majority.
A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals.
Democracies do not. They are focused on group wants or needs.
———————————————————————–
“[Direct] democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”
–Benjamin Franklin
At the moment, in Washington, and elsewhere, we have a direct democracy. Supposed to be a representative Republic (see Constitution for details) Not good.
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Just to be clear – its called the Constitution and it has a Bill Of Rights – let’s amend it first to include everyone’s rights before we run off and spend other people’s money paying for them. We have the entire process backwards at the moment.
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Kudos to all of the opinions brought forth.
One more thing to Mike. If nationalized healthcare was so great in these countries, then why is Canada screaming because their costs are increasing so much? Why are other countries telling us not to make the switch? Is it because they are tired of the inferior treatment? Of waiting for 9 months to have arthriscopic knee surgery, or the fact they have to be completly blind in one eye of macular degeneration to have the good eye treated, or women with breast cancer receiving the cancer drugs they need?
We are not perfect. We do have a system that needs to be fixed, but to spend 1.6 trillion dollars and still have millions without coverage is not the answer. Where does it stop? Obama says we are out of money so where do you think this 1.6 trillion will come from? Us, our children, our grandchildren?
Let’s stop blaming where this all started (because it started years ago) and calmly, collectively think out the problems and determine the best solutions. This is not a race yet this present administration thinks that everything needs to be fixed in five minutes. Relax folks. Let the natural form of economy takes shape. If left alone the economy would have fixed itself. Instead we are spending billions and going no where.
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Lynn,
Sorry if I misinterpreted your earlier 12:03 post. I thought you were saying that you were against the government getting involved because it would harm your company’s competitive advantage.
Sandra,
I’m glad your foreign friend got good care while here in the States but I know of U.S. citizens who are not going to the doctor when they should or who are not renewing prescriptions they need because they don’t have insurance and need to pay their rent & utility bills and put food on the table. That’s not a healthy situation…
To all, I am not saying that Obama’s plan is the answer – just that something has to be done. And I don’t believe that letting the free market decide the fate of U.S. healthcare is the right answer. Capitalism is a profit-based economic system, not a system designed to resolved social issues.
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Lynn – It is backward thinking of you to maintain that everyone else should be held back so that you and your company can stay ahead of everyone else. If you want to stay more competitive why not do something as simple as say, give higher wages.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Gordon –
In what way am I saying everyone else should be held back? I am not against the government coming up with a social services answer here. I am not against people getting health care. I am against a mandate for employers. Even though Dritchie and I don’t agree on everything, he/she made a very good point: Capitalism is a profit-based economic system, not a system designed to resolved social issues.
The government can come up with a better way to do this. Employers don’t touch everyone… only people who are employed. It’s simply not the best way to distribute health care. Right now, if they come in and mandate it, then employers ARE the way to get health care. It leaves out all those who are un-employed. It screws up the way capitalism and profit-based economic systems are supposed to work, and for YEARS having employers be that mechanism has decidedly NOT resolved the social issue. What’s the definition of insantity… doing the same thing and expecting it to get the same results? The only thing different here is the mandate, which doesn’t help business, and yet you’re expecting business to do it. Now there’s some backward thinking! It’s like saying to your kid, “Here mow the lawn, and when you’re done, pay me!”.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Gordon – I think Lynn correct. The Constitution guarantees only equal opportunity, not equal achievement. To restrict her and her company from being the best is an example of rugged entitlement – everyone being entitled to the same at the expense of others. We are not a Democracy – we are a representative Republic that guarantees rights to individuals, not groups. Her company should be free to reward people as they see fit, that which fits their culture, and the market in which they compete. Mandating a benefit (a form of compensation) is a ludicrous idea.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Mary: I work for a nonprofit, too, and our broker researches the market every year. We’ve seen double digit increases every year since I’ve been here (15) and have been able to keep them to 9 or 9.5% most of the time by tweaking the coverage, i.e., higher co-pays, having the health carrier also carry vision and life, etc. But, I guess it’s called a “free market” for a reason – it’s run by humans and they do what they want. Competition doesn’t seem to keep the inordinate increases in line. I agree with dritchie – something needs to be done. The final plan probably will look different than what is being discussed right now. Some combination of tax incentives and single payor plan might work. As for the deficit – I’ve heard some complaints about how high the deficit is now that the stimulus plan has begun. Recall, we had a surplus before the last administration came in and ran that into a deficit. The figures may have looked better than they actually were since apparently the Irag war expenses weren’t included (that doesn’t count?) Yes, now the deficit is even bigger; it takes some investment to turn things around and that deficit will have to be dealt with. The alternative is to let things continue with no intervention – which would lead to a lot of huge bankruptcies and the fallout effects of job losses, reduced revenues and more deficits. I also agree we individuals need to take better care of ourselves and be responsible. But, please don’t lump all non-workers into one category of lazy people who want something for nothing. There are legitimate reasons for some, even most, of those non-workers being unemployed – ie, present job market, people with mental illness, people who have other illnesses or are too young, too old, etc. to work. As for the “right” to health care, I believe it’s part of the right to life listed in the Constitution. The right to life would logically include the right to breathe healthful air, drink healthful water and in all ways be able to maintain one’s health. That would include doctor’s care when needed as well as taking responsibility for practicing healthful habits.
June 22nd, 2009 at 4:17 pm
dritchie, I understand your concern about people who take their children or themselves to ER.
I guess they do that because they do not ubderstand that every county in every state has a “Health Department” Financed primarily by their state. Where people who do not have insurance or the means to pay may go for excelent care and pay only what they can afford. We are already paying , through property taxes, for the very services you seem to think are unavailable to the uninsured,
June 22nd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
No one’s mind is going to be changed by anything they read, regardless of how expert the sources are in their fields, or how successful other countries are with their government-run healthcare. It really doesn’t matter what anyone says–these comments reflect minds closed to change and closed to new ideas, and closed to the plight of millions of people who have no insurance, and who can’t afford the outrageous premiums and/or have been rejected for coverage due to pre-existing conditions. No, we’re not becoming socialist. Yes, our government can do things right, even providing health care coverage (any of you nay sayers hear of Medicare?).
How much money have we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush administration? Where was the hue and cry over the deficit then? Of course, we don’t know how much, because Bush et al. didn’t include war expenses in the budget–I could call everyone in the “Party of No” on their hypocrisy, but no one’s mind is going to be changed anyway.
We are firm in what we believe, and I firmly believe that we need a program where millions of uninsured can have access to comprehensive and affordable healthcare, with or without pre-existing medical conditions. Whether it’s single-payor or through BXBS or other providers, it has to be done.
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:01 am
Actually Wendy, your comments are a perfect example of what is wrong with Liberalism today. If only, the medical community could develop a vaccination to cure liberals. Let’s take a closer look at some of your comments.
Your first comments-”Regardless of what experts say…it doesn’t matter what anyone says.” Yet, then you accuse of everyone else of being “close-minded” to the plight of millions of people without health coverage. Your next statement is “No, we’re not becoming socialist,” but you can’t ignore the facts that when government starts taking over more and more “social” programs and asking for higher and further reaching taxes, then yes, we obviously are becoming more socialist. Medicare is not working. Many doctors will not even take Medicare patients and Medicare like many other “social” programs ran by the government is running out of money. In other words, they are spending more than they are taking in.
Then, you go back to the same old liberal rhetoric about the war and how much money was spent on a “so-called” needless war. The “hue and cry” as you put it, was there. All you had to do was open a liberal newspaper or tune in to a liberal state ran television network to see all the negatives about the war. Then, you continue with the same BS by calling people, who believe in freedom, democracy, and safety for everyone, the “party of no.” And again, the most close-minded of all of us cliams that “noone’s mind is going to be changed anyway.” You cannot put a price on safety and freedom in the war on terror.
Like you, I believe that there is a definite problem with healthcare in America and that everyone should have a right to it. I just don’t believe that I should have to pay for it. With 40% of the country already taking advantage of liberal social programs, we need to put a stop to the feeling of entitlement in America. Stop feeling sorry for yourself because you have something others don’t. If it would make you feel better, give more of your money to charity. However, don’t expect everyone else to give to the same charity you choose.
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:28 am
“How much money have we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush administration? Where was the hue and cry over the deficit then? Of course, we don’t know how much, because Bush et al. didn’t include war expenses in the budget”
It is true that Bush did not budget for the war in all cases BUT the money had to come from somewhere – it was called “emergency supplements” which the Congress voted on and approved each time. The budget has nothing to do with the deficit. The expenditures for the war have and are being included in the cumulative deficit – always have been.
The problem with deficit spending is it will increase the cost of borrowing and cause inflation. It will crush small business preventing them from borrowing, meeting payroll, expanding, etc… This president campaigned against deficit spending yet he has already more than doubled his predecessor in deficit spending and there is more to come. At least he is bright enough to state that without growth, his spending will kill the country. Yet everything he is doing is anti-growth.
I remind everyone who will have an open mind that when Reagan took office, he was faced with unemployment at the say level as this president. He had 13% inflation – the prime interest rate was 21%. People couldn’t buy homes – businesses were crushed by the high cost of borrowing. People were unemployed. Did he ask for a stimulus bill or rescue plan? No. Did the country recover? Yes. Did we have the largest peace-time expansion in the economy ever? Yes.
Do your homework.
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:40 am
Wow, DD, you sure are angry! I find that the same talking points are repeated over and over, and as everyone can see, no minds will be changed by the rhetoric. By the way, the hue and cry that I mentioned that was sorely missing about the cost of the war in the Bush Administration was a reference to the far right, who are so vocal now in the cost of any social programs. War on Terror in Iraq? I find it hard to believe that you really believe that’s what that war was for!
Access to affordable healthcare to all Americans is sorely needed. More and more people are left out of the system, due to pre-existing conditions and rising premiums. And yes, we should all share in paying for it. Not all of us like where our taxes are going, and we haven’t ever been given the ability to pick and choose our services. I don’t need to be reminded that I have been and still am paying for a fraudulent war.
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:09 am
Once again we’re getting off point by focusing on liberal versus conservative ideology instead of the actual subject of the article. I will say, Jim, remember the old saying, “Statistics never lie but liars use statistics.” I’m not calling you a liar, just that you have selected certain stats to back up your point but they may not tell the whole story. The Federal deficit as a percentage of the GDP doubled during the Reagan/George H.W. Bush years. And the economy was in a much different situation in the fall of 2008 than it was in the fall of 1980.
For me the important issue is that there are millions of uninsured Americans, and while it may be convenient to think of them all as a bunch of free loading, lazy deadbeats who we don’t bear any responsibility for, that seems to be a very self-centered and self-defeating point of view. When those uninsured Americans (or foreign visitors) have a serious medical situation and end up in the ER or are admitted to a hospital we still end up paying for it one way or another.
I’m not saying the Obama plan as it currently exists is the answer, just that there has to be a better way. Hopefuly conservatives and liberals will be able to work together to find the middle ground and develop something that will start us down the road to improvement. Unfortunately that rarely happens…
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:19 am
Government Health Care won’t work.
Drop off 22M or so illegal aliens who leach off the system and you can halve the “uninsured” figure. Add those who self insure and drop another million or more.
Make the cigarette smokers pay more or become uninsurable. Life choice.
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:25 am
My point was to demonstrate that there is another way besides running deficits. You can’t spend your way to prosperity. And I was reminded of FDR’s treasury secretary who said:
“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … And an enormous debt to boot!”
What we all want is a prosperous country, people employed, small business thriving – we’ve tried the direction we’re headed in before and it did not work, evidenced Henry Morganthau confession to Congress in 1939.
We also need a fundamental change in peoples behavior. Too many passengers right now – too many people just riding, looking for a handout from the government. Too many people willing to hand out other peoples money for the short-term gain. No one looking at the long-term future and the viaibility of a country.
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:44 am
Yes Mark – the 47 million actually has a ton of illegals in it. Plus it has 14 million people eligible for Medicare, Medicaid and SHIP who haven’t enrolled (or have chosen not to). Then there are those who choose not to buy into health insurance even though they have both opportunity and means. The core uninsured is probably 8 million or 2.5% of the legal population. Hardly a reason to reform an entire system. As the Census Bureau points out, in total, the pool of uninsured doesn’t stay uninsured for more than a few months and no one in the 47 million for longer than 2 years. Their data, not mine. Although to hear politicians and media spin it, this is a hard-core group that must be addressed when in fact it is a highly transient group.
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:44 am
Yes, I am angry. I get angry when I see liberals destroying what was once and barely still is the greatest country in the world. I get angry when I hear and read people bashing a president for doing everything within his power to protect me and my family from terrorists and yes, I get angry when the President talks badly about this great country. I get angry when I see people losing their jobs and homes, while our President sits smugly by and does nothing of substance to help. I get even angrier when I hear someone on his staff make a statement like, “never let a crisis go to waste.”
I get even angrier when the government tries to take a crisis like what is going in healthcare and turn it into an opportunity to take away my freedom. I enjoy the freedom of choosing my healthcare provider and I enjoy the freedom of choosing my treatment options. I have worked hard for and even fought for that freedom and it sickens me to see people who haven’t destroying it a little more everyday.
The answer to healthcare does not lie with the government. They have never fixed anything. The answer lies with people taking responsibility for themselves.
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:54 am
Let’s not start stereotyping those who need the access to affordable healthcare–it’s everyone who isn’t covered by a decent company policy. It’s not merely those who don’t take care of themselves, nor is it likely that there are millions of illegal aliens walking into Emergency Rooms–who’s checking their status during triage? It’s not due to cigarette smokers, and not due to the misperception that many people are asking for handouts.
When you are laid off and had been covered by some kind of health insurance, after COBRA expires (and the premiums, even 35% of that figure is a lot of money, especially family coverage–you no longer have a paycheck to pay for it!!–and even then, the 35% help only began last Sept), if you don’t find another job that has coverage, you are subject to the insurance companies’ denial due to pre-existing conditions. That’s where the millions figure in. It’s a crisis now more than ever. More uninsured because of high premiums and pre-existing conditions than ever. It won’t get better as more and more companies drop their insurance coverage.
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:59 am
When are people going to realize that health care/insurance is not just a social issue? It’s become a real business issue in that the costs are killing small business, not to mention large businesses. I’ll repeat what I said earlier – the cost of a car made in the US is $6000 higher than one made right across the border in Canada – just to cover health insurance costs of the auto workers. We are already paying a fortune for our health insurance. There have to be some options out there to take the money we are already paying and spend it more wisely. Whether that’s government run, private or a combination of both – all options should be on the table. This isn’t a liberal or conservative problem – it’s an American problem. I do believe that health care is a right – everyone should be able to access good, affordable health care. I work for an social service agency and I can tell you it’s a myth that the majority of people who are not working do so because they don’t want to. THERE ARE NO JOBS!!!! – hence for most people, no health care. Even with the COBRA subsidy, unemployment doesn’t go far. We’ve been following the same old rules for a very long time – it’s time to try something new. Give this new administration a chance – let’s see what they offer. I think the resulting plan will be a real compromise between many different groups. But name calling, digging in heels on ideology, etc. won’t help the discussion.
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:31 am
If you read between the lines, what we are talking about is defining the problem correctly then defining solutions we can afford. You’ll recall the stimulus bill was to create 3.5 million jobs but there were no concrete plans on what jobs were to be created or how. Just vague statements about spending money and hopes for jobs. We cannot afford to just throw money at things without a clear plan and a clear idea of the impact to the country. It will sink this country and DD has a right to be angry – you should be too. First – fix the economy – create growth which will create jobs and increase revenue to offset deficit spending. Once you’ve done that, then think about health care reform.
Chances are in your grandparents days and their parents before them, there was no one covered by health insurance. Its a relatively new concept in our nations history, mostly post WWII. People paid for their own care out of their own pockets. That was life – people died from disease. Today its a crisis. Partially because no one saves any more to pay their own way. No one takes care of themselves and when they get sick, they expect others to pay for their lifestyles. No one addresses the immigration problem that clogs the medical system. No one bothers with tort reform so doctors aren’t always spending half their time running expense tests in fear of being sued. No one is addressing price fixing by medicare that shifts a huge burden on to the private sector. No one is addressing a lot of things except a bigger government system.
We live from crisis to crisis – its a product of our media and politicians. Next time you go to another country, turn on the television. You won’t see blood and guts news reports, and you won’t see manufactured crisis.
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:47 am
Just to be clear – the proposed “reform” bill in Congress now does NOT cover everyone, only 16 million more than are now covered. Do the math – if 47 million are uninsured, we’ll still have 31 million uninsured after we spend $1.6T dollars. Because the cost is no where near the target of $1T, your congress people are racing around trying to cut the “reform” bill back to $1T – that means either (1) even less people will be covered or (2) there will be less coverage.
So exactly what are you supporting if you are supporting the current version of “reform” in the Senate and House?
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:01 am
BLAME, BLAME, BLAME; what fun.
The cost of health care – increasing since 1965 at much more of a %age than the rest of the economy- is directly attributable to the prices charged by the doctors, hospitals and pharma’s. The main health insurers have had, historically, no reason to truly bargain for lower charges as they often are paid based on the costs they cover. The situation has been to the insurance industry’s advantage as well as they have been growing by leaps & bounds with every employer scurrying to find a new way to cover employees (and their own families).
Greed is common to us all and, as medical professionals have us by the shorthairs, they have taken advantage of the fears we all carry and our hope to not die. I find it’s not that complicated.
I just wish we could stop blaming the poor among us. I don’t know about the rest of you but, though I have not had one day unemployed in 40 years, I still feel health costs could bankrupt me if I fell seriously ill.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:17 am
I don’t think it natural that people walk around every day living in fear of having a disastrous illness. It is, if you live in an environment of crisis all the time, as we do today. And we live in a world where we are constantly being bombarded with new drugs and procedures to look younger, healthier, live longer…
You are right Karen.
Health care cost rise because people don’t want to die and they want everyone to pay for that. I want that $2500/dose bio-med because it might prolong my life a few more months. Also because I need to run every test in the book on this person because if I miss something they’ll sue me. And now I have those expensive pieces of equipment to use even if they won’t necessarily find the answer.
As I posted earlier, there are things employers can and should do. I have. And, I haven’t had an increase to our medical/rx/dental plan in 5 years. Our utilization is low and our costs are level. If I can do it, any one can.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:23 am
So Karen, unless I’m misunderstanding your post, you seem to be “blaming” the healthcare industry and the insurance company’s greed for what is wrong with health care in America. Obviously, it couldn’t have anything to do with the greed of those who frivolously sue doctors, or no way could it have anything to do with the people who sit around all day watching Oprah, smoking, and eating pizza.
I mean, lets get real here. It isn’t just about greed, there are many factors that are invovled. Today’s Wall Street Journal has an excellent article written by a physician in DC about his struggles as a businessman trying to make it today. On June 12th, the WSJ had another great article about Safeway and what they are doing to combat the costs. It truly is about people changing lifestyles and making good choices. As a country, we cannot continue on this path of destruction by trying to bail out every failed business and every failing person. Let people be responsible for themselves. Let businesses fail by themselves. Stop trying to rescue everyone and stop feeling guilty because you can’t.
At my place of work, we have done many of the same things to stem the tide of rising costs. We have tried to make people responsible and held them accountable for their own choices and costs. When you do this, it is amazing how they will begin to become better consumers and make better choices for themselves. Unfortunately, our government thinks people aren’t smart enough to make decisions for themselves, so congress needs to help them. However, Congress can’t help them without all of us sacrificing by paying more in taxes or giving up our own healthcare. The problem with that logic is that it has been proven that people can and will change and make good decisions, if given the right incentives and opportunity to do so.
I would also encourage all of you to stop watching and believing everything you see on CNN, MSNBC, and CBS. It is proven that they twist facts and have basically become the media ran and controlled by the government. If you want unbiased truth in journalism, read the WSJ and watch Fox News.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:24 am
Jim – Are you a professional blogger? Don’t you have a job or is responding to these posts your job?
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:41 am
Mary – click on his name and you’ll see what he’s a “professional” at. He and DD are concerned about filling us with all the “Right” information.
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:47 am
And the “right” information would be…?
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:39 am
Can we get back to the point. We all seem to agree people need health care. We all seem to agree that there are many people who are NOT working who need health care. That means just having health care reforms happen through the workplace is a dumb idea.
If we don’t socialize medicine, then it has to somehow be changed from the inside out. And in the mean time, what do we do with people who need to care for their kids? Spend all our time on an idea that isn’t going to work for all of those OUT of work? How about this idea? Good employers voluntarily provide health care to their workforce. And then for all those without good employers, or those out of work, we set up a system something like Unemployment to help do healtcare for those folks. Then it still encourages companies to do health care (because the likelihood is that their benefits will be better than the governments, just like getting a paying job is better than being on unemployment), but everyone has the ability to get health care? It’s half government half company driven, but the point is, it’s not a mandate. And maybe there’s a tax credit for companies who DO do it, to encourage that practice even more, and take a little of the tax burden off of everyone.
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Contrary to what Oboma and his cohorts think, Tort reform is the place to start. Until we cap what a doctor’s insurance company has to pay out, the insurance the Doctor has to buy and pay for will continue to rise. Do you know that a very high % of the claims filed against the Doctors get settled in the Doctors favor? However, just the process of answering the claims creates an amount of money none of us can probably fathom. So until a process is put into place that discourages the jump to SUE SUE SUE, no so called health care reform will be sustainable. Bring down the Doctor’s and Hospital’s insurance expenses, and you will bring down the cost of health care.
Another thing I believe the “poor” think. Health Insurance, even if provided by your employer, or the government, is not going to pay your bills in total. So don’t think you are ever going to be “home free”. Health Insurance only pays part of your bills. Sorry- that’s the way it is and will continue to be.
Now, another thing to think about. Most responsible people only worry about catastrophic incidents. Such as the result of an accident, or a major disease that befalls them, or a mal-function of their body. That said, we could bring the cost of insurance down if we had a policy to only insure agaisnt those things. Just like your car insurance. Do you know how much you would pay for car insurance if it covered tires, engine repairs, and gasoline,? So, pay for your own medicine, doctor visits for flu and colds, etc. Pay for the small stuff. Have insurance for the car wreck. If government needs to be involved at all, a tax credit would be sufficient.
Final thought………like your car insurance, your health insurance should be personal. Get the employer out of the mix. The insurance company can group a precinct, or a city, or a county, or a state…………get your thinking cap on.
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Agree Jagger. You always make sense. I like the catastrophic coverage idea.
Let’s get employers and government out of the insurance business. As Milton Friedman said: “Nobody spends somebody else’s money as wisely as he spends his own”. And he’s right. By providing tax-incentives only to business we continue the “free lunch” syndrome. The government, through Medicare and Medicaid, also continues the free-lunch syndrome. Some form of subsidy would have to be devised to take care of the truly needy. This would put pressure on wages – employees no longer getting a tax-benefit and employers would no longer be able to take a deduction for health care insurance. That’s going to take an adjustment on everyone’s part – more tax on the employee and the employer. That will not silence the citizens who believe they have a “right” to health care – they will have to pay for it rather than their employer or the government. And as the costs escalate, “rightists” will look to others to pay for the increasing cost. We’ll have class envy – those who can afford a $12,000 a year premium vs those who can’t will be pitted against each other in the political arena.
Its a start though and I like it.
At some point, we all have to face the rising cost issue. No government system, no country has a handle on controlling costs driven by things like technology advancements. There are serious ethical questions to be asked and answered – if people want the latest drugs and treatments, what price are they willing to pay? What if they can’t afford to pay? Who decides?
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
In Washington State we have experienced the idea of insurance for everyone over the past several years with not much success. The state run plan has not met the ideals it was intended to meet and the costs to everyone have been high. People who are on the state plan must be very careful to not make too much money because if they are just a few dollars over the limit they are cut off with no chance to re-apply for some time and really no alternatives within their close to poverty income. This insurance concept has also caused many insurance carriers to leave the state which makes getting any kind of competative renewals very difficult.
However, there was an interesting thought presented by the Insurance Commissioner to have a partially state funded insurance. In this plan the state would pay the costs of claims over $10,000 and individual insurance would pay all of the day to day medical costs with of course consumer paid co-pays and deductibles. The idea is to reduce the premiums required by the insurance companies because their liabilities would be significantly reduced. It seems like a reasonable solution. The real concern of course being the funding of the state funds, which could potentially come from employer taxes with the employers still realizing a savings over the current plan. But that is a crap shoot. Savings not being the main goal but it could possibly help small business stay in business and continue to supply health insurance to their employees.
What say you all!
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
If Employers did not have to pay for emploee insurance, wages could be higher. My company pays the health insurance for the employee in totality (except $10 per pay period, which the employee pays.) Each employee pays for their own wife and family if they want them covered. We could pay each employee and extra $1.75 per hour instead of the insurance. That would still create the same tax exempt amount of income for the employer. Granted the employee would pay income tax on it, but if they were granted a tax credit as proposed by John McCain, it would be offset.
Obama does not want to hear of any “better ideas” because he wants a single payer system. I think it gives him a feeling of power, thinking he is “taking care” of the little guy.
The only salvation I have thinking he will probably get what he wants is this: When we are reduced to socialized medicine, and it is soooo bad, people will have to turn to the olden days when we searched out natural remedies (and there are plenty) and away from the Doctor is God syndrome and that drugs are the cure. They are not, they are only the coverer of symtoms. Only food feeds and nurtures the body. Drugs only do for the body what it is no longer doing for itself, and a continuous drug regime will never let the body get back to health, and taking care of itself. It will only “feel” better………..for a time.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:50 am
Leslie-
I think that appears to be a reasonably good plan. It would at least address one of the biggest issues with health costs….”the big-hitter.” I think most people are afraid (and rightfully so) that they will have a major medical expense, that without insurance, would bankrupt them. Hospitals are faced everyday with the person, who they know are not going to be able to pay for a really expensive surgery, but nonetheless, they have to do the surgery. If the individual and the providers had some assurance that the major medical expenses could be covered, it would certainly help alot.
However, that really only addresses one of the issues with the cost of health care. The other and in my opinion the even bigger problem is the rise in our country of what I call “unhealthy lifestyles.” Just go to any public meeting place…your local supermarket, mall, restaurant and look around you. The majority of the people you see will be obese. This isn’t entirely their fault. Part of the problem is that many people can’t afford to eat healthy or belong to the local health club. So, if the government really wants to help with this problem, they could look at ways to lower the cost of healthy foods or give people subsidies to belong to gyms. Give them incentives to lose weight or stay healthy. That would do whole alot more to help than trying to ram a social medicine program down everyone’s throat.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:15 am
They have reinsurance carriers that cover the large claims and this is paid for through the premium. Any way you look at it someone is paying to ensure the utopian vision that we all receive the same quality of care – which from examples of other countries is low.
As for the government (Obama yesterday) claims to not being a disincentive to capitalist business investment (risk) – this is nonsense and shows either the President either is profoundly nieve or assumes we are because it just doesn’t work that way. So far what he says and does seem to be two different things.
It seems anywhere government has taken over an entitlement – competition has diminished considerably or altogether and quality along with it. With no real incentive to perform better (like say to “serve the common good”) – people and the so called “business” owned by government simply won’t measure up. The argument that there are so many uninsured is a misleading number.
You get what you pay for. Talk about promoting mediocrity……
June 24th, 2009 at 10:29 am
The Administration wants to offer a choice, not an alternative to private insurance coverage. If the government does such a bad job in overseeing programs, and private insurance does a better job, then why do so many posters feel it’s a threat? It’s an alternative. Let those who can afford and already have private insurance (through their employers or are on individual plans), keep their coverage. Let those who cannot, have access to coverage, because it’s those who cannot that we’re trying to help.
I don’t understand why there’s so much resistance, unless there’s a “let them eat cake” attitude out there–comments claiming that the poor and the sick are responsible for their own conditions, wanting handouts right and left. I guess it’s a matter of the “haves” versus the “have-nots,” and the “haves” don’t want their taxes to help the “have-nots.” I’m beginning to think we’re not talking about private versus public insurance at all. It’s who wants to help the helpless versus who doesn’t want to help the helpless because their problems are their own fault, or not others to bear.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Wendy-
Please get informed before commenting. The current proposal does very little to help the uninsured (the estimate is not even half of them) while increasing the taxpayer cost at $1.6 trillion over 10 years. It has nothing to do with “haves” and “have nots.” It is a matter of being responsible with the money and doing the right thing rather than jumping at something doesn’t make financial sense.
Why do you think so many in government (even democrats) are hesitant to back this plan? They have no idea how they are going to pay for it. In addition, they have very little idea how it is going to realistically help. Everyone needs to take a longer look at the problem and the possible solutions. If the $787 billion dollar stimulus did anything, it should have taught us that just blindly signing legislature that throws money at problems doesn’t always fix the problem. Obama told us that by signing the stimulus, we would not see unemployment go above 8%, yet here we are looking at 10%.
Even though this should be about helping people who need help, it really is about the government controlling another aspect of our lives. If we don’t stop it now, we will soon be:
1. Driving a government made car
2. To a government job
3. Living in a government mortgaged home
4. Putting our money in a government owned bank
5. Going to a government financed or owned doctor
6. Using government owned electricity, gas, or (who knows what)
7. Investing in a government controlled stock market
Who will pay for all of that government control?
Do we really want the government that involved in all aspects of our lives?
June 24th, 2009 at 10:49 am
“Alternative” is a ruse and that is why people are against it because they see the fallacy of a government run program so massive it invites corruption and inefficiency. The europeans and the Russian’s for crying out loaud are telling us to not take this route…but here we go into the abyss. There is no government “alternative” for healthcare. Who can compete with a big pocket and an a competitor that prints their own money. C,mon get real!
June 24th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Wendy, Wendy, Wendy………….You are drinking the kool-aid. The Government can raise taxes to subsidize the public program anytime it wants to. Remember that. Private companies can’t. They actually have to be efficient to make a profit, and have to make a profit to stay in business.
Oboma’s goal is single payer insurance. If you would go outside MSN, CNN, ABC to gather your knowledge, you would know that. Oboma is a patient man. There are recorded video clips by him and his “workers” that show exactly what his long range plan is. You won’t see that on MSN, CNN, ABC and the like.
As far as the haves helping the have nots……….I am not exactly a “have”. I only make about $40,000 a year, but I DO work and I DO take care of myself. AND I DO expect everyone else to do the same unless they are physically unable to do so. (If the Government would get out of the way, the real citizens of the US would take care of those that are disabled through the Churches, Salvation Army, Red Cross, Good Will, Shriners and all the other ‘helping hands’ across the nation.)
When the Government plays BIG DADDY and takes all our extra money in taxes, we CAN’T help others. We have nothing left. The big sin in that, is we aren’t able to feel the accomplishment in helping others either. Government has taken that away from us.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Our President said yesterday that it “defies logic” that people would not understand that a government run plan can not be fair competition to the private sector. Hmmm. Defies logic…. I suppose if insurance companies no longer had to pay for government mandates for certain coverages (Medicare, you will recall has huge gaps in its coverage levels) and if they didn’t have to reserve premium for future claims and if they didn’t have to pay federal taxes and state premium taxes, maybe then they could compete with a public plan run by the government. Let’s level the playing field Mr President and I agree with your logic. But that’s not what’s going to happen right? Even if the government entity collects premiums as he suggests. Will a public plan pay taxes to each state for premiums? No. Will it pay income tax? No. Will it reserve some of the premium for future claims? No. Will the public plan negotiate with providers for the best rate or simply continue to price fix payments? The latter. All of those things (as those of you know that work with this on a daily basis make up the administrative load on private insurance companies. He continually talks about leveling the playing field but has no concept of how private industry works.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
DD: I stand by what I’ve written. I’m not commenting solely on the current proposal, as you are, but on the ultimate goal to be achieved. This notion that government will ultimately control everything is another talking point. Sure, let’s lower taxes, cut social programs, increase military spending, and rely on competition to solve our economic problems–worked great during the Bush years, didn’t it?
Is there a general recognition that there is an insurance crisis now? Is $517/month (which will continue to rise every year, and when reaching another age group, twice in that year) for an individual policy with a $2000 deductible and 70/30 coverage an acceptable premium? (And how would anyone pay these premium while unemployed?)
Are millions of uninsured acceptable? If this real example helps demonstrate that there is indeed a problem, then how about coming up with a plan to fix it? Where are the alternative plans? Is a 4-page plan an acceptable plan? No, some of you nay-sayers (and how is that productive?) should get real. Understand the real world out there, and how change is needed. Show us something, show us that you care about solving the problem.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Good for you Wendy…you can have the government sponsored doctor educated on some remote island who can’t speak English work on your cancerous liver while those of us who prefer a better option will stick with our current and better trained professionals.
People still come to the USA for treatment not the reverse if you hadn’t noticed. That would change.
No one said life will be fair and stealing from others arbitrarily to make it “fair” (it won’t) for everyone is simply wrong.
For those of us that don’t subscribe to relativism like Obama there is a “right and wrong”
This is wrong.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Jim makes the best point here. Thank you.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Your statements are not based in fact. People do go abroad for better healthcare.
But it’s so easy to argue against something than to come up with ideas on your own; ditto the politicians.
This forum will not solve problems, and it will not sway opinions–it’ll only inflame those who are passionate, and both sides are definitely passionate about their positions. So I think it’s time to move onto another topic, wait for another article to comment on, and continue the same banter. Do you agree?
June 24th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
I believe Jagger had the best idea to go and explore. People who feel entitled will not be swayed as you state. People who are tired of paying for entitlements of others will not be swayed. The naysayers serve a purpose (as they did when Bush was President). When one is talking about enough deficit to sink the country, someone has to say no, thats not a good idea for these reasons. If you were about to step off the curb and be hit by a bus, would you want a naysayer close by to say don’t do that, wouldn’t you?
June 24th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Wendy, you are probably right. It is very hard to change anyone’s perspective on these blog forums. As for being inflamed, no. I know the majority of Americans still believe in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. I know the majority of Americans still believe in the old saying, ” you don’t work, you don’t eat” and ” there is no such think as a free lunch”.
I also know that most Americans want a government that “governs” not run their lives. Obama is on a power trip. I think he wants to be the “President of the World”……….could be wrong, but that is how it appears to me. As he was someone who has never run a business, never met a payroll, never did much of anything except spend other people’s money, I knew what to expect. Too bad so many of you were fooled.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
“As he was someone who has never run a business, never met a payroll, never did much of anything except spend other people’s money, I knew what to expect.”
As opposed to Bush who bankrupted every business he was ever given to run . . . oh wait, he did that to the country too. I knew what to expect – too bad so many of YOU were fooled by him.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Okay so where in the constitution does it say we are to be ruled (not governed as you say) by CZARS who report only to Obama and no one else? No scutiny about their appointment or oversight.
Obama has made it clear he wants to RULE not Govern. When you realize THAT fact you can better understand what he is doing.
Right now we have more CZARS (Webster defines the word as “King”) than Russia managed to have in 400 years (21) in less than 6 months. It is hitting you in the face but you can’t see it.
The guy never had a job for crying out loud and it shows. He is still blaming and disrespecting others for problems he is now solely responsible for – that shows an extreme lack of leadership and poor judgement which in short order will be apparent to everyone except the clinically dead.
He is just so full of himself and can’t even handle the legitimate criticism from Fox News (not Hannity) who reports good and bad unlike the All Barack Channel and Now Barack Channel. You have to give it to Bush when he came out in criticism last week of some of the Obama policy – it was far from the rude, disrespectful and hate filled speech coming from the White House – no class from the gaff a minute crowd.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Again – Off the track kids. We’re now down to politics alone, and any good ideas that were going to be put on the table as far as health care costs that affect our workplaces have been said. Perhaps the politics arguements can go to another venue as they don’t directly apply to this topic?
June 24th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
To Lynn: You’re right, we’re off into the political arena again, but I’ve been “chastised” before for commenting that our discussions are getting too political, being told that that’s all it boils down to: politics! It appears easier to avoid social issues (because they don’t have any solutions, ideas or answers), and turn it into a tirade against the current administration. I wish we could just address how to help those who need help!
June 24th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
I don’t see, Lynn or Wendy, how politics can be divorced from the subject. As I posted yesterday, when my grandfather was working, there was no health insurance. There was no “right” to health insurance. People got sick, people died. People paid their own way and charity was substantial in those days to help others. There was no crisis. Now we have political parties declaring rights to things that were never part of this country’s history and not part of the Constitution. It is valid to argue the politics of the issue because it is political. Unlike our parents and theirs, we’ve over-extended ourselves keeping up with the Jones, we haven’t saved for emergencies and when they happen, we expect others to pay for them. That’s not the history of this country.
You can be angry with your respective Presidents as far back as you want to go and blame them for your troubles. Yet we can’t seem to look in the mirror and realize we are the problem, we created the problem and it is we (as individuals) who need to solve the problem. My pocket should not have your hand in it to pay for your entitlements or those you believe belong to others. Do as you grandparents did and those before them. Give to those who you feel deserve your help, but don’t expect or demand that others do the same. Freedom is not having your hand in my pocket.
June 24th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Jim, Very well said, and my opinion entirely.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Jim, DD, Mark 2 and Jagger — Thank you for your comments … my opinions entirely. I still don’t get the tunnel vision and “yes, Obama” (bow) attitude of some.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Politics cannot be divorced from the subject. What this conversation has done has gone from the “health care through employers issue”, and turned totally into a political discussion, history of politics, conservative vs. liberal, whatever…. Back to the issue guys, back to the issue. Politics is not the issue. It only affects the issue. Get to the issue. Focus, focus, focus. Read back… from about 12:30pm on with one minor exception, it doesn’t talk much about health care… just politics. Just trying to move people back to the ORIGINAL subject.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Thanks Lynn – I think I said quite some time ago that Jagger’s idea of removing health care from the employer and government arena is a good starting place. They should have never been in it in the first place. When wages stagnated, employers looked for ways to enhance their position with recruits and existing employees – enter paying for health care insurance. Because it has become political and a “right” it needs to be removed from that solution arena altogether and we need to return to a sense of people being responsible for their own destiny, unless we are talking about changing the Constitution. The government is not my Shepard. Employers should be allowed to compensate their employees any way they choose and in a manner they can afford.
June 24th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
It is amazing to me that none of the Obama plans even mentioned removing it from the Employers. The biggest thing wrong with that (other than the entitlement thing) is losing your insurance when you leave your job. Even if it is an early retirement, or going into business for yourself. You start over again, and you better hope you do not have a “condition”. You can keep your insurance for a time, through Cobra, but that eventually runs out. If you are a health concious person, and have never used your insurance much, you SHOULD be able to get lower priced (lower risk) insurance, just like with your car if you have remained accident free. If, for some reason, be it unhealthy habits or just bad DNA, your insurance nay go up in price. If it gets too bad, seek help, but don’t think you are entitled to cheaper insurance just because — you don’t think that way about your car insurance. You know if you drive badly and get into accidents – your insurance will go up.
The other thing is the Tort Reform which the Obama crew will not consider either. This is what makes me wonder if they really want to help the people, or if they just want to help themselves. Don’t do anything that would take work away from the LAWYERS. ( It is hard not to get Political, isn’t it.)
June 24th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
But I think your idea Jagger of people getting their own insurance makes it portable and thus solves the in between jobs and job change, periods of unemployment or self employment. Wouldn’t that work if the pool is large enough, say a state for example. That size pool should make insurance affordable for all in the state.
Hard not to be political. You can always be political at my place – you know how to get there. All I ask there is you be polite to you fellow poster.
Tort reform must be addressed but lawyers were big political supporters, just like unions – can’t bite the hand that feeds you. We also need to address lobbyist and PACs and union contributions that lead to slanted policies rather than those good for all.
June 25th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Thank you Jim for a very insight article. I entirely agree with it, especially your comment about how today’s people differ from their parents & grandparents, in that “we’ve over-extended ourselves keeping up with the Jones, we haven’t saved for emergencies and when they happen, we expect others to pay for them.” So true, and incredibly sad.
June 25th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Some financial insight…Charlie Rangel from NYC (the guy with 4 rent controlled apartments, a lincoln to drive him around his 12 block district and who writes tax law but can’t understand his own tax bill and avoids paying his own…that guy) professed on the news that the same arguments against Medicare were heard years ago (who will pay for it) as they are now for Universal Healthcare.
What Mr Rangel forgot to mention was the $47 Billion currently in unsecured liabilities outstanding for the program……the OMB indicates this boondoggle will run upwards of $3.7 Trillion in debt!
Since Obama and Rangel don’t worry about healthcare since it is free for life and never paid into it as employers either….they have no concept whatsoever about how individuals will feel.
Obama indicates that the costs will be “reapportioned” to pay for preventative measures which means those requiring procedures and over 62 – can go pound salt. He is using this as a tool to enlist illegals (oh those poor uninsured again) and the impressionable young people who haven’t studied history in school…..into his army of the communist zombies.
No need for personal responsibilities….the government will now make you thin because all the fat food will be outlawed…..how utopian…..how fallacious and narcissistic. Gee, even his election and healthcare army, ACORN is changing their name all of a sudden to avoid the bad press of the multiple indictments for fraud. Once again…all talk in generalities and no facts from his infomertial on ABC last night…..heck even Bush looks better by the day…luckily weak presidents like this have one thing in common – one term.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Tort reform? I hope we are not saying that people harmed by medical malfeasance have fewer rights than those hurt through other sources.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Thanks Mark. Just to put this into perspective (based on the May report from the Social Security & Medicare Trustees):
Taxpayers are on the hook for Social Security and Medicare by these amounts: Social Security, 1.3% of GDP; Medicare part A, 2.8% of GDP; Medicare part B, 2.8% of GDP; and Medicare part D, 1.2% of GDP. This adds up to 8.1% of GDP. Thus federal income taxes for every taxpayer would have to rise by roughly 81% to pay all of the benefits promised by these programs under current law over and above the payroll tax.
That’s a problem of enormous proportion in and of itself and a bit off topic. Yet, we have proposals on the table for a government plan that adds yet more burden and debt to each and every one of you. The performance of both Social Security & Medicare should be an indicator to you of how a government entity providing health insurance to all citizens would operate. Medicare already has huge gaps in it relative to coverage and our seniors can not often get to doctors because they will not accept price-fix reimbursements for their services. Unless the government forces them to participate in a public plan (very un-American), a public plan would have the same disadvantages as Medicare with respect to available doctors, coverage and cost.
The total unfunded liability of these two government programs comes to a whopping $106 trillion dollars, about double the nations private net worth. We’ve promised the elderly (and those of us who will be elderly soon) more than twice what we are currently worth in “retirement” payments and medical care. Think about that for awhile and then ask yourself if you want another social welfare program called public health insurance on top of those two. I think not.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:29 am
I watched the Informercial last night too. Tried to have an open mind. My “liberal leaning” daughter was watching with me, and she pointed out that he was not answering any of the questions. Just hedging around them. Did you hear anything new? I thought ABC did an OK job, though, Cudo’s for them. An improvement would be for each questioner to be able to have a rebuttle question. Then maybe they could press for an answer, or at least point out to Obama that he didn’t answer the question.
For all the retoric last night, I didn’t think he did a very good job of explaining the reasoning behind the Public portion of the Health Care mix. He wants that because he thinks it will be one step closer to Single Payer, which is what he really wants, and thinks he can get it, one step at a time. Like I said before, he is a patient man.
He wants it both ways. He wants Single Payer, but he also wants Employers to do the work. I don’t think he can have it both ways. He talks about Employers as the “group” that can get better rates, but that is just an excuse. Employers do the bulk of the paper shuffling and front the money. (For free!)
I listened all night for some mention of Tort Reform. NONE. We need to call all the Congressmen and start asking for Tort Reform. Get it out there. Educate the public as to what it is and what it would mean toward bringing health care costs down. Free up the Doctors somewhat from the fear that they will face a lawsuit if they “leave out a test” that they decide is a “duplication” or “probably not revelant”. It could be as simple as negotiating a waiver.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:39 am
The ideology of “liberal” or “conservative” is not what will fix our health care issues. First and foremost we must make some decisions. Is health care a right or a privelege? How much personal responsibility should each society member have? What will be the consequences of those who don’t take responsibility for some aspect of their own health? What items will not be covered and what will be covered? How much are we willing to spend on health care per person?
Until we make these decisions, it doesn’t matter if our health care is market-based, government- funded or a combination of the two. Americans have an “all or nothing” mentality about everything. That’s why we still drive around like oil is $20 a barrel and in infinite supply. I’ve said before, I don’t have the answer to this, but the answer will not be found in political posturing on either side.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
I think when we talk about tort reform, we’re talking about the predatory practices of trial lawyers. Trial lawyers, along with unions, are the biggest contributors to the Democratic party so any reform will not be forth coming. The President talks about fixing whats wrong with the system yet he will not touch this problem which needs fixing. Texas legislators – brave souls that they are – recently endured some 900 bills and $9M in lobbying attempts to increase lawsuits in the state including a bill requiring recovery for “phantom damages”. Since the legislators in Texas only meet every other year for a few months, they are not entrenched politicians. They said no in the face of fierce lobbying. The linkage between a bad outcome and malpractice is tenuous at best – in many cases all that could be done was done yet a suit still follows. Uncapped damages makes as much sense as 100% medical coverage.
Agree with you Janice yet the solutions on the table are political. And it will be politicians developing and voting on the “fixes”. The questions you ask are good ones yet they will not be asked by those we elected before “reform” is voted on. The agenda has already been set – the outcome, as Jagger has described previously is already determined. The naysayers are simply trying to stop a train that has already left the station.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
By the way, I don’t view health insurance as a “privilege” any more than car insurance or homeowners insurance. Freedom is a right, free speech is a right, voting is a right…. these are inherent. A privilege is something conditional that may be given to a subset of people for a special purpose.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Last one here……Mr Obama has stated we are “out of money” to fund such a program….but then he says he will “level the playing field” (read: make us all poor people except his elite) and reapportion the existing monies to provide more care for those without…..that means “ration” coverage.
In a way it sounds fair that everyone receive poor care all around but speaking with recent emigrees from eastern Europe where this type of program is in effect leaves me no doubt about the black market payment to doctors for simple procedures not allowed under the Obama Plan….the emigrees were aghast at what was taking place here saying there was “nowhere else to go”……they experienced the black market payment to doctors….. nothing is perfect, nothing is totally fair but we have the best there is. Tweak it don’t replace it.
June 26th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
I’ve seen some pretty hard spin in my years, but this “report” raises the bar for other would be spinsters out there. Anyone with an ounce of logic knows that what is being proposed will only increase costs, ration health care, or both.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Health Care reform can not happen until someone takes on the ugly task of defining exactly “what health care coverage is”. That is, what exactly is going to be covered and what is not. Until then, millions of dollars and precious time will be waisted. There is definitely going to be rationed care. There is definitely going to be the haves and the have nots in the breadth of coverage. The haves will still be the wealthy who can afford the cost of the extra life saving treatments that the basic coverage will not cover. At best, the rest of the population will have the basics. Health Care reform is going to leave everyone dissatisfied. Not enough and all to expensive.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I agree with you Sharon – but a Kaiser survey shows 89% of people are currently satisfied with the care they get – even the vast majority of the “unisured” are happy with their care. So why reform?
I think it the private market to determine what insurance will cover when it comes to health, just the same as it is with any other insurance. We all assume we are entitled to unlimited coverage when neither we, nor the government – which is us, nor private insurers can afford to do so. Having a government body like NICE in the UK rationing or deciding what drugs or procedures are or are not to be provided to the public has not solved the problem or improved outcomes – it has simply capped costs. As long as everyone thinks they have a “right” to health care at someone else’s expense, we’ll never solve the problem. Those who can will always have more than those who don’t and in my view its not the something that a government should decide. A government should provide equal opportunity to all but never equal achievement. Redistribution of wealth, be it cash, health care, housing, retirement, etc… is not what this country is about.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Even if we end up with basic coverage for everyone, we’ll have a good start. There are “haves” and “have nots” in our society–we are capitalists, and therefore those who can make the bucks can purchase the best that money can buy.
I don’t see it as rationed care, but as a type of tiered care. Rationing implies that everyone ends up with a fixed amount. Tiered care would cover the basics for the uninsured, provided by a public option, and those who can afford more would purchase better coverage through private insurers. Why are so many intimidated by a public plan option? If we have a choice, and that’s always been on the table, why do so many feel that that’ll be the end of private insurance companies? The “haves” will still purchase premium coverage anyway, which will keep the private insurance companies ever-profitable. Why is there so much protective language surrounding medical insurance companies anyway? They are the bureaucracy between the patient and the provider, and their power needs to be checked by competition.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Wendy- Rationing does not mean “everyone ends up with a fixed amount.” It means that some body of the government will decide “who gets” and “who does not get” a drug, a treatment, a procedure, etc. in the name of cost reduction and management. If you read what Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm Emanuel’s brother–one of the brains behind universal healthcare and Obama) has said, if someone will no longer be a contributing member to this society, doctors and insurance companies need to let him or her go as it’s not worth the investment. (Meaning, if you are too old, or too sick, or you are terminally ill, be prepared as you will be out of luck for health care! You may have health coverage but no health care!).
The national plan will not achieve competition or options when the one establishing the mandates and rules is the government. The government will always fund and favor its own plan to the demise of the private plans; private insurance companies will be struggling to meet the tight mandates set out by the government, and in the end competition will be reduced and possibly destroyed. Private companies will be at a disadvantage and, as you can well see with this administration, the government will always fund their plan from stimulus money, taxes, etc. Private insurance will not stand a chance. Furthermore, employers will need to make choices and in the face of private plans which will cause them additional taxes by the government for having these plans, they will gradually drop private insurance options from employer benefits until most employees will be on the government plan. Do you still think this is competition and progress?
July 9th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Look up the definition of “ration.” (”A fixed portion.” )
I question that all those poor private insurance companies would need protection against competition. They’re the entities who have been profiting the most. I don’t recollect the salaries and bonuses and stock options collected by the CEOs of the insurance companies, but they are far from suffering.
Where are the alternate ideas to single-payor or public option coverage? What was in that 4-page document presented by the Senate Minority Leader a few months ago? Do they have a better idea? The bottom line is we need to provide basic coverage for those who have none, because we are facing a health care crisis in this country, and those who don’t acknowledge it must have their heads in the sand. Premiums that are unaffordable, pre-existing conditions (asthma, high blood pressure, heart murmurs, simple kidney infections–major as well as minor medical problems so many Americans have which they can’t be “faulted” for) that lead to denial of any coverage at all, and outrageous prescription prices are heaped upon those who are also now unemployed due to layoffs. More and more employers are dropping medical insurance as a benefit. I don’t believe that we should “just say no!” To me, that’s akin to “let them eat cake!” It solves nothing, and we do have a significant problem to solve (or take steps towards solving).
July 10th, 2009 at 7:27 am
Again I must ask what the crisis is?
As I have written before, when my grandfather was alive and working, there was no health insurance. He, like everyone else, paid for his health out of his own pocket. Costs rose, people died, some people couldn’t cover their bills – there was charity a plenty in those days. There was no moral imperative to provide health insurance – that was life for the majority of our countries history. Now, somehow, it has become a crisis and a moral imperative. Why? What happen between my grandfather’s time and now. You can only argue that this is a crisis or that we need to cover everyone with insurance at the taxpayer’s expense if you come from a position of entitlement. I’m entitled to healthcare – its my right and you must pay for it. I guess I’m trying to understand why in 1950 when people got sick and died it was a tragedy but not a crisis. Some people couldn’t afford the latest drug or treatment and they didn’t live as long. It wasn’t a crisis nor was it a moral imperative that everyone pay for my grandfather’s health care. If he were alive today, he’d shake his head at all of you and probably ask you where is your sense of personal responsibility? Since when did my problems become yours?
Entitlement – I must have a house even though I can’t afford it (so you give me a loan Fannie & Freddie); I must not pay more than $2.50/gallon for gas because its too expensive to fill the gas guzzler I just had to have (and I can’t afford it); I must have my medical problems paid for by insurance companies or the government because I can’t afford it (I bought too many things on credit and I’ve saved nothing and I’m over-extended); I must send my child to that private college that costs lots more than the public college cause Johnny wants it, so the government must help me pay for it; I think I’ll go to McDonald’s and have that triple cheese burger for the third time this week even though I’m overweight and will spend the evening on the couch (and oh yeah – when I get diabetes, cardiac and vascular problems and my blood pressure goes through the roof – I want national health insurance to pay for the results) – I could go on, but you get my drift. We are a nation of free-loaders, passengers, expecting everyone else to pull the weight while we ride.
July 10th, 2009 at 7:35 am
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people. … The friendliness and charity of our fellow countrymen can always be relied on to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood. – Grover Cleveland
July 10th, 2009 at 7:48 am
Wendy, you asked for alternatives – they abound for the proactive researcher yet are not covered by the media.
Nationalizing U.S. health care is akin to performing a heart transplant on someone suffering from high cholesterol — and no less risky. If Obamakins really wanted affordable health care for all Americans, I like some of these ideas:
- For Medicare patients, amortize medical reimbursements over 60 months and charge the estates of patients who die within this period half the cost of their unamortized care. Currently, a third of the cost of Medicare goes to treating patients in their last six months of life, and neither the patient nor his physician have any financial incentive to save taxpayer money however dim the prognosis. If an 85 year-old patient requests hip replacement surgery, this approach avoids arbitrary, hard-and-fast rules and gives his physician some discretion if the patient is in otherwise excellent health.
- Require that health insurers charge all smokers, alcoholics and overweight/obese individuals proportionately higher premiums, just as auto insures do with bad drivers. Smoking, drinking and overeating are personal choices.
- Similarly, for those patients with serious preexisting conditions and no insurance, establish a high risk/cost pool and assign each at random to a health insurer relative to the insurer’s market share.
- Offer rebates to those who sign a waiver accepting binding arbitration and caps on health care provider liability.
- Allow health insurers to write basic policies that cover only cancer, cardiovascular disease, and trauma and pay out a lump sum equal to the median cost of treating each diagnostic indication.
- Require medical specialists to charge an all-inclusive, fixed fee for treating a given diagnostic indication and post these fees online along with audited treatment outcome statistics for patients under their care. Patients could also use this forum to post their comments on the quality of care provided. Purchasing health care should be as transparent as purchasing a book on Amazon. The current opaque fee-for-service arrangement that denies patients data on costs and outcomes rewards poor, inefficient medical care.
- Adopt the Oregon approach to control runaway Medicare and Medicaid spending. Annually firm budgets are set which, in turn, determines the diagnostic indications treated. The state does not reimburse physicians for treating trivial cases such as the common cold, ingrown toenails or muscle aches. Nor does it reimburse futile cases where the indicated treatment makes little difference to the outcome.
“If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.” — P.J. O’Rourke
July 10th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Thank you Wendy, I do get concerned when we worry more about insurers and not enough about each other.
We will always need medical services and the employees to see that service is provided and that providers of service are paid. The protection and regard we give to the current bureaucracies (insurers) who pay the bills is surprising to me.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
If any of you is a SHRM member, they have a webcast coming up on this subject…it’s in their
Emerging HR Public Policy Issues Series Webcasts. Seems like a hot issue, so here’s a resource.
Back to the Future: Health Care Reform 15 Years Later
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. (ET)
http://www.shrm.org/multimedia/webcasts/Pages/legislativewebcast.aspx
July 13th, 2009 at 8:36 am
So, since 89% of those surveyed indicated they were satisfied with their current care mean that revamping the health care system is more about control and power by an elite few than freedom.
If it isn’t broke why fix it? It IS however unbelievably expensive if you have to pay for it yourself when you are in a pinch and are unemployed as many are right now. COBRA is not cheap. Paying that makes you appreciate what employers contribute to health care benefits.
Exactly why some people might find a “free” national health care plan an acceptable risk…..and what Obama hopes will help sell his plan – everyone out of work with no health insurance.
Common sense ideas put forth on this site previously are rarely mentioned by legislators whoare just bent on adding pork from 30 years in waiting to any bill to pay off their pals like Pelosi getting 15M to help study some swamp mouse in CA.
What is wrong with insurers being allowed to assess appropriately for those who choose a lifestyle of seriously hazardous recreational pursuits or bad unhealthy habits like smoking, drinking and gluttony. Hazardous occupations? Employer pays more / charges more for services.
Free markets are still the best bet – this reform was tried in Europe and it resulted in black market medical services and in Canada higher death rates from untreated cancers.
Tort reform likely won’t happen because lawyer groups were the #2 contributor to the Obama Campaign (on record) and we have already witnessed in no uncertain terms how he takes care of his campaign contributors. If it did – you might well see rates, redundant tests and costs plummet and doctors practicing medicine and cya.
Stay healthy and don’t get old for the next 8 years.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Make that ….and NOT just CYA.
August 14th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Most of the people posting here are conservatives who voted for John McCain. So their remarks are predictable. Demographic trends are against them and their ideas. Most people under 35 are far more liberal in all areas.
We don’t know what exactly will happen with health care legislation. However, whatever emerges will be a step forward in the right direction. It’s a foundation. It will be far from perfect, but it’s a foundation.
In the long run there will be universal health care for all American citizens regardless of how much money they have. It’s the decent and humane thing to do. Plus, it’s much, much cheaper than the current sick system.
We may not see it. But our grandchildren and great grandchildren definitely will.
August 14th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Thank you, STN for your rational thoughts, and my response to your last comment, “let’s hope so.”
August 14th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Thanks, Wendy. We’re proof that the American business community is not an ideological monolith. I love the free market; it’s brought most of us a very abundant material life. However, I’m not a fanatic about it.
I love air conditioning too; but it doesn’t make my house more comfortable in the dead of winter. No more than my gas furnace makes my house comfortable in August. Everything must be used wisely, with good judgment. Nothing works in every and all situations, under any circumstances, with all people, at any time and place. That’s not thinking. It’s dogma.
There are situations that only the free market can address. There are situations that only a public system can address. (Fire, Police, Military, Libraries to cite just a few of dozens.) Then there are those that require a smart, creative combination of public and private resources. It’s called intelligence and judgment. (Some people call that “COMMUNISM!!!”.)
I’m interested in what’s effective. What is proven to work. Not what I read in my Ayn Rand fairy tales.
I especially enjoyed the woman screaming at her congressman, “KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF OF MY MEDICARE!!!” Most people love Social Security and Medicare. Which is why even the most conservative politicians won’t even talk about getting rid of them. Once people see how vastly superior a public health care program is compared to the horrendous sick system we currently have, they’ll greatly prefer it.
Which is why the insurance companies and the far-right is so hysterical right now. They know this is true. And they know that their only hope is to “kill it”. They won’t win. Despite their screaming, intimidation and death threats. And that’s why they’re so angry.
August 14th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Dear Wendy and STN,
You are corect with your comment that you dont know what will happen with health insurance reform. That is because there is no contract. When I buy insurance on the open market, I know what will be covered and what will not. HR3200 offers no such assurance. It is a 1000+ page list of regulations which are subject to change with each new congress. There is not even a hint of what the personal cost will be and not even a hint of who will fill in the blanks that are left with out definition.
I like to think that most of us prefer to know what it is we are buying and how much it will cost before we jump in. This is nothing but the proverbial Pig in a poke.
What about me , and thousands like me who still pay their doctor with money and do not wish to be insured.
August 14th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
John,
I understand where you are coming from. No one is going to force you to give up the private insurance you have. We’re talking about a voluntary, non-mandatory public health care option.
But remember, it doesn’t really matter what is in your insurance company policy. They will still deny your claim for any reason. They keep the language deliberately vague in order to beat you if a dispute ever got to a courtroom. They have armies of extremely smart, well-paid lawyers who will crush you in most situations. They cancel policies arbitrarily if you get very sick. They raise premiums through the roof for any reason or no reason at all. They often make you pay tens or hundreds of thousands for “out of pocket” costs they refuse to cover. And currently, no one can stop them from doing any of this.
In fact, insurance companies give special bonuses to their employees who can deny the most claims. They don’t exist to take care of people. That’s not their objective. They don’t provide any medical treatment, or make any medical devices or drugs. They are there solely to maximize their gain when you get sick or injured. Nothing else matters to them.
I’m tired of the free-ride they’ve been getting from all other businesses. I want to to see some real competition for this price-fixing, colluding monopoly. And only a public option can provide that.
August 14th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
What flavor of kool-aid are you guys drinking? And why are you back on this blog after all this time? Do I smell ACORN? Get a life.
August 15th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
STN, Sorry to hear about all the tradegies in your personal life. All those claims you had which were not honored and now you are denied coverage. I have had the opposite expierience. I lost a C-46 in the ocean on approach to San Juan…covered, lost a 55 ft sport fisherman in hurricane Andrew .. no problem …covered, lost the building in which I house my current business in hurricane Charlie,,,,no problem…covered. Injured in Austria needed emergency surgery…covered….. got better care than an Austrian though, patients there dont get to choose the procedure they want, they get what they are offered. Good care but no choices. Better to be able to make your own decisions.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Interesting claims STN. Your claim that the right is angry about the ludicrosity of a public option is downright WRONG! The same can be said about the left’s claims that the people against this atrocity are Nazis. What the left is scared of is that people are finally taking their blinders off to the lies of this administration and seeing it for what it really is….socialism. It is just like Norman Thomas said back in the 1944 after he had been defeated 5 times in presidential elections as a member of the then Socialist party.
Quote: “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”
Quote: “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.”
America is realizing that giving in on health care is just another step towards the liberal goal of turning us into a socialist nation. While some Americans may want this, most do not. The majority of Americans are proud of the fact they live in a free country with choices and liberty. They will not stand by and allow those freedoms to be taken away. And yes, they will get angry when those freedoms are threatened.
So, you can continue to accuse the right of being angry or being a mob or whatever you want to call them, but the fact is- They will oppose health care reform that takes away freedom.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:55 am
It is really fruitless to express a viewpoint, because the information is so very twisted. Now it’s the liberals who made the Nazi comparison?? Come on! Let’s get real. Most Americans do want and need a public option–the most vocal don’t represent the majority. You may claim to, but you don’t. If Conseratives and the Far Right represented most Americans, you would have won the election. A public option takes away no one’s freedom–those who can afford and want private insurance can keep theirs, and those who cannot afford or who don’t qualify for private insurance could still get basic coverage. Where’s the loss of freedom here? I can’t understand the convoluted thinking, and the misrepresentations, and the downright hostility of those who are deliberately disrupting discourse at town hall meetings. No need to shout–listen to what’s being said, ask questions, and if you don’t like what you hear, then express your thoughts without stepping on others’ rights to be heard. Are you saying that the anger we see at these meetings, and on FoxNews isn’t from those on the right? When you spin everything that’s said or communicated, you lose credibility with both parties.
August 17th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Wendy, Wendy, Wendy………I feel so bad for people like you who simply listen to our President and nothing else. President Obama did not write this bill, and to hear him talk, I don’t think he knows what is in it. Either that, or he can’t understand it. And you are being misled if you think the majority of Americans want a Government option to health care. Doesn’t MSNBC or CNN keep you up to date on the Ras polls? Your own Senator say there are not enough #’s in the Senate to pass HR3200, so there is no sense “continueing to chase that rabbit” was his own words. And do you, like so many others I have talked to think that a Public Offering would be free? You really should get more educated and you wouldn’t make so many stupid comments. And as far as the “shouting” at the town halls is concerned, we will do what ever it takes to save the America we know and love. We are angry. We are angry when we see this Administration cram bills down our throats to “transform” America. We happen to like it the was it was created by our Founding Fathers. And we will fight to keep it that way, even if we have to raise our voices to do it.
August 17th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Jagger! Your wisdom is needed over at: http://www.hrmorning.com/where-health-reform-stands-now/
Sorry Wendy, but the latest polls say on a third of Americans support the current versions of “reform” and more than half want no reform passed.
The problem, of course, is that the President lost control of this one by being vague about what reform meant and gave it to Congress to figure out. They did one thing, he says another. Not good for credibility.
I believe it was Hilary Clinton that said….“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
And to be clear, polls show many people on the left are opposed to this reform boondoogle and more are moving in that direction daily. Polls today show 52% of Americans think no reform should be passed – only a third of Americans think this should be done. Obviously, unless the “right” has grown in numbers, the “left” is joining them in increasing numbers.
Odd that when Acorn disrupts meetings, busts into private meetings and is in people’s face, the media is silent. Perhaps because of their connection to the President? Hypocritical at best.
August 17th, 2009 at 11:30 am
The far right has been very effective in overpowering logic and reason with fear tactics. Acorn? What are you talking about?
Yes, debate and disagree. Disrupt? No. Spread lies and misrepresentations? I guess people have the freedom to do that, but I consider that immoral. I’m sorry, but you lost the election! You want to keep the America you know and love. Which America? with millions unemployed, uninsured, living below the poverty lines, with homes in foreclosure? Surely that’s not your America. You’re doing okay, and the threat of change terrifies you. What you have won’t change–why don’t you listen to what’s being proposed?? Don’t you know there aren’t even bills yet on the floor???
That’s fine, some people fear change. But what’s your solution, big talkers? Trickle down economics? Sorry, if that’s the America you know and love, it hurt more than it helped, and everyone knows that.
August 17th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Wendy makes an important point – Barack Obama won this election and during the campaign he promised health care reform. And guess what? The people voted for him!!! The most decisive election in a long time. He wasn’t placed into office by the Supreme Court after voting discrepencies in a state where his brother was governor. Not like 2004 when it again came down to one state and a slim 51%-48% margin – the election couldn’t even be called until the next day when Kerry decided not to dispute possible voting fraud in Ohio. No, Obama won 53%-46% with an electoral victory of 365-173. Not only that, voters decisively gave Democrats control of both the House and Senate. I’d call that a mandate! So you can pull what ever polls out of your whatever, but the people want CHANGE. They voted for it and Obama is going to give it to us. And good for Wendy and whoever else is listening to what Obama has to say. He is one of the most intelligent, compassionate leaders we ever had (thank God after the last 8 years), with an incredible grasp of the problems facing the country and the will to make the necessary changes. Thank you God!
August 17th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Hmmmm. you see fear only one way don’t you.
What do you think you are doing? You are reacting to fear that if the current system continues, you won’t have health care, it will consume the economy, we won’t recover from the worse recession since the depression and on and on.
Do your homework on Acorn and their attacks – it’s not hard. Also remember this president trained Acorn people to protest, disrupt, etc… His campaign also donated nearly $1M to them. When they break into meetings and disrupt federal reserve meetings, city council meetings, etc… no one seems to mind. When someone goes to a townhall meeting to voice their opinion (whatever it may be), its a crime. free speech is a two way street unless you are the administration or the media.
I didn’t lose the election Wendy – I voted for neither candidate. I thought Libertarians deserved a shot. And I agree with Jagger – I like the way this country was founded – not the way social engineers, progressives and liberals have tried to change it. There is no constitutional basis for government running any commerce, social security, the war on poverty, medicare, etc… All gross failures by people who think government is the answer.
Sorry Mary, but polls as of today show that whatever mandate this president and this congress had are gone. Only 1/3 of the people want reform now – more than 1/2 say don’t do it. That sounds like a pretty clear mandate. 53% think the next Preisent will be a Republican. 44% will vote for any republican that runs in their district in the next election – only 37% will vote for a democrat. Mandates – easy come, easy go.
August 17th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Barack Obama did not win the election because he promised HR3200. He campaigned on “You should have the same insurance the Congress and the President have” not a single payer plan, which is what he prefers for us (Not him, mind you, but US!) Thanks but no thanks. And if you want to be really honest, you will admit the real reason he won is because he is an African-American. I liked that part too, but not enough to vote for his liberal agenda, and I had a hard time getting past the Chicago Machine that he was coming from. Guess I was right.
August 17th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
There is no response to such an IDIOTIC statement. Go back under your rock and get off our HR site.
August 17th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
It’s really meaningless to contribute to this string–for all of you on the right, and all of us on the left. It accomplishes nothing. We are preaching to our own choirs, really, convincing no one, supporting only each other’s philosophies, but what we do accomplish is stir up our emotions, making the need to respond almost addictive. This is a waste of time for each and every one of us at this point, and it’s time to move on, and get back to work at whatever we do during the day, anything but this.
August 17th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
DD, you wrote, “So, you can continue to accuse the right of being angry or being a mob or whatever you want to call them, but the fact is- They will oppose health care reform that takes away freedom.”
Undoubtedly, DD. And also, undoubtedly, they’re going to lose. For all of their noise, threats and bluster, these people are in the minority. They’re outnumbered—and that’s one of the reasons they’re so angry.
Significant changes are coming in health care, DD. I’m glad. You’re not. But you lost last November and elections have consequences. Sorry. You’re going to lose on this issue.
August 17th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
That is why I wondered why to started it up again, after 2 months. Shame on you. Did you think you could continue to do the same thing but get different results? Thats Crazy.
August 17th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Thirty-five percent (35%) of American voters say passage of the bill currently working its way through Congress would be better than not passing any health care reform legislation this year. However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that most voters (54%) say no health care reform passed by Congress this year would be the better option.
Not surprisingly, there is a huge partisan divide on this issue. Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats say passing the legislation in Congress would be the best course of action. However, 80% of Republicans take the opposite view. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 23% would like the Congressional reform to pass while 66% would rather the legislators take no action.
As the public has become more engaged in the debate over health care reform, support for the Congressional reform plans has fallen to new lows. Just 42% of U.S. voters now favor the plan while 53% are opposed. Those who oppose the effort feel more strongly about it.
From the beginning of the debate, voters have indicated support for the concept of health care reform and for some of the specific ideas that have been suggested. However, they are skeptical about what has been presented thus far in Congress. One reason is skepticism about Congress itself. By a two-to-one margin, voters believe that no matter how bad things are Congress could always make it worse.
There are also concerns about the timing. While Democrats consider health care reform the top priority for the President, Republicans and unaffiliated voters see deficit reduction as more important.
As for the protesters at congressional town hall meetings, 49% believe they are genuinely expressing the views of their neighbors, while 37% think they’ve been put up to it by special interest groups and lobbyists. One surprising by-product of the debate over changing the system is that confidence in the U.S. health care system has grown over the past few months. That may be because when it comes to health care decisions, 51% fear the government more than they fear private insurance companies. Forty-one percent (41%) hold the opposite view.
Cost, not universal coverage, is the top priority for most voters and 54% favor middle class tax cuts over new spending on health care.
One reason that the President has been careful to distinguish between his idea of health care reform and a single payer system is that just 32% favor Single-Payer health care while 57% are opposed.
The debate has taken its toll on perceptions of the President. Just 45% now give Obama good or excellent ratings as a leader. That’s down 19 points since January. Dreams of a post-partisan nation have also faded. Sixty-seven percent (67%) now expect politics to become even more partisan over the next year. That’s up from 55% a month ago and from 40% when Obama took office. Most now believe the President is governing as a partisan Democrat.
August 17th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Wendy, Mary, and STN: Thanks for the comments and especially the reminder that “we” lost the election. You see, when Obama was elected “we” all lost. It is just some of us realized it sooner than others. I can tell by your comments that you are in favor of a socialized America. However, I truly believe that most of America is not. The majority of Americans enjoy the freedoms that they grew up with. They are happy with an America that allows them to make choices. That includes choices in health care, the vehicles they drive, the type of energy they use, and yes, even if they should believe and agree with the president. They are not going to sit idly by and watch those freedoms slowly erode. Many of the people who voted for Obama are realizing the mistake they made and are wishing they could take it back. But, as the liberal socialists like to remind us, elections do have consequences. Some of these can be stopped and some of them can be reversed. We can only hope to minimize the damage and hold on to our freedoms long enough to correct the mistakes that are made. If you are so in favor of government ran health care, then move to a country where they have it. It won’t take long for you to want what we now have. Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried. Americans are smart enough to know it when they see it and they are not going to let it be tried and fail here without a fight.
So, while you may be ready to just dismiss us with a “you lost the election there is no reason to discuss this further.” We are not going to go away quietly and we will remind you that “Elections do have consequences.”
August 17th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Is there a way to just get to the crux of the problem? Some people have no health care. And most of us believe health care is too expensive. 2 things. 2 very specific problems. I’m not conservative or liberal, and I’ve got to say, the conservatives didn’t do much on this subject when they had a shot at it. In the past most liberals didn’t either. I think Obama wants a solution, and while I don’t agree with the current plan, I appreciate that people are trying. Can we just stop there, and look for a solution instead of bickering about who likes who, and which poll says what?
People don’t want single payer plan because they are afraid the government will do a bad job, and our health care will be lousy, and it will cost too much. So why not let the government sponsor a plan, and let the private sector keep their plans, and see which one comes out best? Let competition stand. Let the government sponsored plan stand against the others and see if it comes out on top. And if an employer doesn’t want to provide health care, then people can jump on the government plan band-wagon. Make it stand on it’s own, not using vehicles that are required or mandated to use it.
Here’s something I haven’t figured out. If they are going to have health care for everyone, and if medicare and medicaid are so good, why are we not talking about expanding that program for the poor, unemployed, and working non-covered? Why do we need two different ones? I assume it’s cost, but would it really cost more than what we’re talking about?
Lynn
August 17th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Okay, one more time. The word for the day is “option.” Public “Option.” That’s a choice people can make, whether to keep their own private insurance (for those who are lucky to have it and to be able to afford it), or to buy in to a government offering, to join those who aren’t that lucky. That’s one example of misleading and fear-mongering. No one has ever said, ever said that the government will “take over” health care. Yet that’s all we hear from The Sky Is Falling crowd. And the death panels–what nonsense. Medicare already allows for advance directives, except now they were going to help pay the doctors for the time spent in counseling. Wonderful! Yet look how that was distorted.
Freedoms eroding–whose? What are you talking about? Patriotism, loving America, saving America from the devil, from the Communists, from the Socialists, we’re offering options, take it or leave it. But you’ll have a spin to it, because you believe the lies and the talking points, even when they make absolutely no sense. Options!!! No one is questioning the choice we made for President. We’re still here–you better believe it!
August 17th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
I agree with Lynn. I’ve heard of the concept of expanding Medicare to younger age groups, in increments over the years, and increasing the wage/asset limitations of Medicaid. Most agree–we need to do something. Reform of some kind is in the wind.
August 17th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
The whole issues of the public option is really where some of the argument comes in. If you ask a democratic senator (Jim McDermont for example), he reads the clause about whether its’ optional like this: Yes it’s optional, no a company does not need to abandon it’s private health care plans. It’s just that the standards that those private health care plans must meet in 5 years is a standard that is regulated by the government. Like many other things the government regulates… food standards, car emmissions, environmental standards etc.
If you ask a conservative one about it, they read what’s in the text, and it says in 5 years a company must be on a government approved plan. The wording is where it gets problematic…. the people who care need to clarify before any of us have anything to fight over. Instead of fighting over why it’s bad or good, we need to clarify what it means exactly. Maybe there’s not a fight to be had.
Lynn
August 17th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
If you listen to Obama, especially the things he said prior to and during the election, he wants to do away altogether with Private Insurance. He stated during a speech with the AFL-CIO that he realizes America will not go for it all at once. It will have to happen over time. No matter what they tell us this bill is about, it truly is about taking away private insurance and going to a completely government controlled health care system. It truly is about taking away another one of our freedoms, our freedom of choice in choosing our health care provider and our health care decisions. If you believe anything otherwise, then you are being duped.
August 17th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
DD, Find that quote in its entirety where Obama talks about doing away with Private Insurance–that’s the way to get at the facts. And not a fraction of the sentence, even if there were a reference to it–so don’t quote “…want to do away with private healthcare…” taken from part of the sentence, such as “Some might want to do away with private healthcare, but that’s not and never has been my goal.” The truth to what you say would be realized if you can identify the text from a speech, or writing, where he actually said that he wants to do away with private healthcare.
Too many interpret what they think they hear based on their own perspectives of the issue, rather than what they actually hear, because the ability to truly listen is a skill.
August 17th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Hi Lynn, you are starting to make sense. Clarification is the key. I know a lot of people who have delved into these “words” and that is what is so scary. And it is what they DON”T say that is scary too.
But DD is right on the money. Did you see the videos from the closed meetings that were not supposed to be released? Probably not if you only watch MSNBC…….but it was all spelled out about how this would have to be done in increments, because the American people would not swallow it all at once.
ANd Medicare and Medicaid is not GOOD. It is BANKRUPT and costing taxpayers more money each year. Only the benefits of Medicare and Medicaid are appreciated. Because they are cheap. But, the seniors have paid into the program all their working years, so it is like Prepaid for them. However, like other Ponsi schemes, it eventually catches up —- and it has, and we don’t know if it is because the money taken in taxes was just put in the General Fund, like Social Security, and used for other things, or if it was kept separate (big laugh here) and invested as insurance should be to create the money to pay the claims. If the Government stated taxes us for health insurance, would they really treat it as insurance, or would it be just another avenue to take our money and use it for who knows what. Then when claims needed to be paid, we could just print more money to pay them???? I for one, don’t want to take that chance.
August 17th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Wendy, you are confusing two different speeches. The most recent one in a speech given while he was trying to convince people that reform is needed. He said he didn’t want to do away with it. The speech that I”m referring to was given during the campaign. He was addressing the AFL-CIO, obviously a group he was comfortable telling the truth to. Which do you believe? Either way, it proves he is a liar that cannot be trusted. He either lied to the AFL-CIO or he is lying to the public.
August 17th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
DD–What?? I’m not confusing anything! I’m asking you to provide actual quotes of any of the speeches (I don’t care which one), and to be sure to not take pieces or a series of words that might be taken out of context. I’m asking you to be specific–what exactly (direct quotes) did President Obama say in that speech to the AFL-CIO? Provide the actual quotes where he says he wants to do away with private healthcare.
August 17th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Wendy- Sorry if I insulted your intelligence. I realize that you think you are right. However, in this case you are just misinformed and like so many other Americans, you have been misled. Don’t feel bad…it happens.
Anyway, you could have just googled it and gotten a large number of hits, but to save you time, here is a link-
http://digg.com/politics/Obama_Says_Goal_is_to_Eliminate_Private_Insurance
Here is the quote-
Shocking video uncovered of Obama, admitting in his own words, that his goal is to completely eliminate private health insurance: “…but I don’t think we are going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s gonna be potentially some transition process, I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out…”
It really is way past time for America to see the truth behind this debacle. It is all about control. Obama wants to control our lives and our health care, which is just another step in the process of turning us into a socialist country.
August 17th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
CEO of Whole Foods on ObamaCare
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html
Ronald Reagan on Socialism and Healthcare
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs
August 17th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
Obama speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO, June 30, 2003.
(available on YouTube)
August 17th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I saw the video, and I again ask…where’s the full text (and not taken out of context), where he says he’s going to eliminate private insurance? Not snippets, not edited text or video, but the entire train of thought. Again, this is edited material. Provide even the paragraph in which the sound bite lays! I maintain and adamantly believe that you can take any selection of words from anything someone says or writes, and twist it (spin it) to mean anything you want it to. Let’s be honest about what you and these videos are doing. Show me the speech he has given, and point out exactly where he says he will eliminate private health insurance!!! You can’t do it, because a piece of a speech, taken out of context, is dirty politics. I could do the same with anything Bush said, or the people you highly regard for that matter. That’s what’s wrong with “news” today–sound bites, not real news, manipulated to infer exactly the opposite of its true intent.
August 17th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Wow Wendy…now you really are showing your unabashed loyalty to Obama. I mean…what part of “I plan to eliminate private health care” do you not understand? Out of context, in context, dirty politics, whatever….if you want to see the video, just google it. The truth is you don’t want to know the truth.
August 17th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Thanks Not Deceived…that Reagan video is bone chilling. It should scare everyone to the point of saying no to whatever this adminstration has to propose.
August 17th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Holy cow, amazing – which part of “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” is difficult for you?
And “A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
August 17th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Again, we’re into “he said/she said” and we miss the point. Obama can change his mind. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. I don’t think anybody can argue his preference is single payer, but he has also recently said he may have to accept something that is not single payer in order to get to “done”. Let’s do the same. Instead of going backward, let’s go forward. OK, so if in 2003 he wanted single payer, and now he wants single pay but has accepted he may need to look at other options, that’s not a bad thing, it’s progress. SO, go back to the issues and how we solve them. How do we get from where we currently are to where we need to be? I’d suggest looking at alternate futures. I sound a little like a sci-fi-geek saying that, but lets go there. Regurgitating the past isn’t helping us get to the end. But if I see a future world where everyone is covered, employers aren’t forced to be on a government plan, the government plan competes against the private plans, making all plans better, and there is FISCAL responsibility on the government’s part to get us there… NOW – which part of that do we need to work on? My guess is the fiscally responsible piece.
August 17th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Yes, Wendy, I am afraid you are denying the truth. Don’t worry, honey, we will do all we can to save you.
August 17th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
It’s not difficult to see that yes Jim you are a complete imbecile. We get it. You don’t have to keep reminding us. Universal Health Care is not the answer. Now go back to sleep.
August 17th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Lynn, You are striving to be non-partisan, which is great, but if you have not disected this bill, you can’t possible know of all the evil hidden it it. The President DID NOT write it. A committe of liberal democrats did, including Nancy Pelosei. It is really BAD!! Scary Bad! It gives the Government control over our LIVES! Our finances, our decisions on operations, everything.
Let me direct you to page 265 of the bill — says Government mandates and controls productivity for private health care industries. –Mandates and controls!!! those are key words that are used thoughout this BIll. So it is more than just public option vs private insurance. This is just the first step. We CAN’T go down that path. EVER.
August 17th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
zzzzzzzzzzzz
August 17th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
imbecile [im-biss-eel]
Noun
1. Informal – an extremely stupid person
2. Old-fashioned – a person of abnormally low intelligence
August 17th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Single party payor does not mean that it’s the only choice available–you commentors are really something. Shocking video!! Give me a break. Where’s the full text of what he said? What if he said, “There’s no way do I plan to eliminate private health care!” I can’t say it enough…You are really something. What the government plan would do is provide an option.
Scary bill!!! Ooh, be very afraid!
August 17th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Oh yes it does my little one. It appears there is a lot you don’t know. You are just lucky there are people like the rest of us looking out for ourselves, and bringing you along for the ride.
August 17th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
As someone who works in healthcare, I would ask that anyone who has not read the House bill and the one Senate bill (there is another one in the Senate Finance Committee) please refrain from commenting about what is proposed. In addition, those who have not spoken with their elected representatives on this subject might get more “bang for their buck” by communicating with them rather than venting on this or other forums. And yes, I have read both available bills (1,000+ pages each) and I have spoken with both my Senators and my Representative.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Tom, I’ve read the available House and Senate bills. And I’ve written and called both of my senators and my congressman.
Such activity doesn’t preclude commenting in an online forum, nor should it be some sort of prerequisite. All of these are important to do; not just one as opposed to the other.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:24 am
People don’t waste your time with people who are so overcommitted they cannot see the obvious or lack the critical thinking skills to understand that history is indeed repeating itself and under the guise of a “healthcare” bill. It is not about healthcare at all – it is about control. If you don’t see it now you will not see it until you are inside the ovens……too late then.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Wendy doesn’t get it at all……
August 18th, 2009 at 9:41 am
It has taken the socialists 70 years to reach this point because so many have been dumbed down and now the majority of thinking people have awakened and realize what a mistake electing this narcissist/communist to office has been – heck, even the commies don’t like him.
Yes we’ve sent letters to our representatives and gotten unsolicted mail back from the White House and our local rep is a coward hiding behind closed doors and making “appointments” to see anyone.
Now the dems would like to eliminate any opposition by stopping a tradition of over 200 years – town hall meetings. Imagine that.
August 18th, 2009 at 9:41 am
How many of you understand that the speech you’ve been referring to, given by Ronald Reagan, calling the healthcare proposal “socialist,” referred to an initial proposal about Medicare. His predictions didn’t come true. His fears were not realized, just as most of the bloggers’ fears here won’t be. Oh wait, I guess many of you are also against Medicare. Fine. Then I can assume that those of you who become eligible for the benefit will turn it down, because it’s so oppressive.
You write about dreading Management and Control. I guess you are more Libertarian in your philosophy than you state.
I’m still waiting for the full text of the Obama speech!! Not an edited video–is that all you’ve got?? If you’re gullible and believe the talking points, then back up your beliefs with evidence. FoxNews is nothing but talking points and spins, lacking facts. And they call that News?
August 18th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Wendy…Medicare was just the beginning and was part of the dumbing down of America. Liberals love pointing to it as a socialist success story. Getting the government invovled in healthcare to the degree they are now proposing is much more than medicare. As for receiving the benefit, most of us never will anyway, because as government always does, they have overspent the money given to them for medicare on other pork spending programs.
As for the Obama speech, anyone with even half a brain knows the facts and the facts are that Obama meant one thing, not taken out of context or misunderstood…he means to do away with private insurance. He doesn’t want people to have private insurance, because with Private Insurance in the way, he cannot truly control your health care A fact is a fact, regardless of whether you want to believe it or not. Of course, Liberals don’t understand facts. So, it really wouldn’t do you any good to see the entire speech by Obama, you obviously only hear what you want…you have been hypnotized and cannot see the truth.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:38 am
There has been some amazing and somewhat rude commentary on this site that has been completely unprofessional. Names like, Liberal, Conservative, and Socialist have been bandied about as if they were diseases or bigotted name-calling rather than just political labels. While it is admirable that you all are so educated that you feel you are able to belittle each other’s opinions the fact is that everyone has and is entitled to an opinion whether you agree with it or not.
I would like to know where you all work – I’m looking for a job where I can get paid to do nothing but spout opinions on a website and name-call for fun.
August 18th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
This forum is pretty tame compared to the hate-filled vile websites like the dailykos…..where liberals – no we won’t call them that…where “hate mongers” prevail and spew hate filled speech about anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their narrow drug altered views of the world.
I’ll try and be more accomodating ….some people can really test your limits of patience even when presented with considerable amounts of data to support a particular position and when they offer little if anything in return. People with a historical reference about the current attempts to socialize our country while socialized countries try to become capitalistic can be refreshing to hear.
Just today I learned from the former head of the red cross – a doctor – that the Netherlands has found socialized medicine to be unfulfilling and that offering competition to be a better alternative in delivering health care…..so they are implementing capitalism and leaving universal health care and only 3% of Canadian Physicians thought their system to be effective….go figure.
Obama appears to be living the dream of some 60’s era radicals…and his communist mentors – not ours.
Polls show Obama is not trusted by the majority of Americans now which appears to be reflected in this forum as well. A big contrast from the election of last year……which just shows you can fool some of the people some of the time and all the people some of the time…..but not all the people all the time.
Hence his hurry to vote on health care bill…hurry hurry hurry before anyone finds out.
He’s simply a lightweight politician from Chicago and his inexperience is showing through more and more each day. keep him away from my wallet and life….
August 18th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I guess I’m one of those libertarians (I voted that way last time) – I figured they needed a shot at running the country for a while – couldn’t do any worse than what we have had since Reagan left the White House.
I suppose they don’t teach history any longer. Many posters don’t understand the constitution of this country, why it was formed, and how its different from other countries we are often compared to in making cases for “reform” or what ever.
Ben Franklin often reminded people that we do not live in a democracy – that is not what America is – its a representative republic that confirms individual rights over the rights of groups.
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. ~ Thomas Jefferson
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned — this is the sum of good government. ~Thomas Jefferson
Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples’ money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other people’s freedom and security. ~William F. Buckley, Jr.
and….
“[Direct] democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”
–Benjamin Franklin
August 18th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
The raging diatribe of “Not Deceived” speaks for itself. Wow. This guy is so filled with rage and unhinged anger. Why would anyone take him seriously?
He spews words like “socialist” and “communist”. That’s what people do when they don’t have a rational argument. It’s essentially name-calling. He’s hoping he can use these scare tactics to keep people from thinking and listening.
“Not Deceived” also makes things up. Most of what he says is laughable nonsense to those of us who know the facts. The Netherlands has absolutely no plans to abandon their universal health care coverage and move to a system like the one currently in the United States. The claim that only “3% of Canadian Physicians thought their system to be effective” is a total lie. Notice he has no footnotes or citations. (And if he did produce them, they’d probably come from Fox “News” or some other extremist group’s website.)
The problem with so many of the posters here is that they’re angry. They’re sore losers. They didn’t vote for Barack Obama, they’re filled with rage and bile, they hate that a black man is in the White House and they despise “liberals”, “Democrats” and anyone else that doesn’t agree with their strange, backward ideas.
You lost. Get used to it. We didn’t vote for Barack Obama so you could keep things the way they are. As a business owner, I can’t afford to let the insurance company monopolies continue to fix prices, deny our claims, and make us pay through the nose. I’m in strong support of a voluntary, non-mandatory public option. It will allow my employees to receive good health care for a good price and allow me to hire more people, create more jobs, expand my company and contribute to our economy.
If “Not Deceived” wants to continue bowing and scraping before the insurance company, he is free to do so. They probably laugh a lot, in private, at people with his mentality of servitude.
August 18th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
“Not Deceived” also wrote “If you don’t see it now you will not see it until you are inside the ovens……too late then.”
This illustrates the extremist mindset, the hate-filled, red-faced, somewhat deranged conservative we’re seeing more of these days. I would never leave children with a man like that.
Again, I realize you are still in a rage from what happened to you last November. I’m sure your bottom still hurts from the very, very severe kicking we gave you that wonderful day.
I’m sorry you’re whining so much and you’re so miserable. But you conservatives need to understand: this is not the America you grew up in. It’s changing. Get on board or leave. Thanks!
August 18th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
REALLY! We’re all going there huh? Again, I’ve got to say, can we get back to the subject?
I heard two interviews with 2 Congressmen this week. Jim McDermont of Washington (D) and Dave Reichert, of Washington (R). They both read the same bill, both claim to have read it themselves by the way, and both read it entirely differently. ENTIRELY. McDermont making the point it doesn’t say private insurance goes away, and Reichert making the point that it did. I am convinced that BOTH individuals fully believed that they understood it correctly, and neither was trying to pull the wool over our eyes. It’s just that the thing is written so that there is the ability to misunderstand. I know that we all think WE are reading very clearly, but CLEARLY even these two gentlemen who do this for a living don’t agree on what it says having read it, and quoted from it.
I think we need to make our opinions known to our congressmen and senators. Explain that we hear the other side saying X (pick your “side” and pick your “x”), and you feel it clearly doesn’t say that in the text. Eventually, clarification will have to happen, or the thing won’t get to “done”.
Please stop fighting. It’s boring everyone. Solutions people! Janice is right. We’ve been rude and unprofessional. This IS supposed to be a professional forum.
August 19th, 2009 at 8:08 am
You might want to check out the writer for the house legislation – Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel.
He wrote a book about the topic and mentioned last Feburary in Chicago he was working on healthcare reform for the president.
He is the brother of Mr Obama’s closest advisor.
His book is called “Healthcare Guaranteed” There are some similarities and parallels to what is taking place given the references in this book.
Some familiar (?) points to consider from his book:
No incremental changes to the healthcare system will work – only total reform (p185)
Immediate and comprehensive change to the entire system is needed (p171)
The change legislation needs to be rushed through immediately (p171)
Avoid the policy weeds by discussing any factual details of the plan (p183)
The plan would be run completely by a national board with 12 regional health boards like the Federal Reserve (p83)
Dr. Emanuel writes that medicare be phased out completely (p94-95)
Employer based healthcare will be eliminated totally (p109-112)
Universal care will be paid for by phasing out medicare and medicaid (p100) and citizens can pay a 10% value added tax.
Medical Care would be WITHHELD from those citizens that are no longer able to participate in society (e.g. dementia patients)
This is Mr Obama’s Healthcare Plan advisor.
August 19th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Excellent Find Factual-
Of course, as has been previously stated, Liberals don’t understand facts.
August 19th, 2009 at 10:39 am
“Factual” is repeating the same garbage as those who claimed that Obama was cavorting with terrorists in his living room. By the way, who “summarized” the points in the chapters? Are those supposed to be full quotes? How do you call those “facts?” Dr. Emanuel is now a target of Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and the like. ‘Nuff said.
By the way, the health-care bill that recently passed the House does not contain any provision that would deny treatment to the elderly, infirm, or disabled. Dr. Emanuel’s sister suffers from cerebral palsy.
Why don’t you read his side of the story, as reported in Time Magazine on Weds, Aug 12? Get the facts from the author, not from spins and twisted talking points, who predict it’ll be the end of the society and America as we know it. What nonsense. Those who can’t find or tell the truth would now take my blog and quote me as saying “it’ll be the end of society and America as we know it” and claim that’s my viewpoint. Right.
August 19th, 2009 at 10:59 am
“Factual” is anything but.
I’ve read the Emanuel book. Of course, “Factual” makes things up in his screed. On almost all of those pages, he makes things up. The writer didn’t say that. But “Factual” wants us to believe he did.
And, in none of the bills pending in Congress have any of those particular items that “Factual” claims.
Scare tactics are all some people have left. This is similar to those same people who told us Saddam Hussein would kill all of us with “weapons of mass destruction” if we didn’t invade his country and bozos like Ronald Reagan saying Medicare would “ruin” our country.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Dear STN,
Please refer to your post of Aug 14.
When you are critical of people using scare tactics. While you did not perceive the threats that Factual finds when reading the same document, he does see a problem. On the other hand, I have seen no evidence of your perceved threats by insurance companies as I have never been denied a claim. Further, I have had my business forced to close due to onerous changes in federal regulations.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:35 am
John,
I strongly suggest you leave your little bubble. Because you can boast, “I have never been denied a claim” doesn’t mean that’s true for everyone. Or do you not care about anything unless it effects you personally?
Open your eyes. Go talk to people who have gone bankrupt while having insurance. It happens every day. It could happen to you or someone you love.
I suggest you lose the smug attitude. The nation is comprised of more people than you and your little circle. When you’re denied a claim—and it will happen—I hope you’ll reconsider your myopic and self-centered views.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:35 am
I don’t know about anyone name michelle bachmann but someone suggested a copy at the local Barnes and Noble to peruse.
Sorry if I only jogged down some pertinent notes…should I have sent a certified report or something for this blog??
Thought that since I saw very bio ethics doc on youtube avoiding questions about this health plan posed to him while sitting on the NIH panel figured even us “simple” folks should know more.
When it was his time to speak he got to leave in a hurry without answering any questions – pretty convenient.
He sounds elitist. Are we supposed to be spoon fed info….would you also believe everything Bush told you. Bet not.
Why would anyone be upset when opposing facts or any facts are submitted here…..is this some group of elitists or single minded idealogues? Whew.
So Go read it for yourself. Better yet, watch for yourself…..if you want the full video of the hearing you should consider getting it yourself…. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9FIw96b07M
August 19th, 2009 at 11:36 am
It seems to me that our “elected” officials in DC have a great health care plan. Low co-pays, low Rx costs, immediate access, no refusals, etc… It also seems to me that many of these same “elected” officials would not be willing to switch from their current plan to a national plan. If this is the case, then why don’t we offer the same health care plan that they have to the American Citizens?
August 19th, 2009 at 11:39 am
I couldn’t find the right to universal healthcare in my copy of the constitution – can someone here help me find it?
August 19th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Hey “DD”, when and where did Barack Obama say the words, “I plan to eliminate private health care”?
Please be specific.
And if you can’t show us when and where he said these words, isn’t that just one more example of lying on your part? Won’t that just be one more instance of where you used scare tactics and made things up in a desperate attempt to get people to think like you?
August 19th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Dear STN,
My post was intended not to appear smug but to cause you to be introspective.
But I guess I have to spell it out for you. You are posting the same sort of scare tactics as many of the others. By the way, there are several U-tube recordings which feature our President declairing his wish to do away with the private sector health insurance.
August 19th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Factual–your name is an oxymoron–do you know what’s in the Constitution, or even in the Bill of Rights and the other 17 Amendments? Do you think it’s practical, feasible, possible to limit our freedoms and rights to only what’s listed? How about free education from Kindergarten thru HS? That’s not in our Constitution either. Perhaps we should abolish that too. There are lots of programs I don’t support with my taxes, but I take the good with the bad. We don’t have our own “line-item veto powers.” You don’t want your taxes to support federal programs, and you have a right to your opinion, and to express it through the government representatives (whom you support with your taxes!). But we have a right to ours too, and to be heard. And we were heard, and we elected those representatives whom most of us believe will enact legislation and protect the rights and freedomes that we support.
August 19th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
To Wendy;
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you again & again. I’m sorry I do not have time to respond to those who think insurance and hospital managers are more concerned with the publics welfare than government employees – both have us by the “short hairs” but only one responds to stockholders vs citizenry.
I’ve been a Senior Manager for benefirts administration for more than 20 years and know that an efficient Federal bureaucracy (of which there are many) could not be worse than the current MESS.
The only difficulty brought to me by Federal changes has been the byzantine Medicare D program, thank you Geo W.
August 19th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
All your rants will be moot soon enough it seems…..Obama Czar #44 (Russia had only 22) has some interesting and frightening proposals…okay, so lack of free speech doesn’t frighten some on this blog as we know they embrace it like good sheep. Enjoy what little free speech you have left…..
Last month, Mark Lloyd was granted the rather Orwellian title of “Chief Diversity Officer” at the FCC. In his 2006 book Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America (University of Illinois Press), Lloyd recommended that private broadcasters be forced to, in effect, heavily subsidize their competition: those public broadcasters that already receive millions in taxpayer dollars each year.
This financially onerous combination of fines and fees — amounting to an estimated $100-million and $250-million each and every year — would essentially force many private broadcasters out of business. It’s hard for some cynics not to wonder if that might not be the whole idea.
CNSNews.com) – Mark Lloyd, newly appointed Chief Diversity Officer of the Federal Communications Commission, has called for making private broadcasting companies pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs to allow public broadcasting outlets to spend the same on their operations as the private companies do.
“Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded,” Lloyd wrote. “This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. Funding should not come from congressional appropriations. Sponsorship should be prohibited at all public broadcasters.”
Along with this money, Lloyd would regulate much of the programming on these stations to make sure they focused on “diverse views” and government activities.
“Local public broadcasters and regional and national communications operations should be required to encourage and broadcast diverse views and programs,” wrote Lloyd. “These programs should include coverage of all local, state and federal government meetings, as well as daily news and public issues programming.
Oh those troubling conservative web blog sites again…..well Lloyd if I don’t want to listen to your crappolla why should I pay for it…..answer that.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/08/14/mrcs-motley-fncs-beck-discuss-fccs-new-chief-diversity-czar
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/08/17/iowa-sen-grassley-pens-letter-fcc-chair-questions-media-should-be-aski
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2317342/posts
August 19th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
You consider protecting and understanding the value of diversity as Orwellian. I guess that makes it clear where you’re coming from. No doubt you and others like you tremble at the news that this country’s racial and ethnic composition is changing–and it’s possible that that’s what frightens you the most. It’s not the money the government spends, it’s who you think they’re spending it on.
The focus is on a national healthcare program, to include those who cannot afford, or are turned down by private insurance companies. The leading cause of bankruptcies today is due to overwhelming medical bills, from those who are insured, as well as uninsured. And that’s what we have to address. Almost everyone is affected by high premiums, high deductibles, high co-pays, denied claims, reduced claim payments, and unrealistic lifetime maximums when you have a catastrophic illness. (Except those who are well taken care of by their employers, and who don’t care about the plight of their neighbors–)
August 19th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
To GTR: You’re right, you echo many of our sentiments. It’s the “haves” against the “have nots.” Our elected officials who want no reform at all are oblivious to the needs of their constituents. They have it very cushy in Congress and in the Senate, and feel there’s no need to “rock the boat.” Perhaps they actually believe their own lies, fearful that their private insurance would be abolished if we have universal coverage, because then their own coverage would be in jeopardy. They want to protect what they have, not caring to even contemplate the concept that the plans are all calling for choices (options!).
August 20th, 2009 at 8:40 am
In the UK over 1.4 million work as administrators (not doctors) in the healtchare system making it the third largest employer in the world behind the Chinese military.
Looks like his main man Axelrod is set to inherit millions from this program…
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&sid=aV3dLt6wmZH4
So, Bush “Lied”…..and Obama just keeps lying and lying
August 20th, 2009 at 8:46 am
The health care reform bill approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) would provide federal grants to state and local governments and a “national network of community-based organizations” to “promote healthy living and reduce disparities” and to monitor people’s weight, eating, exercise habits and other individual behaviors that affect health at the community level. The language instituting the program, entitled “Community Transformation Grants,” is on pages 382-387 of the bill as posted on the committee’s Web site.
Guess who those community based organizations are that will monitor you everyday life……ACORN!
August 20th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Dear Not Deceived,
I dare not even imagine how many non-medical people work in providing USA health care; insurance company employees, employer benefit administrators and their assistants in every business, every level of government, Cities & towns, Counties, State, Federal, VA , administration for retirees from all places of employment, , and all employers who carry insurance for employees. The business offices of hospitals, doctors offices, medical grouops and clinics, and on, and on. Those tediously working to try to fit people into the myriad of plans they carry or trying to meet laws around medical assistance and trying to identify proper payor; discerning workers comp from other sources. Those who have jobs in hospitals, clinics and carriers who evaluate and assess whether a service is one covered and by whom.
I doubt any nation would beat us in the numbers game of people tied up in a human need we all want to work and work effectively for all of us, without difference in all basic and preventative health care.
August 20th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Rasmussen’s latest poll today show something interesting:
– 40% of voters say cutting the deficit in half is the most critical issue for the President’s first term – that should be his number one priority.
- 21% say health care is the most important.
- 18% say ensuring every child has a complete and competitive education
- 15% say development of new energy
Is any one these days listening to the voters? No.
Also, while a majority of voters think deficit reduction is the highest priorit, two-thirds don’t believe it will be done.
Forty-five percent (45%) of voters nationwide think Pelosi and Hoyer are wrong when they say the passage of health care reform will mean more affordable coverage for all Americans. But 36% share the Democratic Congressional leaders’ view and believe health care will become more affordable if the plan passes.
Just 27% of all voters agree with the senior House Democrats that if the health care reform being considered by Congress is passed, it will mean more patient choice. Forty-nine percent (49%) disagree and do not believe more patient choice is likely.
Voters by a three-to-one margin say cost is a bigger health care problem facing the nation than the lack of universal health insurance coverage.
Most voters (54%) now say no health care reform legislation this year would be better than passage of the bill currently working its way through Congress. This does not mean that most voters are opposed to health care reform, but it does highlight the level of concern about the specifics now being discussed in Washington.
August 20th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
BOTTOM LINE: THis is America. We don’t WANT Government ran health care. Now, next year, or ever. EVER!! We don’t want to be a Canada, a UK, a Russia, France or any other country. THis is AMERICA!! and we don’t want nor need Government to run our Health Care. PERIOD! End of conversation. Get it?
August 20th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Agreed Jagger – and some states are taking action – expect more to follow suit under their rights granted by the 10th Amendment:
SALT LAKE CITY — Republican Utah lawmaker Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, wants Utahns to have the option not to take part in a federal health care program.
He says he’s drafting a proposed amendment to Utah’s Constitution; one he believes will get overwhelming approval.
“We’re going to pass a state Constitutional amendment stating that people will not be forced by the national government to purchase health care insurance and that small businesses will not be forced to provide them,” Wimmer said.
Voters, of course, would have to pass the amendment, and it would have to get at least two-thirds majority in the Utah House and Senate. But Wimmer says it’s worth it, no matter what comes out of the Federal health care reform effort.
He says it’s a state’s rights issue and that Utah has made good progress on its own reform plans. “We don’t need help from the Federal government figuring this thing out, we know how to do it and we’re able to do it far more efficiently than they are,” he says.
Such an amendment could lead to cuts in federal funding and to lawsuits, but Wimmer says it’s time states “wean themselves” from federal dollars and that lawsuits may be the only way to “turn the tables” on the Federal government.
August 20th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
and more:
Florida State Senator Carey Baker and State Representative Scott Plakon, who this week filed a proposed State Constitutional Amendment (HJR37) as a means to prevent Floridians from being affected by any Federal Health Care Legislation. If approved by the legislature, Florida residents could be voting on it as early as 2010.
HJR37 would deny the ability of any new law to impose demands, restrictions or penalties on health care choices on Floridians. Versions of proposed federal health care reform legislation have included insurance coverage mandates, and certain penalties on employers who fail to provide employee health insurance.
It states, in part:
(1) A law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system
(2) A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.
A similar measure, called the Health Care Freedom Act, has already passed in Arizona, and residents of that state will have the opportunity to vote on it in 2010. Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center say that more than ten other states may see such proposals introduced in the coming session.
August 20th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
States seceding! We’ve heard that before.
Maybe it is the “retiree” States; their residents might then feel the full brunt of unregulated health care costs.
August 20th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
No, not seceding – they are simply exercising their rights under the 10th amendment. Saying no, you, federal government, don’t have the power to regulate or conduct commerce within the states. Thank you, but we prefer not to participate in your plan.
August 20th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Karen, Jim did not say anything about States seceding. If you are a young thing, you probably didn’t get the proper education on the Constition and United States History (no fault of you own) but States Rights supercede Federal Rights. If a State decides they do not want to participate in a Federal program, they don’t have to if they have set it up properly in their State Constitution. The Feds can “punish” the State by withholding Federal Funds they may otherwise get, but that is the State’s decision. Do some studying.
August 20th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I’ve been following this discussions at many locations on the web – plenty of interesting comments. While we’re on the constitutionality issue of ‘reform”, I thought this comment at one site very insightful:
“I have already remarked on several Internet fora the irony of having the same folks who have been claiming that abortion ought to be a private matter between a woman and her doctor now starting to claim (explicitly or otherwise) that every other medical decision ought to become a matter for your loving, caring federal bureaucrat.
Lenin coined the term for the people who don’t, won’t, or cannot understand the contradiction in such a situation–”useful fools.” ”
Just for some of you who do not follow: If in Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that the government may not intervene between a doctor/ patient decision for a medical procedure, neither can the government step between a patient/ doctor relationship for any other reason, regardless of public desire for universal, national health care. To permit one would invalidate the other decision.
Just another wrinkle….
Think about it for a while…..
August 20th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
“Useful Fools”…perfect descriptor for the so called “progressives” and those who somehow think they will never get old some day.
August 20th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Saw an interesting article in the paper the other day about individual states trying to pass laws that Federal laws on insurance won’t be accepted by these states, ie, they want to choose their own, etc. Strange how states’ rights are so inviolable on this subject, but just recently there was talk that states that did not allow carrying concealed weapons might have to allow people to cross their state lines doing just that if they were from states that do allow such concealed weapons. I hope all this fear mongering will not keep people from listening to both sides open-mindedly. I haven’t even had time to read all these blogs as they are coming by the dozen and I’m trying to deal with processing multiple layoffs due to funding cuts. Are we all still HR people, or so obsessed with this subject that nothing else can get done? Just wondering.
August 21st, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Judy,
The same argument applies to local government as well….they typically use the ruse of “consolidation” of services like police – fire – trash collection (and now healthcare) but it is the beginning of the elimination of representative government and ultimately a consolidation of power. It really is that simple – experienced it here where I live (it failed because it became obvious)
Sure it starts out by someone claiming how much money some community will save – but most don’t buy it- and shouldn’t – because the constitution provides for this representation.
So instead of numerous small government bodies exerting control over their own communities you have one person or some agency like a healthcare board or worse yet, a CZAR who answers to NO ONE “representing” many…….which ultimately (and historically) meant no representation.
That is one reason why people are so livid and rightly so. Seems the older folks who have experience in this area understand better than the 20-30 somethings with little or no historical perspective (or schooling) to rely on.
Mr. Obama is acutely aware of this fact which is why he is so rabid about passage of this bill. He now “promises” the bill will be passed despite the majority of people now not wanting it.
So clearly it is not about health care at all – it is about control. His.