An administration official said tonight that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius "misspoke" when she told CNN this morning that a government run health insurance option "is not an essential part" of reform. This official asked not to be identified in exchange for providing clarity about the intentions of the President. The official said that the White House did not intend to change its messaging and that Sebelius simply meant to echo the president, who has acknowledged that the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president's view, the most important element of the reform package.
A second official, Linda Douglass, director of health reform communications for the administration, said that President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to reduce costs and promote competition among insurance companies, that he had not backed away from that belief, and that he still wanted to see a public option in the final bill.
"Nothing has changed," she said. "The President has always said that what is essential that health insurance reform lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes that the public option is the best way to achieve these goals."
A third White House official, via e-mail, said that Sebelius didn't misspeak. "The media misplayed it," the third official said.
Appearing on Face the Nation, press secretary Robert Gibbs said that
fostering competition and choice were non-negotiable, but the specific
mechanism designed to do so was up for discussion. That's been
interpreted as a signal that the White House is getting behind the idea
of adding publicly owned health cooperatives to the menu of choices
that consumers without insurance will recieve. Still, this isn't
exactly a walk-back -- the White House, Gibbs included, have mused
favorably about the co-ops before.
On Saturday, Mr. Obama
defended the public plan before an audience in Colorado Springs. At the
same time, he said that the government option was not the single
critical element of reform, pointing instead to the provisions
preventing insurance companies from discriminating against people,
requiring them to offer plans to everyone, and capping premium
increases.
"The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not
the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it. One
aspect of it," Obama said.
This has been a refrain the White House has used for weeks, but not until Saturday did Mr. Obama voice it so explicitly.
The perception that the White House had backed away from the public plan has roiled many prominent Democrats, who took to their blogs, and to Twitter, to protest.
>>>This official asked not to be identified in exchange for providing clarity about the intentions of the President.
This is not a legit reason to give a source confidentiality.
I agree, BS reason for giving confidentiality.
I agree, BS reason for confidentiality.
Another vote for BS. An official requesting anonymity doesn't have to be given it when the President - owner of the Bully Pulpit - certainly has the ability to provide clarity about his own thinking.
Why is Barack Obama sending surrogates forward to provide clarity about his thinking. Does he not have the ability to have a press conference? Has Barack Obama forgetten where the White House Press Room is? I believe it's in the White House ... which is where Barack Obama lives.
Nobody needs to "provide clarity" to the press for what the President is thinking when the President has a Press Room in his basement.
Ambinder isn't worried about journalistic ethics, he cares only about access, so he has to tow the White House line and do stuff like give these people "anonymity" while promoting the Baucus/Obama agenda.
Armbinder walks around Washington with a "Spin Me" signed taped to his backside. He just loves getting the administration line out there, even when it's absurd.
As I suspected, it was a trial balloon. Obama wanted to see how angry progressives would get at the notion of dropping the public option. When they saw that anger, they backtracked and blamed it on some sort of misunderstanding. Fair enough - that's politics. I'm glad to see Obama is holding firm on this.
As for Kent Conrad, however, that's a different matter.
Elrod, it seems to me that you hit the nail on the head. And, as you say, 'that's politics.'
Anticipating this strategy lends a different light to what could be happening.
Thanks,
/jc
Wait, I thought Obama said this "Is not about politics".
This proves what his critics have been saying, he lacks Leadership skills. He did not lead on the Stimulus, he allowed Cap and Trade to become an unpassable legislative abortion, and now he has allowed some of the worst PR people (Hard Left Democrats in Congress) to torpedo Health Care with a massive overreach and bills that raise costs.
How much longer will amateur hour last?
I'm glad to see he's floundering around. It shows he's losing his grip and we might yet escape his attempts to destroy our economy.
And props to Kent Conrad. He realizes, unlike many, that he was elected to represent his district. He's not Washington's ambassador in North Dakota, he's North Dakota's ambassador in Washington. There's a difference.
Kent Conrad is not acting in the interests of North Dakotan voters by opposing the public option. In fact, his voters' positions on the issue are irrelevant. Conrad is one of the largest recipient of AHIP money in the Senate. Same goes for Baucus and Nelson. Why a Senator who represents such a tiny portion of the population is given this much power is beyond me.
"In fact, his voters' positions on the issue are irrelevant."
Spoken like a true liberal. Liberals always know what's best for you.
Spoken like a true wing-nut.
Take a single line out of context and twist it's meaning so it is the opposite of the speaker's intention.
Spoken like a true wing-nut.
Take a single line out of context and twist it's meaning so it is the opposite of the speaker's intention.
tresbizarre. Perhaps you'd like to put the line in context for us.
He meant that Conrad doesn't care about his voters' positions because he receives so much special interest money: he's more beholden to special interests than he is to his own constituents. Did you really not understand that? Or was your "analysis" just baseless posturing?
There's a little thing called the Connecticut Compromise that led to the Senate having two seats per state, regardless of size, therefore protecting smaller states from being dominated in the legislature by more populous states. If "your side" was in the minority, I suspect you would be very much in favor of this.
RealClearPolitics touched on this in a post yesterday:
Well done, sir. Thank God for that compromise.
"Why a Senator who represents such a tiny portion of the population is given this much power is beyond me."
Perhaps you should then re-read the Constitution. It explains why a senator who represents such a tiny portion of the population has earned that much power.
I don't think I need to re-read the Constitution. The point here isn't why small states get equal representation. The question is why is THIS small state in such a strong position to upend legislation that affects so many people? The point of the Senate compromise to protect small states from irrelevance at the hand of the big states. If Conrad was protecting poor soybean farmers in North Dakota then I'd see what his point was. But as it stands now, Conrad is making no sense at all. How are regional co-operatives better than a public option? He's basically inverting the premise of the Connecticut Compromise - instead of using his position to protect the citizens of North Dakota, he's using the atypical demographics of North Dakota to speak for the nation as a whole (he claims that the co-ops would be like rural electric co-ops in North Dakota, which is fantasy).
Oh, and the Constitution says nothing about small state Senators getting plum positions on key committees.
Why are the complaining about the Senate? They have 60 votes. They should be happy North Dakota and Montana have Democrat Senators at all.
The real problem for Liberals is that they think they own the party. 20% of adults are Liberals. 40% are conservative. Independents have a Libertarian streak.
That is why less than 40% of adults support this bill. Equal representation would have killed this long ago.
Elrod. I presume Kent Conrad negotiated his way onto the committee via the usual internal party politics and connections.
mfsheldon: "Equal representation would have killed this long ago."
The House is closer to equal representation, and the House is where all the support for the public option is (unlike the Senate).
"Why a Senator who represents such a tiny portion of the population is given this much power is beyond me."
It certainly is "beyond" you. You're obviously a liberal, and liberals don't understand the first thing about the American founding. A simple reading of the Federalist, the Constitution, the debates on the ratification will show you that the key element here is the sovereignty of the States. Effectively, the House represents the people more directly and immediately, and the Senate more closely represents the State as a sovereign entity. Therefore the House's number of representatives is tied to the population, whereas the Senate's number is tied to the number of states.
You know what liberals? If all else fails, read the damned instructions.
Hey, kcom, you forgot one thing: the Republicans and our very own Wall Street clowns already tanked the economy. Obama's just trying to pick up the pieces.
As far as Conrad is concerned, senators are elected for six years so they can afford to take a longer and broader view of national affairs. In the larger context, North Dakota doesn't count for much so maybe he should start thinking about the nation as a whole.
Encourage competition. Even if the public option is made open, that should not be at the expense of other private players.
That would ensure the balance of quality and price.
-- Mark
Far infrared sauna
Infrared sauna
Another takeaway from Sebelius on CNN today:
http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2009/08/sebelius-calls-death-panel-talk.html
Has this been reported to the Whitehouse?
"President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to ...promote competition among insurance companies."
What is he smoking? If the taxpayer can choose not to pay the taxes to finance the public option, and use that part of taxes to buy his own insurance, then a public option may promote competitions. But the taxpayer has to pay the taxes to support the public option, then has to pay premiums for private insurance. If the taxpayer can't afford that extra premium, then he has to stay with the public option. There is no option, and no competition.
Read the bills. The public option is maintained by premium payments, just like private insurance. Govt helps start it up, but it has to keep the same reserves and run operations from premium income, as private insurers do.
Govt subsidizes insurance for working people who can't afford premiums on their own under reform so that's where taxpayer dollars enter the picture, so, we have two choices if we want reform:
1. Only subsidize private insurance with taxpayer dollars
2. Subsidize both private and public options, for basic comprehensive insurance. You choose whether you want public or private - no one forces you to go public.
If you choose #1, you just have to explain to me how it's better that private insurers continue to have no competitors to speak of. Don't start w/the "thousands of health insurers out there" line, because in any given market, consumers have a whopping choice of no more than, if they're lucky, two insurers. The public option might end up as one of two available insurers, or the third, or fourth option - that depends on whether private insurers want to keep shutting out competitors. Our choices are limited now, by insurers, not govt.
If you choose no reform, then kiss economic recovery goodbye. You'll have to pay huge premiums to cover the uninsured, and copays, and save for a catastrophic illness, in case you get dropped by your insurer or lose your job. Or if you can't/won't save a cool million, you could just go bankrupt, lose your house if you still have one.
Your taxes will keep going up to care for the poor who are already subsidized, including the elderly and disabled, at ever-increasing cost.
We'll keep losing jobs to overseas countries that do subsidize health care.
Or we can curb rising premiums and copays with competition from govt, spread out the risk by covering everyone, end the invisible tax we pay for covering the uninsured with our private premiums, keep businesses and jobs here with a healthy insured affordable workforce. As both private and public insurers' biggest clients - as taxpayers - we can regulate for good outcomes instead of number of procedures. We can institute a secure record-sharing software program to reduce the cost and errors in paper record keeping. We can compete for best quality and not just best price.
No competition? Are you serious? We have 138 Health Plans in the US with 100,000 or more members. 61% of those are non-profit. The margins for "for-profit" plans is 3.2%. Google has 26% margins, Wal-Mart is 3.3%. Wal-Mart is the leanest and lowest-priced company in the world.
We could have lots of competition if we could buy insurance across State lines.
OBAMA OPPOSES THAT. WHY?!?!
He won't allow them to keep each other honest?
He is a big joke.
The truth? You use Wal-Mart as a good example, mfsheldon? Wal-Mart pays their employees so little they qualify for food stamps and Medicaid, so YOU are subsidizing one of the wealthiest companies in the world with your tax dollars, and worse, mine. As far as competition across state lines goes, each state has their own insurance laws, so you need the federal government to step in and make sure they play by the same rules in all states.
Fascinating how conservatives howl about a public option and taxpayer-funded health care when they have no problem subsidizing a corporate giant like Wal-Mart, which pays its employees a pittance
and underwrites wage slavery in Communist China.
The "let people buy insurance across state lines" talking point is such bs.
Think about what happened with the credit card industry--its a race to the bottom to set up shop in states that will offer the least regulations and restrictions. This would be a terrible outcome for consumers.
There are no anti-trust regulations for the health insurance industry; this is why, no matter how many companies are out there, they keep acting like a cartel. There is no real competition out there.
You write:
"... The public option is maintained by premium payments, just like private insurance. Govt helps start it up, but it has to keep the same reserves and run operations from premium income, as private insurers do."
If the "public option," after startup, is no different from what is apparently the "private option," then exactly what is the point? How is it supposed to keep the "private option" honest? (And, a la Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, what keeps the "public option honest?) How come the discipline of the market doesn't keep the "private option" companies honest? (And, as noted elsewhere, why don't the Dems simply allow interstate competition?) If the "public option" is the same, then why does government need to start up the "public company" in the first place? And exactly how is the concept of a "public" -- that is, to say what we actually mean -- a "government company" different from the concept of a square circle?
Thank you for your concise and clear explanation; it is something that the mainstream press has been unable to learn or convey. It is wonderful to see someone come forward with a truth.
Grandma has plenty of company under the bus.
Regarding this nebulous health care plan that everyone is talking about and that no one will have an opportunity to examine before the "SALE ENDS FRIDAY" signs go up on Thursday: amid all the sound and fury about the "public option," there is not a peep about tort reform. How about maybe putting the horse in front of the cart? Tort reform first, then we can quibble about why we need another quasi-competitive government "business" like the Post Office and Amtrak.
Holy cow. This is chaos. Sibelius was perfectly clear yesterday. And she probably prepped to say what she said. Now a bunch of unnamed WH sources are walkning it back? Right.
Why is it that when a Dem makes an incorrect comment - they 'misspeak'. However, when a Rep makes an incorrect comment -- they 'lie'!!!
You are an idiot. Sebelius was simply conveying the views of the President, not making a statement of fact. The public option is not central to health reform. Obama's opinion.
Sarah Palin: The current house bills will set up death panels for my grandma, son and 14 year old terrier. Lie
Nonsense. When you talk about "end of life counseling" and make the bill ambiguous on that point, it can be taken any direction the government wants to take it LATER ON. Nobody thinks that it will immediately set up these "death panels." But there is an active and growing movement in this country for euthanasia, and when the baby boomers all retire and the ratio of worker to retiree changes dramatically, this movement will increase. Don't think that the government cannot use this language to eventually move toward what anyone with half a lick of sense can see that society is moving toward. That's why things like this need to be vigorously opposed if they even provide a possibility of later opening the door to government encouraged (or mandated) euthanasia.
A public option to "promote competition". What a joke. There is going to be a level playing field for competition when one of the "competitors" has access to all the tools of the federal government available to it. The least of these tools being all the tax money that the feds can pump into it. To believe that this competition that Obama talks about will be fair is disingenuous.
Competition can be made more intense amongst private health insurance providers by opening up competition across state lines.
Enough is enough. As government expands, freedom contracts and debt gets piled on.
This is a pipe dream pure and simple. No one with serious knowledge of health care reform believes that opening up insurance across state lines would promote competition.
There will be a public option in the final reform bill.
Reform is pretty much guaranteed: every democrat understands failing to get a bill means they will lose in 2010.
JMHO: But Kent Conrad pushing so hard against this and saying the votes aren't in the senate demonstrates the success outside groups are having against the insurance industry. The public option has become the heavy weight fight in reform and progressives are willing to let reform die if it doesn't have a public option. That makes blue dogs and centrists the first on the front lines to fall if reform doesn't happen.
That is the key: House progressives are pissed off that the Senate cut funding for states and other demonstrable stimulative programs in the stimulus. They are tired of having everything walked back in the Senate and told to swallow a crap sandwich. They have a line in the sand and the fact that the blue dog dominated Waxman committee passed a bill with a public option shows that it's going to get done IMO.
Baucus waited to long to bring something out of his committee and progressives are waiting to attack everything there to force Dodd/HELP bill to be the template.
"Reform is pretty much guaranteed: every democrat understands failing to get a bill means they will lose in 2010."
The polls suggest the opposite is true.
First off: polling this far out does nothing but capture the energy on the right and the declining energy on the left.
Second: '94 is fresh in the minds of Democrats. They understand failure paved the path for Gingrich. They will get a deal done on health care, I think this is clear as anything.
Third: Polls are a mixed bag on health reform but I think they show throughout that people WANT reform done and anyone who votes for an entitlement program won't get hit in 2010. The messaging will change to those who want to take away an entitlement.
Every "Blue Dog" must realize that if they vote for increasing taxpayer costs means they lose in 2010. After all - most of them voted FOR the budget, spendulus, tax and cap, etc and this would be the final nail. Every delayed day from this past July make sthat case stronger.
As for the other D's - most of them that were on televised town hall meetings looked like fools and their future is also in doubt regardless of what they vote on health care. Voters do not like to be taken for granted, called names, or ignored.
"Reform is pretty much guaranteed: every democrat understands failing to get a bill means they will lose in 2010."
The polls suggest the opposite is true.
Progressive health-care reform won the only poll that counts - Nov 4, 2008.
I don't think most people who voted for BO thought they would be getting what they're getting - he presented himself in a centrist light when campaigning, so they probably voted for him because he spoke well, and they could "prove" they're not prejudiced with their ballot.
This is still a right of center nation - we'll see what the polls show in 2010 and 2012!
If Republicans didn't fear a true health care reform like the plague, why are they so opposed to it? Your argument makes no sense. If the majority of the people didn't like single payer, Republicans should let the Democrats go ahead and immolate themselves.
The truth of the matter is that if meaningful health care reform is finally passed after 75 years of the people asking for it, the Republican party will be relegated to the wilderness for the foreseeable future. This is why they are willing to lie and foment civil unrest by propping up the brown shirts in order to kill any reform.
"Progressive health-care reform won the only poll that counts - Nov 4, 2008. "
Just like GWB won a mandate for more war, more creationism, more faith-based initiative, etc. in 2004, right?
Anybody believe anything coming out of the WH re: health care? Me neither.
Un-named sources are now in charge of providing "clarity about the intentions of the President"?
So how's that transparancy thing working out for you Mr. President?
Given all the heat [and very little light] that has been shed on the president's health care initiative, I don't believe that Sebelius did not know the president's position. We're more likely dealing with an executive trying to defuse opposition to its program through deception. Further, by giving your source confidentiality, the Atlantic has become a party to this conspiracy.
Congratulations.
"...providing clarity about the intentions of the President"
I just shot coffee out of my nose. Thanks!
Really -- every second sentence on the TelePrompTer screen begins with "Let me be clear".
I think the least unnecessary medical test in history would be a stat fecoglobin and serum porcelain level on all the democrats in Washington.
Seems to me that if we all agree that healthcare is or should be a fundemental right,and that we as a society are responsible for payment of this health care then a goverment run system seems to make the most sense to me. The challenge of such a system would be to run it efficiently, something most people do not have a lot of confidence that our government can do.The real problem with this legislation is that our Leaders are not leading, they are swaying with the polls and corperate sponsers and not what is best for the American people.In the end this bill will get watered down and have no positive effect for the average person.
There are many real problems.
1/ We don't all agree that: health care is a fundamental right; or how much health care to provide; or who would be entitled.
2/ Most people in Congress, and now the Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius too, don't know what the bill says - they say they haven't read it.
3/ The bill makes no sense: it intends to add 50 million uninsured people and reduce funding for health care, but not ration or reduce the level of care. All this for an industry that is 15% of our economy.
4/ The president is making bogey men out of doctors and insurers as if replacement by government committees will be an improvement.
Plainly our leaders are trying to figure out how to make sense of all this without damaging the president and his number 1 priority. That's really the problem.
Firstly, Miss, the price of doing nothing could offer huge ammunition to the GOP argument that democrats can't govern. And secondly, the polls show support for doing something is quite strong:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-baumann/dont-believe-the-hype-sup_b_248202.html
Finally, some argue polls don't capture everything:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/30/what_do_poll_numbers_really_me.html
I have volunteered for President Obama's campaign and have made over 2,000 phone calls over a 2 month period. I, like many progressives, doctors, nurses, etc., strongly believe a single payer system to be the easiest, most effective way to deal with the health care crisis.
With the understanding that we live in a world of compromise, progressive have settle on the compromised position of a public option in order to accommodate the interests of the much too powerful insurance industry and its representatives in Congress, the Republican party.
The elimination of the public option would be an unacceptable capitulation to the will of the minority (70% of Americans have consistently supported single payer over many years) and for this reason, it will not be something that I, and many other progressives would support.
The President, and the Democratic party should better pay attention to the following: any health care bill that shall pass without a strong public option will simply be seen by progressives like myself as a mandate to deliver more customers to private health insurance companies; and if that is what comes to pass you will have lost my support for the foreseeable future.
If the Democratic party capitulates to the pressures of big business and deny the people the choice of a strong public option, it will be the final nail in the coffin of the party as the representative of working people. I, for one, will actively begin working to build a truly progressive party to the left of the apparently centrist, corporate driven Democratic party.
Goodbye and good riddence
what a joke, The Democratic party is bought off by big business just as badly as I assume you think the Republican party is...
I just can't believe you got that suckered in by BO, than to have made thousands of phone calls on his behalf. WOW! You must have hated Bush so badly you had nightmares.
As for you claiming 70% of the population has been for single payer for many years, it would have gone through sometime. I mean Democrats had been in power before... Wanting problems fixed in health care doesn't mean we are for single payer,(Govt ran) health care.
All I can say is thank you to all Democrat Lawmakers who don't blindly follow BO, who don't jump on the liberal band wagon, & who can think for themselves.
To solve the healthcare crisis we have to get to the root of the disease. The real problem is supply and demand. Healthcare as we know it, has created an elite class of laborers named doctors (simple divison of labor), that has been codified by great lobbyist in washington and a lack of "competition" to its ranks (which is why they are able to demand so much salary) as a result of the poor educational system in this country. Which is why, I posit, the educational reform debate is tied to the healthcare debate--long term.)
To permanently reform medical care in this country we need: higher standards in the medical profession. Surely most people are aware how many people die or are maimed as a result of wrong diagnosis, or medicines and procedures being prescribed erroneously. The numbers of people who die each year by medical neglect or mistake are staggering. This is what increases the insurance that even good doctors must pay, and in effect, increases the cost of services to the consumer. The governments' response has been to limit the amount a consumer can sue a doctor or facility for, rather than dealing with the incompentence of the system or the doctor.
In addition, quite often many people will go to the emergency room at the hospital for general things like dental and such because they're not able to afford the trip on their own. So, while we speak about "co-ops" of medical services, keep in mind those co-ops ought to be local. It makes the most sense for screening sites to be in community centers and schools, (the school nurse should be restored). These could both be important components in identifing, monitoring and administering to healthcare inquiries and situations before they become serious enough to go to the hospital.
There are many, many doctors against this health-care reform. Some of you Libs ask what Repubs, or in my case a conservative independent are afraid of over health-care reform, I would ask why Democrat lawmakers are so afraid of TORT reform. If this is really the best thing to do for our country, why is Obama having to make payoffs to the Pharmaceutical Co's, The AMA, & other Unions. There is an article today in the Canadian Press calling for the fixing of their health-care system. evidently their Govt ran system of health-care isn't working as well as they thought it would. Their biggest complaint is for better care of their patients, less wait time, & looking into private insurers to create competition. I also feel we need to fix our system, but not the tear down of our current system as we know it. Libs like to point out that Medicaid, Medicare, & the VA are Govt ran, which they are, but they are all broke with much waste, fraud, & abuse, & sometimes poor patient care. This very well might be a carbon copy of what will happen if Govt takes over the rest of our health-care as the libs want.
First I was told we needed reform to lower the cost, but BHO and his supporters refuse to deal with two issues that will not create nearly as much resistance as total dumping of current medical system. If they enforce existing immigration laws and deport illegals (yes it has been done before - by Eisenhower) AND if they make an honest attempt at tort reform they know cost will drop. So do these things and give it a year or so - if costs do in fact come down - great. If not, then start implementing parts of the new plan piece meal. What we have is hyprocisy - more than hald of congress are lawuers and Dems want the illegals' vote and Rep want their labor for their business friends.
I say listen to the people. Now I'm told that medical professionals are crooks (justifies no tort reform) and insurance companies are theives. I guess some one wanted to take out flood insurance AFTER they got flooded out in a hurricane and complained to Obama - so he can fix it. yeah - right!!!
when an administration official 'misspeaks', it usually means that person told a malicious truth and now the spin squad has to ride to the rescue. This has been handled about as poorly as one can handle a major policy initiative.
What remains mind-boggling is the number of folks who believe that, given its track record of managing other things, the federal govt can properly administer health care for 300-million people when it can't even handle the paperwork involved with cash-for-clunkers. The Postal Service, Amtrak, Medicare/Medicaid/SS, and Fannie/Fredie all stand as monuments to govt's inefficiency and lack of business savvy. There are so many things wrong with this proposal, it's difficult to know where to begin so let's just go with a short list:
--citizens at town halls were more familiar with what was on paper than were any of the Congressmen. Or the president.
--tort reform is not included.
--neither is portability.
--nor are the mandates that all sorts of exotic treatments be included in all policies though only a small fraction of participants will ever use them.
--you can't shop across state lines as one would for any other type of insurance.
--if the goal is covering the uninsured, whatever the true number is, why overturn the entire system?
--where are the provisions for rewarding or punishing individual choices, i.e. fluctuating premiums based on whether a person smokes, is overweight, exercises, hyper-medicates, etc? Bad drivers pay higher auto insurance premiums; smokers, the obese, and prozac nation should be treated likewise.
--some honest debate about the portion of someone's health care bill that is actually paid by a third party and the amount that hospitals write off.
--a cursory review of political math shows that Repubs cannot stop a bill; they simply don't have the numbers. But look at what is happening. Perhaps concerns about Obama's leadership experience weren't so overstated after all.
Why doesn't Barry just cut to the chase and have his teleprompter give all press conferences. It'd be a vast improvement over Mr. Chuckles, his current press propagandist. Smoke n mirrors folks, smoke n mirrors,,,,Wake Up Sheeple!!!
Maybe their next plan of action would be to issue teleprompters for anyone who speaks on behalf of White House policy. They could stimulate the economy this way by buying them in mass quantity and they would have a lot less "mis-spokens" to boot. Their is so much ammunition out there right now for political ads in 2010 that most of these ad companies must be peeing themselves with excitement.
Politick...This is why they are willing to lie and foment civil unrest by propping up the brown shirts in order to kill any reform.
The "brown shirts" are the ones who answered Obama's call to send the White House any 'fishy' emails they received regarding the healthcare bill.
The right-wingers posting talking points about cutting costs through "tort reform" and "deporting illegals" are spouting nonsense.
Do some doctors practice "defensive medicine" because they're afraid of lawsuits, and their malpractice premiums are so high? Well, yes. (Oh, BTW, who's responsible for those sky-high premiums? Might it be... private insurance companies?) But the fact remains, even if you address that, you've addressed about a percent or two of the total health care cost issue. No more. It's a negligible factor.
As for demonizing immigrants... the best available figures show that no more than 9 million immigrants (legal and illegal) are relying on public health services. So, again, a tiny portion of the overall problem. (And seriously, deporting people is not a solution, so long as there's a demand from employers for cheap labor. To pretend otherwise is just xenophobia talking.)
All these ideas are just tinkering around the edges (although we should note that if conservatives on the Hill really wanted to get some additional cost savings in, they could... but instead they've opted to go for full-bore obstuctionism, as Sen. Kyl has acknowledged). What really has to be done is to take on the core problem... and that problem is for-profit insurers, whose entire business model is built on denying care and externalizing costs. Why are so many so devoted to protecting the profits of this parasitic industry?
(And they're huge profits, BTW. I don't know what the poster had been smoking who wrote that the margins are only "3.2 percent," but he's off by an order of magnitude. Just recently, industry lobbyists here in Illinois beat back a state bill that attempted to keep insurers' "medical losses" (i.e., the actual coverage people get) to at least 85% of premiums. In fact, 65% is not atypical in the industry. The other third is "administrative overhead"... which is to say a lot of it disappears in the form of executive bonuses.)
I've been involved in the healthcare industry (not insurance) for thirty four years and have an opinion about government run care (i.e. Medicaid, Medicare, VA) that is based on personal experiences and observation. Treatment may be available and a cure possible but, if it isn't allowed by the government for whatever reason they've determined, it isn't offered to the patient who's only insurance is government run. Routinely, patients are prematurely discharged from the hospital because the government has determined how many days a patient may be an inpatient for any particular illness and often the patient is readmitted within a week following discharge, in order to continue necessary medical treatment. Since continuity in care is a vital component in disease management and recovery, this is hardly cost effective on the government's part, so, contrary to the President blaming physicians for these readmissions, it is the government that bears responsibility.
Death Panels? If private insurers cover treatments and procedures that save people's lives while Medicare refuses and the result is death, you can understand why some refer to these bureaucrats as a Death Panel. I've always referred to them as murderers myself but, that's me. If you're someone fortunate enough to have good private insurance that's NOT an HMO, you can sigh a breath of relief and unlike Medicaid, Medicare, VA patients, you can sue the bastards who jeopardize your health.
Medicaid patients are diverted to undereducated and often incompetent doctors educated in foreign countries and lacking the credentials required of U.S. doctors. Can you understand your doctor when he speaks to you?
Under Clinton, Medicare provider reimbursement fees were slashed and many doctors, unable to financially sustain their practice, dropped out of Medicare altogether. The cuts Obama proposes to Medicare will devastate beneficiaries who'll be left with even fewer doctors and services which will result in many more unnecessary deaths. Evidently Congress hasn't learned from it's own past mistakes.
The VA also took major hits from Clinton which made a bad situation worse. How would you like to wait in a VA hospital's Triage area for eight hours to see a harried physician for ten minutes? Could you accept this as routine for everytime you had a scheduled appointment? How about if getting to the appointment required a half day's travel?
People enrolled in these three government programs either can't get private coverage due to disability or financial hardship and they would all much rather have a great policy that provides top shelf coverage, just as Congress and the President and their families enjoy. Remember during Obama's campaign that he said '"I'd like you all to have the same healthcare that we in Congress have"'...so, I guess that's why all Democrats in Congress have refused to sign onto the proposed public plan they want to dump on the rest of us. I would suggest, no, demand that any public plan illegally forced upon the American people requires all of Congress and the President, be enrolled. Wouldn't you agree or do you see them as they do, the Gods who rule over us, rather than the servants they are supposed to be.
Regarding the evil private insurers, HMO's were the worse thing to ever hit healthcare in America, they moved in like a tidal wave deceiving the masses into believing they'd serve as gatekeepers between greedy doctors and naive patients but from their conception they were about building their coffers by bombarding doctors with paperwork and patients with denials of service and ever increasing premiums. I would demand HMO's be dissolved, they are no better than government controlled programs, except that a patient can sue them, of course.
No sane person would choose to have any government dictate how they will be medically treated and by whom.
As for Tort reform, Congress is comprised of attorneys who've made livings from lawsuits so, would you really expect support from that crowd? Viable lawsuits would diminish dramatically if healthcare workers were required to meet uniform standards, no exceptions and no allowances including those for foreign trained doctors.
Obama and the Dems continue to harp on preventative care which I dismiss since most disorders aren't preventable. One Senator revealed her ignorance of "preexisting conditions" when she suggested patients be temporarily enrolled in high risk pools until they'd recovered and then could enter into a regular public plan. This is more proof why non-physicians shouldn't be making speeches on health issues since preexisting conditions are permanent, such as cerebral palsy or multiple schlerosis or schleroderma or spina bifida or any number of orphan diseases. Many insurance companies today do offer coverage to people with chronic conditions but, at three and four times the premiums healthy persons pay so,...unaffordability = uninsured. The government will simply deny state of the art care, don't see any difference between HMO and government run healthcare.
We should be fixing what's wrong with the current system, not dismantling it entirely. We used to have good insurance companies in this country, before HMO's. What we need is to stop making healthcare employer based so that anyone can have access. There is no reason why they couldn't operate as do auto insurers.