This is the full video of the speech:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
So I just watched Obama's address to Congress on the issue of health care reform, and I thought I'd throw my hat into the ring on the topics of the speech, it's effectiveness, and health care reform in general. This isn't meant to be a polished essay or a complete analysis by any means, only my reaction to one of the most important moments in Obama's young presidency and in the history of health care reform. I took a few pages of notes during the speech, so I think my summaries are fairly accurate. Also, I don't mean to dumb down the issues at all by providing pretty straightforward, perhaps inadequately supported commentary, but for the sake of time, and the realization that my opinion is marginally important, here goes. My goal in writing this is mainly to share my thoughts on the speech, and hear from others who've heard it. If you've watched the full speech, please feel free to comment- even if you think I'm completely wrong.
First off, I thought the President gave a fair and non-partisan summary of the problems we face in the current health care system. These issues of course include skyrocketing cost of coverage, decreasing quality of care, and the number of Americans being dropped from their coverage daily- I won't waste time detailing these issues, since they are thrown around pretty frequently, and are agreed upon by both Democrats and Republicans. Therefore, President Obama successfully articulated the clear and present need for health care reform of some sort in the US. We can not continue to do nothing.
Next, I thought Obama did a decent job emphasizing aspects of health care reform that are supported bipartisan. He mentioned previous attempts by members from both sides of the ideological aisle(ie John McCain Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Grassley's contributions, etc.). It was also very smart to begin with aspects that are supported bipartisan, basically indicating that the issues that unite us are greater than those that divide us. The President subdivided these reforms into 3 groups who would be affected: people with insurance; people without insurance; and people without insurance by choice. To cherrypick a few of these reforms, Obama called for: continued consumer choice of health care insurers/providers; no denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions; no rationing of care; and the "market exchange" concept. Again, I took a lot of notes on this part of the speech, but if you want to hear all the ideas stated you should probably just youtube the speech- there's no way I can summarize the President's speech better than he said it.
Here's the takeaway point, at least for me; the majority of the speech was spent outlining sensible, nonpartisan/bipartisan reforms that would drive down costs while increasing availability of coverage. Though more controversial aspects of reform(the public option) garnered murmurs and even boos, if you watch the video, there are many moments when the President received a standing ovation from congressional Republicans. I would argue that a major purpose of this speech was a call to action to members of Congress.
Obama also addressed a few of the controversies surrounding the health care debate. Being that the media focuses in on these controversies, I'm sure you've heard of them- death panels, health insurance to illegal immigrants, federal funding of abortions, and public option-caused government takeover of the private sector. Honestly, I didn't think he spent enough time addressing these concerns. While I don't believe most of them, a significant portion of Americans are legitimately afraid. I think the President could and should have done more to ease these fears(as evidenced when a GOP Representative from South Carolina shouted "it's a lie" at the President). Doing so may have lessened opposition across the country, and therefore better paved the road to reform..
Moving on to the public option, President Obama next attempted to explain the public option and how it would work. He claimed that a government-run insurance option would not derail the health insurance industry, but would force private companies to keep costs down in order to remain competitive. Also(and I didn't know this before), Obama cited a statistic that only about 5% of Americans would likely choose the public option. More importantly, he reminded the audience that a public option is not the cornerstone or driving force behind the reform movement, and should not be used as a wedge to change. I believe that if opposition to the public option strengthens, it will likely be dropped from the proposed legislation. Personally, I'm unsure of how I feel about the public option. Clearly, people have legitimate concerns regarding it, and I'll be the first to admit that I need to learn more about it before I form an opinion. Still, Obama was pretty successful in minimizing the perceived impact the public option would have on the US(as opposed to the destruction of liberty and a rapid descent into socialism).
And now, the question all of America has been asking- how do we pay for it?? Stating that the projected cost of reform would be $900 billion over the next 10 years, Obama pointed out that this would cost less than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Bush era tax cuts to the "wealthy." Put that way, and it doesn't seem like that much. But it's still 900 BILLION DOLLARS, an amount that can't even be fathomed, let alone dismissed. Obama claimed that this amount would be paid mainly by savings within the system decreases in waste(vague, I know), and keeping prices down through competition, fees to insurance companies for the most expensive practices, and efficiency in general. My hope is that specific, detailed areas of saving will be targeted and publicized over the coming weeks. Finally, Obama again stated that he would not sign a piece of legislation that would add a dime to the federal deficit; he believes that all future costs would be offset by a decrease in waste and fraud. Perhaps this is the "Read my lips, no new taxes" of Obama's presidency, but he was pretty clear. If he goes back on that, he can say goodbye to 2012. What I didn't know- Obama clearly said that the final legislation will include a provision that if health care adds to the deficit in any way, mandatory spending cuts in other areas of government expenditure would be enacted. I think that's a great idea.
I've heard a few people reject the President's address as typical empty words, devoid of legislative details and full of sh... something. Though I agree with them to some extent(on the lack of details), we have to consider that this address was not intended to completely and thoroughly explain the President' favored means of health care reform. Though some of us were left asking for clear policies, think about the millions of Americans who are less educated, less informed, or just plain less interested. This address was supposed to be a simple, utilitarian spark notes of health care reform, explained in terms easily understood by the common man. This address was basically meant to redefine the argument, to steer public discourse away from death panels and socialism/fascism and toward meaningful change. I truly believe that the President is reaching across the aisle, as shoving health care reform down America's throat without any Republican support would basically mean electoral death in both the midterms and a possible re-election bid. The reason he was scant on details is because the final legislation hasn't been written yet. He asked for input from all members of Congress, and he was very clear that he supports some Republican-favored ideas(ie tort reform). There's still time to have your voices heard, and frankly, I'd like to hear them.
Michael:
Thank you for an insightful and well-written guest blog, right on the heels of President Obama’s speech..
Call me a throwback to the "Medium is the Message" theories of Marshall McLuhan, but for a variety of reasons, I chose not to listen to President Obama deliver his speech on TV.
Rather, I downloaded it from the White House website, and read it thrice, before engaging in my own thoughtful interpretations of its content, as well as its rhetorical structure and flow..
I've always been a fan of reading the words spoken by Presidents, and dispassionately processing constructs in my mind's eye, rather than succumbing to the siren's song of melodious delivery punctuated by rapturous applause of the assembled political acolytes.
Having said that, my judgment was that the President's speech was well written, thematically cogent, and progressed logically to an emotive, eulogistic climax underscoring Senator Ted Kennedy’s tireless, life-long work promoting health care insurance reform.
However, the real test of the lasting effectiveness of President Obama's speech will be whether his bill, whenever it is written, gains the approval of the House and Senate, and is signed into law.
More precisely, will the President's call for consumer protection for those who already have health insurance assuage those who argue that the health care reforms he proposes come at too high a cost of unduly restricting existing health care choices?
Will the President's call for the creation of health care insurance exchanges that allow individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage bridge the gap between Democratic progressives representing urban districts who strongly support the public option, including the third-rail of health care politics, the single-payer plan, and fiscally-conservative Blue-dog Democrats representing suburban and rural districts who support health insurance co-ops as a superior means of increasing competition, improving quality, and lowering health care costs?
And finally, will the President's requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance reflect the twin values of personal and fiscal responsibility by ensuring that plan beneficiaries, and not the Federal treasury pay for the cost of the health care reforms?
As they say, the "Devil is in the details.." And we shall have to see whether or not those devilish details are embraced or rejected by the yet to be determined magical number of votes required to pass the President's chosen bill, whatever that bill may finally look like..
Until then, in my judgment, President Obama should take a few key pointers from former President Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton knows a few things about the dangers resulting from failure to enact health care reforms.
As reported in the October edition of Esquire magazine, President Clinton offers this sage advice to President Obama, as well as members of Congress who, regardless of party are dedicated to serving this great country of ours.
President Clinton said.. "..Do something that will really get this stuff (health care reform) done and then be willing to be judged by the consequences of what you do... I think that when all's said and done, all that matters is whether people are better off when you quit then when you started."
Bravo former President Clinton. President Obama and members of the United States Congress, are you listening?
NostraDemus
RE:I took a few pages of notes during the speech, so I think my summaries are fairly accurate.
You left out the major part of the Liar's
speech where he attacked insurance companies like a rabid dog.....he was Jew-baiting the insurance companies....
What's next...will we see legions of the Liar's brownshirts out there burning down insurance companies and lynching insurance executives....?
The Liar didn't invent the Big Lie....but he is well versed in making use of it
Wilson sounded just like a typical town hall tea party moron. Who yells at the President during a speach? I don't even remember that when we had a real Nazi Republican President who spied on Americans and kidnapped, tortured, and killed innocent people. Not a word was said by the tea party people or our coward Congressman Elton Gallegly.
Nice blog. Even tempered and fair. You quite correctly notice the lack of specifics in the solutions presented by the President.
Here are some specifics; On Tuesday, September 8th, Nancy Pelosi was interviewed on Capital Hill and insisted that a "public option" must be part of the healthcare reform bill that comes out of the House of Representatives. And now we see that the President persists as well. In his speech to the joint session of congress he had a chance to drop the requirement of a "public option", but he did not.
I work in the healthcare industry selling medical imaging systems. I have traveled around the world through this business and have spoken with hundreds of individuals on all sides of this issue in countries that have employed federal government run medical systems for many years, including Great Britain, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland, The Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, France, Australia, and more.
The one thing that people in each of these countries take great pride in is that every citizen in their nation has health insurance and access to healthcare treatment. Some go on to defend the quality of care beyond this basic universal coverage achievement, but this is where the argument for a government run system falls down, every time.
All clear thinking, reasonable people want every citizen in their country, even the world, to receive the healthcare they need. The differences we have are in HOW this is achieved, primarily through the private sector in a free-market based system, or a federal government run system funded through taxation.
Either way, this is a problem that needs to be addressed. However, even if you agree with the figure that 46 million Americans are without health insurance, that is only 15% of the U.S. population. Should we revamp an entire system for a problem that affects 15%? But there are other problems, of course.
Our healthcare costs, for insurance and services are high, and rising. In the U.S. we spend more on healthcare than any other country in the world. This one affects all of us. Again, a problem that requires a solution. But also again, what is the best way to fix the problem (reduce consumer costs), free-market competition or federal government mandated limits?
You should know that Claude Castonguay, the man that designed the public healthcare system in Quebec, Canada that was eventually used as the model for the entire nation, declared last year "that the Canadian healthcare system was in “crisis.”
“We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it,” says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: “We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.”
Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance. (Source: Investors Business Daily June, 2008)
Just last year I was personally involved in a deal that finally equipped Wales with it's very first clinical PET imaging system in Cardiff. This had to be funded by the local Welsh government because the NHS in the U.K. was only able to fund a "visiting" PET system that was transported monthly out to Cardiff from London (150 miles away). PET imaging is critical for the diagnosis and treatment monitoring for many types of cancer and other metabolically based diseases. Everyone in Wales must still come to Cardiff for PET imaging, but at least it is available. And Wales is not the only "outlying area" with limited diagnostic/treatment options like this under the NHS in the U.K. Multiply this scenario hundreds of times for various treatments and diagnostic tests anywhere outside a major city in the U.K. By the way, Cardiff, Wales has a population of about 350,000 people.
I have been involved in selling many, many imaging systems all throughout Europe, Canada, and the U.S. Do you know the main difference? Taxes. It's known as V.A.T. (Value Added Tax) in Europe and GST (Goods and Services Tax) in Canada. VAT in Europe and GST in Canada ad another 20% or more to the cost of medical equipment for hospitals, clinics, and laboratories. This is why diagnostic and treatment services ultimately become limited in these countries. They become unaffordable where there is no free-market competition and healthcare is funded through taxation.
President Obama and Speaker Pelosi hold that the "public option" would improve competition in the health insurance industry. However, history shows us that federal government subsidized business DO NOT compete well with private sector businesses. The U.S. Postal Services lost $6 Billion in 2008, while UPS, and Federal Express are run profitably, (see Competition takes FedEx and UPS to the forefront of technological innovation, Rethink IT, July, 2004 ).
Which federal government administered business/program would you hold up as a model of efficiency and innovation? Amtrak perhaps?
Ten years after Amtrak vowed to end its reliance on government subsidies and become self-sufficient and four years after it failed to meet that goal, the Senate voted yesterday to increase the beleaguered passenger railroad's government funding and release it from a mandate that it turn a profit. ,,,
The new Senate bill would provide $11.4 billion for Amtrak over six years and would junk the decade-old goal that the rail line make enough money to cover operating costs, a longtime goal of fiscal conservatives.
Created by Congress in 1971 to provide intercity train travel, Amtrak has never recorded a profit while receiving more than $40 billion in federal funding since its inception. In 1997, under pressure from the Clinton administration and Republicans in Congress, Amtrak promised to pay its own bills by 2003 through cost cutting and introduction of the Acela.
Amtrak never met that deadline, and its executives have had to ask for government subsidies every year since then. (Source: The Boston Globe 10/31//2007)
Some would say Medicare is an example of a well-run, government subsidized healthcare system. And if you're only talking about how services are provided, this is probably true. Services are provided through private physicians and hospitals. And President Bush added prescription coverage last year, making it a bit better.
However, speak to a physician or hospital administrator and you'll learn about the repeated cuts in reimbursements to physicians and hospitals for their services, as well as the ever-increasing time to collect the reimbursement from Medicare. Shrinking payments and longer waits to get paid make it difficult for physicians and hospitals to provide services for Medicare patients because they cannot expect payment for their services for an average of four months, and then it's sometimes not enough to make it worth their time.
When Medicare began in 1965 the cost to taxpayers was $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that by 1990 the cost of the program would grow to about $12 billion, a conservative estimate allowing for inflation. The problem was that they were off by almost $100 billion. The actual 1990 cost of Medicare was $107 billion (Source: The Medicare Monster, A Cautionary Tale, Steven Hayward and Erik Peterson | January 1993).
What has the President suggested as a way to save money in Medicare? Cut reimbursements to service providers, again. If this is the flavor of the fresh, new ideas that the Obama administration brain-trust will put forward to solve our healthcare problems, what will be the result? Will the best and brightest flock to medical schools to join in the solution? I'm sure they've thought this through.
And we've just recently learned that the estimates by the Obama administration for the deficit over the next ten years due to the stimulus bill spending of 2009 was off by $2 trillion. Trillion with a "T". Sound familiar?
If you believe all this is an over-reaction, after all, President Obama has said he does not want to take over healthcare in this county, ("If you like your plan, you can keep it"), then you simply haven't read the relevant material or thought through the eventual market effects of a "public option". Imagine Small Business A whose primary competitor, Small Business B drops their employer provided health plan and directs their employees to enroll in the "public option". It would not be long before Small Business A would be forced to do the same in order to compete with their competitor.
First, here is information about the leading House bill, HR3200:
The bill is a 1,017 page document broken out in three Divisions:
1. Division A – Affordable Health Care Choices
2. Division B – Medicare and Medicaid Improvements
3. Division C – Public Health and Workforce Development
Division A – Affordable Health Care Choices (pages 4-215)
This division creates a Health Insurance Exchange (HIE) with a public health insurance option along with private insurance plans.
The government will determine what is a qualifying plan (section (202 (d)(2)). You must be covered under a qualifying plan on January 1, 2013 or you will be automatically enrolled in the public plan (Div.A Title I Subtitle A Section 102 (a)(1)(A) page 16 lines 11-16).
There are NO new enrollees in private health plans after January 1, 2013 (Div. A Title I Subtitle A Section 102 (a)(1)(A) page 16 lines 11-16).
There is an out for the government to deny all private plans from qualifying after 2018 (Div.A Title I Subtitle A Section 102 (b)(1)(A) page 17 lines 13-19).
Read more at: (Source: allnurses.com, Social & Healthcare Activism, H.R.3200 - America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, Aug. 23, 2009)
Is the above what you have been told you would be getting with healthcare reform? You can see from this that the "option" rapidly becomes the only option by design.
By the way, Medicare is bankrupt due to our fine legislators robbing the Medicare Trust Fund to pay for multiple unrelated legislation over many years. (ditto for the Social Security Trust Fund). Who among us believes that the federal government has employed fiscally responsible principles with any consistency in the use of our tax dollars? What logic can be applied to argue that their behavior would suddenly be different regarding the oversight of a healthcare system?
Incidentally, does it raise any level of suspicion in your mind that President Obama tried desperately to get a vote on a 1,017 page highly complex legislative bill that represents 18% of our total economy in two weeks? Why did he want this bill passed before anyone could understand what was in it?
The U.S. free-market based healthcare system provides the proper incentives, inherent in the system, to encourage innovation in medicine. Of the recent 10 most important healthcare innovations in medicine, eight were pioneered in the U.S. (Source: "The U.S. Healthcare System as an Engine of Innovation", 2004 Economic Report of the President)
My final point against the need for a total revamp of the U.S. free-market model is that the U.S. has the best survival rates for major diseases compared to any of the countries with single-payer, government subsidized healthcare. That includes cancer. (Source: Lancet Oncology 2007, Vol. 9, No.8, pg. 784-796.
So, here are the identified problems:
1. Not everyone is covered in a portable health insurance plan which cannot be cancelled.
2. Healthcare is too expensive.
So here are simple reform measures to target the identified problems:
1. Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines for true competitive market dynamics and instantly lower costs. This would replace the current system of mini-monopolies and make health insurance portable and personal. Get employers out of the middle.
2. Require that policies that cannot be cancelled if premiums are paid, and no one can be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.
3. Make health insurance premiums tax deductible. This would lower costs significantly for most people.
4. Tort reform for medical malpractice cases. This would reduce the cost of doing business for healthcare providers who are forced to pass on high malpractice costs to patients and insurers.
Let's fix what's wrong and keep what's right. Simple as that.
Neil Shirley
Camarillo
Neil Shirley has spent twenty years in the medical sales field with extensive international experience including throughout Europe, the Middle East, Japan, Australia, Canada, and the United States.
I have a number of questions regarding the presidents’ plan. But for this post I will focus on how he says we will pay for this plan.
President Obama said that those people who are currently covered by private insurance will be able to keep their current coverage. That is about 80% of the population. If you accept the premise that the insurance companies are cutting every corner possible in order to maximize profits. Then where does he expect to find 900 billion dollars in waste? Without imposing dramatic new rules and regulations on the insurance companies, which will result in equally dramatic changes in the current coverage offered, I just don’t see where he will be able to find that kind of savings.
What exactly is this fee to be charged on insurance companies for their most expensive policies? My first thought is that it sounds like nothing more than a new tax on the wealthy. But putting that aside, how does a government imposed fee encourage the insurance companies to provide greater value for the money?
The post by Neil Shirley should be required reading by everyone who is concerned about this issue......
Allow insurers to compete across state lines? Are you out of your minds?
Last time we did that the credit card companies relocated as fast as they could to the few states where their legislators could be bought off and the result was interest rates jumped up to 30%, outrageous fees and penalties have become the banks' bread and butter and the banks have whole divisions hard at work developing the newest methods to rip off their customers.
If such a idea passes, you're guaranteed to to see all insurers run to North Dakota, where they can continue screwing the American people, under force of state law.
The costs of medical malpractice premiums is about one half of one percent of our total health care costs.
In those states that have acted to limit malpractice awards to a point that few lawyers would even consider chasing, premiums for medical professionals have risen at the same rate as premiums in states that haven't limited awards.
You Lie!
How do the decades of subsidies for Amtrak & the Postal Services compare with the recent bailouts of banks, auto companies and other private groups? It doesn't. In return for subsidizing mail and travel, we get a vital service that otherwise wouldn't be available to most Americans. In return for bailing out private industry, we get nothing except generations of added debt.
According to any imaginable metric, the recent bailouts have proven that private industry fares no better..or fares worse..than public industry.
As Neil knows, the costs of administering Medicare is a fraction of the costs of administering private health care. And Medicare covers more people, without any restriction, than any single private insurer.
Neil Shirley,
Imaging is computer technology. How many of the ten medical inventions are really computer technology inventions?
I think insurance companies and our current healthcare system hinder innovation.
If the government can land on the moon they can provide healthcare.
Insurance companies cut and deny payments to physicians and hosptials everyday.
G.S. is right. Having insurance from New Jersey is not the answer.
Nobody,
If you have been paying to current news you know that as things stand today our government CAN'T land on the moon. A clear indication of just how far we have degenerated in the past 40 years.
Nobody,
If you have been paying attention to recent news then you should know that in its current state our government can’t land on the moon. A clear sign of just how far we have degenerated in the last forty years.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32738086/ns/technology_and_science-space/
Nobody,
If you have been paying attention to recent news then you should know that in its current state our government can’t land on the moon. A clear sign of just how far we have degenerated in the last forty years.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32738086/ns/technology_and_science-space/
The solution to America's health care woes is simple:
1) Allow anybody under 65 that wants to do so, to pay a premium to join Medicare,
and
2) There IS no 2. There's only 1.
That's it.
The insurers and health care vendors don't want this to happen because it will 1) force insurers to compete with Medicare, resulting in lower premiums and better service and 2) the vendors don't want it because that means they'll have to negotiate lower prices or be shut off from Medicare payments, which will presumably become a larger slice of the market.
Nobody,
If you have been paying attention to recent news then you should know that in its current state our government can’t land on the moon. A clear sign of just how far we have degenerated in the last forty years.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32738086/ns/technology_and_science-space/
Would a government-run public insurance option be allowed to sell insurance policies across state lines?
I would expect a public option to be offered nationwide, just like Medicare is today. And if you feel that such a system would unfairly compete with private insurers who are regulated on a state-by-state basis, it's a non-issue. When the credit card companies were deregulated and allowed to set up in any state they chose, they immediately went on the attack against the American consumer and are part of the reason we're in this financial mess today. I don't expect the health insurers to do anything different.
all this talk of socialism and all the seniors that are against others from obtaining gov't health care?? People seem awfully slow to learn a lesson. I say we speed things up. We should do away with all gov't health care. No more medicare, medicaid, veterans(which has never been legal), congress and all gov't assistance to hospitals, colleges(which do most of the basic research leading to profits by pharmaceutical companies) all of it. I'm 62 and I'm for it. Why should my daughter and granddaughter pay for all you slackers. Lets do it right and right now.
How can you claim that giving the public option such an unfair advantage is a non issue. Why shouldn't the public option have to compete on a even bases. Unless your true objective is to make private insurance uncompetitive thereby driving them out of business and forcing everyone onto the public plan. I don't see the connection with the credit card companies. At some point in their lives everybody is going to need health care, whereas credit cards are an optional luxury item. But even if I accept your comparison, are you saying that with with the experience of the credit card companies behind us these same government regulators that you want to draft a complete makeover of our health care system couldn't come up with some rules and regulations that would prevent the insurance companies from taking advantage of the consumer while still letting them compete across state lines?
This health care debate has gone nuts. Especially hear in California. One anti government health care man had his finger bitten off by a counter demonstrator and then went to the nearest hospital and used his government medicare card to get treatment. This is as intense as prop 8. By the way, what happened to the prop 8 demonstrations. They kind of faded away. To bad, it would be cool to attend one now and see who puts what into the mouth of who. Of course in attendance I will be wearing a steel plated jock strap and maybe even a steel plate down the back of my pants. I want to protect my tattoos you know. The words "Welcome Aboard" might get shortened to just welcome or something. In any case the nurses will be chuckling at "Welcome Home 7th Fleet" and I will turn red cheeked.
A few more questions about the public option. Where will this public option plan get their start up capital? If congress loans them the capital how long will they have to pay it back? If they find that the public option can not support themselves will they be bailed out or allowed to fail?
Whoa, JimmyM! Private insurers get to profit off premiums. Not so with a public option. That's a big incentive to stay in business.
Private insurers presently spend more than twice as much on administration as Medicare. They can always compete by becoming more efficient, like Medicare, and thus maintain their profits.
Is suppose you believe that private industry is more efficient than public institutions. If so, then private insurers shouldn't have much trouble closing the competition gap. Or is BigHealth worried that they CAN'T compete with a public option without providing better service at a lower cost?
Lastly, private insurers can dump all the sick and ailing, all those with genetic propensities to disease, raise premiums at will and basically screw their clients as they see fit. That can't happen with a public option. Like public education, its got to take all comers, no questions asked. Do you think private insurers want to level the playing field by acting like Medicare?
If all the scare stories about government insurance are true, then why is BigHealth really afraid of a public option? If the service provided by a PO will be substandard, then private insurers should capitalize on that by providing better service. They should become more efficient. They should lower their costs. They should open their doors to more people. They should show their customers how much better it is to be covered by them, instead of by a public option.
After reading gs above I asked myself "are the things he stated about private health ins the case with me and my insurance?". The answer is no. You see I get my health ins through my employer. That means I cant be turned down for a preexisting condition or kicked off the ins because I get sick. I don't have to pay but a small part of the premium ether. There in lies the rub. If we get a public option it will be cheaper and my employer will insist on paying only that lesser amount for my ins. I will then be forced to pay more for my current ins or switch to the public option. I will also have my taxes go up to pay for all of this. So, you see, it's a no win situation for me. That is unless I loose my job. Then I'll loose my ins also. So with a public option I"ll have a safety net. Not good and not bad. It appears that things aren't going to change much no-matter what happens. So I don't think I'll get excited enough to punch someone in the face or bight off anyone's finger.
Does that mean you won't be attending Glenn Beck's 9/12 protests?
Thanks for reading and commenting on my blog.
Thanks for reading and commenting on my blog.
A well-reasoned entry. Just wanted to say briefly that I don't buy the $900 billion number; the price tag the government slaps on anything always seems to be a third of what it ends up being.
WB, that may be true but it also may be true that your employer, who presently doesn't have to provide health insurance, yet does to keep his employees happy, may pay the extra premium costs to secure private insurance (if it's so much more better than that offered by the public option).
It would also stand to reason that your firm's present insurer would want to keep maintaining its fleets of jets,yachts and executive mansions by becoming more efficient and by providing your firm with better coverage at better prices than it does now.
It would have to compete...and that's a win for your employer and most likely for you.
Sure Brian, I'll attend Glen Becks protest. With all that arm waving and kooky props it should be a kick. Today is the 9-11 anniversary so the protest is tomorrow. Maybe I could get a seat next to Rachel Maddow and Kieth Olderman. Heck, maybe Glen and Kieth will put on a boxing match. Markus of Queensland rules. Winner gets to take on Rachael Maddow in a mud ring. Now that would make it worth missing the USC-Ohio game. I'm a big USC fan you know. Just let me and everyone else know when and where it is and I will consider going.
Darn, while I was typing to Brian gs left a blog. So I would like to point out some things that may make a difference to gm. I'm a hourly employee so my medical ins has been bargained for by the union. I'm under no illusion that the company gives me anything based on the goodness of its hart. Nor do they think of me as irreplaceable. I'm also of the opinion that they only give lower management medical ins only because they must be paid at least as much as hourly employees. Ass far as the public option, I think that it will happen. Then after that comes contract negotiations. It's obvious what the company will do with that. Same as they always do. Try to shift as much of the cost off of them-self as possible. That will leave me to pay the difference. That is if they even offer to include the higher cost ins. I think that they won't, at least not for the hourly employees. So lutts hope that the government runs health ins better than it runs the DMV.
I'm in the same boat, VWB. My coverage is bargained for by the union but the cost of that coverage is too high to whoever ultimately pays for it. The public option, or something like it, is expected to lower costs to less than what your union's paying now. The details of a plan are still being tossed about but I don't believe you or I will have to pay more...we may even end up paying less...IF we and our unions decide to opt for the PO.
Private insurers presently spend more than twice as much on administration as Medicare.
Medicare is allowed to sell insurance across state lines without any restrictions.
Do you think there might be a connection between these two statements?
I did not know until recently that Ins companies could not sell Ins across state lines. That's crazy. What happened to to free trade. Yes I do think that there could be a link between a law like that and high prices.
When credit card companies were regulated by the respective states they did business in, fees and rates were relatively low. When the court ruled that these companies were, in fact, banks and not subject to interstate restrictions, they all set up shop in N Dakota, where that state refused to cap rates, limit fees and favored those companies with the most liberal terms contractual terms. Now consumers in ALL states are subject to N Dakota's credit company-friendly laws and we've seen an incredible rise in rates, fee's and contractual slight-of-hand.
The same thing would happen with health insurance...guaranteed.
Jimmy, Medicare doesn't sell insurance. Neither is it a for-profit business. neither is it allowed to refuse you coverage, disqualify you from being covered or drop your coverage...for any reason. But even if you're on Medicare you can purchase supplemental insurance from private firms, subject to the laws in the state you purchase it.
If private insurers want to play by the same rules as Medicare, I'm all for it! If that happened health care in America would be fixed. Now ask yourself..why WOULDN'T private insurers want to be forced to play by the same rules as Medicare?
So why did you compair Medicare to private insurance companies?
The other day I was watching channel 7 on TV. A commercial came on so I picked up the channel changer and flipped to channel 4. There was a commercial on. So I flipped to channel 11. There was a commercial on. So I flipped to channel 9. There was a commercial on. So I watched channel 9s commercial until they were over and flipped back to channel 7. Channel 7s commercials where also over. I then watched channel 7 until another commercial came on. I then hit the mute button and watched in silence until the commercials had ended. I new better than to try and find a station that wasn't showing its commercials at the same time as everyone else.
I think that there is a lesson hear about companies and the way they compete with each other.
Because, JimmyM, conventional private health coverage and Medicare are two different methods attempting to achieve the same results: providing health care. It's becoming more obvious to more people that while Medicare may have its problems, private coverage's problems are bigger, growing a lot faster and something needs to be done about it. The biggest problem is that there is no competition between private firms offering health coverage. That's resulted in high costs and poor service for too many customers. A public option is one tool being proposoed that will force private firms to compete more aggressively.
That's why the two need to be compared.
Because, JimmyM, conventional private health coverage and Medicare are two different methods attempting to achieve the same results: providing health care. It's becoming more obvious to more people that while Medicare may have its problems, private coverage's problems are bigger, growing a lot faster and something needs to be done about it. The biggest problem is that there is no competition between private firms offering health coverage. That's resulted in high costs and poor service for too many customers. A public option is one tool being proposoed that will force private firms to compete more aggressively.
That's why the two need to be compared.
If the public option is to be just a tool that will force private firms to compete more aggressively then it must compete with the private firms on an equal footing. Anything less is just a subsidized plan to put private firms out of business. Here is a public option that I would support.
1. Congress can establish and fund for five years a public option health insurance company/pool.
2. The public option company will abide by any and all laws applicable to private insurance companies.
3. If after five years the public option company is not self sufficient then it will be shut down.
If, as you say, government can do a better job of providing this service than the people will flock to the public option plan and it will flourish. But if, as I contend, the government can not provide better service than the public option will wither and be cast aside. Is that simple enough for you?
I can offer an even simpler option...allow anyone who wishes to do so, the choice of signing up and paying for Medicare coverage.
Would you have them paying the full unsubsidized price for their Medicare coverage?
Would private companies be allowed to compete nationwide?
How would you insure that this program remains revenue neutral so that it does not become just another welfare program?
Paying full price for each individual's acre is NOT what health coverage reform is about...it's about finding a way to give everyone access to medical care. No.
I'd allow private firms to compete nationwide if they can't refuse customers nor drop customers. They'd have to cut their administration costs down to one half of what it is now and they'd have to be a not-for-profit.
The financial mechanism behind reform is beyond my skills. I'll have to wait to see what the final proposal is. But if health care for American needs to be revenue neutral, then so do all of the USA's foreign military adventures, our bailouts & subsidies of private industries and our tax cuts. The health of Americans is much more important than paying for NeverEnding Wars, Morgan Stanley's year end bonuses, McDonald's overseas advertising and a free pass on capital gains.
Would all that be fair to you?
So what you really want is 100% socialized health care where a select class of people get something for nothing and everyone else pays the bills. I stopped by the anti Obama Care rally in T.O. today. There was a woman there with a very insightful sign. It read “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money.” You might want to think about that for a while.
We already have ReDistribution of Debt. That's socialism, but it's socialism in favor of Wall Street & BigBiz. Why not try giving Americans and their families back something for their efforts?
Do you only believe in taking from the poor & middle class and giving it to the wealthy?
I think what the Republicans want is a "Kunicki fund". It's kind of like a rainy day fund except it's for Republicans that want to spend the taxpayers money on stupid things like bogus lobbyists and their corporate friends who give them money.
When a Republican talks of less government they really mean "a government small enough not to catch them". The banking crisis wasn't caused by too much oversight. Bernie Madoff didn't get away with what he did because of too much government.
Republicans and insurance companies are paying millions of dollars to keep things the way they are. Are we supposed to believe the insurance companies and the Republicans are looking out for us. We are supposed to forget every other time when the money had everything to do with it but this time they are looking out for us.
Insurance Companies and Republicans don't like the truth, justice or the American way. As a matter of fact those are the insurance companies and the Republicans biggest enemies.