Health care: New plan, same as the old?

The Republican ulra right-wing birther, death panel, Obama's a Hitler socialist/communist, no telling the kids to stay in school, nut jobs have had their say, now it's time for the silent majority to speak up about health care reform. That means supporting a public option. It means no more pre-existing condition exclusions by insurance companies. The pharmacutical/insurance industrial complex has had it's way for far too long - to the detriment of many American families - take the gloves off President Obama.

http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/wpnan/

http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/client/wpc/sc/

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Emma Lazarus, 1883.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Obama needs to simplify his proposal, if he has one. It's not all that complicated. Only 15 percent of Americans do not have health insurance. Three steps will solve the problem: (1) Extend Medicaid to poor families who cannot (not will not) afford health insurance, thereby eliminating he need for another govt. program; (2) Allow all 27 major health insurance companies to compete in all 50 states to produce lower costs; (3) Place reasonable caps on jury awards for malpractice, thereby lowering the excessive malpractice insurance doctors and hospitals must pay and resultingly lower their fees.

Obama needs to simplify his proposal, if he has one. It's not all that complicated. Only 15 percent of Americans do not have health insurance. Three steps will solve the problem: (1) Extend Medicaid to poor families who cannot (not will not) afford health insurance, thereby eliminating he need for another govt. program; (2) Allow all 27 major health insurance companies to compete in all 50 states to produce lower costs; (3) Place reasonable caps on jury awards for malpractice, thereby lowering the excessive malpractice insurance doctors and hospitals must pay and resultingly lower their fees.

The ObamaCare "debate", Swamp style:

3 Democrats quoted, versus 1 Republican. (and 3-1 Democrat over GOP is actually more balanced than the usual 5-1)
Democrats quoted 269 words, versus 103 for Republicans.
The only video link being to the Democrats.

The Obama media sure works hard to promote Obama's causes....

Probable the same in Sheep Clothing.
Don't think the majority of Americans will ever have much trust in Obama with his secrets and Direction Toward Socalism .

Obama's plan itself is not the problem. Look at the polls and you will see that a large majority (55-65%) of Americans say they approve of reform plans when they are actually read specific details of what would be included in legislation. It's all about controlling the dialogue, spreading the message in a consistent manner.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

The opposition has no plan to approve anything this president proposes. They have decided to dig their heels in and sling a few names around to slow ever effort to get this country moving again for political gain. I have seen a woman crying on TV that her children might have to hear the president speak to their kids. A sure sign that mental illness has taken over the right. Indoctrination......yes indeedy.......I'll just let them stay home and watch R rated movies on TV, or xbox. They can't even indoctrinate these kids to pick up their rooms, but hey...the president will give em the ol' zappo through TV and turn them all into little zombies. I say don't negotiate with the terrorists..........they don't play well with others.

3 Democrats quoted, versus 1 Republican. (and 3-1 Democrat over GOP is actually more balanced than the usual 5-1)
Posted by: Bruce | September 7, 2009 9:35 AM

Poor Bruce......here Bruce......we'll print what the republicans have to say: Communist, Marxist, Nazi, Racist, did I leave any out?

Taking money from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have not is not a new concept. It is the entire Democrat's plarform. We are going to spend $2.5 TRILLION dollars on health care this year. Obama is in bed with the health care lobbies, his "Green Job" czar turned out to be another racist communist, and he just appointed a far left union boss to advise him on manufacturing. 14.9 million Americans lost their jobs this year and our fearless leader wants to talk about improving the quality of free health care to those who have never worked.

What we really need is a life-cycle health risk insurance covering only expensive medical care.

This health risk insurance would step in and cover expenses above some predetermined per-year limits, cumulative limits for consecutive years, and cumulative limits over the person's lifetime. For minor medical care and for preventive care people could pay as they do now. Some would pay out of pocket as needed. Some would sign up for health maintenance plans. Many would use Health Saving Accounts, which gained popularity in recent years, and would perfectly complement health risk insurance. The poor would continue using Medicaid.

If President Obama would limit the public option to basic life-cycle health risk insurance as outlined here, he can have the last punch in this heated debate. First, health insurance companies do not currently offer lifelong health risk insurance; hence – by definition – the public option would not compete with insurance plans offered by the private industry. Second, the onus in the debate would be shifted onto the opponents of the government proposal, as they would be asked to produce a commercial option for life cycle health risk insurance. Unless this happens, Obama may say, the public option is on the table.

More on this subject at:
http://www.henrykkowalczyk.com/life-cycle%20health%20risk%20insurance.htm

I see Doogie Zook is back and passing along his nonsense. Hey, Doug, while you're talking about birthers and Hitler and socialists, let's talk abou the truthers, Hitler and your ilk likening Bush to Hitler? And Doogie, while your demonizing the pharamaceutical companies, you do realize that Obama already made a deal with them to get them onboard with health care, like NOT LOWERING prescription prices?
Obama and the Democraps will not listen to the people, they will just do what they please. But they will listen to us in November 2010.

What the Hey! There are a few times in the history of a nation when the wrongs of the past have an opportunity to be rectified. This is one of them. Obama must step up to the plate an deliver on healh care. The racketeers in the health care industry must be put out of business. No co-ops, no triggers, no more racketeers from the insurance company's. Public option is not, nor will ever be, dead. If Obama doesn't step up to the plate and deliver for the citizen's of this country, then he might have just as well stayed home. whiteagle38

My understanding of the goals of health care reform are basically threefold: (1) Pass regulations for insurance companies re pre-existing conditions, dropping high risk patients, etc.; (2) Find a way to extend coverage to the uninsured; and (3) Bend the cost curve of health care.

As for number 1, I think there is fairly broad agreement among Americans, and some type of regulations can and will be passed regardless of the what else happens. In my opinion, this should be the starting point of the debate; an area where there is agreement, build some consesus on these issues, then move to the more contentious issues such as the public option.

As for the third goal, there is nothing in the current plans that bend the cost curve, and they in fact add to the deficit. Now the goalpost is being moved to a plan that is "deficit neutral". That is not the same thing as bending the cost curve, and I think Congress needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with a plan that does bend the cost curve.

As for number 2, a little more honesty would be appreciated. The 46 million number of uninsureds from the Census is misleading, and exaggerates the problem. The same report includes nearly ten million illegals, that no plan intends to cover. Another 15+ million are people that could afford insurance but choose not to. Another chunk is eligible for Medicare/Medicaid, but are not enrolled. As such, the real number of what I call "tweeners" (too poor to affored coverage but not poor enough for Medicaid) is less than half the 46 million number. Those are the people we need to figure out how to cover, and it would be nice if proponents of reform would frame the issue accurately.

Another obnoxious example of intellectual dishonesty from both parties is the timing. Dems talk about the need to pass something right this second. Since most of the provisions in the House bill don't even come into play for years, passing it early in the summer, this fall or next spring is really not that important. On the other side of the aisle, the GOP is trying to stall this by saying take it back to the drawing board, etc. In my opinion, what both are worried about is one date - October 15, 2009. That is the deadline to use "reconciliation" in the Senate. Both parties are conscious of this date, and is the real reason for their current positions re timing.

I had a question about the so-called "public option" that maybe someone here can answer. It is my understanding that at least one of the goals of the public option is to extend insurance to the uninsureds mentioned above. I further understand that the goal is to give people a bundle of options they can choose from, including a public one, with some form of subsidies for the poor. My question is this - - Can a person use the subsidy for any plan in their bundle of options, including private plans? Or can you only use the subsidy on the public one? If the latter, is that really a level playing field? How could any private company compete with that? In my opinion, it is issues like this, as well as the House plan to tax employers 8% of payroll for not offering coverage (when average cost of providing is near 12% per CBO), that fuels the fear of this reform being a Trojan Horse for eventual single coverage.

And Doogie, while your demonizing the pharamaceutical companies, you do realize that Obama already made a deal with them to get them onboard with health care, like NOT LOWERING prescription prices?
Posted by: John D | September 7, 2009 11:27 AM

As usual...we ask....post your proof....as usual....John D won't, can't, not interested in truth. A long list of lies from the right just keeps getting longer.

Cleveland,

Let's get that 15% number accurate. The 47 million that do not have health insurance consist of 9 million illegal immigrants and 17 million people that have an annual income of over $50K - so they are making a financial choice not to have health insurance. Good points though. Let's include evening the tax benefit for individuals as compared to corporations, no denial for pre-conditions, and portability.

Good to see someone from the Purple Shirt Good Squad back - Welcome back Mr. Zook.

Bruce,

Do you ever wonder why most of Silva's newsclips come from PMSNBC?

Allow health insurance companies to make the same profit for private insurance and
tax the rest just like was proposed for the oil companies
when gas was over $4.00 a
gallon.It would pay for the
uninsured who are a burden on
those who pay.

Bill r., are you that ignorant? Really? You have no idea Obama cut a deal with the pharmaceutical companies? Wow, you Obimbobots really are like zombies (and in regard to some who like fingers, flesh-eating zombies).
Anyway, I figure I would paste a link to Air America's website (Bill, just so you know Air UnAmerica is a far left wing group):

http://airamerica.com/blog/2009/jun/22/obama-cuts-deal-pharmaceutical-companies-will-add-80-billion-medicare

Are Unions still going to be exempt form paying healthcare tax in the bill? Will community organizers and Unions still be entitled to $10 Billion in retiree funds? Look it up.

"Matt": I saw that survey you tried to reference. It had nothing to do with any plan that was proposed, but was just a short series of very high level questions. For example, it asked it the responder supported a "public option". It is easy to say yes, but if the question were worded something like "would you suport a ublid option if it were likely you would lose your current insurance", the answers would be substantially different. In spite of your claim, that survey had no relationship to the House or Senate plan. It was just a series of "what if" questions with no consideration of the consequences or details. That survey is useless and that is why you only see it referenced on left wing sites.

Rick

" bill r": you say "The opposition has no plan to approve anything this president proposes". That is simply not true. First, Obama has proposed nothing. But, second you know as well as I do that the House bill was written by the most far left Democrats in the House and reflects that bias. Just like the cap and trade is sheer idiocy when we are losing jobs, so too is a government take over of the health care system. We can surely create a bill that addresses the two major problems, cost of insurance for the poor and for preexisting conditions, without putting life or death decisions in the hands of the government.

We have a health care system here that is second to none. Those who want to talk about life expectancies conveniently fail to back out our homicide rate and our accident rate before issuing their comparisons. If you do that, we are #1 in life expectancy. If you like, we can also go over the cancer survival statistics. Suffice to say, if you do get cancer, I strongly suggest you do so in this country under this medical system.

I also consider the fact health care is 17% of our economy to be feature not a bug. It simply says we can afford to get the best rather than skimp as other countries do. If I pointed out to you that we have the largest proportion of money spent on large screen HD TV's than any other country, you would not remark on that. Why do you think it is bad that we go for the highest quality of care?

Rick

Bert,

Just what "same profit" are you talking about?

The only effective long-term solution to health care reform is preventative health care. We must take our health into our own hands. Luckily, there are several online tools, such as Holosfitness.com that can help you get in shape, stay in shape, and lead a healthy lifestyle.

Saying that someone with $50k of income automatically could have health insurance by that fact alone, is a lie.

The system excludes many people with pre-existing health conditions, so that they cannot get insurance at any price.

Why should we preserve the right of insurance companies to profit from people's pain and suffering?

Public option? I say public system, now!

John D. your ignorance is surpassed only by your hate and stupidity. You claim in one post how he made a deal "not" to cut prices and you post proof he made a deal "to" lower prices. From your article: PhRMA agreed to lower prices enough to save seniors and the government $80 billion over the next decade.

Rick......It's just not only healthcare, there is absolutely nothing this president wants to do that republicans are willing to even attempt to solve. Hell son, they don't even want him to tell their children to work hard. Now I might have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. You have conservative talk radio telling Americans he is a racist with a "secret negro army" for Gods sake. I have never seen anything like this in my entire lifetime...ever. Women crying because the president will turn their kids into zombies.......are you kidding me? You people are seriously mental. You can't argue with mental.

My wife is a school teacher. I am happy with my insurance. I pay $500.00 per month and the school district subsidizes the rest. The new so called health care reform would give all
school districts in the US the option for cheap Obamacare which is roughly $120.00 per month for now. Sounds good right? Why do I not want it? Maybe my doctor will have another 1000 new patients. What is my choice then? I had heart surgery in 2000.Back in 1999 I purchased insurance during the open enrollment month of September because I had a small business. One employee -myself. No pre existing conditions apply during open enrollment.
My heart surgery was the following April.I am happy with my doctors. I am scared to death that I will lose my doctors because of the new patient overloads they will have . It's hard getting an appointment now with private insurance. There are many people that need insurance and I am all for some changes like no pre existing conditions and fair competition in all 50 states with all insurance companies. Only 15% of people really need health insurance. I'm sure something can be worked out without the other 85% getting screwed. There are many things wrong with the health care system right now. We don't need a Communist system to change it.

We don't need a Communist system to change it.

Posted by: Robert Hindes | September 7, 2009 8:07 PM

Well you had me thinking till you threw this in at the end. How is your wife enjoying her communist job at public school?

Bill r., not stupid, you just fail to recognize reality. First you ask for proof of a deal between Obama and pharmaceuticals then you ignore the reality. Well, here from the HUFFINGTON POST (another liberal site) comes this:
"A memo obtained by the Huffington Post confirms that the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby secretly agreed to precisely the sort of wide-ranging deal that both parties have been denying over the past week.

The memo, which according to a knowledgeable health care lobbyist was prepared by a person directly involved in the negotiations, lists exactly what the White House gave up, and what it got in return.

It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government's leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada -- and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.

In exchange, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) agreed to cut $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over ten years. Or, as the memo says: "Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion."

So, bill r. the hated pharamceuticals did agree to lower prices to a degree, but the administration also agreed to do much that will not stifle prices or those hated profits the pharmaceuticals make on drugs.

Again, bill r., the FACTS support me and once again prove you, a mind-numbed zombie wrong! What new?

BillyR,

You are finally making some sense "How is your wife enjoying her communist job at public school?" Robert's fear is exactly what should happen - every gov't employee - federal, state, county, and local should be forced on the "public option" and give up their nice health benefits and save the taxpayers, at all levels of gov't, a bunch of tax payer money. We'll see how fast the NEA and AFSCME pull thier endorsement of BO.

"Bruce,

Do you ever wonder why most of Silva's newsclips come from PMSNBC?

Posted by: Terry"

Terry, why should anyone be surprised that the Obama print media watch Obama TV?

Being in Canada a few weeks ago I noticed they hate their healthcare system. The long waiting lines...the long wait to get treated and the high cost of their tax dollars to pay for it...in Canada the tax rate is between 39% qnd 49%
Also, a six pack of beer is $10.00 and a carton of smokes is about $75.00 (knock-offs from Mexico) and you have a catch and release law on any size Sturgeon.
The best part of the whole trip was seeing the obama socialist joker posters stuck on the garbage cans next to the CN tower and on the guard rails at Niagra Falls.

Paulo

* * * * *
As for number 2, a little more honesty would be appreciated. The 46 million number of uninsureds from the Census is misleading, and exaggerates the problem. The same report includes nearly ten million illegals, that no plan intends to cover.
* * * * *
Posted by: Herbie H. | September 7, 2009 12:01 PM
.
I wouldn’t be too sure of that If I were you, Herbie. If you recall, on his return from Mexico a few short months ago, Obama said that immigration reform will be next up on the agendum. You are right that no plan intends to cover illegals. But who said they would still be illegal by the time the plan comes on line?

"bill r": Bush I got similar treatment from the Democrats when he gave a schools speech. In fact, the House Democrats held an investigation about the whole thing. But, really, the problem Obama got himself into was introducing a curriculum 6 days before he released the speech. It is difficult to believe they could have a curriculum without having the speech done. So, why keep it hidden?

Second, I have already mentioned that if Congress were to offer legislation to address the preexisting condition and inability to afford health insurance, without a federal takeover of the health care system, they would have no trouble getting Republican votes. Both the House and Obama have overreached.

I have not reference that any talk show is talking about a "secret negro army". Do you have a reference. I will say that this "post racial" administration is very quick to pull out the race card. The furor over Van Jones was decidedly not racial. It was over his past statements, his claim to be a communist, and his "truther" activities. But, the left wants to scream "race!" so as not to address the failure to vet issue and the whole "Czar to avoid the Senate" technique.

The "mental" issue cuts both ways.

Rick

It should be no surprise that the Federal government, big business, large member associations and the labor unions collaborated to design and push this "healthcare reform legislation" through. If they were all really concerned with the uninsured or underinsured population they would have designed solutions similar to health savings accounts (HSA) to get consumers more involved in the health insurance marketplace.