Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Video: Bernie Sanders says gov’t plan should frighten health insurers

posted at 11:49 am on July 7, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Gateway Pundit catches Bernie Sanders in the modern definition of a gaffe, which is the accidental telling of truth by a politician. While health-care reform advocates insist that the public plan is no threat to health insurers, Sanders insists that the entire point of the public plan is to strike fear into the hearts of the heartless:

FOX News analyst: But they’re afraid. Private insurance companies are afraid that they will be put out of business. So why shouldn’t they fight it?

Sen. Sanders: They should be afraid. Let me tell you they should be afraid. I think when they deny people health care because somebody has breast cancer a few years ago, when they throw people off of health insurance because people were sick and ran up a health care bill they have a right to be exposed, a right to be afraid.

Sanders accuses the health insurers of spending a million dollars a day, in the aggregate, to fight the public plan. If so, that amounts to $365 million for this year at the most (obviously, they’ll stop once action is taken on the bill or it fails). At that rate, the health insurers would take 2,739 years for them to spend what the CBO estimates ObamaCare will cost over ten years in its least expensive iteration. If we’re going to talk about wasteful spending, let’s put that in its proper perspective.

Meanwhile, hospitals have agreed to find cost cuts that will bring them in line with ObamaCare, but their claims rest on some shaky logic:

Most of the savings — about $100 billion — would come through lower-than-expected Medicare and Medicaid payments to hospitals, said the two industry sources. About $40 billion would be saved by slowly reducing what hospitals get to care for the uninsured, they added. The reductions would probably not begin for several years, after a significant number of people have enrolled in the new insurance programs.

For their part, hospital officials have an understanding that, if the final legislation includes a new government-sponsored insurance program, it will not pay at Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement rates, which the industry has long argued do not cover the cost of services.

“We have concerns about a new public program where you have Medicare rates,” one industry representative said. “That would not be part of the plan.”

Agreeing to the plan were the American Hospital Association, the Federation of American Hospitals and the Catholic Health Association.

If the hospitals are claiming savings while getting paid at better rates than they are now through Medicare and Medicaid, how will that reduce costs? The only way to lower the overall bill while raising compensation rates and adding people to insurance rolls is to reduce the amount of care the hospitals provide. They’ve agreed to ration care more stringently.

Health insurers aren’t the only ones who need to be afraid of this bill.


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

Comment pages: 1 2

OldEnglish:

“ to anyone who bothered to listen,”

That’s the operative phrase – they didn’t bother listen and the Statist Controlled Media didn’t do their job in informing people.

Obama made it quite clear as to his intentions regarding Cap and Trade, and Universal Healthcare, for example.

He didn’t make it clear what he really wanted to do – he (or rather, the teleprompter) tossed off a few well chosen words, meant to garner the maximum numbers of votes.

Since his personal rating still seems to be above 50%, I can only assume that those people are happy with his policies – in general.

Personal approval is vastly different from policy approval – some might like him personally, but not like his policies.

but they seem prepared to allow him to carry on, as long as they get plenty of free goodies.
Finally, many such people, in any Western nation, rarely go so far as to actually apply a label to a policy brief – they are just glad to be getting what they want.
OldEnglish on July 7, 2009 at 8:24 PM

Note the following:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.
Alexander Tytler

Here we have a well spoken (with a teleprompter) politician who was able to fool a number of people into voting for him with the promise plunder from the rich. Such a system has never worked, and will never work.

He Lied through his teleprompter about what he wanted to do to this country, there is no way that 53% figure is applicable today.

Insert witty screen name here on July 8, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.