President Obama's arguments for health reform aren't without their fire-and-brimstone warnings.
As his opponents have sought to paint him as a liberal idealist, willing to spend a trillion of dollars to implement a big-government health care plan and place a big check mark on the liberal wish list, Obama has hit back on that notion hard--and he's done it, perhaps, by taking a page from the playbook of Harry and Louise.
Harry and Louise, of course, were the TV ad couple who helped torpedo the Clinton-led health reform effort in 1994, doing so with a simple message: if this reform plan goes through, your current health coverage will be taken away.
But what the president has done is turn that same argument around. His basic message: your health coverage will be taken away if we don't reform health care this year.
His arguments for reform have focused heavily on rising costs and the unsustainability of the current system. His public remarks on the matter are rife with figures about how much costs have risen and will rise in the future, and how soon the nation won't be able to pay them.
"In the last nine years, premiums have risen three times faster than wages. If we don nothing, they will rise even higher. In recent years, over one third of small businesses have reduced benefits and many have dropped coverage altogether since the early '90s," Obama told the audience at his town hall meeting on health care in Annandale, Virginia Wednesday.
"If we do not act, more will lose coverage and more will lose their jobs. Unless we act, within a decade, one out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care," Obama said.
Obama's economic rhetoric is all about how things can't remain the same. It's the same point the Harry and Louise ad made, but backward, and in Obama's version, the "naysayers" who oppose health reform are the ones who play fast and loose with the coverage Americans currently enjoy. And as polling indicates that Americans are concerned heavily with costs, the president has, in turn, stuck to telling people about the costs of not passing his plan.
In Obama's rhetorical system, there is no status quo to preserve: the fundamental truth about health care is that it's changing, rapidly and frighteningly. Leaving the current system in place is what will cause people to lose what they already have.
It's not that 46 million Americans are uninsured and that we can and must do better, as the richest nation in the world, to ensure them--an argument we heard from Democratic candidates like John Edwards and Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign--it's that we have to do something immediately, reactively, because current coverage is being threatened.
"This isn't just about those Americans without health care. It's about every American--because if we do not act to bring down costs, everybody's health care will be in jeopardy," Obama said at Wednesday's town hall.
And so part of his rhetoric is about shaking people with fear into supporting his reforms. If Harry and Louise made people afraid of passing Clinton's reform plan, Obama is making people afraid of not passing his.
Confronting the Harry and Louise argument directly during the question-and-answer segment of the town hall in Annandale, Obama inverted it perfectly.
"Many of you may be satisfied with your health care now. What you've got to do is project, if current trends continue, are you still going to be happy with your health care five years from now? Will you have health care five years from now?" Obama asked.
Perhaps learning from the Clinton-led effort, Obama has made sure the "naysayers" aren't the only ones with scary arguments to win people to their side.
Annandale
|
coverage
|
Harry and Louise
|
health care
|
insurance
|
President Obama
|
reform
|
town hall
|
Virginia
When new healthcare legistation is passed and the employer is forced to supply medical coverage, what financial responsibility will fall to the employee. Also, what sort of penalty could the employer incur if thay do not wish to supply healthcare coverage. In 2008, my company paid out over $30,000 in premium for 9 employees. Due to the poor economy, I was forced to cancel Healthcare coverage for my employees. What's next?
Under the bill which is being considered by the HELP committee (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions), there is special consideration for small business owners. There is a public option and no penalty for companies with fewer than 25 employees. There is a modest $750 per employee cost for companies with more than 25 employees. This bill has a price tag of $600 billion over 10 years. Doesn't look too bad at all. Has a modest public option and no employer mandate, but does have an employer penalty for larger-than-25 employee firms.
I think you'll be ok. Actually, I think you and your company will be more competitive, more successful, and more healthy under this plan. I'm pretty impressed with the early reports on it - check out Dodd and Kennedy's website for more on this.
Just FYI - Here is a link to Dodd's one-page fact sheet on employer responsibility under the new HELP bill plan:
http://dodd.senate.gov/multimedia/2009/EmployerResponsibility.pdf
So we sit here today with a popular man doing some stupid things.
He is quickly getting the a new for his administration Ali-Baba and the 40 thieves. Obama is trying to boil an ocean instead of boiling one pot at a time. While is intent may good, the crap that surrounds him will destroy this man. With out addressing the real issue of Health Care Reform, he just becomes another wind bag like Hillary which will cause more people to suffer under a public plan run by this corrupt administration. If you don't address Taut Reform, Doctor Pay, Drug Companies, Illegal's etc... you have a system that rivals the Post Office, Passport Offices, Driver License Bureaus, School System which are all losers and cost tax payers millions or is that billions today.
Illegals are the biggest drain on the US economy.
Hilliary took almost 1 million dollars in bribes to go away with her health care plan. You have people, wrong word, crap like Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Excuse me Senator Barbara Boxer, (Vain Democrap) and Barbara (I really a man) Feinstein who have destroyed California with their give give give polices and now there is no money to give.
You can't correct anything when you republicans who spend like Dem's.
Denny Hastert who build a highway through farm land so his real estate could go up in value. You can't have a President like Bush who gave so much to seniors and minorities with it coming back to haunt us. You can't the Nancy Pelosi's who steer money to the children s companies which we have to pay for. You can't racist reporters like the ones from this newspaper commenting on anything. You can't have the Obama team fix town-hall meetings to ask the questions that will offend him and lie to America. So far Obama is an empty suit caught in many lies and flip flops. He is no better then Bush or Clinton. Actually Bush has more class. Hasn't attacked this shell of man. Then again look where Obama came from. Shitcargo. The most corrupt City in America.
When is this paper going to close. I want to make sure I bring a black carnation.
You can hardly call yourself 'clearvoice' when you can hardly write intelligibly. That said, you also cannot be calling yourself 'clearvoice' when all you do is attempt to hurl baseless, unsubstantiated remarks on many things you obviously have never applied serious thought to as it is quite clear you have not independently researched any of what you have said - or TRIED to say.
Why do I think of those hapless self-absorbed twits that show up in Leno's 'jaywalker' segments to illustrate how mindlessly ignorant they are to all of America when I read your post?
Just for starters, it is not difficult for one to find the audio recordings of Nixon talking to Erlichmann about how they might pull the wool over then VP Gerry Ford's eyes to get him to back their harebrained scheme to undermine the taxpayer with regards to health insurance. They succeeded and every year brought waves of new policies that cheapened their effectiveness while upping the costs to those who bought them. Individuals, corporations and organizations of all types.
Meanwhile people such as yourself act like they know a thing or two and offload with their ill formed statements trying to poison the well of other like poorly educated beings. How shameless.
Don't need to write to intelligibly in responding to the racist online news editorials found in this organization . Every now and then some pompous ass like yourself will show their colors. You must old and shriveled up to go back to the Nixon days. So seeing you like history, lets visit Jimmy Carter who we can blame and thank for all that is wrong with the conditions in the Middle East and the Collapse of our economy. Look back in your files now.
The man is a racist probably like you. You can use all your fancy words which will not hide your inability to understand. Take LBJ who destroyed our Social Security System or that Clinton signed the bill that created the Sup-Prime Mortgage so liberals can get a free ride.
Hey, don't get me wrong, Bush didn't put his finger in the dyke, but Obama will take the hammer to the dyke and drown is all.
Have a nice day. Hey call Liberty Medical and they will get you a Hover Round. Free for Liberal who can't pay!
If you would a list of all the democraps who since Obama took office who are corrupt, I'll post them for you. I'm up to 50 and counting.
Do you always dwell in revisionist history? You make remarks about stuff, but when someone points to the very beginning of the collapse of the healthcare system you accuse them of being too old?
You are one sorry delusional individual.
You then go on to make more statements that illustrate your utter ignorance of the facts. When you are free of the contaminating thoughts in your self centered self - please contribute to society.
Anyone who thinks you do - is obviously a self centered pig. PIG - yes PIG.
YES!! We must address taut reform and etceteras that belong to illegal. Then we must attack pertness and unlawful ampersands. Why do politicians fear the ampersand lobby? Why will no one spell out the threat they represent, hiding above the 7?
Can I get on Leno now? Or did I overdo the crazy and nonsensical at the expense of the merely moronic?
Mr. Malo......Perfect,no really, Bravo.
What is WRONG with you? And it's DIANNE Feinstein, thank you.
The post office is a great example. I can send a first-class letter to anywhere in the U.S. for 42 cents, and for most destinations it will usually get there within about two days; that's about 6% of what the private sector charges me to send the same letter.
Idiot... don't you realized that employers who are penalized with the repeal of deduction credit for health insurance coverage will drop the plan for their employees and let them go with the nationalized plan. Don't you know what is going on with medical care for the non rich in country that have nationalized medicine... care is denied if you reach certain age and especially if you live past the life expectancy. It also restrict coverage because of lifestyle... smoker or drinker or overweight are denied certain treatment because of their lifestyle choice... including gays
is it what what you want for health coverage
Obama the illegitimate and the democrat are lying to us
Ah, yet another semi-illiterate spouting off without suggesting sources. How convenient to be able to just sound false alarms at every turn without have half-a-clue as to what you are saying. And to think that American Health Insurance Companies would NEVER think to pay thousands of individuals to find ways to deny coverage on a case by case basis. Wow - you really need to wake up. Must be nice to live in fantasyland.
Your first line makes it very clear you have never even considered all the great things that would happen if small companies could compete with their newer ways of doing things - those that have truly better ways - in better fashioncould actually compete in the marketplace. Competition - more competition in the regualr marketplace? hey wouldn't that help keep prices on all services down? Did you ever stop to think how an intelligently constructed public system might actually lower your overall cost of living while improving the lot of the entire country?
Amazing indeed!! Americans will continue to be in denial all-the-while they're staring into the eyes of reality. When the majority of the boomers are heading for nursing facilities or assisted living arrangements maybe then somebody will see. Maybe???
I am apalled by the level of discourse here. "Shitcargo"?
Obviously health care costs are rising faster than inflation and something has to be done. The question is, what, and how?
Making personal attacks on politicians is not productive. Let's stick to the concepts. Images of boiling oceans are just a little off the mark here, folks.
The basic idea is this: the free market is usually successful in holding down costs. It in fact is the central idea behind the economy of this country. It by and large works. Have you seen the price of computers vs. what you get? Unbelievable compared with a few years ago. Hard drives are now 9 cents a gig, just a couple years ago the best deal I could find was over 20 cents a gig.
Meanwhile health care costs are outstripping inflation by a considerable margin. Why? Think about this. When you go to buy a computer, or furniture, or even food, you can choose on the open market and make at least a minimally informed decision. Will I buy the regular eggs, or the more expensive organic? But if you fall and break your leg, are you and your family going to take the time to look over your options? No, you will call 911 and get treatment ASAP.
Health care is unique because your very life and health depend on it. And it is just too easy for bureaucrats and bean-counters to hold you hostage and force you to pay whatever price they choose. So they do, and everyone is. Question this all you want, but the puddin is in the price. And it's skyrocketing.
Did you know that, increasingly, US companies are outsourcing their work to Canada, because of the state-provided health coverage? Makes us look pretty bad, doesn't it.
Look, I'm not an ideologue. I just know a broken system when I see it. I'n not sold on Obama's plan, but I'm not going to go around barking "Shitcargo" in a misdirected attempt to discredit the man.
What I like about the plan: it introduces a public option, but puts it in competition with private plans. This is good because it actually lets the private plans prove that they can do better. If so, great, we all win. If not well too bad for them.
What I don't like about the plan: it sounds all too simple, yet will cost billions. Whenever politicians say "emergency, gotta rush this through and pass it now, because the sky is falling," I become skeptical. This is what happened with Iraq, with the bailout of the financial industry, with the stimulus package, and now this.
Let's have a real debate on the actual ideas here, folks.
Let's have a real debate on the actual ideas here, folks. Well said tomviolin! And leave out the comments you cannot support or prove.
Isn't it time for honest suggestions and not inflammatory remarks that just distort our collective judgement? What I have not heard enough of is the patients responsibility or is the government going to make our decisions for us? Not for me I can tell you. I have a choice to ask for and get any medical procedure I want just by asking my physician for it. He will comply out of fear that if he does not do as I ask and as a result I become ill or even worse die, then he will be liable for damages. That cries for tort reform. There are legitimate instances where damages are justified but I fear that many lawsuits are brought out of greed. Can't prove that, it is just an observation.
Patients of all genre need to take responsibility for their own decisions and realize that they are not going to live forever. As a retiree and on Medicare, I need to stop asking for an MRI when I have a simple headache; or a colonoscopy when I have a stomach ache. Cutting out all the unnecessary procedures, I believe, can do a great deal in saving Medicare and if applied to all of you on traditional health care coverage, it can reduce the cost of health care. This also applies to all of you who use the emergency room as your health care provider. I have no proof of that just common sense. And isn't that what we all want, cheaper health insurance?
The other out of control issue I believe is the scare tactics the government uses to push through their agenda. Now, I am an independent and have been my entire life and have never missed an election. I hate it when politicians use scare tactics as if I am not cognizant enough of the issues to make an informed decision. Well Mr and Mrs Politician, I am smart enough to make decisions without being threatened or cajoled into believing what ever "guess" you are championing at this moment. Mrs Pelosi, give up your personal plane and overseas junkets before you or any other politician asks me to ride the bus!
I know, I know, that last comment was unnecessary, they all do it.
My wife says my nickel is up!!
Dear Tomviolin:
You raise some good points.
I would like to respond to the general notion of free market mechanisms. And their impact on healthcare cost and quality.
This may sound a little lofty and potentially off-the-mark as to the tone and insight of your entry. Hopefully I will be able to offer enough real, current-market experience to avoid wasting your time.
We tend to draw a line between market capitalism and medical care. Our relationship with our personal physician seems too precious or too fragile to survive the profit-driven ferocity of free market mechanisms.
My hunch is that we might have gotten this wrong. Maybe the full ferocity of free market mechanisms is what is required to strengthen the patient-doctor relationship.
Several years ago a West-coast health insurer launched a test. It was experiencing a rise in patient complaints concerning doctors enrolled in the insurer's plans. The patients complained that doctors were rude. That they were difficult to access and seemed distracted.
To correct this the health insurer started keeping a report card on each of their enrolled doctors. They tracked complaints. They collected brief surveys from patients like the checklist satisfaction survey you might be asked to complete after a Toyota dealer repairs your Camry.
The insurer's original goal was to find out which doctors were causing the most problems. And to avoid them or avoid enrolling more like them. The insurer was spending lots of time handling the complaints. It just wanted to cut down on wasted time.
Something unexpected happened. As the report card data emerged it was clear that a few doctors were able to keep their patients a happier than other doctors. The insurer's patient representatives began recommending these highly-rated doctors to their patients.
This has now been repeated independently under similar circumstances. It seems that doctors as an economic class respond well to competitive market forces. As more patients migrated to the highly-rated doctors, other doctors' survival mechanisms kicked in. They got better at keeping their patients happy. Ultimately they got better at keeping their patients and surviving economically.
A doctor group brought suit. It alleged that the surveys were a threat to patient care. It argued that patient opinion was not reliable. In fact, that a patient's opinion was itself a threat to the patient's health. Only a doctor could evaluate quality of care.
The doctor group cited actual data from the survey project showing a twenty percent drop in visits. Patients who chose doctors with the highest patient satisfaction ratings chose to see those doctors fewer times per episode of care.
The doctor group argued that this fall-off in visits was potential indication of bad medicine. It argued that extensive research comparing actual outcomes over time to consensus expert benchmarks was required to allow the surveys to continue.
While the legal arguments continued the report card data kept coming in through projects outside the suit's reach. Individual private practitioners continued to behave according to notions of market capitalism. They seemed to compete for higher ratings from their patients.
Patients loved it. They reported that highly-rated doctors were more accessible and better listeners. They reported that highly-rated doctors had front office staffs who were kinder and more sympathetic to their needs. They reported that highly-rated doctors kept to their appointment schedules.
Admittedly there is no objective evidence that patients are living longer or better. Visits have fallen by twenty percent. Medication use and diagnostic testing have also dropped by the same degree. It is possible that patients are happier yet experiencing poorer outcomes.
But this seems pretty unlikely. Right?
Which brings us back to the notions surrounding how best to preserve the precious, fragile relationship we have with our personal physicians. As odd or ironic as it may sound it seems that by letting the doctor know who the customer is may be a productive step in the right direction.
It is an ideal example of a potentially appropriate application of market capitalist theory.
I am no Libertarian. I opposed Hillary Clinton's healthcare initiatives. Voted for Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Gore, Bush II on his 2nd term and more recently Obama. Not Libertarian nor consistently Democratic nor Republican. Maybe politically schizophrenic.
I am wholeheartedly behind the Obama administration's current healthcare proposals. Others obviously do not agree with my views. Good for them.
Whatever the outcomes let us keep the debate alive and strive to offer our best thinking to finding solutions.
The media buy for this ad never went beyond the Beltway in DC and yet we all got to see it. Odd, no?
(I provided media services to the agency that created it. . .)
The free market has shown that it is not interested in providing healthcare for everybody. And that might just be the logical outcome in a system that treats healthcare as a profit generating enterprise. That fact that the richest and most advanced country in the world does not provide healthcare for its poor is morally wrong and who better to correct this very selfish posture than the government. After all, what is government but the agent of the people.
In my opinion the public option introduces a valid alternative for people to buy healthcare while maintaining a free market approach.
A note on the quality of the comments. Unfortunately, writing in under a pseudonym and spewing hate is much too common in public forums like this. Best to ignore those but I really enjoyed tpartier’s comment: “..Why do I think of those hapless self-absorbed twits that show up in Leno's 'jaywalker' segments to illustrate how mindlessly ignorant they are to all of America when I read your post?...”. I couldn’t have put it any better.
The real genius of Obama is his ability to use the reverse of the Harry and Louise ad and generate fear about the increasingly expensive cost of health care as a guise for health care expansion to universal coverage. The two are NOT the same, and no one calls him on it. If you wish to argue, like wernerglinka, that the US should be providing all of its citizens with universal health care, fine, say so. But universal coverage and health care reform are not the same thing. Obama pays lip service to reform by spouting about electronic records and preventative medicine. The real issue, as addressed by the Dartmouth Study and Atul Gawande's article, have to do, essentially, with physician compensation. As long as the system motivates physicians to order more tests, both to make more money and as a defensive practice against lawsuits, the country will spend more than necessary on health care, whether it be on everyone in a universal system or those with health care now.
I just found this article. I see the usual my team is better than yours comments. A lot of name calling and such. But I am wondering if anyone knows that we already have health care for the old and the poor. Its called Medicare and Medicaid. So this "new" health care program is not for the poor, we need to get off that soap box. It seems to me that you have the AMA, the Insurance industry, and the Legal industry, that all make a lot of money from health care. Is there any politician that is willing to take on any of these businesses. I doubt it. So we will never fix health care until we are willing take on all of these entities. I can not afford health insurance, I make to much money to get Medicaid, and to young for Medicare. At the same time health insurance for my family is to expensive. The last quote I got for a family of 3 was around $900 a month. Forcing my company to buy health insurance will not make us more competitive. On the bright side, since I have to pay cash for health care I usually get it for 40% of the usual cost. Do you realize how much money is spent on collecting money from the government and insurance companies.
So I would like to suggest that instead of making a new insurance company, how about if we have medical savings accounts. Make them tax free. You could get a special ATM type card that could only be used at medical facilities and pharmacies. You would still need a supplemental insurance, which are very reasonably priced. But look at $900 after 12 months. With a person spending their own money they are going to be encouraged to live healthier, get only the tests they need, only go to the doctor when they need to go. You will relieve congestion at the EDs. You are now getting your health care at 40% of the insurance cost. The other added benefit is that you are putting your money into the banks making them stronger and able to loan more money, with out bailouts.
Then the lawyers need to be reigned in, reducing the cost of malpractice insurance.
This "new" health care bill will do nothing to reduce the cost of health care, it will only become another piece of the problem. We need men and women in Washington that are looking for solutions, not ways to get richer, or to further their political careers. Lets get rid of the Democrat team and the Republican Team or the Conservatives and Liberals. Lets get it together America.
Where in the Constitution does it say the gov't is responsible for providing health care for it's citizens? Where in the Constitution is gov't provided the authority to take over private business, ie. auto industry, health care industry (including insurance), banking, etc.? Why are we being lazy, careless, and irresponsible by assuming it's the duty of our government or employer to provide health care insurance? One of the main reasons health care, and thus, health care insurance is so expensive is HEAVY gov't regulation and oversite. It is also because we just "let our employer or the gov't deal with it". Health care insurance, and by extension, health care, would be cheaper if we citizens actually took responsibility for our health and health care coverage. It would be cheaper if private business didn't provide ANY health care insurance and instead gave it's employees a slight raise and let the power of the great american market take over...ie. let the 200+ millions with insurance buy insurance privately, forcing the insurance industry (and by extension, the health care industry) to compete on both price and quality and forcing both industries to better both quality and innovation. The current "plan" by Obama and the "plan" by Kennedy/Dodd provide NO incentive for innovation, price cuts, or and increase in quality. If you want higher costs (if this plan goes through, close to 50% of our GDP will be gov't spending...not good and in fact, very scary!), lower quality, and much less innovation, write your congressmen and congresswomen and tell them to vote for this plan. If you think the problems in health care can be solved in a more efficient and CHEAPER manner, write your congressman/woman and tell them to vote "NAY". If anyone thinks costs will go down with the gov't involved, they are either ignorant of history or just naive and easily misled (or both).
The above comments fail to realize that there is only a finite amount of money as a percentage of GDP for health care. Unfortunately, there is a HUGE demand for health care that will be insatiable once anything like health care gets cheap, inexpensive, "affordable".
Can you imagine if an elective procedure like LASIK surgery for the eyes is cheap, inexpensive, "affordable" what the demand will be like? And what about our current health lifestyles with alcohol use, tobacco use, unprotected sex, sedentary lifestyle, over eating (gluttony) resulting in in increasing obesity rates and producing unintended chronic diseases, abortions, infertility procedures, and etc. that currently many people don't pay attention to due to lack of or inadequate health coverage. Can you just imagine what the demand will be and the increased costs that health care will be with out the "R" word.....That is right.....The RATION word.
Most people don't remember the political promises made about Medicare about the amount of financial costs it would be until....demand increased and exploded the medicare costs. It was interesting to observe how medicare tried to rein in costs by racheting down the reimbursements and bundling service payments. The healthcare providers in turn tried many ways to unbundle procedures and visits to increase income. Private insurers refused to be the fall guys and take the difference in the shorts and started to mimic medicare reimbursements.
Soon, premiums rose and became unaffordable for employer based systems let alone private pay insurance polycies for individual and families not covered by their employer.
So, while those above who are rooting for a "public plan" or a "gov't plan" to succeed, you can just look at the current medicare and medical or medicaid situation and ask why are so few health care providers want to serve members of those plans. And, you can ask yourself, will there be a time when even your current healt care provider may not want to handle your health needs under a "public plan" or "gov't plan" due to reimbursement issues. They just want to deal with cash system or retainer and forget about anything "public".
Even those who are health care providers that advocate "public plan' or a "gov't plan" may one day rue the day this happens as they watch their reimbursement tank due to the HUGE demand for care and the scarce financial resources for coverage.
So, remember, free or inexpensive, efficient health care leads to HUGE demand leads to HUGE cost increase due to over promising and underfunding leads to some type of racheting down of costs due to some type of retrictions or the R word....Rationing...that may get worse as the general health of the nation declines due to our lifestyles and the population with those issues increases in age and number.
notdon, I think you have the key to the problem. When insurance (employer paid, medicare, SCHIP, medicaid and medicare) gets in the middle, both the doctor and the patient lose touch with reality. We need to be trying to bring as many people back to that reality as we can. All the plans proposed in this debate, that I've seen so far, are trying to widen that division between getting care, and paying for it.
The U.S. Federal government may well be the most ineffficient organization on the planet. Why, oh, why, on God's Green Earth, would you put a bureaucracy in charge of something so vital as health care? This is yet another power grab by the self-absorbed, egocentric fascist in the White House who wants to control every aspect of American Life. If you put a government entity in competition with the health insurance companies, they'll eventually quit. You'll be left with nothing but the inefficient, underproductive, top-heavy bureaucratic excuse for health care that other socialist nations of the world suffer under. The competent doctors, nurses and medical technologists will find some other way of making a living when you reduce them to slaves of the system. This is a recipe for disaster, and the moronic, self-serving liberal cooks will prepare it with pride and force it down the throats of all Americans. There has not been a single act of this administration that will improve the lives of Americans. This one, in particular, has the potential for suffering on a scale never seen here within the last century. Let's not even consider the Constitutional aspects, because it is readily obvious that the Constitution means nothing to Obama.
oh good, you're all here, well while B-ithcing and moaning is okay in its place, in here it does no good. some of you have intelligent ideas, and some of you ... you think you know who you are. anyway, since you're all online, go to http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
find your congressional representative and senators and tell them what you think. make it clear that if they do not listen to we the people, after the next election they won't have to, someone else will. we might not all agree on what we need to replace the current system with, but we all seem to agree it is broken and should be fixed. the people we elected need to have the leash jerked to remind them who they DO work for.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
promote the general welfare
unifying a nation and creating a society. it is a socialist manifesto. it also works. the government has to follow the concepts set forth in this document. YOU! need to really read it prior to crying or lying about what it says
If the Harry & Louise ads had happened when there was a working Internet they would have been laughed into oblivion. Instead there was a concentration of power to control the debate in the media that allowed them to drive what happened.
A Few Facts:
You do not choose even your Insurance provider, your employer does, and not with your benefit most in mind. If they change every year and you have to find a new doctor or treatment program, you have no say in the decision.
You cannot choose your doctor, your insurance chooses and you can only choose from a "Network", if you are not in a big city your specialist may be many miles away, even if there is one close by.
Even when you get a doctor, there is an Insurance bureaucrat second guessing the doctor's decisions. Maybe you get the treatment he recommends, and maybe not. At the very least they create massive red tape to make actual care harder to get.
Depending on whose data you are looking at, 30-50 other countries have better health care than we do even though there is no country that spends more on health care per person, even when you include the millions that get none at all. A quick look at those countries doing better and they are all Single Payer, some paying less than half what is paid here with everyone in and nobody going bankrupt to save their lives.
Since the US pays more per person than any other country, & over 30% of every dollar is spent in bureaucratic effort denying care, and separating out a thousand different systems each with its own rules, then by removing the bureaucracy, profiteering, and corruption from the system there is no need to have less care or higher prices.
There are a huge number of problems with healthcare in the United States right now. Incompatible patient databases, inability to properly evaluate procedures/facilities, doctor cartels, profit motive distorting where research money is spent, etc. Obviously we will not be able to address them all at once.
The biggest problems I see are: 1. Inefficiencies. I read someplace that private insurers spend 20-30% of their money on administration. Meanwhile Medicare spends 3%. That difference represents a truly staggering mount of money. 2. Individuals are charged vastly higher prices than group purchasers. I am not talking about a modest volume discount - frequently insurance companies are only paying 10-15% as much as the prices individuals are charged. People go bankrupt trying to pay the outrageous list prices when they could probably manage to pay more reasonable rates. 3. Individuals are not properly incentivized to make smart healthcare decisions. This is partially related to #2 - if you are charged highway robbery prices you are not going to make smart decisions, but the more serious manifestation is when services are essentially "free" (because somebody else is paying) and so people consume more than is appropriate.
My proposed solution would be a single payer system (to eliminate the inefficiencies) with a co-pay, perhaps 10%. This would address the three biggest problems I outlined above. Hospitals, doctors offices and so forth would compete in a market to supply healthcare and so we would still benefit from the invisible hand of capitalism keeping costs down and quality up. There would be a small market for boutique healthcare for wealthy people, and there is nothing wrong with that either; it will help keep the system honest.
On to a more sensitive (but still worthwhile) topic...I personally do not find the argument that the government is inherently inefficient and incompetent compelling. When I look at the government services provided they seem to do a reasonably good job. The DMV, the post office, the State Dept when I got my passport, even the IRS; they are really not worse, and frequently better, than large private organizations. Compare them with, say, your car insurance company. Or an airline, utility company, etc.
Other countries like the UK, Japan, Canada, etc seem to be doing well enough with their government provided healthcare. Certainly there are plenty of anecdotal horror stories, but that is unavoidable in such big systems. Certainly it is trivially easy to find such horror stories in the US as well.
rixt July 4, 2009 2:54 AM
The U.S. Federal government may well be the most ineffficient organization on the planet.
Nonsense.While the GOP is out there, no other organization comes close in terms of bungling ineptitude.