Health care: Back to an incomplete?
posted at 8:47 am on June 11, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
When the draft of the health-care bill got leaked last weekend, I noted that the very first part of the legislation was a note that said they hadn’t figured out HIPAA compliance yet. A few people responded that the bill was a draft, not yet submitted to the House or Senate, even though the leak was obviously intentional. Now Keith Hennessey has taken a closer look at the Senate version of the bill — and it’s still incomplete in a critical area:
The employer mandate section from the leaked draft has been replaced with “[Policy under discussion]”.
A few inside friends confirmed my guess – they think this is a tactical move by the majority staff to try to relieve blowback from the employer groups: Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, NFIB (the small business lobby), etc. Until it is otherwise demonstrated, I will continue to assume that the Chairman’s mark will include language that will roughly parallel that in the leaked draft.
Hennessey’s doing that for his analytical purposes, but that doesn’t excuse the sponsors of this bill from laying out the machinations in an open and transparent manner. In the current model of health insurance, employer-provided health insurance covers most Americans. Any mandates on employers would have a broad and almost certainly deleterious effect on compensation.
Even if one accepts the notion that government should have greater control of the health-care sector, this plan cannot be evaluated until all of its critical parts are published. “The dog ate my homework” isn’t good enough in this case. Either publish it all, or withdraw it.
Hennessey has more:
The bill gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services authority to limit premiums and profits of health plans by forcing plans to rebate to enrollees premiums above a certain margin.
Specifically, §2704(a) is the “Requirement to provide value for premium payments.” A health plan must report how much of their premium revenues are used for clinical services, how much for “activities that improve health care quality,” and how much for “all other non-claims costs.”
§2704(b)(1) then tells the Secretary to look at how much other health plans spent on “all other non-claims costs,” and based on that survey, set an allowable percentage for this category. Plans are then required to rebate premiums if they go above this amount. This is direct (but confusing) regulation of premiums and profit margins.
I found the labeling of this section interesting. It appears that this section will be the justification for the claim that this bill reduces health care costs. Loosely phrased, it appears their argument will be “We’re reducing health care costs by forcing plans to lower their administrative costs and profits.”
The people behind this plan intensely dislike the notion of health-care providers making a profit. The bill gives these people a lever to have government decide how much profit each insurer will be allowed to get from their business. Note that this has nothing to do with the quality of care provided, nor of the costs to the government. Literally, two insurers could charge the government the same amount of money for the same procedures and services, but if one is 20% more efficient than the other, the government will penalize the more efficient insurer.
How exactly does that improve health care and coverage? Instead of improving health care, this plan will encourage inefficiencies and waste.
I like this one the best, and call it the Joe the Plumber Plan:
States (through Gateways) shall redistribute premiums from plans with low-risk individuals to those with high-risk individuals.
This gives the people running Gateways a tremendous amount of power over health plans.
No one has to pay to cover their risk any longer. We all pay the same, whether we smoke or drink to excess, or play with dynamite as a hobby. It’s an extension of the “share the wealth” philosophy that Barack Obama likes, only in this case, it will deincentivize people from avoiding the risks in the first place.
Read all of Keith’s analysis, and be sure to keep an eye on his blog.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Most Political Badministration Evah
blatantblue on June 11, 2009 at 8:52 AM
There is a pretty good chance that most members of Congress haven’t even noticed the missing portions of the healthcare bill since they aren’t accustomed to reading bills on which they vote.
myrenovations on June 11, 2009 at 8:53 AM
Another problem with this provision is that it penalizes individual plans, not the entire company.
It’s not unusual for the level of profitability for a particular plan to vary from year to year. Companies gamble that the plans will average out to an acceptable profit rate. One plan looses money, another plan makes a lot. The next year, the roles may switch.
This provision takes away that safety net by specifying that no plan may make more than what the govt thinks is an acceptable amount.
MarkTheGreat on June 11, 2009 at 8:56 AM
Totally off topic:
A court in Minn. just order Coleman to pay Franken 95G for expenses related to Coleman’s failed appeal.
annoyinglittletwerp on June 11, 2009 at 8:58 AM
All of this national health-care nonsense is making me sick.
fogw on June 11, 2009 at 8:58 AM
Hey wannabe healthcare freeloaders – go get your own healthcare. I know, it might mean that you need to cancel your cable… I know, you might need to cut out one vacation this year, maybe even trade in your 2009 car.
I agree that there should be a safety-net and in MOST situations, there already is one in place.
This scam to have a single-payer system will be an even worse debacle than the other federal entitlement programs.
gatorboy on June 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM
the link is here.
annoyinglittletwerp on June 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM
One way to defeat this health care monster is to turn it into a debate about the deficit. With the mounting deficit, we simply cannot afford it. If the health care debate slips into a debate about the deficit and economy, the dems lose control of the debate.
pearson on June 11, 2009 at 9:00 AM
Take over of GM, deciding the profit level of health insurance companies, so why isn’t this, in a political-economic sense, fascism.
rbj on June 11, 2009 at 9:01 AM
When is the AARP going to come out against this like they came out against Bush’s Social Security plan? You know, the one that would’ve effected none of their clientele and was completely optional, whereas this Obamacare’s first victims will be any over 60.
amkun on June 11, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Incomplete? They’re not going to read it anyway.
LibTired (KO) on June 11, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Or what you said.
LibTired (KO) on June 11, 2009 at 9:04 AM
AMA just weighed in against it, so there’s MORE hope of this idiocy withering on the vine.
Hope. I used the word ‘hope’.
tree hugging sister on June 11, 2009 at 9:05 AM
I work in a nursing home, the drugs come through Medicare D.
There was an order for Prilosec twice a day. Medicare D won’t pay for Prilosec twice a day. They will pay for Prilosec once and day and NEXIUM once a day (same category of drug, different name).
The Prilosec is 33.00
The Nexium is 209.
If they would pay for Prilosec twice a day, the cost would be 66.00
Since they won’t, the cost is 242.00
If the free market were in place here, we might have a fighting chance that the company who cares about the bottom line would amend this glitch. Since this is the government (and they couldn’t care less about the bottom line), WE, the taxpayers pay more.
I know that this is more complicated because Medicare D is a nightmare in and of itself. But, the point is, this is another example of the government making a mess of something simple. And the WASTE that I see every day makes me insane.
keebs on June 11, 2009 at 9:07 AM
I would agree with that strategery, but only if our GOP members have the strength to stand up to the Dems counter argument that Republicans don’t mind paying for two “senseless” wars, bombs and a military that kills “innocent” people.
That is what the Democrats counter with whenever we talk about how we cannot afford something that they believe is a “right”. It takes some backbone to fight back against that hyperbole.
myrenovations on June 11, 2009 at 9:09 AM
The AARP mag this month has an article on health care reform. It’s packed with lies. The first thing they say is that it isn’t the aging population that’s the problem. It’s the doctor’s fault.
Those over the age of 85 are the fastest growing demographic in this country.
keebs on June 11, 2009 at 9:09 AM
talking about the deficit reaches those of us who worry about our bank accounts.
but, as i keep telling all those that will listen, here is the way to defeat this plan:
go tell one female (other than yourself) that the socialized medicine will limit all your breast cancer detection methods, treatment options & lower your cure rates. our country has the best detection, treatment & highest cure rates in the world. this will vanish under socialized medicine.
if you feel ambitious, tell more than one female.
then call your dumbsh*t congressman. women can get this bill defeated.
kelley in virginia on June 11, 2009 at 9:12 AM
Though it will never be written in any formal way, this is where Government-run health care will inevitably lead:
“Without the killing of the incurable, the healing of the majority of the sick and the improvement of the nation’s health would be impossible. Many of those doctors spoke with pride of their work even after the war, maintaining that they had been contributing to human progress.” – THE THIRD REICH AT WAR by Richard J. Lewis
Obama’s health care system wouldn’t directly kill people. It would do so by denying care to those deemed “life unworthy of life” –a phrase Nazis liked to use.
With legal abortion as precedent, killing off the old and infirm may not be too far down the road to Hope & Change.
RandyChandler on June 11, 2009 at 9:12 AM
You know, we should take that tactic to the June and July Susan G. Komen Races For The Cure.
Sign up for the walk/run and then spend the day talking up the breast cancer implications to as many people as you can.
myrenovations on June 11, 2009 at 9:14 AM
p.s., if you can’t afford healthcare, you go to the ER, wait & eventually the hospital fixes your problem at taxpayer expense.
now, this doesn’t help if you need expensive drugs every month.
kelley in virginia on June 11, 2009 at 9:17 AM
We’re really screwed, aren’t we?
deidre on June 11, 2009 at 9:17 AM
thank you, my renovations. you’ve got it!
kelley in virginia on June 11, 2009 at 9:17 AM
The militant gays figured that out ages ago.
Or engage in risky sexual practices that have caused a group to have a mortality rate that rivals males in the late 1800′s. This is why they seek the status of “married”. Once married, they must be given rates that hetro marrieds get. Since their risk is higher, the insurance companies will raise the rates of ALL marrieds. Thus the gays don’t have to pay according to their risk and the cost of their claims are cast onto us.
csdeven on June 11, 2009 at 9:17 AM
For the first time in my adult life I’m ashamed of my country.
DougDavis on June 11, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Meet your new Health Care gatekeeper courtesy of Pres. Obama.
http://bit.ly/6yThN
evilned on June 11, 2009 at 9:23 AM
This is not an isolated case folks. I’ve written before about being under “military health care”. And yes, the govt. insisted doctors treat me with drugs (antibiotics)for two weeks (twice a year) that had been proven not to work on me before they could treat me with the drugs that did work. So twice a year taxpayers paid for me to have 2 weeks of drugs that did nothing (while I got sicker) only to pay to have me return to the doctor and get the correct drugs and additional treatment (treatment for bronchitis that turned to pneumonia and asthma) because because I’d gotten worse while on the wrong drugs.
katablog.com on June 11, 2009 at 9:24 AM
“The dog ate my homework”
Now we know why he bought the dog.
Now I’m off to go see the three stooges blessing the Joe Biden Bridge. They have one of those nifty stimulus propaganda signs there too.
forest on June 11, 2009 at 9:24 AM
I spent my career on the insurance side of the health care delivery system – and the last few getting treated at the City of Hope – and there is so much in the bill Hennessey shared that has me spinning around in my swivel chair like a Tasmanian fellow.
Anyway, much of it is very deep weed kinda stuff, but this had me laughing roundly. Can you imagine following a group of calorie counters through these lines…or, will this be the proverbial death of the Sizzler??
(iii) SELF-SERVICE FOOD AND FOOD ON DIPLAY — Except as provided in subclause (vii), in the case of food sold at a salad bar, buffet line, cafeteria line, or similar self-service facility, and for self-ice beverages or food that is on display and that is visible to customers, a restaurant or similar retail food establishment shall place adjacent to each food offered a sign that lists calories per displayed food item or per serving.
Shivas Irons on June 11, 2009 at 9:29 AM
You’ve got the wrong template. With healthcare, the Rats argue that full benefits healthcare is an entitlement. They won’t get into the “senseless wars” crap but rather focus on andecdotal cases where an individual doesn’t have the healthcare coverage he/she needs. If the patient happens to be a child so much the better!
We’ll be hearing about old people eating dog food to afford their meds. We’ll be hearing about laid off workers unable to take care of their medical needs. The Democrats will focus on the faces of the “victims” and at no time explain where the funding mechanisms for this Caddilac of health coverage is paid for when the budget supports purchasing a Yugo off of Craigslist.
highhopes on June 11, 2009 at 9:30 AM
The Socialist Health Care Program will work out so much better financially after they find a way to kill off the old and the sick and those born with defects.
Jeff from WI on June 11, 2009 at 9:31 AM
deidre on June 11, 2009 at 9:17 AM
Yes.
There may be hope in Texas.
artist on June 11, 2009 at 9:31 AM
Your approach sounds appealing, but if we don’t convince the American people that nationalized care is bad on its merits, democrat radicals will introduce it every few years (remember HillaryCare?) until it’s finally adopted. If the economy happens to be good next time it comes up, what will our argument be then? No, the only way to stop it is to educate the American public with the truth.
Unfortunately, I am not confident that this can be successfully done.
Puddleglum on June 11, 2009 at 9:33 AM
While attending my 7 year olds bowling party yesterday an EXTREMELY large man walked in (400 to 500 pounds) probably about the same age as I. It pissed me off to no end that under this plan his premium would be the same as mine. All these statist seem to do is punish responsibility over and over again.
My tweak on this is make a component of the debate about responsibility. Appeal to the people that are responsible with their lives and tell them you want to reward them.
WashJeff on June 11, 2009 at 9:38 AM
You seem to forget that everything is subject to change. What gets published at this stage of the game is merely negotiating points. Amendments are proposed, some passed. The bill changes. Then it goes to conference where the differences between House and Senate introduce more changes
You seem to be worried about what the bill is now when what you should be worried about is what the legislation turns out to be when passed.
The republicans should just vote NO on health care, and on Cap-n-Tax. This is why conservatives have such disagreements with GOP leadership who don’t seem to have any guiding philosophy or principles beyond bitterly clinging to their little niche in the power structure.
Skandia Recluse on June 11, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Well, the skydivers and motorcyclists will love this. I hate it.
ladyingray on June 11, 2009 at 9:40 AM
You can have both breasts removed under the new plan when you are having a baby or anything else. That of course would prevent future cancer. They have the records on all your relatives and know there is breast cancer in you family. HIPPAA of course won’t let them tell you who had cancer. Just trust them
seven on June 11, 2009 at 9:41 AM
We’ve already tried this crap in Tennessee. It’s called Tenncare…it worked out so well that our Democrat Govenor was forced to cut the rolls so we could balance our state budget.
It ain’t gonna work. Obama, you are not God.
Face it.
ladyingray on June 11, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Anyone find it ironic that for the one job Mrs. Dear Leader had, she made $300,000 a year, to spend more than half of that time away from the office campaigning for Dear Hubby, and that was in the Health Care field? Now, he wants to make sure the industry she came from doesn’t make the profit to pay someone like her. Sort of “I got mine” deal?
InTheBellyoftheBeast on June 11, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Absolutely it will. Look at Great Britain. These people are covered from cradle to grave and the welfare recipients, in particular, KNOW IT…they have no moral scruples and engage in serious high risk behavior.
I was watching A&E’s Intervention and was struck by the risk taking…some having upward of 500 sexual partners, unprotected, while taking IV drugs and looking completely normal. They contract every last kind of std out there. IMAGINE PAYING FOR THAT.
Oh. MY. GOSH.
Mommypundit on June 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM
The bureaucracy alone to run this thing will be ridiculous. And the amount of errors it will generate will be phenomenal.
I can’t wait until people realize that it means money out of their pockets.
Excellant point and I touched on it yesterday. All this emphasis on prevention programs will never save as many lives as early detection and treatment. And when you can’t get in to see a doctor and then can’t get to see a surgeon, people are going to die. And don’t think because you have been told you have a serious cancer that you will get in to see a surgeon quickly. If Canada and the UK are any indication you will have to wait months.
Blake on June 11, 2009 at 10:01 AM
The Public Plan Deception
Re-posted, but it’s a video that everyone needs to see.
obladioblada on June 11, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Imagine paying for that and NOT GETTING YOUR HEALTHCARE BECAUSE YOU ARE PAYINF FOR THAT.
bloggless on June 11, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Now you are talking. I am a huge fan of cutting to the chase in communications and start talking about the end-user benefit/loss and for us to stop sullying the issue with touchy-feely “features” or words that do not resonate.
It makes a big difference to disclose the actual threat this causes to every person – and in the case you described – women.
If Roe v Wade can basterdize Griswald v Conn as a woman’s “property rights”, your opine should shed light on the brutal reality of nationalized healthcare.
Odie1941 on June 11, 2009 at 10:06 AM
TWO TIERED MEDICINE is on its way. Trust me, there will be a special plan for the elites. You know, SEPERATE BUT EQUAL. If anyone thinks that Oprah and Michelle’s Arms will be waiting on line BEHIND YOU, they are nuts.
bloggless on June 11, 2009 at 10:06 AM
When will the touchy-feely tree hugging freaks stop trying to create equality when it cannot and does not exist naturally? You would think that the granola eaters would understand that there is no such thing as a level playing field on earth. Everytime we try to create order unaturally, it’s a losing battle. Anyone who lives in the ‘burbs and tries to maintain a lawn free from the natural flora understands this concept.
theenforser on June 11, 2009 at 10:06 AM
As far as the menus listing calorie contents: I fought a nasty form of bulimia for over twenty years-starting when I was in high school. It’s only been in the last year and a half that I’ve really started to feel like it doesn’t own me.
I’ve managed thos feat with G-d’s help but not the federal government’s thank you.
Requiring calories on menu’s will just mean that I won’t go out to eat much because i don’t want to be triggered.
I know cheesecake isn’t healthy-now shut the #$%^! up and let me finally enjoy it!!
annoyinglittletwerp on June 11, 2009 at 10:11 AM
You guys aren’t being patriotic. Think about how many lives Obama will save or create.
BPD on June 11, 2009 at 10:12 AM
So, in addition to subsidizing smokers, heavy drinkers, dopers and overeaters, taxpayers will now get to subsidize treatment for HIV-AIDS, the causes of which have been known for decades. This known “risky” behavior will be paid for out of the taxpayer’s pocket too, so nothing needs to change, right? Perfect.
bradley11 on June 11, 2009 at 10:14 AM
BPD:
You forgot the sarc// tag.
annoyinglittletwerp on June 11, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Oh, dear GOD!!!! BraVO!
QUOTE OF THE DAY!!!!!
tree hugging sister on June 11, 2009 at 10:18 AM
And let’s quit with the ugly “treehugger” stereotypes, shall we?
tree hugging sister on June 11, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Fixed. Sorry for the preceived insult. No offense intended.
theenforser on June 11, 2009 at 10:26 AM
I want to move to a country with more freedom and liberty from government control.
What do you think? China, maybe? Venezuela? Russia?
Daggett on June 11, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Enough to cancel out the million aborted babies a year?
Doubt it.
Steve Z on June 11, 2009 at 10:27 AM
That it was obvious.
BPD on June 11, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Eh… those numbers won’t be calculated, much like the nearly 2 million jobs lost since Jan 20. Hopenchange!
BPD on June 11, 2009 at 10:30 AM
fifm
BPD on June 11, 2009 at 10:30 AM
This isn’t about “creating equality.” It’s about government control over every aspect of your life. In other words, it’s social engineering writ large.
RandyChandler on June 11, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Ed, they won’t tell you what the payroll surcharge is for the “public option” because they don’t want anyone to know how many people are going to get dumped on to it by their employers (thinking they’re saving money when they might not be in the long run). They also don’t want questions about the realism of the premium. Note that McCain asked Obama in 2 debates about the payroll surcharge and never got an answer.
If they’re limited to funding the public option solely through premia and copayments, it’s going to bounce around a little initially (unless they anchor it to large existing pools like Medicare/Medicaid). My prediction is that it’ll move around enough that they unlink the premia from actual plan costs for the sake of “stability.” And then they’ll start subsidizing.
That language on rebates is pretty astonishing. I can see requiring data on revenue allocation to be published so people can compare it across plans, but potentially mandating rebates is too much — and I say this as someone who supports a solution based on having many competitive nonprofit insurers.
DrSteve on June 11, 2009 at 10:35 AM
BPD:
I’m an Aspie(think Sheldon in the show ” Big Bang Theory”)so ‘obvious’ isn’t my strong suit .
*grin*
annoyinglittletwerp on June 11, 2009 at 10:41 AM
I hope Obamacare does get defeated. The AMA is against it, etc. Do we actually have a chance? (HOPE!)
cs89 on June 11, 2009 at 10:41 AM
It does worse than penalize the more efficient. After a number of years industry lay-outs and profits will reach an equilibrium. Once that happens HHS would be hard-pressed to show one provider profitting over another. With no bogey men to fight all it will take from there is the latest round of manufactured outrage to claim “price-fixing” and the government will have the legal framework it needs to complete its absolute control over the entire industry.
Never allow a good crisis to go to waste…even if you have to fabricate it yourself.
Mr Snuggle Bunny on June 11, 2009 at 10:44 AM
I actually support regulating health insurance companies’ profit margins. We have shifted from health insurance to prepaid healthcare. If you look at the NHE data, our rise in healthcare costs coincided with the increase in HMO’s in the 1970-80′s. HMOs were mandated by the government and were supposed to be the “gatekeeper” until there was a massive public outcry and insurance reverted more to fee for service however, it still maintained its “prepaid healthcare” model to set premiums.
Health insurers do not provide healthcare–they are no more than paper pushers and while they might do a good job of monitoring data and costs, they do so on the backs of healthcare providers whose administrative costs have skyrocketed while those of health insurers have become more and more streamlined as they have perfected their processes.
I’m all for the government regulating health insurers because up until now, most efforts at healthcare cost containment have been to squeeze reimbursements to the people who are actually providing healthcare while the paper pushers have enjoyed stable and increasing profit margins while not doing anything to add value to patient healthcare.
polmom on June 11, 2009 at 10:50 AM
I used to teach Industrial Organization, and your post about price-fixing reminded me of an old Soviet joke we sometimes used to tell. Three prisoners were having a chat in the Gulag. Conversation turned to why they had been imprisoned.
The first prisoner said “I always came to work late, and I was thrown in jail for stealing labor from the State.”
The second said, “I always came to work early, and I was denounced by my peers for currying favor with the plant manager.”
The third said, “I always came to work on time, and I was accused of owning a Western wristwatch.”
DrSteve on June 11, 2009 at 10:50 AM
The best solution to persistent above-normal returns, if this is in fact true, is market entry.
DrSteve on June 11, 2009 at 10:54 AM
The great problem with government control is ‘You can’t push on a string’
They cannot force us doctors to work
I moved to Texas from Canada in 1977 to avoid single-payer care. I quit seeing regular Medicare 20 years ago.
The most cost effective care is the Primary Care model with each person having a family doctor to coordinate care. Due to the low pay of family docs, most new graduates go into a sub-specialty, so now about 50% of all family doctors are in their 50s or older.
If the Obamacare becomes too ridiculous with low pay, penalties, potential jail time etc. We will all just quit medicine and retire.
Then, the waiting lists will begin in earnest.
txdoc on June 11, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Boy, you’ve got all the propaganda down.
First off, there is a difference between healthcare and managed healthcare. The paper pushing and cost monitoring is an essential part of the process.
Secondly, you make an awful lot of claims about increasing profit margins for health insurers while the providers have been hit with lower fees. Got any data to back up that claim? It smells an awful lot like the same old leftist crap that wants us all to be under socialized medicine.
Finally, how do you want to pay for this largess? Like any business, health insurers will not continue if they are not able to make a profit. That might be good for you and your commie friends who want the state to take over completely but it is unsound if you want capitalism and the free market to be the basis of the economy.
highhopes on June 11, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Just for AnninCA
Schadenfreude on June 11, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Prove it. Prove that my job doesn’t keep costs down. Prove that my monitoring MD’s for fraud doesn’t keep costs down. Prove that my job making sure doctors don’t overcharge for their services doesn’t keep costs down. Prove that my job making sure hospitals don’t charge for every little needle and syringe used on you doesn’t keep charges down. Prove that my job making sure doctors don’t double charge for their work doesn’t keep costs down.
So many people talk big about insurance companies and know sh*tall about them. Bring it on, buttercup. I’ve worked for Medicare and insurance and I can guaran-bloody-tee you that you want insurance companies more than you want Medicare.
mjk on June 11, 2009 at 11:31 AM
I think the Dems are plenty afraid this is all blowing up in their faces. After the AMA came out and opposed a public plan, lobbyists have been warned by Max Baucus to keep their clients away from the meeting with Senate Republicans today. Evidently anyone who attends the meeting will be viewed by Dems as committing a hostile act. Unbelievable.
msmveritas on June 11, 2009 at 12:09 PM
So long as the President, his family, and Congress, aren’t obligated to partake in this sham of a health care program, they don’t give a rats behind, what happens to the rest of us, under this crap.
capejasmine on June 11, 2009 at 12:14 PM
You’ve totally misinterpreted my post. I am against Obamacare but I support government regulation of health insurers’ administration and profits. Health insurers are the “middleman” who do not provide actual healthcare yet, skim profits from those who do provide actual healthcare. Health insurers have shifted from being insurance providers to being gatekeepers of medical care. If health insurers were to fall off the face of the earth, it would not impact our ability to receive healthcare, after all, health insurers are merely paper pushers and billing administrators. It is the doctors, hospitals and other healthcare providers who tend our health problems–not health insurers.
This is why I believe healthcare reform should focus on returning to health insurance versus prepaid healthcare. This would empower consumers to purchase most of their healthcare from providers instead of having insurance companies do it for them. We would pay for our routine healthcare needs out of pocket up to whatever maximum out of pocket a consumer decides upon while having health insurance to cover serious illness.
Physician salaries have steadily declined over a decade. http://www.allbusiness.com/health-care-social-assistance/3892062-1.html
while profits for health insurers have soared: http://hcfan.3cdn.net/dadd15782e627e5b75_g9m6isltl.pdf
I believe healthcare reform needs to include free market remedies that empower healthcare providers and patients–not insurance companies. Insurers are not even subject to anti-trust laws (while doctors are) and have steadily evolved into monopolies. I also believe that health insurers are not to be trusted as ethical advocates for patient healthcare. After all, government mandates for health insurance purchase will benefit insurance companies revenues as will government mandated rationing disguised as “comparative effectiveness”. Insurance companies would love nothing more than to not have to pay for expensive medical treatments and have already essentially adopted Medicare’s payment policies. This is why I believe that our healthcare system costs and efficiency would greatly improve if we reverted to health insurance as it was intended to be which would give consumers greater control of their healthcare dollars and providers more incentive to provide affordable healthcare.
polmom on June 11, 2009 at 12:31 PM
The moron is in Green Bay fumbling around with “healthcare policy” as we speak.
It is pathetic how ignorant this fool is.
Odie1941 on June 11, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Fixed link:
http://www.allbusiness.com/health-care-social-assistance/3892062-1.html
polmom on June 11, 2009 at 1:21 PM
He is claiming “if you like your healthcare – don’t worry, our shiny new program will have no effect on it as if the industry is a vacuum.
What I also find interesting – he is in Green Bay – where he has already stated “you folks have the lowest cost healthcare, with the best results”. 2 things come to mind: why is he speaking to people who are proof the current system works and why is he speaking to people who already are on “his side?”…
It wouldn’t be political pandering, would it???
Odie1941 on June 11, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Of course, the plan will subsidize high-risk lifestyles and behaviors….but only the ones that favor Democrats. IV drug use, promiscuous sex? — Subsidize! NASCAR attendance, rural living? — um, I’m afraid you’re going to have to pay a little more ‘for the good of everyone’. Somehow, anything associated with Republicans will end up causing “systemic market-driven additional costs.”
cthulhu on June 11, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Vote Democrat or lose your healthcare peasant.
elduende on June 11, 2009 at 4:49 PM