The beginning of this is my thought by thought process while listening to the speech tonight. My comments are italicized. The end is a 5 step proposal for a free market solution to the health care problems that would not necessitate the installation of a socialist government run health care system.
President Obama: I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink. -- Really? According to what measures and what prognostications are you claiming our economy is back from the brink?
There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage. -- Notice the emphasis on citizens? Because Americans should not be paying for illegal aliens.
Individual cases of abuse by insurance companies does not necessitate the establishment of a government run socialist health care system.
President Obama: The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals:
It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. --HOW?
It will provide insurance to those who don't. -- HOW?
And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. -- HOW?
It's a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge -- Why am I responsible for taking care of someone else? Health care is not a right, it is a perk for those that work hard and want to pay for it on their own. It's not my responsibility to pay for your health care and it shouldn't be.
President Obama: Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have. -- Then why in the bills proposed over the summer did they establish the gradual phasing out of private insurance? The bills stated that no new policy could be written after the first date of the reforms establishment.
That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- really? while I disagree with this concept in theory I recognize the precedent set by the auto insurance requirements and think that we probably don't have much chance to defeat this particular part of President Obama's plan.
There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. -- if President Obama is being truthful here then why are there parts of the proposed bills that mandate and will fine hospitals for not having staff trained bilingually?
Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place. -- If this is true why are there several amendments that were added by democrats to the proposed bills that eliminate conscience rights and mandate payments to providers such as planned parenthood. Even if the money can't go specifically to abortion, the money can be applied to overhead, and other costs freeing up other sources of money to pay for the abortions.
I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. -- If this were the case then why are there penalties for businesses and individuals that don't play in President Obama's system? Why the increased taxes on sugary foods and beverages?
It's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. -- what polling data supports that statement President Obama? I haven't seen one poll in the last month that supports that statement. The most recent poll I've seen says 52% of people are against this government option. There is plenty of evidence from the town hall meetings and tea parties that took place throughout the summer that people are in opposition to this reform. However, I could be wrong and I kindly ask you to prove me so if I am.
To my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have. -- the problem with this statement is that the democrats don't want to back off of government intervention in health care. The republicans are not willing to allow a socialist government take over of health care and therefore there really is not a common ground unless the democrats can walk away from the public option idea.
First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits - either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize. -- this is rhetoric that we have heard before and once passed initially Congress can very easily go back and amend this bill or update it to allow for carrying a debt load to run this program.
President Obama goes on about medicare for several minutes... -- Why is it that in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation).... But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion. President Obama says the expected cost is 900 billion over 10 years. This is not a good track record for the government being accurate...why should we believe that it will only be 900 billion? Why should we believe that taxes and deficits won't go up?
If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out. -- Is that a threat? Is that a call to close down debate and challenges to your authority President Obama?
President Obama rants on for a few minutes about the Republicans, the War spending, tax cuts under Bush, blah blah blah, typical partisan Obama campaign speechifying.
Way to politicize the death of Ted Kennedy...wow, we've sunk to a new low.
An acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise. -- Why is it that the democrats always look to government to solve the problems? He talks about us coming together to lend a helping hand, and yes, we do that, individually, through personal choice and charity, not through coercion where the government forces us to take care of others. There is a word for that, socialism.
Somethings I agree with:
1. insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies - because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.
2. it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition.
3. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It's a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today. -- this is a start, but it does not go far enough.
General thoughts: This speech was filled with partisan remarks and was essentially President Obama flipping the American people the bird or thumbing his nose at them, you pick the reference you like best. There was no acknowledgement that people don't want this. It was basically more of the same from President Obama, we need a government option, I'm for a government option, and here are the reasons why you should be too. This is not change we can believe in, this is not a major shift in the health care debate, this was just a President being confrontational, and deepening the lines in the sand between the two sides.
My very brief and very basic 5 Point Plan for Health Care Reform: This is going to be really short and scant on details since the above reaction to the speech is rather lengthy. There will be more details on each of these proposals to come shortly.
1. Real Tort Reform -- eliminating the spectre of lawsuits from the medical arena except in cases of egregious and gross negligence will lower costs in the system.
2. Competition through opening up insurance to be purchased across state lines. There is no logical reason that allows you to purchase car insurance from companies that operate nationally, but limits through legislation the health insurance options you have to only a very select few companies allowed to operate in your state.
3. Similar to car insurance, allow for differentiated pricing for health insurance. If you smoke, you pay more. If you have children, you pay more. If you are obese, you pay more. You practice preventative medicine by getting a yearly check up and staying in shape, you get a discount. You get the picture.
4. Allowing consumers to choose the levels of coverage they carry through selection of plans that cover different procedures, services, and prescriptions, rather than one size fits all plans. This would allow people to opt out of some of the so called Rolls Royce plans that cover elective surgeries and non-essential drugs like Viagra.
5. The use of a Pigovian tax (a tax levied on market activities to correct negative externalities that are inefficient) to change health and health care. These efforts take aim at altering personal choices and preferences with the goal of increasing the public’s general health while lessening the burden on the health care system.
There you have it, five ideas that are free market based and do not suggest a government take over of health care.
9 comments:
Good comments, I am generally in agreement with much of what you said, but thought I'd post why your #4 is not a good idea.
It boils down to 2 words: Adverse Selection. If you allow people to pick and choose what type of services they have in their insurance premium, the premise for group health insurance goes out the window.
For instance, only people with allergies would select to be covered for allergy care and only people with foot illnesses would choose the coverage that allows podiatry claims.
We already have some of that experience in most insurance plans: Vision Policies, Dental Coverage, Orthodontia Riders, Prescription Plans, etc. are all examples of this. Some employers (groups) choose to offer even these as a bundle to avoid adverse selection, but others allow their employees to buy coverage A La Cart; it’s called a Cafeteria Plan. When companies don't bundle, premiums go way up & people who need coverage often can’t afford it and go without. Or buy coverage only sometimes.
That is a good point Adina, I didn't realize that would raise the costs significantly. My assumption was that it would bring the costs down because people would only pay for what they would want or need.
As an addition to my five points, I should mention we should increase penalties on those who commit fraud and insurance scams.
"Way to politicize the death of Ted Kennedy...wow, we've sunk to a new low."
Should we mention every time anyone in the Bush administration mentioned 9/11? Almost makes me wish we got rid of the date altogether and made current 9/11-30 into 9/12-31. Every time I hear the phrase "9/11" I cringe, not because of terror, but because of the Bush administration's use of the term. The use of Kennedy's death is by far not a new low.
"Way to politicize the death of Ted Kennedy...wow, we've sunk to a new low."
The Bush administration's usurpation of the term "9/11" at every juncture possible, to suit their own political goals, is far and away a lower low than this. The use of Kennedy in this juncture is politics; the past and ongoing use of 9/11 is despicable.
"why are there parts of the proposed bills that mandate and will fine hospitals for not having staff trained bilingually?"
I find it hard to believe you'd stoop here, Brian. You know full well that there are American citizens who don't speak English, and even more American citizens who don't speak English well. My grandmother has lived in this country since 1967, but I can tell you she'd be much more comfortable if the staff in an emergency room spoke Hungarian, so she could tell them without hesitation what was wrong, and they could understand without worrying about getting a word or two wrong. I'm surprised at you for going there on this one.
"If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out. -- Is that a threat? Is that a call to close down debate and challenges to your authority President Obama?"
If it is, thank the lord! Obama's cajones have completely evaporated since this mess began. And don't tell me Newt Gingrich or George W Bush or Dick Cheney didn't threaten their opposition MUCH more than this! The only difference is that Obama's threat is much more hollow since he's a liberal, and therefore unable to threaten anyone and be taken seriously.
"Why in the bills proposed over the summer did they establish the gradual phasing out of private insurance? The bills stated that no new policy could be written after the first date of the reforms establishment."
I'm baffled that you take these stances, Brian. You seem like such an even-keeled person in person, and then you throw out these crazy Palinisms (OH NO! SINGLE PAYER!) that you full-well know will never happen, and I'm just surprised that's all. There are things that would happen in my perfect world that just would never pass, and I know it. There are bills that are introduced in every legislative body in the world that will never pass, and you know it.
"Health care is not a right, it is a perk for those that work hard and want to pay for it on their own."
Yep, and that's why when GM goes under and all of its former employees have to have their healthcare cut, they should be thrown to the birds. I'm not supporting GM, or even saying the compensation packages were good, I'm saying that's what the workers were promised, and now in old age they have to go bankrupt to pay for their cholesterol meds.
My wife's aunt has to have a stem cell transplant next week. Her husband worked for Sprint (and its forbears) for his entire life, and retired years ago. Their insurance (surprise! United Health care!) dropped them after she went through chemo for breast cancer treatment in the 1990s and he had an accident involving a cow stepping on his back (no joke). This, even though he was guaranteed health coverage by Sprint as a retirement package. Luckily, there are laws in Tennessee that help them fight back, and United Healthcare got a big kick in the ass from the State for doing what they did. But they are fighters (Republicans both of them, by the way, although they both voted for Obama, but think he might be the Antichrist...) and they got what they deserved after a long, protracted fight while she was sick and paying for treatment on her own.
I hate sob stories and sorry to give you one, but it seems *everyone* knows one of these, and that's just too common for me to sit back on my upper middle class honches and say "pfft, you all should get what perks you can afford: either healthcare or housing, but not both!" It just makes me angry. My blood pressure is way too high right now for a Friday seven minutes before I leave work. I've gotta get offa this page...
Responding to my friend Gregory's numerous posts:
First, I think I'm a pretty reasonable guy both in person and in writing.
Second, the comment about liberals not being taken serious when they make threats is a hysterical comment. I wish I could have said that myself.
Third, in terms of billingual staffing, I'm sure that there won't be someone speaking Hungarian in many hospitals, I feel for your grandmother, but we simply cannot accomodate every persons language of choice. Encouraging and promoting people to learn English is the way to go here. Across the board we would be much better of if we went to an English only system in all areas, health care, education, government offices, etc. I say this as a person who recognizes two things, most imigrants who speak English do so more itelligently than many native born Americans and that I myself would love to learn a language and feel some what lesser for not having done so already.
Where am I, fourth, fifth, oh well lets just say the following, everyone has sob stories, and I'm all for passing a law that says insurance companies can't drop you if you get sick. I'm all for passing a law that says insurance companies cannot discriminate because you had a prior condition. What I'm not for is government take over.
I've actually read the bill, that was part of my summer fellowship. Page 16 of HR 3200, it basically says no new policies after this goes into effect. I don't know how else to read that other than as a trojan horse to get to a single payer system. Barney Frank is on camera saying that govt. option is the way to get to a single payer system gradually.
I could be wrong, but frankly I just don't trust my government enough (either party) to believe anything they tell me that I can't read it simply and plainly in the bill itself.
Ultimately what this comes down to for me is about freedom and opportunity. I don't want the government to infringe on my freedom by taking over a 6th or more of the economy. I don't want to lose the opportunity to better my families life and the lives of others who I choose to bless with charity because the government has decided that my charity will be governmentally mandated to go to who they choose through increased taxes and costs of health care.
Lastly, on a very simple note, we simply flat out cannot afford it. Even if the Presidents pipe dream is correct and it only costs 900 billion, we cannot afford it.
Post a Comment