Is the Obama Health Care Plan Really Better Than Nothing?

[maryf]

http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/obama-health-care-plan-really-better-nothing

link fixed on edit...

Is the Obama Health Care Plan Really Better Than Nothing?
By Bruce A. Dixon
Created 07/22/2009 - 08:39

Candidate Barack Obama told us to judge his first term by whether he delivers quality affordable health care for all Americans, including nearly fifty million uninsured. So why does his proposal not cover the uninsured till 2013, after the next presidential election when Medicare took only 11 months to cover its first 40million seniors? Why are corporate media pretending that no opinions exist to Obama's left? And why has the public option part of the Obama health care plan shrunk from covering 130 million to only 10 million, with 16 million left uninsured altogether?

Is the Obama Health Care Plan Really Better Than Nothing?

By BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

The health care debate inside and outside the matrix

Like just about everything else, your take on the national health care debate depends on whether you're inside or outside the matrix.

Within the bubble of fake reality blown by corporate media and bipartisan political establishment, the health care news is that the Obama Plan <1> is at last making its way through Congress. It's being fought by greedy private insurance companies, by chambers of commerce, by Republican and some Democratic lawmakers.

Under the Obama plan, we're told, employers will have to insure their employees or pay into a fund that does it for them. Individuals will be required under penalty of law to buy private insurance policies and for those that can't afford it or prefer not to use a private insurer there will be something called a “public option.” This “public option, the story goes, is bitterly fought by the bad guys because it will make private insurers accountable by competing with them, forcing them to lower their costs. Both the president's backers and opponents agree that the whole thing will be fantastically expensive, and the president proposes to fund it with cuts in existing programs like Medicaid which pay for the care of the poorest Americans and a tax on those making more than $300,000 a year.

The “public option” has that magic word “public” in it, and that's reassuring to progressives and to most of the American people. Taxing the rich is a popular idea too. So if you rely on corporate media, the administration, or some of the so-called progressive blogs to identify the players and keep the score, it seems a pretty clear case of President Obama on the side of the angels, battling the greedy insurance companies, Republicans and blue dog Democrats to bring us universal, affordable health care.

That whole picture has about as much reality as the ones the same corporate media and most of the same politicians drew for us about Iraq, 9-11, weapons of mass destruction and some people over there who wanted us to free them. Iraq and the White House were and remain actual places, and there really is a problem called health care. But the places, problems and solutions are very different from the bubble of fake reality blown around them.

What sustains this fake reality is the diligent suppression from public space of any viewpoints, observations or proposals to Obama's left. As long as the illusion that nobody has a better idea, that the only choice we have is Obama's way or the Republicans' way can be maintained, the crooked game can go on.

But bubbles are delicate things. Keeping this one intact requires so many vital topics to be avoided, so many inquiring eyes to be averted, so many fruitful conversations to be squelched that it's hard to see how the president, the bipartisan establishment and the corporate media can pull it all off.

The real Obama Plan: doesn't cover the uninsured till 2013, if then.

The first clue that something is deeply wrong with the Obama health care proposal is its timeline. According to a copyrighted July 21 AP story by Ricardo Alfonso-Zaldivar,

“President Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicare law on July 30, 1965, and 11 months later seniors were receiving coverage. But if President Barack Obama gets to sign a health care overhaul this fall, the uninsured won't be covered until 2013 — after the next presidential election.

“In fact, a timeline of the 1,000-page health care bill crafted by House Democrats shows it would take the better part of a decade — from 2010-2018 — to get all the components of the far-reaching proposal up and running.”

More at link above

[WI_DEM]

1. What Obama health care plan?

He's set out basic principals and its up to the congress to fashion a plan which is still being worked on. We don't know for sure if coverage will start in 2013 or not.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

2. That's the 2nd time in 24 hrs I've heard that 2013 stuff.

[Winterblues]

6. Here is the plan

http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/07/americas-affordable-health-choices-act.shtml

[sandnsea]

32. That is the HOUSE Plan

You posted it from the HOUSE web site.

[Maru Kitteh]

23. The Obama healthcare plan is exactly what the R's are so terrified it is: it's a step toward single

payer. It's only a first step and it is not going to even come close to resembling a desirable finished product but we don't have time to stand in the corner stomping our feet with our little lower lips pursed out holding our breath till we turn blue in some holdout for perfection.

People are dying out there.

[ThomWV]

36. I did not vote for him to give is a "Step" toward single payer, I voted to have it.

[Maru Kitteh]

55. Well you must have been hiding under a rock for two years becasue he NEVER said SP was going to be

a first line goal.

[TBF]

65. Nope, it's not even that. It's just more profit for the insurance companies.

At least be honest.

[FormerDittoHead]

74. Yes. The measure of success for any plan is how much it will HURT the INSURANCE COMPANIES

So far, it doesn't look like they're worrying.



IF WHAT WAS GOING ON WAS TO CUT INTO THEIR PROFITS, THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE THE FALL OFF OF A *CLIFF*...

[ProudDad]

116. Neither the House or the Senate plans are a "step toward Single-Payer"

HR676 is...the whole giant step...

[Ms. Toad]

121. And people will continue to die until 2013

and several years thereafter as we become slowly eligible to particpate in a public health insurance option (not single payer) - that is when the first step is taken. Basically no one gets any reall assistance until then.

I am not stomping my feet and holding my breath for a perfect plan.

I do insist on minimum criteria - that includes access and parity immediately (all entities offering insurance must enroll all applicants, all entities offering insurance must cover all pre-existing conditions, premiums must be based on an average cost of care (plus a profit) for the general geographic location, with minor variation for age (2:1), and there must be no lifetime caps).

I might tolerate waiting for a public option. I would prefer not to wait for subsidies. But access and parity by 2010 is a minimum half step - that together with a commitment to take the rest of the half step by 2013 I might be willing to live with.

[Kid Dynamite]

39. You are saying that Obama does not have a health care plan

that is a very backwards way of initiating "health care reform"

I don't have a plan or anything but..

[sandnsea]

57. The House and Senate produce legislation

That's the way our government works.

[Kid Dynamite]

62. Pithy

but your formula fails to capture the way the process truly "works". Otherwise we would not be talking about Obama at all at this point..since he isn't involved in producing legislation??

[sandnsea]

64. The right wing wants to talk about Obama

so the media has obliged. That's why we're talking about Obama.

Legislation comes from the House and Senate. That's the way the process truly works. The White House weighs in, which they've done on an almost daily basis. But that doesn't mean there is any specific plan that is Obama's. When something comes out of conference and Obama starts stumping for that specific bill, then you can call it Obama's plan if you want to.

[Kid Dynamite]

82. You are blithely suggesting that Obama

does not "own" the issue of healthcare reform

Not gonna find (m)any buyers for that one

[sandnsea]

94. That's a different matter

than owning any specific plan at this point.

[Kid Dynamite]

96. SIx of one

he is likely to oendorse whatever plan comes out of Congress isn't he?

[sandnsea]

98. But there is no plan NOW

So there can't be an Obama Plan to bash except by the right who want to distort this until it's unrecognizable and then dump it on Obama's head. Why do you want to help??

[ProudDad]

106. I do have a plan...

HR676 - http://www.pnhp.org/docs/nhi_bill_final1.pdf

It's only 30 pages, an easy read...

[maryf]

123. Thanks Proud Dad!!

Great thing to post! HR 3200 is over 20 times that long, hhhmmmm, gets suspicious when things have so many details, heh? :)

[Ms. Toad]

124. Generally good - but it permits capitation payments

and has a formulary which does not have a mechanism for exceptions to the formulary for medical need.

Capitation payments are touted as a way to encourage wellness - the idea is that the doctor is given a per capita amount to pay for patient care for all of his or her patients. If he spends less on each patient, his pay is higher because he gets to keep some or all of what is not spent on care. With generally healthy patients, it can be used to encourage doctors to focus on wellness so that the patients need less treatment - leaving the excess for the doctor's bonus.

The problem is that patients who are chronically ill cost lots of money, and the per capita payments do not necessarily cover all the care they need. My daughter's annual cost of care, for example, is about 10x the average cost of care. Rather than cut into his or her pay, doctors have an incentive to deny visits to specialists (which, in some capitation schemes are paid for by the primary doctor), necessary tests, or other treatments that would require robbing the per capita amounts for (in my daughter's case) at least 10 other people - if the doctor didn't deny my daughter care it is likely he would have no bonus, or perhaps even lower base pay depending on the structure of the capitation arrangement.

As to the formulary - there have been a few times when my family has needed to go off formulary because either there was no formulary equivalent of what we needed, or the formulary didn't work quite the same way. There needs to be a way to appeal for off formulary treatment - since off formulary drugs tend to be more expensive than average.

[GeorgeGist]

3. I haven't seen as much caring for health ...

as I've seen caring for money, in any of the health insurance plans being considered.

[maryf]

11. Check out HR 676

Medicare for all, everybody in, nobody out!! Health care for People not for Profit!! Its being kept out of the lime light, http://healthcare-now.org

also read my post here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6120089

[Maru Kitteh]

19. 676 is going to pass the day after you fart a unicorn and six golden bricks.

Me, I want people to live.

[maryf]

28. Not really...

60 people die everyday from a lack of health care and its due to a for profit health care system which the public option plan perpetuates, wake up and smell the coffee before you wake up and smell the gurney...

[Maru Kitteh]

58. Even if I accepted your number out of thin air, 676 still has NO CHANCE of passing.

Or did I miss the sizable coalition of Senators waiting with bated breath and bells on to welcome 676 out of the house and enact it into law after passing their own version?

How could I have missed that? Oh yeah. It doesn't exist.

[maryf]

89. Here's an article for you average it out

between 18,000 and 22,000 a year, close to 60, oops might be a little less than that a day, I guess its ok if 50 people a day are dying from lack of health coverage, :sarcasm: Is there a heart doctor in the house here?? much needed.

Uninsured and Dying Because of It:
Updating the Institute of Medicine Analysis on the Impact of Uninsurance on Mortality

By Stan Dorn
Urban Institute
January 2008

The absence of health insurance creates a range of consequences, including lower quality of life, increased morbidity and mortality, and higher financial burdens. This paper focuses on just one aspect of this harm—namely, greater risk of death—and seeks to illustrate its general order of magnitude.

In 2002, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) estimated that 18,000 Americans died in 2000 because they were uninsured. Since then, the number of uninsured has grown. Based on the IOM’s methodology and subsequent Census Bureau estimates of insurance coverage, 137,000 people died from 2000 through 2006 because they lacked health insurance, including 22,000 people in 2006.

Much subsequent research has continued to confirm the link between insurance and mortality risk described by IOM. In fact, subsequent studies and analysis suggest that, if anything, the IOM methodology may underestimate the number of deaths that result from a lack of insurance coverage.

More broadly, these estimates should be viewed as reasonable indicators of the general magnitude of excess mortality that results from lack of insurance, not as precise “body counts.” The true number of deaths resulting from uninsurance may be somewhat higher or lower than the estimates in this paper, but that number is surely significant.

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411588_uninsured_dying.pdf

[Maru Kitteh]

103. I hate it when people make me repeat myself.

676 still has NO CHANCE of passing.


Or did I miss the sizable coalition of Senators waiting with bated breath and bells on to welcome 676 out of the house and enact it into law after passing their own version?

How could I have missed that? Oh yeah. It doesn't exist.

[maryf]

107. Nothing about the number of people who die???

Guess we really do need a heart doctor here. I really don't want to hate, it makes me very sad.

[Maru Kitteh]

114. You're not able to provide any real evidence of any possibility of 676 passing?

I guess we need a reality check here.

[maryf]

122. when can real evidence on any bill be produced.

HR 676 has more cosponsors than any other bill on the docket, they said medicare wouldn't pass, they said suffrage wouldn't pass, they said gays would never be marrying...

Weiner's amendment this week could turn the whole thing around, its a single payer amendment...

By the way, your post is getting pretty close to an ad hominem attack, why do folks need to get nasty and insulting when discussing? Do you know? Really wondering, I don't get it...sincerely...

[Maru Kitteh]

129. TRY

[maryf]

133. Its not worth it...

Be well.

[Maru Kitteh]

136. Which is to say you cannot. It's not your fault. It just doesn't exist.

[maryf]

140. If thats how you want to take it...I believe I've given plenty, nuff said to you...

[leftstreet]

50. Single Payer is inevitable AFTER insurance/pharma Bubble>Bailout

They just want their turn at the taxpayer trough

[Maru Kitteh]

80. We can't continue to go nowhere. Lives, homes and futures are all being lost.

I know this round of reform will not stop that, but more people will live. More people will keep their homes. Fewer people will have their life's savings pulled out from under them.

[leftstreet]

131. The Dem Party platform CANNOT be "Vote for us: fewer people will die"

Everyone counts

[Maru Kitteh]

137. And it cannot be "Perfection or screw you" either.

[inna]

88. "insurance/pharma Bubble>Bailout".."They just want their turn at the taxpayer trough"

that's exactly what the current plan looks like now. :(

[sandnsea]

4. There's 3 different bills

A House bill and 2 Senate bills. They're different so anybody who writes up anything with concrete "facts" on an "Obama plan" doesn't know what they're talking about in the first place.

[johnaries]

7. EXACTLY! Thank you! nt

[maryf]

9. HR 3200 is the bill being discussed...nt

[sandnsea]

13. So why do they call it the "Obama Plan"

and why does the writer pretend nothing else is being considered?

[maryf]

17. Because this is the main thing being considered...

Single payer is not being allowed to be considered...and it covers everyone without profit. The Insurance companies have their hands in this...Health care for People not for Profit!!!

[sandnsea]

30. There are many things being considered

It's true single payer isn't being considered because the people don't want it.

[Donnachaidh]

70. who's *people* don't want it?

Guess you haven't seen any polls in the last year or so, huh?

The POLITICOS don't WANT it. The PEOPLE do.

[sandnsea]

76. I understood the polls

The people want a public option along side regular insurance. That is always what those polls meant. It's unfortunate the single payer people chose to manipulate the facts. And chose is the correct word because doctors and lawyers are not so stupid as to misunderstand.

[RufusTFirefly]

78. If by "the people" you mean insurance companies, you are correct

Apparently they are the only people who matter these days.

From now on, we will refer all questions regarding "the people" to you, as you would appear to be their de facto spokesperson.

[sandnsea]

95. Actually I advocate for people with no health care

I know what it's like to not have it and I know what it's like to finally have a plan I can afford. I don't care where it comes from and I guarantee other people who can't see a doctor won't care either.

[redqueen]

20. Why indeed. I think most of us know. (nt)

[Ms. Toad]

125. Obama has set out broad principles -

my main problem with jumping on his bandwagon. His broad principles would be satisfied by all three current bills (as well as the single payer bills) - or by something that was not even any significant change at all.

I was hoping someone would ask him tonight about the 2013 start date in the house bill, which seems to be the direction he is leaning. If the crisis is urgent enough to insist it needs to be passed by August, it should be urgent enough to implement at least a portion of the reform immediately.

[notesdev]

5. Probably not

considering there is ZERO chance that anything gets passed which is not effectively written on lobbyists' desks.

We need to solve the corruption problem in DC before any other problem can be effectively solved. Give these guys a bill that proposes 1+1 should officially be equal to 2, and it doesn't pass without fifty riders establishing "National Addition Centers" in key legislators' districts.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. Are "the tears of impotent rage" some kind of drug?

We are at an historic point. A bill is nearing completion that;
a) nearly eliminates the uninsured by offering subsidized or free coverage to anyone making less than 400% of FPL ($88k for a family of four)
b) creates a public insurance plan which competes directly with private insurance
c) establishes standards of coverage
d) prohibits insurance companies from rejecting patients on the basis of preexisting conditions
e) creates a government-run exchange which ends the insurance company's leverage
f) begins the process of unplugging insurance from employment.
g) will kickstart innovation by allowing people to become self-employed without risking their lives from lack of insurance.

The dual expectations that we deserve, can get, should expect, and must demand EVERYTHING we want, and that it should happen right now... but that we'll actually get nothing because we're being oppressed by the man, is a uniquely 21st century view.

It is a paradoxical mix of complete entitlement and complete cynicism.

[maryf]

10. Read the article, ony 10,000,000 of the 47,000,000 not covered

will be convered with this bill...

[sandnsea]

14. Massachusetts has 97% coverage

The US has 16% uncovered. That's where those figures come from, the 3% or so that won't get coverage for whatever reason. There will always be people who just don't sign up for things. There are people eligible for food stamps who just don't sign up. That's no reason to end that program.

[maryf]

15. If you don't sign up in Mass.

they get fined over $1,000, some pay the fine because its cheaper, not sure how many times its charged a year...

[sandnsea]

31. That's why there's 97% coverage

The fine isn't cheaper anymore so people started getting health insurance. What do you think would happen if people didn't pay their taxes for single payer??

[blindpig]

48. What a racket

The government strong-arms ya into buying a faulty product.

Just whose side is the government on?

Pretty obvious it ain't us.

[sandnsea]

53. Actually they're going to give you a subsidy

To help you buy insurance and they want to make sure everybody is in the system and paying to help bring costs down to make the plan sustainable.

My Oregon subsidy brings my insurance down to $60-$100 month, for me and hubby, depending on our annual income. If you can't afford that, you qualify for Medicaid which will be increased to 133% of poverty. Not good enough for you???

[blindpig]

63. You'll have to show me about this subsidy

Is this a suggestion or has it gone thru the sausage grinder yet? Personally, I can't imagine the subsidy being so good, for our household that would be he equivalent of a savings of $500-$550 a month. And that was a total crap plan, covering virtually nothing.

More to the point, why should those bastards reap ungodly profits at the expense of the government and the people and the service provided for shit to boot? Medicare would be cheaper, I believe by 25%.

[sandnsea]

66. Look it up

If you want to have a conversation about something, you ought to know what you're talking about.

http://www.obama-mamas.com/health-care.html

My insurance would be $1100 a month without the subsidy. It's a $500 deductible and covers almost everything. The prescription co-pays can be a little spendy though. But Canada doesn't cover prescriptions anyway.

[blindpig]

69. Nothing specific about subsidies there.

Nothing.

So the state of Oregon covers $12,000 of your insurance bill every year?

I find that pretty unbelievable, but of course, I live in SC.

[sandnsea]

75. Yep, they do

If they didn't have pre-exising conditions, it would be a helluva lot cheaper. But they cover up to 95% of premiums for working income people. There's a waiting list though, so that's a shame.

The Kennedy plan had wanted subsidies up to $100,000 for a family of four. The House and Senate are both down to this. The subsidies will vary by region so it is hard to state a concrete amount.

"Subsidies, available to people making up to 400 percent of the poverty line, $88,000 for a family of four."

[blindpig]

87. That 95% is for families of low income.

And that's good, I applaud your state. But that says nothing about what will come out of DC.

Ya know, Medicare for all would be so much simpler.

[sandnsea]

93. It covers 25-95%, working families

of varying incomes. Both the House and Senate plan have said they will provide subsidies for families up to 400% of poverty. DC is usually more generous than the states, so I imagine it will be similar.

Part of the deal though, is Oregon has a more stringent delivery system to cut costs. Like in my town, a doctor can't open a private office and receive medicaid payments because it all goes through the one clinic. Which is fine unless you are sick and your doctor doesn't know what's wrong with you, and you can't see another doctor because the clinic doesn't allow you that choice. My daughter lucked out with my 10 day old granddaughter who had pneumonia, her doctor didn't order x-rays and didn't catch it. We have ONE doctor who is the best diagnostician and she happened to get her the next day because the baby's doctor was out. If you want to change doctors, you have to go through a huge procedure, get permission. So the doctor who misdiagnised pneumonia in an infant is still that infant's doctor. That's with regular insurance. The clinic runs the way it runs. Yes it's better than no doctor, but it has its problems as well. So would single payer. Better to get there one step at a time.

[Sebastian Doyle]

61. Massachussetts has Mitt Romney's mandatory corporatism

That's no solution to anything.

[sandnsea]

67. When you need medical treatment

and you can go see the doctor because you finally have a plan you can afford, it's a terrific solution.

Oh, and subsidized insurance is also the Kitzhaber Democratic Oregon plan so you're going to have to do better than that old Romney smear.

[Sebastian Doyle]

81. Are you on the Kaiser payroll?

Because you seem to be opposed to anything that would cut corporations out of the loop. Either now (single payer) or later (true Public Option)

[sandnsea]

92. You will have to argue facts

and stop resorting to smears. I am for people getting health care. Period. I actually know what it's like not to have it and nearly die because of it. I just don't give a shit where the money goes anymore as long as every citizen has the opportunity to see a doctor when they want to. If subsidized insurance allows that, then I'm all for it. A public option is just a bonus.

And Kaiser has already taken the profit out of their company, it's non-profit, right?

[Ms. Toad]

127. That's where I'm at too.

Access and affordability is far more important to me than whose pocket the money ends up in.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. That is false.

The CBO estimates that HR 3200 would insure 37 million, leaving about 9 million americans uninsured.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf

Also, the link in the op is bad.

[maryf]

21. Thank you I'll fix it!

and regarding the stats, it depends on what you read, skimming through my post here you might find my figures:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6120089

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. You're misreading the misleading text in that screed.

As readers of this blog no doubt know, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, and three House committee chairman working jointly, published draft health care “reform” bills in June. (The third committee with bill-writing authority, the Senate Finance Committee, has yet to produce a bill.) According to the Congressional Budget Office, the “public option” proposed in the House “tri-committee” bill might insure 10 million people and would leave 16 to 17 million people uninsured. The “public option” proposed by the Senate HELP committee, again according to the Congressional Budget Office, is unlikely to insure anyone and would hence leave 33 to 34 million uninsured. The CBO said its estimate of 10 million for the House bill was highly uncertain, which is not surprising given how vaguely the House legislation describes the “public option.”

37 million uninsured will come to the exchange for coverage. The public option is expected by the CBO to be chosen by about 25% of them. Half of the remaining 16-17 million uninsured are those who are here illegally.

That means that more than five out of six uninsured americans or legal residents will get coverage under this bill.

[maryf]

25. Regardless...(and I could give you more stats, but...)

With HR676 everyone will be covered with much less cost to all, it saves 400 billion in administration costs alone, and no limits, no copays, no pre-existing conditions, full vision, full dental, and no profit based on a person's health or lack thereof...

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. Lieberman won't vote for it. Republicans filibuster. Full stop. n/t

[maryf]

34. If we keep pushing for it...

300,000,000 voices could get pretty loud!!

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. Sure. We've waited 95 years, we can wait another 95.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447696

We'll arguably be better able to push for an expanded public option when it's proven to work. In the meantime, people stop dying because they lack insurance.

Reform should do two things;
a) reduce the number of people who die because they lack insurance
b) dramatically reduce costs

I'm unwilling to reject a plan which does "A" simply because it's politically impossible to do "A" and "B" simultaneously.

[Kid Dynamite]

43. Everyone on this site and a great many more

share the political will to do A and B simultaneoulsy and immediately. That suggests to me that "impossibility" is a matter of perspective. If you mean that we can't squeeze such reform out of our legislative and executive branch, I agree with you completely

But our thoughts on how to overcome this "impossibility" don't seem to be aligned.

[maryf]

44. The way its really being proposed

it won't be proven to work, and will fail, as it might be set up to do to make sure the insurance companies stay in power. Weiner has an amendment up for vote that might make it single payer...keep an eye out for that...davidswanson has a post up right now about that...here on edit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6121388

We all want to reduce the number of people dying...and I want to deny anyone the ability to make a profit on people's health...

[maryf]

47. Thanks for the link by the way...

We have a grassroots movement for Single Payer health right now, two of the main groups are Physicians for a National Health Plan (link in my signature, pnhp.org), and http://www.healthcare-now.org There is a Rally next thursday in DC celebrating the 44th anniversary of Medicare and promoting Single payer health care as in HR 676 and Bernie Sander's bill (forget the S number right now).

[maryf]

12. Sorry posted the last post in the wrong place...

Thanks for this list! :)

[Ms. Toad]

126. The kickstart doesn't happen until 2013 - and that is a major flaw

by my way of thinking.

At least c, d, (and premium parity, coverage of pre-existing conditions, and no lifetime caps) could and should be implemented immediately. I would like to see a implemented immediately - but that requires money that all of the big players seem reluctant to involve from day one. If the others are implemented, at least there would be access to coverage, and a leveling out of the premium costs among all who want (can afford) insurance.

[lumberjack_jeff]

138. "flawed" and "worse than nothing" are not equivalent. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

139. Then I would call it worse than nothing.

Adopting a plan now, that doesn't take effect until 2013, allows 3 and a half years for opposing interests to amend away its strengths.

This opportunity is a once in a generation opportunity to do something big. If something big is done, but dissolved before it takes effect, all people will remember when we complain 5 years from now was the big push and celebration of the major health care reform, followed by the big flop. They won't remember the gradual eating away of the original rights that no one ever experienced because they vanished before they took effect. There will be no political will to tackle it again anytime soon, since the (legitimate) perception will be that we did - and it failed.

[kentuck]

18. If we do nothing...

it is not going to get any better. In fact, it will continue to get worse. There is no such thing as status quo with health care - it will not stay the same as it is now.

[maryf]

29. Fight for Single Payer...nt

[ipaint]

24. Private insurance companies push for 'individual mandate'

Private health insurance faces a bleak future if the proposal they champion most vigorously -- a requirement that everyone buy medical coverage -- is not adopted.

"Private health insurers lost an estimated 9 million customers between 2000 and 2007. In many cases, people lost coverage because they or their employers could no longer afford it as premium increases outpaced wage growth and inflation.

...The customer base for private insurance has slipped since 2000, when soaring premiums began driving people out. The recession has accelerated the problem. But even after the economy recovers, the downward spiral is expected to continue for years as baby boomers become eligible for Medicare -- and stop buying private insurance.

Insurers do not embrace all of the healthcare restructuring proposals. But they are fighting hard for a purchase requirement, sweetened with taxpayer-funded subsidies for customers who can't afford to buy it on their own, and enforced with fines.

..."The industry's real trouble begins in 2011, when 79 million baby boomers begin turning 65. Health insurers stand to lose a huge slice of their commercially insured enrollment (estimated at 162 million to 172 million people) over the next two decades to Medicare, the government-funded health insurance program for seniors."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/07/business/fi-healthcare7?pg=1

The industry has concluded single payer would be inevitable fairly soon if they oppose health reform or accept it without mandates backed by fines.

We really are our own worst enemies. The carnage for the insurance companies begins in 2011 and doesn't let up. Instead of understanding we really do hold the upper hand, the for profit insurers are about to be culled naturally, instead we allow them to buy laws that force all of us to purchase their overprice unneeded product for generations. Giving them the ability to enslave us all. When it comes time to reform the reform we will have created our own insurmountable enemy.

I don't think I have ever seen anything so incredibly stupid in my life.

[maryf]

26. Thank you!! I rec this post...

I saw a chart that showed if insurance costs per individual continue at the rate they are going, we will be paying our full paycheck to the insurance companies! Don't have that at my fingertips...

[sandnsea]

33. I oppose the mandate - but

People have to pay taxes for single payer and if they don't pay those taxes, I'm sure they're fined. Same thing.

[maryf]

37. It would be a medicare tax

like a social security tax, and I figured out the differential for me and its thousands saved a year, really. Here's an MSM article I posted about this, of course I put in my opinion, but you might be interested in reading on it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6121537

[sandnsea]

49. If people don't pay the social security tax

They aren't covered and they can be fined and even go to jail. Maybe medicare for all would save money, maybe we'd find out we have to spend more to continue getting the kind of care we're accustomed to. Regardless, people would still be required to pay in or be fined. The fine and mandate are really a non-issue as that is already the way we do it.

[ipaint]

38. No it's not

I don't recall electing representatives to the boards of for profit insurance companies. I don't have a vote in policies or any control over their actions. They aren't my government.

We are citizens first, isn't all that comes with representational government a bit much to give up for the "privilege" of propping up a dying industry that has killed hundreds of thousand of fellow citizens over the years.

Are people insane or are they totally ignorant as to the responsibilities of citizens in a community.

[sandnsea]

51. Government is all about business

Roads, rail, telephone, power, water, military, all of it is about commerce. You can look at a train track to transport wheat as a benefit to the hungry or a benefit to big agra. Either way, it's government's job to get it done. Same thing with health care. Whether it's free Medicaid or subsidized insurance, it's government's job to do what the people want. So far, they don't want Medicare for all so the representatives are doing exactly what the people want.

[maryf]

54. Again that's just wrong!!

72% of the people want single payer, and Government about business is called fascism...

[sandnsea]

56. No, that is a manipulation of the polling

The polls ask whether people think government should guarantee health coverage, provide a public option, etc. Yes, the people think that.

That does not mean they support single payer and only single payer. You show me a poll that specifically says replace insurance companies with a government run single payer program and then you can make your case. They don't exist.

[maryf]

84. It asks if the people would support a plan like Medicare

for all people, like HR676. The public option started out covering just about everybody, but the public option part is getting skimpier by the day. As you say the polls are manipulated, I found cases for both, so I guess we'll let that go, and you are not wrong according to the msm anyway. :)

[sandnsea]

100. Post the link

Not hard.

Yes, people do support allowing people to choose a plan like Medicare, as long as they can still have their private insurance if they want it. That is different than replacing what we have with a plan like Medicare.

I am not wrong, according to the plain old ability to comprehend the written word. I don't read what the media says the polls say. I go read the polls themselves.

[maryf]

119. so post the link to your poll, nt.

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. Failure of this bill does not pose a bleak future for insurers.

From their perspective, most of those who lost coverage in the last 7 years were bad risks anyway. Insurance company profits are not a function of lots of customers, they are a function of healthy customers.

They'd be perfectly happy if they could convince the healthy 40% of the population to pay high premiums for coverage they never use, while allowing the other 60% to die.

[Kid Dynamite]

42. Your subject line states the problem succinctly

Passage of the bill does not pose such a bleak future for insurers either

[ipaint]

45. Any business that is looking to lose 162-172 million

customers in the next 2 decades is facing a bleak future. A future where their influence over policy will continue to diminish. About the same time the public option is limping along with 9 million members and no ability to negotiate their way out of a paper bag while the ins. industry is raking in overpriced premiums and taxpayer subsidies, we could be well on our way to expanding medicare for all killing the parasitic industry off for good.

They know that.

You want to give them a shot in arm, your choice.

[maryf]

46. Shot in the arm for Medicare for all!

sounds good to me!

[SoCalDem]

52. The moneyed-class always "wins". and by stalling, more boomers will be dead by the time

anything meaningful is in place.. Most are edging toward that 65 yr old magic number anyway.. The WWII crew is mostly gone, and our population (once the boomers croak) will be younger..and cheaper. a lot of people will probably be afraid to sign up too, if their immigration status is questionable.

[TBF]

68. Good points. I read today that they are fighting over illegal immigrants

and wanting to make sure they're not covered. So, I guess they'll just show up in emergency rooms like they do now. Where are these cost savings exactly?

[maryf]

86. Its crazy,

and how many here would really turn away a sick person? regardless whether they are undocumented or not? (I'm afraid to really know this :( )

[LiberalAndProud]

35. Yes.

[Sebastian Doyle]

59. There are two and ONLY two plans that are worth doing

One is single payer now. The other is a true public option which allows the corporations to hang themselves with their greed, eventually forcing themselves out of the picture, and leaving single payer by default.

Anything less than those is, by definition, a means of extending the corporatist system that is destroying this country, killing millions of people, and driving millions of others into bankruptcy, while feeding billionaire CEO bank accounts. And none of them, no matter how cleverly packaged as "reform" are worthy of support.

[Romulox]

60. Absolutely not. His plan cements a permanent government granted insurance monopoly

[drm604]

71. It does?

I'm not seeing that.

[Romulox]

72. What business wouldn't want the government to force people to buy from them?

Insurance companies make money by denying people care. They use those profits to be some of the top contributors to our politicians. It stands to reason that increasing the money in the hands of insurers will increase their "lobbying" (read: bribery) of our politicians. :hi:

[drm604]

77. I completely misread your post.

I thought that you were saying that the government was granting itself an insurance monopoly, which implies single payer, which unfortunately is not on the table.

What you were talking about is the government forcing people to buy insurance from private companies. You were actually very clear in saying that, I just read it wrong.

I disagree that that's a monopoly, because there is more than one insurance company, but I do understand what you're saying.

[bvar22]

73. Some things you should KNOW about HR 3200 BEFORE...

...BLINDLY supporting something that carries a label of "Public Option".

According to the CBO which scored HR 3200 last week:

*ONLY 10 Million Americans will be covered by the Public Plan by 2019.
Big Insurance should be very happy.
With Health Insurance MANDATE for ALL Americans, and only 10 Million in the Public Plan after 10 years, they will be raking in the money.

If the Public Plan only enrolls 3% of Americans, will they have any negotiating power to drive down Health Care Costs?

"Most importantly, the CBO coverage tables undermine the conservative claim that a public option would eliminate private insurance and erode employer-sponsored coverage. The House bill actually increases the number of people who receive coverage through their employer by 2 million (in 2019) and shifts most of the uninsured into private coverage. By 2019, 30 million individuals would also purchase coverage from the Exchange, but only 9-10 million Americans would enroll in the public option, the rest would enroll in private coverage."

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/14/house-bill-comes-in-at-1-trillion-undermines-gop-talking-points/

*Health Insurance will be mandated for all Americans, but Providers will be able to refuse Public Plan Participants.

Provider participation is voluntary – Medicare providers are presumed to be participating unless they opt out."

*The Public Option "should" be about 10% cheaper than Private Insurance.
I guess that is something, but a Publicly Owned Government Administered Plan that is open to ALL Americans could cut costs by at least 25%. (Difference between Medicare and Private Insurance administration).



*Many that are receiving Employer Based Insurance will be locked out of the "Exchange" and forced to keep their more expensive insurance.

"Under the main health bills being debated in Congress, many people with job-based insurance could find it difficult to impossible to switch to health plans on a new insurance exchange, even if the plans there were cheaper or offered better coverage. The restrictions extend to any government-run plan, which would be offered on the exchange.

<snip>

But critics argue that the rules run counter to suggestions from health care reform advocates that an overhaul could provide people with a broader choice of insurance options. The rules, they say, could be especially unfair to some lower-income workers who are enrolled in costly job-based insurance. Also, they argue, the restrictions would hurt the proposed public plan by limiting enrollment."

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/healthquest/for-many-workers-insurance-choices-may-be-limited-after-health-care-overhaul

There are many other details that need to be examined, but the one MOST glaring is the prediction that ONLY 10 Million will be enrolled in the Public Option by 2019. That is minuscule compared to what America is demanding.

Do you believe that the 72% of Americans who are calling for a "Public Option" will be satisfied with this? Most Americans will have No Option.

[maryf]

85. Thanks!! with HR 676 its all Public...

maybe a private option for lipo suction would be ok!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

130. Liposuction would be a good idea.

For the obese who cannot lose weight due to a slow metabolism and hormonal problems.

Losing weight can cure a lot of health problems (diabetes for example).

[defendandprotect]

79. Is there a detailed plan? And, by the way, we should know the details of the Congress' plan...

which all citizens pay for --

and we should be up on details of what Norway, Canada and England have --

They've already invented the wheel and been thru the debates --

[maryf]

91. I saw some summaries for HR3200 online in pdf format

But haven't soused how objective they are (and I really do want objective!) France has the best, I've heard.

[defendandprotect]

102. Do you have any details/specifics re French plan -- do they cover abortion, for instance?

[maryf]

111. I'm sorry, I don't have details at my fingertips...

probably google or wiki would do the trick...

[defendandprotect]

113. Probably . . .

there was at least one Canadian poster here and they confirmed they
cover abortion --

I'm sure there's also someone from England here who can fill us in --

PLUS, we should know what kind of coverage Congress has -- abortion? --
and we pay for it.

At some point I'll try to find out about other plans -- no time now.

[maryf]

118. ditto!

too busy trying to organize a group for the Medicare for all Rally in DC in a week...

[defendandprotect]

135. Is that the one on the 30th...??

I'm in NJ and I can't go -- mainly cause I have no one to go with.

But, I did send a check so they could put someone else on the bus.

Keep us posted -- I hope it's very successful.

Where are you leaving from?

[maryf]

141. We're leaving from Albany...

There is a bus from NYC if you're close?? feel free to pm me.

[defendandprotect]

142. I'm in NJ . . .

but I'm passing on this one -- thank you!

keep us posted --

[maryf]

145. will do...

hey there's a workshop in NYC tomorrow, also info at http://www.healthcare-now.org...

[dflprincess]

146. You might want to check out this thread:

unless you have blood pressure problems, then stay away from it:

Obama says not funding abortions is "tradition"

It points out that during the campaign he stated that he opposed the Hyde Amendment. Though, he said a lot of things during the campaign - like he opposed mandated insurance.

[dflprincess]

144. Forget the summaries

the only ones I've seen appear to have been written by those who just love the idea of helping the insurance companies survive. Here is a link to the bill (yes, over 1,000 pages but you can do a control F to find something you might be interested in.

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

These are two of the sections that set me off:

COST-SHARING.—The term ‘‘cost-sharing’’ includes deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, and similar charges but does NOT include premiums or any network payment differential for covered services or spending for non-covered services.

On page 29 there is this:

(A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-shar-ing incurred under the essential benefits pack-age with respect to an individual (or family) for a year does not exceed the applicable level spec-ified in subparagraph (B).

(B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year by the annual percentage increase in the Con-sumer Price Index (United States city average) applicable to such year.

So, if you're a single person making more than $43,000 a year (gross) you could have up to $5,000 in out of pocket costs, plus whatever your share of your premium is (assuming your employer still picks up some of it). Unless you're making a huge amount over 43K, a $5,000 out of pocket expense does not strike me as "affordable"; it strikes me as something that's going to keep people from getting the medical care they need the closer their income is to $43,000.

[ipaint]

97. Taiwan did it right and in 6 years. Includes dental too.

The government set up a planning commission and looked abroad to study other countries’ health care systems. Taiwan looked at more than ten countries and combined their best qualities to form their own unique system. In 1995, Taiwan formed the National Health Insurance (NHI) model. NHI delivers universal coverage offered by a government-run insurer. The working population pays premiums split with their employers, others pay a flat rate with government help and the poor or veterans are fully subsidized. Taiwan’s citizens no longer have to worry about going bankrupt due to medical bills.<4>

Under this model, citizens have free range to choose hospitals and physicians without using a gatekeeper and do not have to worry about waiting lists. NHI offers a comprehensive benefit package that covers preventive medical services, prescription drugs, dental services, Chinese medicine, home nurse visits and many more. Working people do not have to worry about losing their jobs or changing jobs because they will not lose their insurance. Since NHI, the previously uninsured have increased their usage of medical services. Most preventive services are free such as annual checkups and maternal and child care. Regular office visits have co-payments as low as US $5 per visit. Co-payments are fixed and unvaried by the person’s income.<5>

By 2001, 97 percent of the population were enrolled in the program

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Taiwan

[maryf]

120. Great example!!

thanks so much!

[geek tragedy]

83. Single payer purists and AHIP, sitting in a tree

K-I-S-S-I-N-G

Leave it to the purist nutters to stab us in the back. Bloody DINO traitors are worse than Ben Nelson.

[maryf]

90. I have no clue what you are trying to say...nt

[Sebastian Doyle]

99. Same thing he says in all of his posts

Anything he can to bash Liberals, Democrats, and basically anyone who does not engage in corporate fellatio.

[maryf]

112. that's a shame. nt

[bvar22]

101. Kicking for wider distribution.

This is INFORMATION, DUers.
There is a strong contingent here that DON"T want YOU to have this INFORMATION.

Now at +5

[maryf]

110. Thanks so much!!

and for your info elsewhere too!!

[ProudDad]

104. There is no Obama health care plan...

But if you mean the 2 "plans" in the House and Senate then...

Neither of them is better than nothing.

HR676 - Universal Healthcare for All is the only one that's better than nothing...

[maryf]

108. Absolutely!! HR 676 or S703, but did you read the article here??nt

[ProudDad]

115. Yep. Thanks for posting it (n/t)

[ProudDad]

105. Those still enamored of the "public option"

should read this IMMEDIATELY!

Bait and switch: How the “public option” was sold

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=IPg0rW5ch%2F5FurjS1b4kHXkaLN8Y1jhl

[maryf]

109. I posted it last night from pnhp, here's the link so you can comment there!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6120089

[bvar22]

117. The Public Option that isn't = HR 3200

POINP
Public Option in Name Only!

A "Public Option" that is designed to enroll ONLY 10 Million Americans by 2019 while MANDATING purchase of Health Insurance by ALL Americans is NOT a REAL Public Option. (HR 3200)

[maryf]

128. The only real Option is a single payer Option! nt

[OneBlueSky]

132. this pretty well sums it up . . .

"The Obama plan seems calculated to buy time for private insurers, to end the health care discussion for a decade or more without solving the health care problem, do so in a way that discredits the very idea of everybody in-nobody out health care. It will leave tens of millions uninsured, a hundred million or more underinsured, and the same parasitic private interests in charge of the American health care system that run it now." . . .

and therein lies the rub . . .

[maryf]

134. Pretty darn well!

In fact I'm using it in another thread!! Thanks!

[ProSense]

143. Um,

yes. The bill originates in Congress and will be signed by Obama.