Heres an interesting resolution...
http://fleming.house.gov/images/FLEMING%20HEALTH%20CARE%20RESOLUTION.pdf
Lets see if Congress will abide by and live with the same health care they want to push on everyone else.
And I'm also wondering why Obama wont pledge that he will also live with his own health care plan for his own family...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/story?id=7919991&page=1
Quote:Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it's not provided by insurance.
Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he's proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.
The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if "it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care.
So in other words, it seems like the plan he wants for everyone else isnt good enough for him or his family.
@mysteryman,
You're talking about a very small minority in our country who thinks everything they now have is a life-long benefit; even those who have held once-upon-a-time secure jobs with good salaries and benefits are learning that they have also become the jobless and lost their homes (many million dollar homes) and cars (luxury).
Why should Obama pledge anything? He's the one pushing for universal health care for all Americans.
Don't pity the health insurance companies, even the ones "forced" to layoff employees.
Bill Moyers and Michael Winship: Oysters for Health Care
This is a story of health care and two Americans; a tale of two citizens, if you will.
This week, Regina Benjamin was nominated by President Obama as our next surgeon general, charged with educating Americans on medical issues and overseeing the United States Public Health Service. She was the first African American woman to head a state medical society, a member of the board of trustees of the American Medical Association and last year was named the recipient of a MacArthur Foundation genius award.
But more important, she's a country doctor, a family physician along the Gulf Coast of Alabama, serving the poor and uninsured - white, black and Asian. After Hurricane Katrina destroyed her clinic - the second time a hurricane had done so - she mortgaged her own home to rebuild it. The day it was to reopen, a fire burned the clinic to the ground. Moving to a trailer, Dr. Benjamin and her staff never missed a day of work.
Stan Wright, the tobacco-chewing mayor of Bayou La Batre, the small shrimp-fishing community in which Dr. Benjamin practices, told National Public Radio, "She'll do whatever she's gotta do to make sure everyone's taken care of."
Benjamin will no doubt bring that same ethic to the fight for health care reform. When President Obama announced her nomination in a Rose Garden ceremony Monday, Dr. Benjamin said, "These are trying times in the health care field, and as a nation, we have reached a sobering realization. Our health care system simply cannot continue on the path that we're on. Millions of Americans can't afford health insurance or they don't have the basic health services available where they live."
Although the clinic has not been able to give Dr. Benjamin a salary for years - Mayor Wright says she's owed over $300,000 - she buys medicine for her patients out of her own pocket.
In fact, many of the folks in Regina Benjamin's bayou town are so poor that sometimes she's paid with a pint of oysters or a couple of fish. She's fine with that. And she makes house calls.
Now meet H. Edward Hanway, the chairman and CEO of CIGNA, the country's fourth largest insurance company. At the beginning of the year, CIGNA blamed hard economic times when it announced the layoff of 1100 employees, but it reported first quarter profits of $208 million on revenues of nearly $5 billion. Mr. Hanway has announced his retirement at the end of the year, and the living will be easy, financially at least. He made $11.4 million in 2008, according to The Associated Press, and some years more than that.
That's a lot of oysters, although he lags behind Ron Williams, the CEO of Aetna Insurance, who made $17.4 million last year, or John Hammergren, the head of McKesson, the biggest health care company in the world. His compensation was $29.7 million.
Here's the difference. To Dr. Regina Benjamin, health care is a public service, helping people in need with grace and compassion. To Ed Hanway and his highly paid friends, it's big business, a commodity to be sold to those who can afford it. And woe to anyone who gets between them and the profits they reap from sick people.
That's what Wendell Potter, the former CIGNA executive turned health care reform advocate, told us on last week's edition of Bill Moyers Journal.
"Just about every time there has been significant legislation before Congress, the industry has been able to kill it," he said. "Yeah, the status quo works for them. They don't like to have any regulation forced on them or laws forced on them. They don't want to have any competition from the federal government, or any additional regulation from the federal government. They say they will accept it. But the behavior is that they will not."
As we reported last week, that behavior includes spending nearly a million and a half a day to make sure health care reform comes out their way. Over the years they've lavished millions on the politicians who are writing and voting on health care reform. Now it's payback time.
Proposed legislation finally is coming out of House and Senate committees, and Thursday's Los Angeles Times reported "signs that the debate was moving into a more bruising phase in which insurance companies, hospitals and others fight to shape the details of legislative provisions that affect them."
It's going to get ugly, especially now that some Democrats, according to ABC News, are contemplating new taxes on health insurance and pharmaceutical companies to help pay for reform, perhaps as much as $100 billion worth.
In other words, no more Mister Nice Guy. Those TV commercials you've been seeing from the health care companies about their generosity and miracles of modern medicine are about to change, as the opposition shifts gears from charm to alarm. It's the war against the Clinton health care plan all over again.
This time, don't let them scare you. "It should not be this hard for doctors and other health care providers to care for their patients," Dr. Regina Benjamin said when she was nominated this week. "It shouldn't be this expensive for Americans to get health care in this country."
@Advocate,
Advocate, Good stories, but they are "stories" with a grain of truth in them.
Obama is in a rush to pass health care, but he still hasn't satisfied congress or the American people that he will cut cost which is seen as the monkey in the room.
There are so many ways to cut cost, but especially from senior care; they must make up their minds that last-minute attempts by doctors to save an old dying patient who hasn't a chance of any quality of life must let them die. Other expensive health care costs on seniors need to be studied and reduced, and there are many. That money should be spend on caring for our children in this country, not those close to death by age and health problems.
The government should also charge a sliding fee scale for services to reduce waste, and prevention should be rewarded with a reduction in fees.
Private insurance companies still pay some of their CEOs millions in salaries and benefits; that must be stopped, and benefits increased for the patients.
Recent news reports tell use Michelle will get involved in the health plan. I think that's an excellent idea.
The following is a good statement on the proposed funding of health care reform.
The Case For A Surtax
As part of its health care legislation, the House Ways and Means Committee has proposed implementing a tax surcharge on the richest one percent of Americans, with the revenue going toward financing a portion of the estimated $1 trillion cost for health care reform. Under the House proposal, the surtax would begin in 2011 and constitute a one percent marginal rate for households making between $350,000 and $500,000, 1.5 percent for households making $500,000 to $1 million, and 5.4 percent for those making more than $1 million. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) put it, "Let's leapfrog over the middle class to the wealthiest people in our country. They've had it pretty good the last eight years in terms of tax policy under President Bush. And we think that's a place you can go." Yesterday, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius called the tax "a legitimate way to go forward." And as Families USA executive director Ron Pollack said, "Since this group enjoyed a significant tax reduction windfall during the last decade -- and since this windfall played a big role in burgeoning federal deficits -- it makes sense that this group bears some burden as part of the effort to secure America's long-term economic future through health-care reform."
RECOVERING FROM THE BUSH TAX CUTS: As House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) explained, "This is a tax on less than 1 percent of the wealthiest people in the United States of America." According to estimates from Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), 98.7 percent of Americans will be totally unaffected by the surcharge. And the roughly one percent of Americans that will see their taxes increase under the surcharge have benefited from years of skyrocketing income and a falling effective tax rate. Between 1979 and 2006, the inflation-adjusted after-tax income of the top 1 percent of households increased by 256 percent, compared to 21 percent for families in the middle income quintile. Meanwhile, over the ten year window from 2001-2010, the Bush tax cuts gave the richest one percent of Americans about $715 billion in tax breaks. This comes out to about $518,000 per household over ten years or about $51,800 per year. The surcharge, meanwhile, would raise $544 billion from those same households over 10 years. So as CTJ pointed out, the surcharge "would require the richest one percent to give back some, but not all, of the tax cuts they received over the 2001-2010 period." "It certainly is okay for me to tell my friends on Wall Street, who just got a bonus of $600,000, that they're going to pay more in taxes so that we can lower health care costs in America," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said.
SURCHARGE WON'T AFFECT SMALL BUSINESSES: A favorite conservative claim is that any tax increase on the top one percent will disproportionately affect small businesses. "Half of those people [who would have to pay the tax] derive their income from small businesses, half of those people are making the decision about whether to hire Americans or not," said Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA). But according to both the Joint Tax Committee on Taxation and the Tax Policy Center, "96 percent of taxpayers with business income would not owe the surcharge." Furthermore, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out that "the 4 percent of remaining 'small businesses' affected by the surcharge include taxpayers that stretch the definition of the term, including partners in large law and accounting firms and investors who have stakes in Wall Street investment partnerships." Due to the stimulus package that Congress passed in February, small businesses are actually receiving tax breaks, and as Rangel said, in the House's health care legislation, "we exempt small business from a lot of the penalties. We give tax credits so that they're able to hire and get people healthcare in small businesses."
A 'NON-STARTER' IN THE SENATE?: The surcharge has met with stiff resistance in the Senate, with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) calling it a "non-starter," while Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said it was "non-negotiable" and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) called it one of the "less viable" funding mechanisms under consideration. The Senate is reportedly considering a variety of alternative ways to raise revenue, including capping employee health benefits. Options that would also raise revenue from the richest Americans include limiting itemized deductions to 28 percent (instead of the current 35 percent) for those in the top tax brackets or applying the Medicare tax to capital gains and other non-wage income, both of which would have the advantage of addressing already existing inequities in the tax code. In an interview with Politico, Pelosi said that she wants to "soften" the surcharge "so that it applies only to families that make $1 million or more," adding, "I'd like it to go higher than it is."
-- americanprogressaction.com
@Advocate,
What seems to most liberals as a good idea to collect a surtax from the wealthy (those earning more than $35o,000) is being challenged by democrats too, but I'm at a loss to see why. They've been given most of the breaks during the past eight years while the middle class and the poor took it in the chin (didn't even keep up with inflation).
Sometimes, your so-called "members of the party" are your worst enemy, because these issues should not be the cause for stopping a universal health care system in our country. If they challenge a subtax on the wealthy, where do they expect to see the balance between cutting costs and revenue? They should come up with other forms of revenue before they complain about one issue that is non-defensible; they should be able to provide other options.
Obamacare has never been about improving health or the health care system in the US.
And we have this the Mr Steele:
Quote:RNC chairman Michael Steele said the president's plan, which is meant to extend healthcare to some 46 million uninsured, amounted to socialism.
So, Mr Steele thinks all the developed countries of the world that provides universal health care are socialist countries? Where's his brain? Can he at least say something half intelligent?
From Gadling.com:
Quote:Afghanistan*, Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iraq*, 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.
It seems the current health plan will still need to be worked on to show a reduction in cost, or there are enough democrats that will vote 'no.' If Obama wants his health plan, he'd better listen to those that want to cut cost, because he will not get his health plan without it. The compromise must be between long-term cut in cost, and some taxation on the wealthy (those making more than $350,000/year).
If nobody is willing to look at both, no health plan should be approved.
@cicerone imposter,
How many of you have seen the tv ad that a supposed Canadian tells the audience she had a brain tumor, and under the Canadian health care system, she would have died because of the waiting required.
Funny thing is, in the US, many Americans can't even afford to go to the hospital to find out if they have a brain tumor.
47-million plus Americans do not have health insurance, and even those who do have insurance, it's inadequate to get brain surgery performed.
Fear works.
@cicerone imposter,
c.i. :
this article from the boston globe re. world health care is pretty good imo .
since it runs to three pages , i won't copy it here .
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/07/05/healthy_examples_plenty_of_countries_get_healthcare_right/
WHO and CIA - world book also have good info re. world health care stats - they are not quite as restricted as the one statistical exhibit someone posted earlier .
hbg
@hamburgboy,
hbg, Thanks for the link. One of the important paragraphs from that article follows which proves the fear-mongerers are wrong about long lines and delays.
Quote:In both the Netherlands and France, most people have long-standing relationships with their primary care doctors. And when they need to see these doctors, they do so without delay or hassle. In a 2008 survey of adults with chronic disease conducted by the Commonwealth Fund - a foundation which financed my own research abroad - 60 percent of Dutch patients and 42 percent of French patients could get same-day appointments. The figure in the US was just 26 percent.
Most MACs-conservatives are also ready to buy a bridge in Montana too! They believe everything their party tells them without checking out the facts for themselves.
I'm afriad Obama failed the biggest test with his speech to the country today; he failed to tell us how he intends to control the cost and cover the cost of health care. Everybody already knows that our health care systems cost is escalating at unsustainable rates every year; he needed to tell us how he intended to stop this increase. He can't demand a universal health care that doesn't take care of this escalating cost. That was the important message that he failed to share with the American people. People see it as adding more expense to the already uncontrolled cost increases.
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
I'm afriad Obama failed the biggest test with his speech to the country today; he failed to tell us how he intends to control the cost and cover the cost of health care. Everybody already knows that our health care systems cost is escalating at unsustainable rates every year; he needed to tell us how he intended to stop this increase. He can't demand a universal health care that doesn't take care of this escalating cost. That was the important message that he failed to share with the American people. People see it as adding more expense to the already uncontrolled cost increases.
I certainly doubt that he simply forgot to address these points. Perhaps he didn't address them because the known answers flatly contradict his earlier promises and his recent rhetoric.
While there has been considerable escalation of health care costs during the past three years, the businesses that pay them are already beginning to take serious corrective action. My company is launching a rather serious wellness program that involves testing for indicators of future chronic diseases including heart, arterial and lung disease as well as diabetes - all using statistical & clinical models to identify factors indicating future onset. Positive incentives for quitting smoking, losing weight and exercising on a regular basis have been established and those who don't reduce their risk factors will see a future rise in their employee costs for health care.
The government could help reduce the incidence of "defensive medicine" and the excessive referrals to specialists by limiting tort claims (California limits pain & suffering claims to about $25o thousand). However, gioven the money and power exercised by the tort lawyers associations (major donors to the Democrats) this is not likely.
Most of the scare rhetoric about escalating medical costs is frankly intended to distract us from the enormous costs attendant to the proposed new program - costs we will see in new taxes and deficits that will sap our future economic growth; and, as well, in the increased bureaucratization of our health care delivery system.
The truth is that many in this country see positive disincentives for buying health insurance. A very large fraction of the uninsured are employed people in their twenties and thirties who think they'll live forever. Those with low incomes and eligible for Medicaid or other state programs have no real incentive to buy insurance - as does anyone over 65 and eligible for Medicare.
@georgeob1,
So what does the US presently spend on health care? 20% of GDP?
If we simply went to a government system and increased taxes by the difference between current private and public health care, would people even notice a difference in their take home pay? I am guessing most wouldn't.
@georgeob1,
Quote:Those with low incomes and eligible for Medicaid or other state programs have no real incentive to buy insurance - as does anyone over 65 and eligible for Medicare.
Boy, if that's the case all those companies selling Medicare supplemental insurance must be going broke with their ads and no one buying their policies.
The whole right wing myth about it being the younger generation who is causing the rising cost of health care because they think they are going to live forever is just that, a myth.
Quote: Facts on Health Insurance Coverage
Introduction
Most Americans have health insurance through their employers. But employment is no longer a guarantee of health insurance coverage.
As America continues to move from a manufacturing-based economy to a service economy, and employee working patterns continue to evolve, health insurance coverage has become less stable. The service sector offers less access to health insurance than its manufacturing counterparts. Further, an increasing reliance on part-time and contract workers who are not eligible for coverage means fewer workers have access to employer-sponsored health insurance.
Due to rising health insurance premiums, many small employers cannot afford to offer health benefits. Companies that do offer health insurance, often require employees to contribute a larger share toward their coverage. As a result, an increasing number of Americans have opted not to take advantage of job-based health insurance because they cannot afford it.
Who are Who are the uninsured?
Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available.1
The number of uninsured rose 2.2 million between 2005 and 2006 and has increased by almost 8 million people since 2000.1
The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.2
The increase in the number of uninsured in 2006 was focused among working age adults. The percentage of working adults (18 to 64) who had no health coverage climbed from 19.7 percent in 2005 to 20.2 percent in 2006.1 Nearly 1.3 million full-time workers lost their health insurance in 2006.
Nearly 90 million people " about one-third of the population below the age of 65 spent a portion of either 2006 or 2007 without health coverage.3
Over 8 in 10 uninsured people come from working families " almost 70 percent from families with one or more full-time workers and 11 percent from families with part-time workers.2
The percentage of people (workers and dependents) with employment-based health insurance has dropped from 70 percent in 1987 to 62 percent in 2007. This is the lowest level of employment-based insurance coverage in more than a decade.4, 5
In 2005, nearly 15 percent of employees had no employer-sponsored health coverage available to them, either through their own job or through a family member.6
In 2007, 37 million workers were uninsured because not all businesses offer health benefits, not all workers qualify for coverage and many employees cannot afford their share of the health insurance premium even when coverage is at their fingertips.1
The number of uninsured children in 2007 was 8.1 million " or 10.7 percent of all children in the U.S.1
Young adults (18-to-24 years old) remained the least likely of any age group to have health insurance in 2007 " 28.1 percent of this group did not have health insurance.1
The percentage and the number of uninsured Hispanics increased to 32.1 percent and 15 million in 2007.1
Nearly 40 percent of the uninsured population reside in households that earn $50,000 or more.1 A growing number of middle-income families cannot afford health insurance payments even when coverage is offered by their employers.
Why is the number of uninsured people increasing?
Millions of workers don’t have the opportunity to get health coverage. A third of firms in the U.S. did not offer coverage in 2007.4
Nearly two-fifths (38 percent) of all workers are employed in smaller businesses, where less than two-thirds of firms now offer health benefits to their employees.7 It is estimated that 266,000 companies dropped their health coverage between 2000-2005 and 90 percent of those firms have less than 25 employees.
Rapidly rising health insurance premiums are the main reason cited by all small firms for not offering coverage. Health insurance premiums are rising at extraordinary rates. The average annual increase in inflation has been 2.5 percent while health insurance premiums for small firms have escalated an average of 12 percent annually.4
Even if employees are offered coverage on the job, they can’t always afford their portion of the premium. Employee spending for health insurance coverage (employee’s share of family coverage) has increased 120 percent between 2000 and 2006.8
Losing a job, or quitting voluntarily, can mean losing affordable coverage " not only for the worker but also for their entire family. Only seven (7) percent of the unemployed can afford to pay for COBRA health insurance " the continuation of group coverage offered by their former employers. Premiums for this coverage average almost $700 a month for family coverage and $250 for individual coverage, a very high price given the average $1,100 monthly unemployment check.9
Coverage is unstable during life’s transitions. A person’s link to employer-sponsored coverage can also be cut by a change from full-time to part-time work, or self-employment, retirement or divorce.10
How does being uninsured harm individuals and families?
Lack of insurance compromises the health of the uninsured because they receive less preventive care, are diagnosed at more advanced disease stages, and once diagnosed, tend to receive less therapeutic care and have higher mortality rates than insured individuals.11
Regardless of age, race, ethnicity, income or health status, uninsured children were much less likely to have received a well-child checkup within the past year. One study shows that nearly 50 percent of uninsured children did not receive a checkup in 2003, almost twice the rate (26 percent) for insured children.12
The uninsured are increasingly paying “up front” -- before services will be rendered. When they are unable to pay the full medical bill in cash at the time of service, they can be turned away except in life-threatening circumstances.7
About 20 percent of the uninsured (vs. three percent of those with coverage) say their usual source of care is the emergency room.2
Studies estimate that the number of excess deaths among uninsured adults age 25-64 is in the range of 18,000 a year. This mortality figure is more than the number of deaths from diabetes (17,500) within the same age group.10
According to one study, over a third of the uninsured have problems paying medical bills. The unpaid bills were substantial enough that many had been turned over to collection agencies " and nearly a quarter of the uninsured adults said they had changed their way of life significantly to pay medical bills.13
What additional costs are created by the uninsured population?
The United States spends nearly $100 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with health services, often for preventable diseases or diseases that physicians could treat more efficiently with earlier diagnosis.14
Hospitals provide about $34 billion worth of uncompensated care a year.14
Another $37 billion is paid by private and public payers for health services for the uninsured and $26 billion is paid out-of-pocket by those who lack coverage.14
The uninsured are 30 to 50 percent more likely to be hospitalized for an avoidable condition, with the average cost of an avoidable hospital stayed estimated to be about $3,300.14
The increasing reliance of the uninsured on the emergency department has serious economic implications, since the cost of treating patients is higher in the emergency department than in other outpatient clinics and medical practices.11
A study found that 29 percent of people who had health insurance were “underinsured” with coverage so meager they often postponed medical care because of costs.15 Nearly 50 percent overall, and 43 percent of people with health coverage, said they were “somewhat” to “completely” unprepared to cope with a costly medical emergency over the coming year.15
Getting Everyone Covered Will Save Lives and Money
The impacts of going uninsured are clear and severe. Many uninsured individuals postpone needed medical care which results in increased mortality and billions of dollars lost in productivity and increased expenses to the health care system. There also exists a significant sense of vulnerability to the potential loss of health insurance which is shared by tens of millions of other Americans who have managed to retain coverage.
Every American should have health care coverage, participation should be mandatory, and everyone should have basic benefits.
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
Quote:"Over the next 50 years, with rising health care costs, the retirement of the baby boom generation, and the permanent extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, federal debt will climb to more than 400% of the gross domestic product," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., noted during Thursday's hearing.
But there will be risk to the economy within the next 10 years. The country's debt is on track to exceed 60% of GDP next year and will top 80% by 2019. And that assumes interest rates stay low.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/16/news/economy/health_care_reform/index.htm?postversion=2009071613
If we don't do something about the current health care cost, it is going to cost us way more than anything we do now trying to fix it. But we got to fix it right, I am not smart enough to say what would work and what would not.
@revel,
revel, This is really a glaring fact missed by most people against universal health care.
Quote:Nearly 90 million people " about one-third of the population below the age of 65 spent a portion of either 2006 or 2007 without health coverage.
This statistic only proves that even those with insurance have inadequate insurance.
Why are so many conservatives against a universal health care? They claim people will lose choosing their own doctors, the quality will deteriorate, and the waiting time will increase. There is ample evidence that all these fear-mongering isn't true based on countries with universal health care. Even our own experience shows these are unfounded threats that are being experienced by Americans today. Many with health insurance are unable to cover all their health ailments, the waiting times can often be worse than countries with universal health care, and many plans do not allow free choice of doctors.
It seems, however, that their fear-mongering still works!
@cicerone imposter,
Here are also FACTCHECKS on what Obama said, and what the known FACTS are - as of today. Obama must be more forthright about his health plan or it will fail.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_fact_check
