|
Post by Tim Collins on Jul 6, 2009 8:49:56 GMT -7
I will comment later, but wanted to put this up as it gives a good overviewwww.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJ40t0N7wq4o5GLbWHhub2aY83CQD998QGKO0A look at health care plans in CongressBy The Associated Press – 7 hours ago A look at health care legislation taking shape in the Democratic-controlled House and Senate as President Barack Obama pushes to overhaul the system, cover nearly 50 million uninsured Americans and reduce costs. Many of the details are still being negotiated and any final health care bill would have to meld proposals from the House and Senate. ___ HOUSE DEMOCRATS WHO'S COVERED: Around 95 percent of Americans would be covered. Illegal immigrants would not receive coverage. COST: Unknown. HOW'S IT PAID FOR: Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid; $600 billion in unspecified new taxes, likely including new levies on upper-income Americans. REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Individuals required to have insurance, enforced through tax penalty with hardship waivers. REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Employers must provide insurance to their employees or pay a penalty of 8 percent of payroll. Certain small businesses are exempt. SUBSIDIES: Individuals and families with annual income up to 400 percent of poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four) would get subsidies to help them buy coverage. BENEFIT PACKAGE: A committee would recommend an "essential benefits package" that includes hospitalization, doctor visits, prescription drugs and other services. Out-of-pocket costs limited to $5,000 a year for individuals, $10,000 for families. Health insurance companies can offer several tiers of coverage, but all plans must include the core benefits. Insurers wouldn't be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: Plan with payment rates initially modeled on Medicare to compete with private insurers. HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Through a new National Health Insurance Exchange open to individuals and, initially, small employers; it would be expanded to large employers over time. CHANGES TO MEDICAID: The federal-state insurance program for the poor would be expanded to cover all individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($14,404). Currently Medicaid eligibility varies by state, but childless adults are ineligible no matter how poor, and in some states parents with incomes well under the poverty line still aren't covered. ___ SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS COMMITTEE WHO'S COVERED: Aims to cover 97 percent of Americans. COST: About $600 million over 10 years, but it's only one piece of a larger Senate bill. HOW'S IT PAID FOR: Another committee is responsible for the financing. REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Individuals required to have insurance, enforced through tax penalty with hardship waivers. REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Employers who don't offer coverage will pay a penalty of $750 a year per full-time worker. Businesses with 25 or fewer workers are exempted. SUBSIDIES: Up to 400 percent poverty level. BENEFIT PACKAGE: Health plans must offer a package of essential benefits recommended by a new Medical Advisory Council. No denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: A robust new public plan to compete with private insurers. The plan would be run by the government, but would pay doctors and hospitals based on what private insurers now pay. HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Individuals and small businesses can purchase insurance through state-based American Health Benefit Gateways. CHANGES TO MEDICAID: Medicaid would be available to individuals with incomes up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level. ___ SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE WHO'S COVERED: Around 97 percent of Americans. Illegal immigrants would not receive coverage. COST: Around $1 trillion over 10 years. HOW'S IT PAID FOR: Possible sources include cuts to Medicare and Medicaid; about $300 billion in revenue from taxing employer-provided health benefits above a certain level; and about $300 billion in revenue from a requirement for employers to pay into the Treasury for employees who get their insurance through public programs. REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Expected to include a requirement for individuals to get coverage. REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: In lieu of requiring employers to provide coverage, lawmakers are considering penalties based on how much the government ends up paying for workers' coverage. SUBSIDIES: No higher than 300 percent of the federal poverty level ($66,150 for a family of four). BENEFIT PACKAGE: The government doesn't mandate benefits but sets four benefit categories — ranging from coverage of around 65 percent of medical costs to about 90 percent — and insurers would be required to offer coverage in at least two categories. No denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: Unlike the other proposals the Finance Committee's will likely be bipartisan. With Republicans opposed to a government-run plan, the committee is looking at a compromise that would instead create nonprofit member-owned co-ops to compete with private insurers. HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: State-based exchanges. CHANGES TO MEDICAID: Everyone at 100 percent of poverty would be eligible. Between 100 and 133 percent, states or individuals have the choice between coverage under Medicaid or a 100 percent subsidy in the exchange. The expansion would be delayed until 2013, a late change to save money — the start date had been 2011. ___ HOUSE REPUBLICANS WHO'S COVERED: The House GOP's plan, in outline form for now, says it aims to make insurance affordable and accessible to all. There aren't estimates about how many additional people would be covered. COST: Unknown. HOW'S IT PAID FOR: No new taxes are proposed, but Republicans say they want to reduce Medicare and Medicaid fraud. REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: No mandates. REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: No mandates; small business tax credits are offered. Employers are encouraged to move to "opt-out" rather than "opt-in" rules for offering health coverage. SUBSIDIES: Tax credits are offered to "low- and modest-income" Americans. People who aren't covered through their employers but buy their own insurance are allowed to take a tax deduction. Low-income retirees younger than 65 (the eligibility age for Medicare) would be offered assistance. BENEFIT PACKAGE: Insurers would have to allow children to stay on their parents' plan through age 25. GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: No public plan. HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: No new purchasing exchange or marketplace is proposed. Health savings accounts and flexible spending plans would be strengthened. CHANGES TO MEDICAID: People eligible for Medicaid would be allowed to use the value of their benefit to purchase a private plan if they prefer. ___ OBAMA CAMPAIGN PROPOSAL WHO'S COVERED: All children and many now-uninsured adults. COST: Estimates as high as $1.6 trillion over 10 years. HOW'S IT PAID FOR: Obama proposed cuts within the health care system and raising taxes on households making more than $250,000 annually. REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Unlike his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama did not propose an "individual mandate." Instead he would have required all children to be insured, making it the parents' responsibility. REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Large employers would have been required to cover their employees or contribute to the costs of a new government-run plan. SUBSIDIES: Obama proposed giving subsidies to low-income people but didn't detail at what level. BENEFIT PACKAGE: Insurers participating in a new health exchange would have had to offer packages at least as generous as a new public plan. All insurers would have been prohibited from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and would have had to cover children through age 25 on family plans. GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: A new public plan would have offered comprehensive insurance similar to that available to federal employees. HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Through a new National Health Insurance Exchange where individuals could buy the new public plan or qualified private plans. CHANGES TO MEDICAID: Would have expanded Medicaid eligibility, but didn't specify income levels. Sources: Associated Press research, Kaiser Family Foundation, Lewin Group.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 8, 2009 18:37:38 GMT -7
And every one of the DA*NED proposals ensures the third party system stays firmly in place! Not one even pretends to look at the benefits of single payer options or anything even remotely suggesting that the power, influence of insurance companies would be reduced!
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Jul 8, 2009 18:40:03 GMT -7
And every one of the DA*NED proposals ensures the third party system stays firmly in place! Not one even pretends to look at the benefits of single payer options or anything even remotely suggesting that the power, influence of insurance companies would be reduced! Yup!
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 8, 2009 18:44:31 GMT -7
none of this constitues "change"!
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Jul 8, 2009 18:50:08 GMT -7
none of this constitues "change"! It changes which pockets the money flows into, but not the pockets from which it is taken
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 8, 2009 19:20:14 GMT -7
it doesn't constitute "change" in the industry is what I meant---health care, its access, treatment....the whole paradigm is STILL profit-centered, and still benefits the insurers at a level that will REMAIN disproportionate in terms of money and power
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Jul 12, 2009 17:07:21 GMT -7
Follow the bouncing Dollarwww.opposingviews.com/articles/news-senators-play-both-sides-of-fence-on-health-care-reform-r-1247437446Senators Play Both Sides of Fence on Health Care ReformBy OpenSecrets.org , Center for Responsive Politics - 1 Hour Ago Since our series on health reform commenced more than a month ago, we've watched how members of Congress react to the various health care proposals. All the while, interest groups have filled lawmakers' campaign coffers with cash. And they've spent millions of dollars on well-connected lobbyists to promote their positions. So it's not entirely surprising that some can't make up their minds. Pressure from constituents and activists, targeted advertising from interest groups and questions from the media, though, have forced these officials to speak publicly about health care policy. Here are a handful of examples of members of the Senate, who have tried to position themselves on multiple sides of the health care debate. -- Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) has downplayed the importance of health reform legislation with a public insurance option, while arguing for health cooperatives as an alternative and changes to the Medicare reimbursement formula. Since 1991, Cantwell has collected $584,300 from the health sector, with the bulk of that ($351,735) coming from health professionals, many of whom believe the Medicare reimbursement rates are unfair. Health professionals are also her No. 9 contributor over her career. Last month, Cantwell told a Washington public radio station that health reform legislation with a public insurance option wasn't feasible. "I don't think that's something we can get through the United States Senate," she said at the time. A week later, however, she had changed her tune. "There can be a bill with a public option that can pass," she told a newspaper in the state. In response, one of Seattle's weekly newspapers criticized her for changing the definition of "public plan" to include the "co-op compromise." Yet her office insisted to the newspaper that the senator's position is clear: "She could support a federally run health plan or a nonprofit co-op plan." -- Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), who switched party allegiances earlier this year, has also recently switched his stance on the importance of a public health insurance option. Specter has received more money from the health sector than any sitting senator who has not been his party's presidential nominee in the last five years — since 1989, more than $4 million has gone to Specter's campaign committee and leadership PAC. More than $1.5 million of that take comes from health professionals, who are Specter's No. 3 career campaign contributor. He has also raised more than $1 million from pharmaceutical and health products companies, which are his No. 7 all-time industry backer. Immediately following his party switch, Specter appeared on NBC's Meet the Press and maintained his opposition to his new party's public insurance goal. "I did not say I'm a loyal Democrat," Specter declared. When asked by host David Gregory if he would "not support a public plan," Specter said, "That's what I said, and that's what I meant." Two months later, at the end of June, Specter told a crowd of union activists he now stood with one of the Senate's leading advocates for a government-administered health insurance plan. "[Sen.] Schumer has it right about having a public component," he said. -- Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) has received $1.3 million from the health sector since 1995. Her campaign committee and leadership PAC have also collected more than $155,150 from health insurers. Last November, Landrieu, in a letter to the advocacy organization Health Care for America Now, signed a pledge to support health care reform that includes a public insurance option. By May of this year, however, her support seemed to be withering. "I am actually not sure," she told the Huffington Post in reference to a public option. "I don't think I am [for it], but I told the folks that are promoting it that I would talk with them… I'm not going to shut the door on anything right now." Yet by June, she told the online news organization that she had changed her mind. "I'm not open to a public option," she said. "Public option is not something that I support. I don't think it's the right way to go." Liberal groups, including Democracy for American and MoveOn.org, are now pressuring her with TV ads to again change her mindand re-support the public option. -- Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is one of the Senate's top 10 recipients of health industry campaign cash. The former Democratic vice presidential nominee, who backed Republican John McCain for president last year, has collected more than $2.5 million from the health sector since 1989 for his campaign committee and leadership PAC, and more than $455,000 from health insurers. Lieberman has said he supports universal health care, but he has now cooled to the idea of a government-backed public insurance plan. On the campaign trail in 2006, Lieberman said he backed legislation to "allow anybody in our country to buy into a national insurance pool like the health insurance pool that we federal employees and members of Congress have." (And he also championed this idea in 2004 as a Democratic presidential candidate.) Many activists and bloggers have said this sounds like an endorsement of a new public health insurance option, yet this summer, Lieberman said he has cooled to the idea of a public plan. "I don't favor a public option," he told reporters in June. "And I don't favor a public option because I think there's plenty of competition in the private insurance market." -- Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) has not only earned her ire from liberal bloggers for her fence sitting on a public insurance plan. It also prompted these liberal bloggers' Blue America PAC to fund pro-public option TV ads in her state. Lincoln has raised $1,953,400 from the health sector since 1989, counting money going to her campaign committee and leadership PAC. This places her among the top 18 senators who have accepted money from this industry. Health professionals are also her No. 2 campaign contributor over time, giving more than $701,000. During mid-June, Lincoln told the Arkansas News that she was apprehensive of a public plan and preferred private insurance co-ops as a mechanism for health care reform. "One of our biggest concerns is that it doesn't need to be a government plan that usurps that ability to compete in the marketplace, which I'm concerned that a totally government-run option would do," she said at the time. On Wednesday, she overcame some of that apprehension in a column in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that reportedly stated she would be open to a public option being part of the solution. "Individuals should be able to choose from a range of quality health insurance plans," she said. "Options should include private plans as well as a quality, affordable public plan or non-profit plan that can accomplish the same goals as those of a public plan." -- Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is on the record in support of a public insurance option. He has also collected more than $8 million from the health sector since 1989, with more than half of that coming from health professionals, who are his No. 8 all-time campaign backer. As a member of the Senate's powerful Finance Committee, which is crafting a portion of the chamber's reform proposal, he has also been considering other fallback options. When the Huffington Post blasted the headline "Kerry Pushes For Public Option Trigger In Closed-Door Meeting," his office issued a rapid clarification. "Let's be clear, if Sen. Kerry had his way, there'd be no debate: we'd have universal coverage tomorrow with a strong public plan at its core," his spokesperson said. "Sen. Kerry strongly supports a robust public option and has been pushing for it since day one of this debate… But it's no secret that the Finance Committee is looking at a whole range of progressive options with an eye on what can make its way to the president's desk to become law, and obviously if it's the only way to get universal health coverage then people will consider a trigger that ultimately guarantees a strong public option." -- Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) has raised $181,125 from health sector since 2007, for her campaign committee and leadership PAC, including $86,375 from health professionals. Her committees have also collected $22,600 from health insurers alone since 2007. At the end of June, her press office told a North Carolina newspaper that the first-term senator was not yet on board with a public option and she wanted "to ensure private health insurance isn't going to be destabilized" by any public insurance plan. She didn't want to see millions of people dropping their existing private health insurance and flock to a public option provider, leading to a collapse of the private health insurance market, according to her spokesperson. In response, MoveOn.org and others criticized her for holding up the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee's health reform proposal, which included a public option. Then, at the beginning of this month, she endorsed her committee's bill. "We have crafted a plan that will stabilize health care costs and includes a Community Health Insurance Option, which I support," she said. -- Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) reportedly doesn't want any health care reform to put the private insurance companies out of business. Democracy for America, the advocacy group run by former Democratic presidential candidate and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, which is tracking lawmakers' stances on the public option, lists Dorgan's position as undecided. Yet at least one North Dakota media outlet has gotten Dorgan, whose committees have taken $549,050 from the health sector since 1991, to commit. "I do believe that some sort of public option needs to be part of the proposal, along with a focus on bringing down health care costs and prevention," he told the blog NorthDecoder. "I do believe that a public option should negotiate for rates and drug prices."
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 12, 2009 19:58:49 GMT -7
now do you believe me?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Jul 13, 2009 4:21:00 GMT -7
Never doubted you Rosa
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jul 20, 2009 15:16:08 GMT -7
I get accused a lot of just being a nay-sayer in this area. I gotta say, though, some of the health care reform provisions I'm hearing about freak me out.
Obama keeps promising we can keep our current health coverage if we're happy with it, yet one bill states that that's only the case if you're currently enrolled and only as long as you don't change jobs.
That mandatory end of life counseling, to me, is chilling.
What about the defeat of the anti-rationing amendment? If this won't result in rationing as the Dems claim, why did the amendment fail?
The CBO says that we simply can't afford to do what Obama wants. For years during the Bush administration we were told we need to pay attention to the CBO. Why are we blowing them off now?
How exactly am I supposed to feel good about any of this?
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 23, 2009 8:46:04 GMT -7
Here's a run-down on a recent mistake made by Obama, off The Foundry blog. In some ways, I found myself agreeing with some of the generalized points expressed here, but in others, I disagreed with the partisan arguments (as described here) from both ends. And, while I see points for disagreement in Obama's plan and agree with the suspicions regarding the plans currently under proposal from the Democrats, I don't agree with the way they carry the points to the other extreme.
Granted, I'm the one here advocating that we de-commodify health care, but my point is that in looking at how Obama is taken to task for his screw-up, I find myself wishing there was a truly bi-partisan effort to analyze and fix our health care system. And frankly, I can't find any.
I'm posting the entry as is, but am including spacing where there isn't any on the original, just to make it easier to read.
The Heritage Foundation - Leadership for America The Foundry Morning Bell: Obama Admits He Is Not Familiar With House Bill Posted July 21st, 2009 at 9.16am
With the public's trust in his handling of health care tanking (50%-44% of Americans disapprove), the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to pass Obamacare: all Obama, all the time. As part of that effort, Obama hosted a conference call with leftist bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible. During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed? President Obama replied: You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about. (quote begins at 17:10)
This is a truly disturbing admission by the President, especially considering that later in the call, Obama promises yet again: If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period. How can Obama keep making this promise if he is not familiar with the health legislation that is being written in Congress? Details matter. We are familiar with the passage IBD cites, and as we wrote last week, the House bill does not outright outlaw private individual health insurance, but it does effectively regulate it out of existence.
The House bill does allow private insurance to be sold, but only Exchange-participating health benefits plans. In order to qualify as an "Exchange-participating health benefits plan", all health insurance plans must conform to a slew of new regulations, including community rating and guaranteed issue. These will all send the cost of private individual health insurance skyrocketing. Furthermore, all these new regulations would not apply just to individual insurance plans, but to all insurance plans. So the House bill will also drive up the cost of your existing employer coverage as well. Until, of course, it becomes so expensive that your company makes the perfectly economical decision to dump you into the government plan.
President Obama may not care to study how many people will lose their current health insurance if his plan becomes law, but like most Americans, we do. That is why we partnered with the Lewin Group to study how many Americans would be forced into the government option under the House health plan. Here is what we found:
Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and, as a consequence, about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.
About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.
Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately-insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare.
It is truly frightening that the President of the United States is pressuring Congress in an all-out media blitz to pass legislation that he flatly admits he has not read and is not familiar with. President Obama owes it to the American people to stop making promises about what his health plan will or will not do until he has read it, and can properly defend it in public, to his own supporters. Quick Hits:
Thanks to a steep drop from conservative and moderate Democrats, a plurality of Americans (49%-47%) now disapprove of President Obama's handling of the economy.
The Mayo Clinic on the House health bill: "Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill, the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite. The real losers will be the citizens of the United States."
According to Wall Street Bailout watchdog Neil Barofsky, the Obama Treasury Department has refused to give, or seek, answers about the use of bailout funds, while the total bailout commitment of the federal government has risen to $23 trillion. Thanks to Obama's sweeping agenda,the lobbyists on K Street are awash in cash.
The Senate health bill gives the Health and Human Services secretary the authority to develop "standards of measuring gender", as opposed to using the traditional "male" and "female" categories, in a database of all who apply or participate in government-run or government-supported health care plans.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 23, 2009 9:07:53 GMT -7
okay, here are some of my initial reactions, not having sourced the numbers they cite:
With the public's trust in his handling of health care tanking (50%-44% of Americans disapprove), the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to pass Obamacare: all Obama, all the time. As part of that effort, Obama hosted a conference call with leftist bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.
I agree, I'm getting hammered with emails pleading for support in hammering this legislation through, and I do not agree. I think there should be adequate time devoted to responsible analysis and debate...ram-rodding it through gets us into a deeper hole than we're already in, particularly if it's done on partisan interests either way. One email I got demands support for keeping the session going until they push something through
During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed? President Obama replied: You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about. (quote begins at 17:10)
This is a truly disturbing admission by the President, especially considering that later in the call, Obama promises yet again: If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period. How can Obama keep making this promise if he is not familiar with the health legislation that is being written in Congress? Details matter.
Yes, details matter. He said he isn't familiar with that section, which is bad enough. Given that he's asserting that competition will still be a viable factor, and that choice will remain on the table, he should most certainly know what all the sections say. BUT, having said that, this doesn't mean he's not familiar with the rest of the legislation that is being written in Congress.
Both sides are stretching it.
We are familiar with the passage IBD cites, and as we wrote last week, the House bill does not outright outlaw private individual health insurance, but it does effectively regulate it out of existence.
The House bill does allow private insurance to be sold, but only Exchange-participating health benefits plans. In order to qualify as an "Exchange-participating health benefits plan", all health insurance plans must conform to a slew of new regulations, including community rating and guaranteed issue.
Not at all sure I am against this, since there have been so many regulations over the years and various administrations that have ensured that the health insurance industry dominates health care.
There has been sufficient deregulation to have created the system as it exists today...if we stay with a third party system, what regulations can be implemeted to improve access, delivery and reimbursments?
I would want to see the regs, the way the ratings systems are established and more of what "guaranteed issue" would oblige insurers to do, under these new regs.
These will all send the cost of private individual health insurance skyrocketing. Furthermore, all these new regulations would not apply just to individual insurance plans, but to all insurance plans. So the House bill will also drive up the cost of your existing employer coverage as well.
If the issue is one of cost containment now, why have costs risen so sharply? What made them rise before this? Was it adequately addressed to improve access and reimbursments, while maintaining profit? Who impacted this, to what degree?
Until, of course, it becomes so expensive that your company makes the perfectly economical decision to dump you into the government plan.
Well, the issue here is that companies are reducing access or dumping the coverage now, they've been doing it for a while, because it's gotten too costly, and the cost cutting hedges on coverage rather than jobs. And in the meantime, costs continue to rise?
And, this doesn't address the increasing numbers of uninsured or underinsured....
President Obama may not care to study how many people will lose their current health insurance if his plan becomes law, but like most Americans, we do. That is why we partnered with the Lewin Group to study how many Americans would be forced into the government option under the House health plan. Here is what we found:
Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and, as a consequence, about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.
About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.
Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately-insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare.
I don't like Obama's take either. And, this is one set of estimates, supportive of this perspective...there will be others, I'd like to see several, non or bi-partisan work-ups that come from neutral sources; and premuims are already way up, as are costs, reimbursments are down, and people are losing their coverage now, all of it, with no alternative to be dumped into.
What has been done to address this, responsibly, from either the left or the right?
It is truly frightening that the President of the United States is pressuring Congress in an all-out media blitz to pass legislation that he flatly admits he has not read and is not familiar with. President Obama owes it to the American people to stop making promises about what his health plan will or will not do until he has read it, and can properly defend it in public, to his own supporters.
I couldn't agree more. THe only point I would add is that many of our citizens, and our health care system are already in a "frightening" state.
Quick Hits:
Thanks to a steep drop from conservative and moderate Democrats, a plurality of Americans (49%-47%) now disapprove of President Obama's handling of the economy.
Source? Was it cross-referenced with others to allow for an accurate read?
The Mayo Clinic on the House health bill: "Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill, the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite. The real losers will be the citizens of the United States."
This is the quote from Mayo, taken from Time:
Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill – including insurance for all and payment reform demonstration projects – the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite.
In general, the proposals under discussion are not patient focused or results oriented. Lawmakers have failed to use a fundamental lever – a change in Medicare payment policy – to help drive necessary improvements in American health care. Unless legislators create payment systems that pay for good patient results at reasonable costs, the promise of transformation in American health care will wither. The real losers will be the citizens of the United States.
"Unless legislators create payment systems that pay for good patient results at reasonable costs, the promise of transformation in American health care will wither." There is recognition here, that our health care system needs improvment. And this recognizes the responsibility all our lawmakers have in this process, it's inclusive. Among other things, it points to the fact that current proposals are insufficient in that they are neither patient-focused or results-oriented. The Obama administration says it can accomplish these goals, and so work needs to be done. Neither of these goals can or will be achieved by pushing through legislation without scrutiny.
According to Wall Street Bailout watchdog Neil Barofsky, the Obama Treasury Department has refused to give, or seek, answers about the use of bailout funds, while the total bailout commitment of the federal government has risen to $23 trillion. Thanks to Obama's sweeping agenda, the lobbyists on K Street are awash in cash.
True. But when was the last time lobbyists weren't "awash in cash"?
The Senate health bill gives the Health and Human Services secretary the authority to develop "standards of measuring gender", as opposed to using the traditional "male" and "female" categories, in a database of all who apply or participate in government-run or government-supported health care plans.
There is a link provided that drives this last point home. The link takes you here:
CNSNews.com Health Care Bill Directs HHS Secretary to Develop 'Standards for Measuring Gender'--As Opposed to 'Male' and 'Female' Monday, July 20, 2009 By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee’s health care legislation will give the Health and Human Services secretary the authority to develop “standards of measuring gender” -- as opposed to using the traditional "male" and "female" categories -- in a database of all who apply or participate in government-run or government-supported health care plans. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is required by the proposed law -- The Affordable Health Choices Act,which was voted out of committee on July 15 -- to create a database within one year of the law’s enactment that will include detailed information about those who sign up for government-run or supported health care programs, including their race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language and disabilities. The proposed law states that the database can use the Office of Management and Budget “standards for race and ethnicity measures.” But for the collection of “gender” data, instead of using the categories “male” and “female," the legislation calls for “developing standards for the measurement of gender.” The language is found on page 410 and 411 of the 615 document under SEC. 332: Understanding Health Disparities: Data Collection and Analysis. The legislation says that the purpose of the database is to “detect and monitor trends in health disparities” at “federal and state levels.” The legislation also says the database will be made available to a wide range of federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control, the Office for Minority Health, and the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. It also stipulates that the database will be secure and will protect individual privacy. Merriam Webster dictionary defines “gender” as a subset of a grammatical class of certain languages; sex, i.e., male or female, as its second definition; and the third definition refers to “the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex.” According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “sex” refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women. “Gender” refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. Like the Senate HELP health care bill, the House version--America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009--does not include in its proposed database of participants categories for “male,” “female,” or “sex,” but uses “gender” as a category for data collection. “Gender identity” is routinely used by homosexual groups to define differences in sexual orientation, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and, in some cases, “questioning.”
I take issue with this latter point. There is no "homosexual group" I am aware of that makes such distinctions, let alone on any "routine" basis. Apart from the term "transgender", the distinctions listed are those of sexual orientation, rather than gender distinction. The suggestion that there are gay or lesbian individuals who aren't clear on whether they are male or female is inaccurate. There are transgendered and transsexual individuals who offer to make distinctions between how they identify themselves and how they were born....but this isn't the same thing. Muddying the water here is inaccurate and does each of these particular groups disservice, and I think it's politically motivated.
As to the opposition regarding the change in gender designation itself, I found the inclusive language a welcome change
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 27, 2009 4:08:42 GMT -7
well, it turns out that "non-partisan" study conducted by the Lewin Group may have some questionable ties; this is from The Washington Post[/i]
Research Firm Cited by GOP Is Owned by Health Insurer By David S. Hilzenrath Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, July 22, 2009; 6:46 PM
The political battle over health-care reform is waged largely with numbers, and few number-crunchers have shaped the debate as much as the Lewin Group, a consulting firm whose research has been widely cited by opponents of a public insurance option.
To Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, it is "the nonpartisan Lewin Group." To Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, it is an "independent research firm." To Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the second-ranking Republican on the pivotal Finance Committee, it is "well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country."
Generally left unsaid amid all the citations is that the Lewin Group is wholly owned by UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation's largest insurers.
More specifically, the Lewin Group is part of Ingenix, a UnitedHealth subsidiary that was accused by the New York attorney general and the American Medical Association, a physician's group, of helping insurers shift medical expenses to consumers by distributing skewed data. Ingenix supplied its parent company and other insurers with data that allegedly understated the "usual and customary" doctor fees that insurers use to determine how much they will reimburse consumers for out-of-network care.
In January, UnitedHealth agreed to a $50 million settlement with the New York attorney general and a $350 million settlement with the AMA, covering conduct going back as far as 1994.
Ingenix chief executive Andrew Slavitt said the Ingenix data was never biased, but Ingenix nonetheless agreed to exit that particular line of business. "The data didn't have the appearance of independence that's necessary for it to be useful," Slavitt said.
Lewin Group Vice President John Sheils said his firm had nothing to do with the allegedly flawed Ingenix reimbursement data. Lewin has gone through "a terribly difficult adjustment" since it was bought by UnitedHealth in 2007, because the corporate ownership "does create the appearance of a conflict of interest."
"It hasn't affected . . . the work we do, and I think people who know me know that I am not a good liar," Sheils said.
Lewin's clients include the government and private groups with a variety of perspectives, including the Commonwealth Fund and the Heritage Foundation. A February report contained information that could be used to argue for a single-payer system, the approach most threatening to private insurers, Sheils noted.
But not all of the firm's reports see the light of day. For example, a study for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association was never released, Sheils said.
"Let's just say, sometimes studies come out that don't show exactly what the client wants to see. And in those instances, they have [the] option to bury the study -- to not release it, rather," Sheils said.
Asked to comment, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association spokesman Brett Lieberman said, "We're still working with Lewin on a study, and, you know, we don't talk about our studies until they're done."
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jul 28, 2009 20:29:31 GMT -7
|
|