Health-Care Focus Next for Obama in Speech, Budget Proposal

[cal04]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601202&sid=aAjCUBMi5IlU

With the economic stimulus package signed, President Barack Obama this week will outline how he plans to provide affordable medical coverage for all Americans, an administration official said.

Obama tomorrow will tell a joint meeting of the House and Senate that revamping the U.S. health system is a priority, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The president will outline how he plans to pay for it when he submits his budget to Congress on Feb. 26, the official said in a telephone interview yesterday.

The president’s readiness to move the week after he signed a $787 billion stimulus measure shows how important health care is to economic growth, said Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat. It also is a sign Obama hasn’t been sidetracked by the delay in naming a Health and Human Services secretary, said Len Nichols, a former Clinton administration official.

Obama’s budget “will help set the table for health reform,” said Wyden, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees U.S. government health programs.

One American in seven lacks health insurance, according to the Census Bureau. For those with coverage, the price rose an average of 5 percent last year, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park, California, reported in September. Obama said during his campaign that covering everyone might cost at least $65 billion a year.

By proposing how to pay for health changes in his budget plan, Obama is showing that is committed to providing the necessary money, said Nichols, now head of the health policy center at the New America Foundation in Washington, in a telephone interview.

‘Can’t be Put Off’

“This is a president who knows that fixing health care can’t be put off any longer,” Wyden said in a telephone interview.

[babylonsister]

1. No way! How can he do that? He's only been here a month, as prez. nt

[avaistheone1]

2. Yes we can! Single payer universal health care.

Accept no substitutions.

[dkf]

3. Yeah then we can get rid of every single medical insurance job there is

AND a bunch of the staff that has to help with record keeping.

[avaistheone1]

4. They can apply or if needed retrain for the new jobs that

single payer universal health care will provide.

I don't think we should deny the nation single-payer universal health care coverage because some people who made their living in the medical insurance industry may not have a job when we make the switchover.

I imagine the people who sold and traded slaves had to find a new way to make living too once slavery was made illegal. Obviously the greater social good is not to have slavery, rather than keeping slave traders employed in their old business.

The same is true of the bean counters at the insurance companies. It is a greater social good to implement single payer universal coverage so that everyone in this country can get their medical needs addressed, rather than keep all the medical insurance people in their current positions and denying millions of people care. Besides there will be lots of exciting opportunities in health care with single-payer coverage once it begins to be established in this country.

[dkf]

6. What jobs will single payer provide?

I haven't heard of any studies showing the impact on jobs from the changeover.

I'm still betting its a net job loss. And people who are laid off from their jobs pushing papers won't be well equipped to take on jobs as nurses or doctors or techs.

I'd say most of the cost savings in getting rid of health insurance and moving to single payer is getting rid of what are basically make work jobs.

[demodonkey]

9. If they are smart enough 2 push paper, they are smart enough to retrain as nurses or health techs.

Single payer healthcare for ALL. We can't afford NOT to do this.

[dkf]

10. Yeah, anybody who is laid off right now can retrain to be a nurse or health tech.

I bet that is very comforting right about now.

I wonder why we aren't this insensitive to auto workers.

[demodonkey]

12. Because 18,000 people per year aren't dying so that auto workers can have jobs.

18,000 die annually in the US due to lack of healthcare. Many of these are completely uninsured, but many who die DO HAVE INSURANCE but these insurance industry workers -- who I guess we should be more "sensitive" to -- DENIED THE CLAIMS that would have paid for care and saved their lives!

Anyone who holds a job in which they are paid and encouraged to deny anything that leads to someone else's death or destruction, I have no pity for them. Such work is the ultimate me, me, meeeeee situation. Let these insurance workers retrain or let them go to hell. I could care less which. Especially when innocent Americans who need care are dying due to being denied the care they need and in many cases have paid for insurance to cover.

Are you worrying equally as much about the soldiers who will be "thrown out of a job" if we stop killing people in Iraq?

[TheBigotBasher]

14. Even the UK NHS employs large numbers of admin staff and managers.

Even a fully universal system free at the point of use requires accountants, administrators, hospital directors. The hospitals will also require buyers, to negotiate best prices from the drugs companies.

There is also a relatively buoyant Private Health care insurance market for those that want a luxury service, which still costs far far less than basic insurance in the US; primarily because they have to compete against free.

So the idea that all of the insurance industry jobs will disappear is a fallacy.

[4lbs]

5. Much of that will already happen with President Obama's plan to "modernize" the record keeping.

n/t

[dkf]

8. Well efficiency and productivity growth don't make demand for workers.

I honestly wonder if there is enough work for our population, especially if we decide to go permanently frugal.

Just think if they decided to modernize taxes so that every institution sent info to the Government, and the Government sends it back to us with a simple checkbox for approval. Dang.

If things were done the way they ought to be done, a bunch of people would be jobless.

[harun]

17. This is the worst argument against Single Payer I have ever heard.

Job losses? Are you serious?

[FrenchieCat]

7. Well, you can certainly advocate Single Payer health care,

But to say..."accept no substitutions" isn't going to wash....
considering that President Obama didn't get elected
promoting Single Payer Universal Health Care.

So I understand what you want,
but to make perfect the enemy of the good is not in anyone's best interest,
of those of us who are reasonable and realistic.

[avaistheone1]

13. Obama's health care plan didn't get him elected either.

Obama was elected to get out of Iraq.

Obama's plan funds the insurance companies and does little to truly make health coverage affordable to all Americans. Studies have shown that most people do NOT support Obama's plan and prefer single-payer coverage. So why is Obama not doing what Americans both want and need for their health care is the question. The only way most Americans are going to get good, affordable coverage particularly with the state of the economy and the financial state of most Americans is single-payer universal health care.

Single payer universal health care for all. Yes, we can!!!!!

[sandnsea]

11. Should I give my subsidized insurance back?

Since I'm supposed to accept single payer or nothing. I guess I don't get any health program in the mean time?

[TheBigotBasher]

15. Why not have both?

With a large, free at the point of use service to compete against, your insurance cover will probably end up costing you less and delivering you more.

[avaistheone1]

16. My point is don't be fooled by any proposed new government program where we are essentially

underwriting the health care insurance industry - and not expanding health care coverage to all Americans.

As far as whether you should give your insurance coverage back - why would you as long as your employer continues to subsidize it. But look around you --- you are just a paycheck away from not having subsidized insurance, then what?

Certainly a single payer system can exist side by side with the current health care insurance industry. The health care insurance industry will definitely shrink over time because both employers and the general public will favor single-payer due to more competive costs for services.

The problem is that more and more employers both large and small do not provide health insurance, are cutting it back or have inadequate programs. Major corporations like Toyota have opted not to expand in the US (and have gone to other countries like Canada instead) because they would have to bear the costs of health insurance for their employees if they set up plants here. I think single-payer universal health care coverage makes sense both from an economic view, and from a moral view.
It is the right thing to do.

Single-payer universal health coverage. Yes, we can!!!!