by Mark Silva
This was the week when President Barack Obama drew a hard line on healthcare reform: It will happen this year, he insists on it, and he is not kidding. On the road, and in the White House, the president made it clear that he expects action this summer.
And this was the week when Republicans drew as hard a line: They will insist on some alternative that doesn't cost what the president's plans will cost.
"I want to be very clear,'' Obama says in his weekly radio and Internet address today. "I will not sign on to any health plan that adds to our deficits over the next decade. And by helping improve quality and efficiency, the reforms we make will help bring our deficits under control in the long-term.''
"They propose to pay for this new Washington-run health care system by dramatically raising taxes on small business owners,'' Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) says in the Republican Party's weekly address today. "With a shaky economy and the need for new jobs, the last thing the president and the Congress should do is impose new taxes on America's small businesses.''
The resolution may well depend upon how many Democrats the House can hold in line - they managed to pass a disputed energy bill with 44 Democrats defecting, and eight Republicans aligning for the narrow 219-vote passage of the bill featuring a cap and trade measure for greenhouse gas emissions. It's fate in the Senate is dubious..
The Democrats managed to pass the president's $787-billion economic stimulus bill in the House without a single Republican vote. It took three Republicans in the Senate, however, to move that stimulus to the president's desk .
The Senate's Democrats have built a 60-vote wall against filibusters since then, but how many of their own members they can hold on healthcare reform remains a question. How many Democrats the House can hold is uncertain yet.
But this is a White House that has demonstrated some prowess at counting votes and cajoling the ones they need, which should make any opponent wonder if the volume of the president's pitch for healthcare reform this week was a measure of something they know, or think they know, about where the votes may lie for reform in this first year in office when the president says that he cannot defend the status quo any more.
See the president's address above, the Republican address below, and see the full texts of both addresses below the fold:
This is the text of the president's weekly address:
Right now in Washington, our Senate and House of Representatives are both debating proposals for health insurance reform. Today, I want to speak with you about the stakes of this debate, for our people and for the future of our nation.
This is an issue that affects the health and financial well-being of every single American and the stability of our entire economy.
It's about every family unable to keep up with soaring out of pocket costs and premiums rising three times faster than wages. Every worker afraid of losing health insurance if they lose their job, or change jobs. Everyone who's worried that they may not be able to get insurance or change insurance if someone in their family has a pre-existing condition.
It's about a woman in Colorado who told us that when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, her insurance company - the one she'd paid over $700 a month to - refused to pay for her treatment. She had to use up her retirement funds to save her own life.
It's about a man from Maryland who sent us his story - a middle class college graduate whose health insurance expired when he changed jobs. During that time, he needed emergency surgery, and woke up $10,000 in debt - debt that has left him unable to save, buy a home, or make a career change.
It's about every business forced to shut their doors, or shed jobs, or ship them overseas. It's about state governments overwhelmed by Medicaid, federal budgets consumed by Medicare, and deficits piling higher year after year.
This is the status quo. This is the system we have today. This is what the debate in Congress is all about: Whether we'll keep talking and tinkering and letting this problem fester as more families and businesses go under, and more Americans lose their coverage. Or whether we'll seize this opportunity - one we might not have again for generations - and finally pass health insurance reform this year, in 2009.
Now we know there are those who will oppose reform no matter what. We know the same special interests and their agents in Congress will make the same old arguments, and use the same scare tactics that have stopped reform before because they profit from this relentless escalation in health care costs. And I know that once you've seen enough ads and heard enough people yelling on TV, you might begin to wonder whether there's a grain of truth to what they're saying. So let me take a moment to answer a few of their arguments.
First, the same folks who controlled the White House and Congress for the past eight years as we ran up record deficits will argue - believe it or not - that health reform will lead to record deficits. That's simply not true. Our proposals cut hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary spending and unwarranted giveaways to insurance companies in Medicare and Medicaid. They change incentives so providers will give patients the best care, not just the most expensive care, which will mean big savings over time. And we have urged Congress to include a proposal for a standing commission of doctors and medical experts to oversee cost-saving measures.
I want to be very clear: I will not sign on to any health plan that adds to our deficits over the next decade. And by helping improve quality and efficiency, the reforms we make will help bring our deficits under control in the long-term.
Those who oppose reform will also tell you that under our plan, you won't get to choose your doctor - that some bureaucrat will choose for you. That's also not true. Michelle and I don't want anyone telling us who our family's doctor should be - and no one should decide that for you either. Under our proposals, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period, end of story.
Finally, opponents of health reform warn that this is all some big plot for socialized medicine or government-run health care with long lines and rationed care. That's not true either. I don't believe that government can or should run health care. But I also don't think insurance companies should have free reign to do as they please.
That's why any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family. And that's why we'll put an end to the worst practices of the insurance industry: no more yearly caps or lifetime caps; no more denying people care because of pre-existing conditions; and no more dropping people from a plan when they get too sick. No longer will you be without health insurance, even if you lose your job or change jobs.
The good news is that people who know the system best are rallying to the cause of change. Just this past week, the American Nurses Association, representing millions of nurses across America, and the American Medical Association, representing doctors across our nation, announced their support because they've seen first-hand the need for health insurance reform.
They know we cannot continue to cling to health industry practices that are bankrupting families, and undermining American businesses, large and small. They know we cannot let special interests and partisan politics stand in the way of reform - not this time around.
The opponents of health insurance reform would have us do nothing. But think about what doing nothing, in the face of ever increasing costs, will do to you and your family.
So today, I am urging the House and the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, to seize this opportunity, and vote for reform that gives the American people the best care at the lowest cost; that reins in insurance companies, strengthens businesses and finally gives families the choices they need and the security they deserve.
Thanks.
This is the text of Sen. Kyl's Republican response:
"Hello. I'm Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl, of Arizona.
"Republicans believe all Americans should have access to quality health care and that we must find ways to reduce health care costs.
"The debate in Washington is about how we can achieve these goals.
"Republicans have put forward common-sense ideas, including rooting out Medicare and Medicaid fraud, reforming medical liability laws to discourage frivolous lawsuits, strengthening wellness and prevention programs that encourage healthy living, and allowing small businesses to band together and purchase health insurance like large corporations do.
"These changes do not require government takeover of the healthcare system, or massive new spending, job-killing taxes, or rationing of care.
"Democrats in Congress have a different approach. Their plan would increase spending by more than two trillion dollars when fully implemented, and would, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 'add additional costs onto an already unsustainable system.'
"It would empower Washington, not doctors and patients, to make health care decisions and would impose a new tax on working families during a recession. A study by the respected Lewin Group shows it would also move millions of people who are happy with their current insurance to a new government plan.
"They propose to pay for this new Washington-run health care system by dramatically raising taxes on small business owners. Small businesses create jobs -- approximately two-thirds of new jobs in the last decade.
"With a shaky economy and the need for new jobs, the last thing the President and the Congress should do is impose new taxes on America's small businesses. New taxes on small business would cripple job creation, especially jobs for low-wage earners.
"This week, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office told the Senate Budget Committee that the health care-reform measures drafted by Democrats would worsen our economic outlook by increasing deficits and driving our nation more deeply into debt. So, there's good reason to be skeptical when the President tells us we need to pass the Democrats' bill to help the economy.
"The President and Congressional Democrats have even proposed cutting Medicare to pay for their plan.
"How can we justify dipping into funds for seniors' care to pay for a new government plan, especially since Medicare is already in financial trouble? This would ultimately lead to shortages, rationing, and the elimination of private-plan choices--something our seniors rightly fear.
"These are not the right steps to achieving the reform Americans want.
"But the President and some Democrats insist we must rush this plan through. Why? Because the more Americans know about it, the more they oppose it. Something this important needs to be done right, rather than done quickly.
"We know Americans would prefer us to work together to ensure access to affordable quality health care for all. But Americans do not want a government takeover of health care that will jeopardize their current coverage, ration care, and create mountains of new debt and higher taxes.
"We urge Democrats to support a plan that would lead to real reform and include the innovative ideas Republicans have put forward that would cut costs, improve access, and preserve the kind of care that millions of Americans already have and like. That's the kind of reform Americans would be sure to support."
Comments
We, the people of America, demand that Republican elected officials start working for the people of America and not the Corporations, and that means, especially, the Health-scare Corporations. We have American citizens, dying in the streets, for want of real, honest-to-goodness healthcare. It may be alright for those who are lucky enough to be wealthy, or have decent, affordable healthcare, but there are many millions of us, American citizens, who do not have healthcare, or health-scare, which is a rationing of limited coverage. We demand that this unAmerican development be remedied. People are dying because Health-scare Corporations are demanding profits before our citizen's medical problems are treated
America is government-run and I don't hear anybody complaining about that !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | July 18, 2009 9:08 AM
Whatever the outcome, Obama wins.
If his program is scuttled, he'll still be the hero and Replicans will be the bad guys.
Contrast BillyBob Clinton: by putting the ball and chain in charge, he could dump all the blame on her.
And he did.
Posted by: ornery | July 18, 2009 9:14 AM
Obama lied.
And the economy died.
Posted by: No Change, No Hope | July 18, 2009 10:01 AM
The real story that Mark Silva is too dishonest to report is not the battle between Obumbles and the GOP over health care, but the fight between the Democrats and Congressional Budget Office or even within the Democrapic party. Many Dems are worried about the high costs and taxes of Obumbles and Peloony's desire to destroy
the U.S. health care system. From the Congressional Quarterly comes this: The health care overhauls released to date would increase, not reduce, the burgeoning long-term health costs facing the government, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said Thursday.
If you want the full story, the Chicago Tribune is NOT the place to go.
Talk about sorry journalism that would make Walter Cronkite turn in his grave.
Posted by: John D | July 18, 2009 10:06 AM
Linked to the CBO yesterday, try paying closer attention.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/07/obamas_healthcare_campaign_ram.html
Posted by: Mark Silva | July 18, 2009 11:13 AM
I'm not sure what is in the health care bill. No one is. I hear that it will not go into effect for four or more years. However, in the mean time, it is said we will be paying for the bill--for a long time--with nothing to show. Sounds like the Bush/Paulson TARP and the OBAMA Stimulus. Our politicians should be required to read the entire bill before voting for it--and give constituents a bottom line 'book report'. I hope it takes a while to get it right. I want to know exactly how it will work, if I will get less health care as an already insured person and if I will continue to pay for the uninsured, and if this bill will force citizens of America to (continue to) foot the health bill for up to 20 million illegals in our country. The health care bill needs to have provisions that the existing immigration laws are carried out. Need to call reps and senators to ask them not to vote for an unknown bill--aka a pig in a poke. Yes, something does need to be done regarding uninsured Americans. However, to push through an impossible rush job will be detrimental for all of us. If the AMA now likes the bill--something is very wrong with it. If the Obama WH wants the bill rushed to a vote before summer recess--before its contents are fully understood-- something is very wrong. The carpenter's adage--measure twice, cut once--would be good here. Obama wants us to trust him without the facts--and to trust him without a record of him delivering on anything.
Posted by: Vivian | July 18, 2009 11:35 AM
I'm surprised that Sen. Kyl, after making a fool of himself all week in the Sotomayor hearings, was willing to go back in front of a camera and do it again.
Posted by: rupert | July 18, 2009 11:46 AM
Mark--I'm not a Republican, however it seems that it is a showdown between Obama and thinking Americans--those who want the facts and the common sense of this health care bill before it is decided. Your title showdown...Obama...GOP seems to be misleading. Not all Dems fully or blindly trust Obama.
Posted by: Vivian | July 18, 2009 11:52 AM
Come on, Mark, one sentence in an item about Obumbles ramping up his health care campaign? I'm talking about a Swamp item on the fact that the CBO says his plan will bust the budget. I'm talking about a Swamp item about all the Dems who are threatening to jump ship because of the high cost or that they are even against tax increases. I believe more than 20 freshman Democratic Congress have sent a letter to the Democratic Congressional leadership that they are against tax surcharges on the rich because of what that will do to small businesses and the need for these small businesses to create jobs to get out of this economic hole we are in. One sentence among all the fawning? And all that sentence says is that the numbers have to match up to the CBO's numbers.
Or where is the Swamp item about the CBO saying that Obumbles spending can't be sustained? Sorry, Mark, there is A LOT that you and the rest of the Tribune Washington Bureau are not covering. We get more stuff on Sarah Palin and Mark Sanford than we do on the discourse going on in the Democratic party or with the CBO about how out of whack all this taxing and spending Obumbles, Peloony and Harry "Illegal Land Deals" Reid are doing.
Posted by: John D | July 18, 2009 12:07 PM
Republican Congressman who oppose universal health insurance should immediately relinquish their federal health insurance. After all, these members of Congress have long enjoyed taxpayer-subsidized health insurance, a privilege that they apparently believe tens of millions of working, uninsured Americans and their families don't deserve.
If Republicans don't think being uninsured is a big deal, then they should go right ahead and try it out. And if they really believe a public plan is such a bad option, maybe they can persuade their parents to give up Medicare too.
Posted by: Molly | July 18, 2009 1:10 PM
With the Republican smear-the-public-option campaign---designed by Wingnut mouth-breather Frank Luntz---in full swing, here's a handy, crystal-clear rebuttal you can print out and leave on windshields and utility poles (and even in emergency rooms!) across America:
5 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PRESIDENT OBAMA'S PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION
1. Choice, choice, choice. If the public health insurance option passes, Americans will be able to choose between their current insurance and a high-quality, government-run plan similar to Medicare. If you like your current care, you can keep it. If you don't—or don't have any—you can get the public insurance plan.
2. It will be high-quality coverage with a choice of doctors. Government-run plans have a track record of innovating to improve quality, because they're not just focused on short-term profits. And if you choose the public plan, you'll still get to choose your doctor and hospital.
3. We'll all save a bunch of money. The public health insurance option won't have to spend money on things like CEO bonuses, shareholder dividends, or excessive advertising, so it'll cost a lot less. Plus, the private plans will have to lower their rates and provide better value to compete, so people who keep their current insurance will save, too.
4. It will always be there for you and your family. A for-profit insurer can close, move out of the area, or just kick you off their insurance rolls. The public health insurance option will always be available to provide you with the health security you need.
5. And it's a key part of universal health care. No longer will sick people or folks in rural communities, or low-income Americans be forced to go without coverage. The public health insurance plan will be available and accessible to everyone. And for those struggling to make ends meet, the premiums will be subsidized by the government.
It might not hurt to give your senators a jingle and ask 'em which they embrace more: campaign contributions from the big insurance lobby and Frank Luntz's Republican propaganda, or historic legislation that will enhance their legacy and make them heroes among their constituents for improving the health and well-being of all Americans. Be patient---sadly, it could take some of 'em a while to decide.
Posted by: LoveBuzz | July 18, 2009 1:12 PM
The corporations have to buy "moderate" Democrats now.
No more Tom DeLay rules making them untouchable.
Au contraire, they are now in the catbird seat as far as being the "swing votes" to be paid off.
Replicans can now starve for awhile.
A few problems:
Harder to conceal all that ill gotten gelt.
Talk to Duke Cunningham for some advice on how not to get caught.
Also: might antagonize Obama.
That could be a really big problem for a sell out Democrat seeking something like re election or a regional administratorship for a near relative or in law.
It might even prove fatal, politically.
So, blue dogs and "moderates": just relax with the relaxing agent of your choice, lie back, and repeat this mantra:
OOOO BAAAAA MAAAAAA.
Over and over.
Now: feel better?
So soothing. You know you want to vote for his health plan.......
It will be so easy.....
When you awaken, you will feel an urge to agree with his program......
Posted by: ornery | July 18, 2009 1:13 PM
> 44,230 more people are losing health coverage each week.
> 191,670 more people are losing health coverage each month.
> 2.3 million more people are losing health coverage each year
Republicans know that a successful health care reform that achieves universal coverage will bury them electorally for a generation. Health Insurers and their Lobbyists and Big Pharma know that a powerful public option and a Medicare bargaining for prices will kick them off the gravy train permanently. Republicans and Big Insurance Company propagandists know their scare tactics aren't nearly as scary as reality for the large majority of Americans.
Posted by: Greta | July 18, 2009 1:28 PM
101,000 Americans die UNNECESSARILY each year because of lack of access to basic medical care that they would get in most other industrialized nations.
.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/In-the-Literature/2008/Jan/Measuring-the-Health-of-Nations--Updating-an-Earlier-Analysis.aspx
I keep asking my "Canada bashing" kool-aid drinking Wingnut friends to find me just ONE comprehensive poll in Canada showing that Canadians would swap their health care system, warts and all, for ours...Haven't seen any yet.
And believe me, if there were any polls favorable to the Republican cause of denying healthcare to everyone, the Republican minions would be linking to them all day long. Instead, all they have is a handfull of anecdotes that they got from Druggy Limbaugh and Glenn Beck etc.
Posted by: DrainYou | July 18, 2009 1:31 PM
To save the 15% screw over the 85%, sound like good business sense.
If this bill passes as currently drafted and employers can buyout of health insurance coverage for their employees at 8% of payroll - most CEO's will just write the check.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071602242.html
The CBO says it will cost more than the taxes on the job producers will provide, let's see what happens to the economy - France economic growth here we come.
This gov't healthcare option is so good that the democratic congressman won't consider it as an option for themselves or their families - HYPOCRITES
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124786946165760369.html
Crappy health care at an unbelievable price.
Posted by: Terry | July 18, 2009 3:14 PM
Most people are unaware how similar the major corporate health insurers are to our failed Wall Street firms.They are corporate cash cows and have virtually no fiduciary responsibility and few activities for protecting or improving health or the health care system.They will devote their vast resources to prevent any meaningful health reform. They have controlled Congress (mostly Republicans) and the mainstream media. The only cure is vigorous popular support for a public option.
* The corporate insurance companies are out for profit and must work to maximize their value on the stock market and not our friends. They treat patients like widgets or cost centers. This is not a culture of trust, caring, compassion, and fiduciary responsibility. If you were dumb enough to hope that Countrywide Mortgage would preserve your home and Lehman Brothers would preserve your retirement fund, then you will be stupid enough to expect Anthem Blue Cross and the other insurance companies to be there to protect your health. Yet it seems all Washington continues under this delusion.
* The employer based private health insurance industry has been created by us, is hugely subsidized by public policy and public money and is expensive, inefficient, costly , and a structural barrier to a healthy America. It needs to be eliminated.
* The only cure for our problem is a strong public option national, universal, health financing program like Medicare for All. This is an efficient way to pool risk and share the unexpected costs of illness. Fifty percent of our population has virtually no medical expenses while five percent consume 25 percent of all personal medical care costs. This why we need the insurance principle: unexpected medical expenses are relatively rare and can be huge and should be spread across the whole population. Financial costs related to illness cause over 50 percent of personal bankruptcies in the United States. Over 46 million Americans are rationed out of the medical system (and during this economic catastrophe this number is growing by 10,000 people per day) 46 million people are subject to excess morbidity and mortality because they cannot afford financing and the insurance industry cannot profit from them. Health insurance is important and necessary. We need an efficient, national, publicaly sponsored, universal health financing system. This is the only treatment that will be a cure.
Posted by: electrical supply products | July 18, 2009 4:01 PM
Republicans know that a successful health care reform that achieves universal coverage will bury them electorally for a generation. Health insurers and Big Pharma know that a powerful public option and a Medicare bargaining for prices will kick them off the gravy train permanently. Republicans and Big Insurance Company propagandists know their scare tactics aren't nearly as scary as reality for the large majority of Americans.
Posted by: Hulk SMASH! | July 18, 2009 4:03 PM
Well, limousine liberals and MSM "elites", you had your fun... and probably almost broke your arm patting yourself on the back after you got the Dear Leader elected.
-
Now you are getting the taxes you deserve, as Barack Obama is going to BLEED YOU DRY. And you can forget writing off your local taxes on your overpriced eastcoast/leftcoast home... you'll be paying more on that, too.
-
And here's the kicker: you'll be sending alot of that money to people in red states... to people whom you can't stand.
New Yorkers, Californians, residents of the Northeast and the D.C. Corridor, you elected Obama... so step-up and pay those absurd taxes without complaining. You wanted bigger government.. so try THIS on for size.
-
Those who live in places with more rational state tax structures like will welcome you when you want to move there... well, not really, LOL.
-
So head-out first-thing Monday morning and jump in your Prius with the "Change" bumper-sticker on the back and GET TO WORK... Chairman O needs your money.
-
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com
Posted by: Reaganite Republican | July 18, 2009 4:15 PM
JD: I have been reentering slowly. I should be back in action next week, and you'll have plenty more to chew on. Keep the faith.
Posted by: Mark Silva | July 18, 2009 4:18 PM
this was released last night by the From the House Energy, Ways and Means and Education and Labor committees
For Immediate Release:
July 17, 2009
CBO Scores Confirms Deficit Neutrality of Health Reform Bill
Washington, D.C. -- The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released estimates this evening confirming for the first time that H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is deficit neutral over the 10-year budget window – and even produces a $6 billion surplus. CBO estimated more than $550 billion in gross Medicare and Medicaid savings. More importantly, the bill includes a comprehensive array of delivery reforms to set the stage for lowering the future growth in health care costs.
Posted by: stinky | July 18, 2009 6:03 PM
Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.
In the midst of this horrendous lack of coverage, the U.S. spends far more per capita on health care than any other nation - and health care costs continue to soar. At $2.4 trillion dollars, and 18 percent of our GDP, the skyrocketing cost of health care in this country is unsustainable both from a personal and macro-economic perspective.
It always makes me laugh when I hear people say they want to preserve "insurance choice" in this country. What choice do you have when you work and are nominally "insured," but your insurance coverage doesn't pay for anything you need? Are you then going to have the ability to run out and purchase extra coverage on the wages you make? Well, I guess you have the "choice" to rob a bank or maybe win the lottery to pay for it, but that's about it.
Republicans and their rich oligarchy supporters (Healthcare CEO's and Lobbyists) will do anything to kill a good healthcare bill because they know people will like it and when that happens their electoral goose will be cooked for generations - if it's not already.
Posted by: Giles | July 18, 2009 7:49 PM
Obama's Health Reform in Jeopardy? Don't You Believe it
.
It's a Slam Dunk, and Here's Why
.
Although it may appear that corporate medicine's opposition is strong enough to kill health care reform, I would argue that Obama's health reform is now a slam dunk inevitability. Not only that, Obama's public health plan will mean the end of the health insurance industry. And, I say good riddance to this bloated evil empire....
.
read more here:
.
http://jeffreydach.com/2009/06/30/obamas-health-reform-a-slam-dunk-inevitable-by-jeffrey-dach-md.aspx
.
Jeffrey Dach MD
Posted by: Jeffrey Dach MD | July 18, 2009 7:52 PM
We all remember the commercials that were made by Republicans and their pals at the Big Insurance Industry to trick Americans into thinking that health care reform would hurt average working families. We now see what has happened to the health-care system. CEOs rake in the big bucks from the huge profits they take in as health-insurance costs have skyrocketed.
FierceHealthcare reports the following top 10 CEO salaries for 2008:
------------------------------------------------------
* Ron Williams - Aetna - Total Compensation: $24,300,112.
* H. Edward Hanway - CIGNA - Total Compensation: $12,236,740.
* Angela Braly - WellPoint - Total Compensation: $9,844,212.
* Dale Wolf - Coventry Health Care - Total Compensation: $9,047,469.
* Michael Neidorff - Centene - Total Compensation: $8,774,483.
* James Carlson - AMERIGROUP - Total Compensation: $5,292,546.
* Michael McCallister - Humana - Total Compensation: $4,764,309.
* Jay Gellert - Health Net - Total Compensation: $4,425,355.
* Richard Barasch - Universal American - Total Compensation: $3,503,702.
* Stephen Hemsley - UnitedHealth Group - Total Compensation: $3,241,042.
My rates go up and coverage goes down every time I turn around. And then they just decide not to cover certain medications without an explanation. Even scumbag criminals are resurfacing like Rick Scott to try and con America for a second time -- and the corporate media does nothing about it.
.
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/dont-let-third-way-ben-nelsons-or-repub
Posted by: John A | July 18, 2009 7:55 PM
Health care for all, PERIOD!! The republicans are always doing something TO this country, not FOR this country. Why should it change now. GET IT DONE, WITH OR WITHOUT THE RIGHT WING NUTS. Sell me auto insurance, life insurance, property insurance or accident insurance, not health insurance. HEALTH INSURANCE IS A RACKET DREAMED UP BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES, MADOFF AND ABRAMOFF SHOULD BE RUNNING THAT RACKET. whiteagle38
Posted by: R Juneau | July 18, 2009 11:41 PM
A new 'incomplete' analysis by congressional budget experts of emerging House legislation said it would increase deficits by $239 billion over a decade.
CBO does not score any savings from prevention / wellness and the rest, even if Prevention / wellness is an actual and essential part of the savings.
Besides, the Times in a July 7 editorial argued “As much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in this country—some $700 billion a year—may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients,” .
And I think the others such as increased productivity, potential stem cell effect, decreased mental stress, and massive job creation considered, the reform might be within reach.
The report of stem cell research turned around the stock markets world-wide, and then what if the reform package clears the Congress ?
Posted by: hsr0601 | July 19, 2009 8:53 AM
Stinky,
You do not complete the story. The reason it is "deficit neutral" is because of teh measurement period there are two more years of tax increases than there are of health care spending. The tax increases go into effect in 2011, the healthcare spending goes into effect in 2013.
If you ameasure a ten-yaer period of both projected revenues and costs, this will lead to 12 figure deficits.
This is nothing but budget gimmickery from the most transparent administration in history.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/why_health-care_reform_begins.html
Posted by: Terry | July 19, 2009 11:08 AM
LoveBuzz--A good argument will state some negatives. Your FIVE THINGS WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE sounds too good to be true--all dewy and naive. Do you work for Mary Poppins or Obama? Looking for a good, non-BS bill for American citizens. Can LoveBuzz answer the question, Will American citizens be paying for the health care of up to 20 million Illegal aliens--or for up to 20 million amnesty-made Americans--given that amnesty very close in time before the bill passes?
Posted by: Vivian | July 19, 2009 12:37 PM
Talk about gimmickry, Terry? That July 14 article didn't refer to the July 17 CBO announcement of a 10 year surplus. Speaking of gimmickry, at least the new administration is ending the gimmickry of putting 2.4 trillion dollar (as scored by CBO) wars off budget.
Posted by: Stinky | July 19, 2009 2:54 PM
Stinky,
The gimmickry of more tax years than health insurance spending years is still buried within the numbers. The gimmicks of Medicare and SocSec - the big unfunded liabilities are still off the books.
Posted by: Terry | July 19, 2009 11:28 PM
Everybody seems happy with the upcoming National Health Plan but no one is questioning the $600 billion taken from Medicare. How old are you people? Do you realize that when you need that by-pass surgery or pace-maker you mayl be denied. If you are not a worker contributing to the tax base of this country you are non-essential! Grandma needs a hip replacement? oh, and how many
years do the charts say she may live, too little? DENIED !
Wake up people, this is a give and take and you may be on the end of the take. Time does march on and if
you are in you 50's your going to be
non-essential in a few short years.
Posted by: slats | July 20, 2009 12:23 AM
* * * * *
Posted by: stinky | July 18, 2009 6:03 PM
.
Nice spin, but its hogwash. Even aside from the fact the numbers have been produced by a grandiose sleight of hand (for reasons given by Terry), the news release doesn’t even mention that the plan now under consideration leaves a very heavy financial burden on the States due to the provisions expanding Medicare. The states would pick up about 43% of that cost. That’s what the head of the CBO said in televised testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. That’s a pretty serious omission considering the fact that many states are in dire financial straits. As demonstrated by remarks at the recent Governor’s meeting, many State Governors are on the warpath over the prospect of more unfunded mandates while the States are already facing $200 billion in aggregate deficits over the next three years. Thus, even if the health care plan has little impact on the federal budget for the reasons you state, it still stands to create a fiscal disaster due to the burdens with which it will saddle the States.
Posted by: John W. | July 20, 2009 10:46 AM
OK, time for the truth meter to fire up.......the pugs are patently false when they say that the current system offers you choices while the new one takes the choices away. Anyone with fire between their ears knows that. http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/07/19/patient.insurance/index.html
The next big one is cost. The pugs scream and squeel about costs. They also love to use Canada in their arguements....so let's use Canada in the cost arguement. The US national debt is $11.6T+ and our population is 306.5M+ for a debt/ person ratio of $37,878.69. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ Keep in mind, that we do not have national health coverage.
Now, our smart cousins to the north have a national debt of $476.7B+ and their per capita share is $14,229.15, and yes, they do provide health insurance to all of their populace. http://www.debtclock.ca/ Looks like public healthcare will not sink a country after all.
The supposed "wait times" in CA are a direct result of the US's high pay scale for doctors (many making $500,000.00 per year http://www.allied-physicians.com/salary_surveys/physician-salaries.htm ) and the competing contries for the doctors. In effect, the US healthcare problems of money are spilling over across our borders and into Canada and robbing them of care.
So, please do you homework folks. The pugs are up to their armpits in lies, smears, and fear campaigns. The truth could not be further from them.
The founder of the CA public healthcare, Tommy Douglas, has been selected as the nation's greatest person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Canadian
Yep, Canada sure hates their expensive healthcare all right....the evidence is overwheliming!
Posted by: Xcellentform | July 20, 2009 11:22 AM
I didn't spin anything John W; it's a direct quote from the CBO from July 17; I offered it as an alternative to some of the Republican lies and voodoo math I see here and other places. Frankly, nobody can accurately put a price tag on it.
Posted by: stinky | July 20, 2009 1:36 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: stinky | July 20, 2009 1:36 PM
.
I just said it was “spin” - and it is. I never said it was your spin. If you are merely quoting a source, then I don’t blame you. But I do blame your source for not being forthright with all of the relevant facts.
.
The truth of the matter is that all of the relevant costs are made to look a lot less than they really are by virtue of shifting burdens and accounting tricks. It means that the bill is still as expensive as previously stated; it’s only that the cost to the federal government is less. If you accept stealing from Peter to pay Paul as a valid accounting and financing scheme, then it’s wonderful. Those of us who don’t think less of the plan.
Posted by: John W. | July 20, 2009 6:15 PM