Obama/Dems Pushing for National Socialized Medicine

I'm working on a project to make sure that we still have choices when it comes to health care versus the runaway train known as nationalized, socialized and otherwise ill-conceived government health care. I'm looking for people who support allowing private health insurance providers keep a seat at the table during this debate. A few weeks ago, a coalition of health insurance companies unveiled a plan that could save trillions of dollars over the next few years. We simply cannot afford to sit back. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm working for AHIP (American Health Insurance Plans). To learn more about the Campaign for an American Solution, please visit: http://www.americanhealthsolution.org/

If you share my views about letting private companies put forth options for health care reforms, please PM me ASAP! Thanks

I know it's not realistic, but I like the idea of having everything in the private sector. This lets those companies compete to offer the best plans for the lowest cost. If the government gets out of it, people will be looking for that low price and the companies will be able to offer it to them. I still believe that private is the way to go. "When insurance companies compete, you win"

The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.

Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United Kingdom

There you go. Keep in mind: this is a simple list of countries that have some sort of publicly sponsored health care system. For instance, Sri Lanka may be far from having a true, working universal health care system like France, but prescription drugs are provided by a government-owned drug manufacturer. This qualifies as "some sort of publicly sponsored, universal health care system."

matt888 -

Are you saying we should have the U.S. federal government making prescription drugs and "providing" them to us?

skf

While universal health care may not be the answer, something has to be done. A person, if sick should not have to lose everything they worked for all their life or have to make a decision on meds or food, rent or heat during the winter. I don't want things for nothing but it would make sense to have a large pool of people to negotiate the best price. by doing so, it will reduce cost for employers and individuals.

M E M O R A N D U M
To: Reporters and editors
Re: Health industry cost savings
Da: Monday, June 1, 2009

Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Committee on Finance, today made
the following comment on the health industry’s proposals to help save $2 trillion in
health care costs.

“I’m skeptical that these proposals will add up to anywhere near $2 trillion. In the
legislative process, proposals rise or fall based on what CBO says about them, and the
same will be true here.”

http://finance.senate.gov/press/Gpress/2009/prg060109b.pdf

Editor's Note: What can Sen. Snowe be thinking here? Is this a political ploy to get Democrats to sign on to her idea to leave a public option on the table, perhaps to be used years up the road? As I read the letter from Snowe's Senate Finance Committee co-members - they are exactly right on the perils of a public option for health care.

GOP senators warn Obama on health care
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR - 6/8/09

WASHINGTON (AP) — Obama’s making a mistake...by insisting on a government [health] insurance option for the middle class....

It could cost him chances for broad support.., nine...members of the Senate Finance Committee, warned [in a letter].

"...[W]hen major government programs like Medicare/Medicaid are...on a path to fiscal insolvency, ...a...new government program will...worsen our long term financial outlook [and] negatively impact American families..," said the letter, signed by all but...Sen. Olympia Snowe.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gap9wCaolRYguYQesA2i2Y...

====

US Senator Orrin Hatch

US Senator Orrin Hatch
June 8th, 2009

HATCH AND REPUBLICAN FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS IMPLORE OBAMA: NO GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTHCARE PLAN

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) along with other Republican Finance Committee members today released a letter they sent to President Obama voicing their opposition to a government-run plan in health care reform.

The Senators explain, “At a time when major government programs like Medicare and Medicaid are already on a path to fiscal insolvency, creating a brand new government program will not only worsen our long term financial outlook but also negatively impact American families who enjoy the private coverage of their choice.”

“The end result would be a federal government takeover of our healthcare system, taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and placing them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy,” they conclude.

Hatch secured the following signatures for the letter:

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)
Senator Jim Bunning (R-Ky.)
Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)
Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kan.)
Senator John Ensign (R-Nev.)
Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.)
Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas)

The full letter follows:

The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

Ensuring access to affordable, quality and portable health care for every American is not a Republican or Democrat issue - it is an American issue. Our nation expects us to solve this challenge in an open, honest and bipartisan manner. Republicans stand ready to work with you on health care reform.

There are many areas of broad agreement about what needs to be done to expand access, improve quality and reduce costs in order to make these efforts successful for millions of Americans. However, there are areas of strong concerns that we are currently in the process of working through in the Senate Finance Committee to ensure that the focus remains on American families and not Washington.

One of the more divisive issues in the health care reform debate is the creation of a brand new public health insurance option. In a letter dated June 2, 2009, you specifically endorsed the creation of such a public health insurance option.

At a time when major government programs like Medicare and Medicaid are already on a path to fiscal insolvency, creating a brand new government program will not only worsen our long term financial outlook but also negatively impact American families who enjoy the private coverage of their choice. A recent Milliman study estimated that the cost-shifting from government payers (specifically Medicare and Medicaid) costs families with private insurance nearly $1800 more per year.

Furthermore, actuaries at the Lewin Group have concluded that such a plan open to all, and offering Medicare-level reimbursement rates, would result in 119.1 million Americans losing their private coverage. This would run contrary to your pledge to the American families about allowing them to keep the coverage of their choice.

Washington-run programs undermine market-based competition through their ability to impose price controls and shift costs to other purchasers. Forcing free market plans to compete with these government-run programs would create an unlevel playing field and inevitably doom true competition. In his March, 2009 testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Doug Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, testified that it would be “extremely difficult” to create “a system where a public plan could compete on a level playing field” against private coverage. The end result would be a federal government takeover of our healthcare system, taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and placing them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy.

It is essential that we work together across party lines and we would like to express our strong desire to focus on areas of compromise to move forward on this important challenge in a comprehensive, inclusive and bipartisan manner. We have a real need for reform and an opportunity on behalf of the American people to get it done. If we are responsible in our policy approaches and strive for true bipartisanship, we can get meaningful reform done this year.

Sincerely,

*A copy of the letter is attached here.
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=DataPipes.ViewPDF&Id...

###

Senator Snowe is a Republican? Why I'll be!

www.washingtontimes.com
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Obama health reform backs public insurer
Jennifer Haberkorn (Contact)

Obama stepped up his role in the health care reform debate last week with a letter to Congress in which he said he "strongly" believes a reform plan should include the creation of...a government-run program...

[R]eforming the industry, which accounts for 18 percent of the American economy, is a formidable challenge. There is little consensus on how exactly to do it — or how to pay for it.

Obama’s set a deadline of August...

Source

I wonder how much higher this $1,800 per family figure is in Maine where we have 25% of our population on MaineCare and we get to pay for Dirigo too.

Greg Mankiw asks -

"Would the public plan have access to taxpayer funds unavailable to private plans?

If the answer is yes, then the public plan would not offer honest competition to private plans."

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/06/whats-point-of-public-option.html

Says who?

Why are insurance plans and companies even in the debate on access to health care at this time. If these companies say they can save 2 trillion then why have thy not done so already? The fact is insurance plans are in the business of making money not providing health care.

It's pretty clear, that even with all scrutiny of the U.S. health care system, that we have yet to begin to understand why the cost of health care has risen so much and why it is still rising at an alarming rate over the last few decades.

I would wager that the basic structure of our health care system is not unlike what happened to our financial systems, that there are some sectors in the health care system that are functioning for other reasons then to provide affordable health care, and that if we as a nation truly had an interest in a health care system that provided good sound medical care for all citizens of this country that it would happen, but it won't happen until we can uncover and get beyond the current apposing frames in this discussion. I think the current system of U.S. health care is also not unlike what has happened to the auto industry...those at the top, the managers just don't want the system to change..those at the bottom of course would, but have no say...or have yet to come to realize that we could force a change. Of course when the system goes bust...it will change..I'm all for a nationalized health care system..and the stronger the better. Once we have a strong national health care system, the cost will come down. And American businesses and employees will benefit as well.

Nationalize the health care system now.

Johnd

A follow up...from the New Yorker, a very interesting read..Pay attention to how the Mayo Clinic's operate...

The Cost Conundrum:

When you look across the spectrum from Grand Junction to McAllen—and the almost threefold difference in the costs of care—you come to realize that we are witnessing a battle for the soul of American medicine. Somewhere in the United States at this moment, a patient with chest pain, or a tumor, or a cough is seeing a doctor. And the damning question we have to ask is whether the doctor is set up to meet the needs of the patient, first and foremost, or to maximize revenue.

Dramatic improvements and savings will take at least a decade. But a choice must be made. Whom do we want in charge of managing the full complexity of medical care? We can turn to insurers (whether public or private), which have proved repeatedly that they can’t do it. Or we can turn to the local medical communities, which have proved that they can. But we have to choose someone—because, in much of the country, no one is in charge. And the result is the most wasteful and the least sustainable health-care system in the world.

As America struggles to extend health-care coverage while curbing health-care costs, we face a decision that is more important than whether we have a public-insurance option, more important than whether we will have a single-payer system in the long run or a mixture of public and private insurance, as we do now. The decision is whether we are going to reward the leaders who are trying to build a new generation of Mayos and Grand Junctions. If we don’t, McAllen won’t be an outlier. It will be our future. ♦

From today's NYT...Health Care Spending Disparities Stir a Fight President Obama recently summoned aides to the Oval Office to discuss a magazine article investigating why the border town of McAllen, Tex., was the country’s most expensive place for health care. The article became required reading in the White House, with Mr. Obama even citing it at a meeting last week with two dozen Democratic senators.

But the proposals are not just pork-barrel politics. They are based on the research by Dartmouth experts who have documented wide geographic variations in health spending. The research has become phenomenally influential on Capitol Hill since it was popularized by Peter R. Orszag, as director of the Congressional Budget Office and then as President Obama’s budget director.

Aides said Mr. Obama had been intrigued by regional variations in health spending since before his inauguration. The topic came up at a meeting with Mr. Orszag in Chicago late last year.

The main point from the New Yorker article, better health care practices, less greed. Get health care back to it's non-profit status.

Johnd

NOT UNUSUAL, THE POLS ARE ARGUING ABOUT THE WRONG ISSUE.

Lean Medical Care Blog
Saving Health Care in America

Among the Pols, the debate seems centered on public vs. private health care. Unfortunately, while fodder for the ignorant voting masses, this issue has no relevance for controlling health care cost. Health care costs are driven by doctors' prescriptions for more services than are needed for appropriate care. To be frank about it, the medical community doesn't care whether the payers are public or private, so long as they can practice medicine and get paid in a timely manner.

I think it worth the time to examine the points of view here in the last few post...pause the debate for public vs. private health care and look at why health care cost are rising..

Johnd

Snowe Reiterates Call for Comprehensive Health Care Reform to Increase Access to Quality and Affordable Coverage

June 9, 2009

Washington, D.C. -

Today, U.S. Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, reiterated her call for comprehensive health care reform to ensure universal access to quality and affordable health care in America. In a meeting with Nancy-Ann DeParle, Director of the White House Office of Health Reform, Senator Snowe said it is vital for Congress to enact legislation this year to effectively overhaul the health care system and produce real reforms and savings.

"Today, Americans see the failures of a health insurance system which isn’t properly serving them, as coverage is denied, or simply priced out of reach, and competition is limited," Senator Snowe said. "It is vital for Congress to achieve comprehensive health reform this year to ensure every American can obtain high quality, affordable coverage."

Senator Snowe said that Congress can achieve the goal of comprehensive health care reform as long as deliberations allow members on both sides of the aisle to fully examine the costs and savings associated with each proposal and to provide for adequate opportunity to understand the policies build consensus on this landmark legislation. Today, in a letter to Committee Chairmen, Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) Senator Snowe reiterated this message joining 17 of her Republican Senate colleagues in writing, "This reform effort holds the potential to be the most sweeping legislative measure that Congress has considered in a generation, and as a nation, we cannot afford to get this wrong."

During her one-on-one meeting with Nany-Ann DeParle, Senator Snowe outlined her priorities for health care reform and stressed the need for Congress to reform health insurance in order to increase competition and lower prices for consumers.

"We must establish fairer, more competitive and efficient health coverage for all Americans," Senator Snowe continued. "As we do that and ask individuals to be responsible and purchase coverage - as government provides assistance to low income Americans - and as businesses struggle to ensure their employees - it is reasonable to expect health plans to also respond with coverage which is competitively priced."

If the private plans fail, Senator Snowe said a public option should then be available from day one.

"When reforms are enacted and implemented, if individuals are not offered affordable choices, the use of a fallback public plan plays a critical role," Senator Snowe said. "Given that the Congress is undertaking its first broad regulatory reform of the health insurance market, it is wise to allow these reforms to be applied – and at the same time, assure that a public plan option will be in place immediately where private plans fail to adequately perform."

As a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Snowe will play a key role in crafting legislation to overhaul the nation’s health care system. The Committee has jurisdiction over the tax and finance aspects of health care as well as the federal health entitlement programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. To date, the Committee has completed a series of 22 hearings and roundtables examining health care in America and options for reform.

-###-

Editor's Note: Democrat Sen. Wyden quick to distance himself from Sen. Snowe's public option plan.

www.blueoregon.com
Why not, Wyden? Blogtown questions his opposition to Obama
T.A. Barnhart

While Obama supports a national public health insurance option, [Sen. Ron] Wyden has so far refused, and his reluctance is creating tension among Democrats in Oregon and across the country.

Obama does not merely support the public option; he has made it an integral part of his plan.

Wyden's current opposition to the public option stems from the fact that he has co-sponsored health care legislation that leaves public options to the individual states...

http://www.blueoregon.com/2009/06/why-not-wyden-blogtown-questions-his-o...

====

Press Release of Senator Wyden

Wyden "Trigger" Rumors are "False"

Washington, D.C- U.S. Senator Ron Wyden's Chief of Staff, Josh Kardon, released the following statement today correcting rumors that Senator Wyden supports a public option "trigger."

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

“There is a rumor making the rounds that Sen. Wyden supports the Snowe proposal for a public option "trigger." That rumor is false. It never happened and he has at no time expressed support for this idea.

“As happens so often both around Congress and across the Internet, false information gets spread and repeated until even well-meaning commentators begin to adopt and repeat the false information as if it were fact. This appears to have happened with former Secretary Reich, and we regret that he fell victim to this rumor.

“Senator Wyden’s Healthy Americans Act has for more than two and a half years contained a provision allowing states to pursue their own public option on “Day One.” This happens to track the approach recommended by the Oregon Health Fund Board. His legislation would also require the Federal government to establish a public option in any state that lacked a variety of health plan choices equal to what Members of Congress currently receive. Both of these provisions, however, are a far cry from the Snowe proposal.

“With regard to a national public option, Senator Wyden has made clear that he is not wed to the approach he put forward in 2006 and is open to a national public option on Day One -- not requiring the Snowe "trigger" -- if it is accompanied by real reform that is responsibly and sustainably financed.”

###

House Democratic leaders gave members their first glimpse of their version of President Obama’s healthcare overhaul on Tuesday, with liberals leaving the meeting happy and centrist Democrats walking away skeptical.

The outline put forth lacked many of the details that will decide the fate of the overhaul — notably, how the proposal would be paid for. But it made good on the commitment Obama and Democratic leaders made to include a government-run “public option.”

Source: The Hill

I would certainly agree that healthcare is a huge mess at the moment. I think its a combination of corporate interests whose only goal is the bottom line and all the welfare insurers. No one is paying with his own money.

But those who think having the Federal or State goverments run all of this, and that it will work, have been smoking some mighty fine stuff. Ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes Jack!

When Maine hospitals are giving CEO's million dollar salaries there is something wrong with that.

Last thing any government agency can do is to do anything efficiently. Proof of that anyplace you want to look. Do you want the people like the ones who take care of our roads making healthcare decisions for you and yours?

WC

Kennedy health plan includes long-term care

WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans would be able to buy long-term care insurance from the government for $65 a month under a provision tucked into sweeping health care legislation that senators will begin considering next week.

The 651-page bill, released Tuesday by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., would revamp the way health insurance works. Insurance companies would face a slew of new government rules, dealing with everything from guaranteed coverage for people with health problems to possible limitations on profits. Taxpayers, employers and individuals would share in the cost of expanding coverage to nearly 50 million uninsured Americans.

This is not what our fore fathers intended. NOT AT ALL. Guys like ole Teddy couldn't hold a candle to guys like Madison, Washington and the likes!

Americans would be able to buy long-term care insurance from the government for $65 a month ...
That's nice. How much do my taxes go up to subsidize the government's undercutting of private enterprise? How much do my taxes go up to pay for the deadbeats who won't cough up the $65 but who will receive long term care because to deny them would not be compassionate? Which orifice did Teddy pull that number out of?

I am in a class covering logistics. One of the specialists in this class focuses solely on health care. His role in this industry tracks $. He states, much like your concerns above, that the hardest thing to do is collect the 35 dollar fee from patients for the care. They sit in an emergency room, rather than visiting a doctor, and congest them with things like sore teeth, conjunctivitis, etc. They are seen by a healthcare professional and bail. The 35 dollars is then passed on to the paying customers in the form of increased costs because of those deadbeats!!!

This bill is a farce! Ted is slime.

Article from Mother Jones...It's all about profits, not about health care...Nationalize Health Care now...

The Health Care Industry's PR Scam: Will Obama Fall for It?

Do you see a pattern here? None of these changes would make a dent in the industry’s bottom line--and what’s more, they could even enhance profits, by encouraging government-funded programs to help private companies streamline their bloated bureaucracy (much of which would instantly become superfluous under a public, single-payer system). The letter to Obama suggested this when it said: “We are committed to taking action in private-public partnership to create a more stable and sustainable health care system.” We all know by now that “private-public partnership” usually means public investment for private profit.

It all adds up to a brilliant move, when you think about it. It makes the private health care companies look cooperative and proactive, rather than like the greedy obstructionists they really are. It gets these companies on the inside track with the administration, and creates common cause with the unions. In particular, it establishes a solid place at the table for the health insurance industry, the blood-sucking middlemen who ought to be kicked out of the health care system altogether.

And what might the industry get in return for this generous “cooperation”? The Kaiser Daily Health Policy report today rounded up the possibilities:

The [Wall Street] Journal reports that although the groups did not ask for anything in return for the pledge, many of the factions are looking to prevent regulations that could “pose new burdens” or affect their profitability. For example, the health insurance industry is seeking to offset any reductions to their payments by obtaining new rules that would require all U.S. residents to have health coverage, according to the Journal. The Journal reports that health insurers have made several concessions intended to prevent a public option — which they fear could affect their profitability — as part of reform legislation (Wall Street Journal, 5/11). According to the AP/Philadelphia Inquirer, drugmakers are hoping to avoid a requirement that new drugs pass a cost-benefit test before receiving regulatory approval. In addition, hospitals and physicians are looking to avoid a system in which the government would dictate their payments for all patients, not just those under Medicare or Medicaid (Alonso-Zaldivar, AP/Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/11).

In other words, the underlying purpose of this PR stunt is to slow or block any meaningful health care reforms, which could actually improve care while reducing the price tag by a lot more than 1.5 percent. These include regulating the cost of pharmaceuticals and medical devices, curtailing or eliminating the role of the insurance companies, or introducing single-payer, which allows other developed countries to deliver superior health care for 20 to 40 percent less--all of which make $2 trillion in weight-loss programs and paperwork reduction measures look pretty pitiful by comparison.

JohnD

If government does such a bang-up job in delivering health care, could you please explain why Medicaid, Medicare and Dirigo are nearly insolvent.?

Also, how would you pay for a single-payer program?

If health-care is a God-given right, what about food, housing, clothing? Can we remove the profits from these companies and have the government control those commodities, too?

What do we do about people who smoke, drink, eat bad foods? Do they pay more for health insurance or do we tax them more?....often times these are the groups most maligned by the evil capitalists....the uneducated, rural, working poor. Should we make all their choices for them because we know better than they about their behavioral choices?

Should we mandate that "everyone" MUST have health insurance? If so, can i get premium discounts such as on my homewoner and auto policies for lack of claims, good beavior and choices, solid credit history, etc.?

How do we address those who run to the doctor every time they have the sniffles? Do we have a cap on services? Or should it be an all-you-can eat buffet that the collective pays for?

Even Obama admits his health care plan will cost $50 to $65 billion. Surely you haven't fallen for the Dirigo lie that it will "pay for itself in savings". In case you hadn't noticed, the politburo in Augusta just passed a tax on healthcare payments to attempt to continue to fund Dirigo. Expect more of the same from Obama when he rams through his healthcare plan.

I agree that healthcare costs are too high, but government has proven that the only thing they're good at is redistributing taxpayer money to favored groups. And I include both parties in that. This will be no different.

I'd also like to amend my earlier post. I absolutely believe we need healthcare reform. The rub comes when we debate the best approach.

But why can't health insurance be like auto insurance? How many companies offer auto insurance in Maine? How many offer health insurance?

Also, can we please discuss tort reform? Look how much medical providers have to pay for liability coverage!!!

But why can't health insurance be like auto insurance? How many companies offer auto insurance in Maine? How many offer health insurance?
Pretend you run XYZ Health Insurance Co and you want to consider doing business in Maine. After contacting the apparatchiks in Augusta, they tell you all about the mandates they require in any policy. A little quick arithmetic convinces you that, after adding all that crap into your product, it would be nearly identical to Anthem's and cost just as much. The only way to compete is to take a whopping loss. Being at least moderately intelligent, you decline and take your business elsewhere.

That's why.

You nailed it, IAC...let's regulate it more.....that will make it less expensive...