by Mark Silva
As the Senate Finance Committee sets out to vote today on a health-care overhaul which supporters say will offer heatlh insurance to millions of more Americans -- with the Congressional Budget Office setting the cost at about $830 billion over 10 years -- the insurance industry complains that the legislation will drive premiums higher.
At the same time, a union-backed campiagn for health-care reform is asking in a new television ad airing on cable stations in Washington this week -- aimed at the participants n the debate here -- what the insurance industry and Major League Baseball have in common. They're exempt from anti-trust laws.
Insurance, Americans United for Change says, needs some competition. And the White House insists that "choices'' are what it is seeking for consumers.
Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House's Health Reform office, made the White House's case in an interview last night on the PBS NewsHour.
"I think they looked at a different bill,'' DeParle said of an insurance ndustry's study warnng of higher premiums. "I think the insurance industry had an analysis done of a different bill than the one I have seen being marked up in the Senate Finance Committee.
"You know, the president asked everyone to come to the table and work together to try to get this problem of the health insurance premiums rising and doubling over the past decade, to get it solved for the American people,'' she said. "And, so, it's disappointing when an industry puts their special interest ahead of the national interests here.''
Karen Igagni, president and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans, which sponsored the study critical of the legislation, said: "What the report does is, they look at the taxes. And there are two parts to the tax. One is an excise tax, a new health care tax that would be on pharmaceutical price -- costs on devices on health insurance. According to CBO, that gets passed through to individuals.
"Our point -- and then we looked at the Cadillac tax -- if you have not everyone in the pool, if you have costs shifting from not doing comprehensive cost containment, if you have new excise taxes, that's increasing costs.''
See the full PBS report and the ad below, and view the ad above.:
FROM THE AMERICANS UNITED FOR CHANGE AD:
Script "Real Competition"
How are professional baseball and insurance companies alike?
Baseball and insurance are the only industries exempt from anti-trust laws
How are they different?
Insurance industry executives are scared of competition.
Baseball players aren't.
When baseball players fix the games, they get in trouble
When health insurance executives fix the game, they get ... rich
Time for competition when it comes to health insurance... we need the choice of a public health insurance plan
FROM PBS NEWSHOUR:
GWEN IFILL: That follows two health care stories: debating the costs and covering the uninsured -- first, what new legislation could mean for premiums.
Our health correspondent, Betty Ann Bowser, begins with some background.
MAN: We will come to order.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: On the eve of a key Senate Finance Committee vote on legislation to overhaul the nation's health care system, the insurance industry mounted an attack on the bill. It came in the form of a report conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers, and was paid for by the industry's trade group.
It said the Finance Committee proposal would "increase the cost of private insurance coverage for individuals, families, and businesses" faster and higher than under the current system, because not enough Americans would buy health insurance under the bill. The resulting penalties for failing to do so would be too low.
It would also cut Medicare payment rates, which the study said would trigger higher charges to private insurers, and, ultimately, those costs would be passed on in higher premiums to consumers.
And the bill's combination of new taxes and fees on medical device makers, drug manufacturers, and on high-end insurance plans, or so-called Cadillac plans, would also be passed on to the consumer.
The analysis also noted that, over the next decade, the cost of a typical family policy would be $20,000 more overall than it would be under the current system.
Reaction from Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus was quick and harsh. Spokesman Scott Mulhauser offered this statement: "This report is untrue, disingenuous, and bought and paid for by the same health insurance companies that have been gouging too many consumers for too long, as they stand in the way of reform yet again. It's a health insurance company hatchet job, plain and simple."
In the 1990s, insurers played a major role in defeating then President Clinton's health care plan. Premiums have spiked 130 percent since 1999.
WOMAN: Have you been taking your medications?
BETTY ANN BOWSER: This time around, insurers have agreed to stay at the negotiating table, at least until now, as long as there is a universal mandate.
The Senate Finance Committee bill is one of five bills currently under consideration in Congress.
GWEN IFILL: Margaret Warner has more on the state of the negotiations over cost and benefit.
MARGARET WARNER: And for that, we get two views: first, Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office on Health Reform. She joins us from the White House this evening.
And, Ms. DeParle, thank you for being with us.
NANCY ANN-DEPARLE, director, White House Office of Health Reform: Thank you.
MARGARET WARNER: What is your overall response to the overall thrust of this report from the health insurance industry -- it came out late last night -- that the bill that's going to be voted on tomorrow would actually hike insurance premiums faster and higher than they would rise under the current system?
NANCY ANN-DEPARLE: Well, I think they looked at a different bill.
I think the insurance industry had an analysis done of a different bill than the one I have seen being marked up in the Senate Finance Committee.
And, you know, the president asked everyone to come to the table and work together to try to get this problem of the health insurance premiums rising and doubling over the past decade, to get it solved for the American people. And, so, it's disappointing when an industry puts their special interest ahead of the national interests here.
MARGARET WARNER: Well, you all have been working with the health insurance industry and others. And so have the Senate Democrats. Did you see this coming, or -- or do you feel blindsided here?
NANCY ANN-DEPARLE: Well, we have been working with everybody to try to solve this problem.
Health insurance costs are crippling American families. As I said, premiums have -- have more than doubled over the past decade. And -- and we want to solve the problem. And many of the other -- others in the health care sector want to work together to get it done.
I was disappointed to see that the health insurance industry had -- had contrived a report like this at the last minute, right on the eve of a historic vote. I was disappointed.
MARGARET WARNER: What do you mean contrived a report?
NANCY ANN-DEPARLE: Well, if you look at the report, I think a lot of it is based on a flawed analysis. It's very selective. It ignores some of the key policies that are part of the Senate Finance Committee bill, such as the health insurance exchange, which is really a central feature that allows people to be pooled together to save administrative costs and to -- to lower people's cost in achieving getting coverage.
The Congressional Budget Office said that the combination of the individual responsibility requirement and the penalties that were phased in, in the Senate Finance Committee bill would be sufficient to get 94 percent of Americans covered. And, so, that's a very different analysis than the one that we see today from the health insurance industry.
MARGARET WARNER: But the health insurance industry is saying that, by weakening the penalties for not buying coverage -- in fact, this bill did reduce down to 94 percent, from, I think, 97-98 percent, the percentage of people who would actually have insurance.
And, therefore, the younger and healthier consumers just wouldn't buy it. And they wouldn't buy it until they were -- they were sick. And, therefore, you couldn't really spread the cost.
Don't they have a point there?
NANCY ANN-DEPARLE: Well, as I said, the Congressional Budget Office, which is a nonpartisan group retained by Congress to evaluate these policies, found that that combination of the individual responsibility requirement and the penalties would work.
And I think what you see here is that members of Congress, if anyone stayed up to watch the debate last week, are working really hard to try to come up with the optimal balance between the new requirement asking every American to step forward and get insurance, the subsidy that we're providing, tax credits, to make it affordable, and the penalties if you don't do it.
And they're trying to get the right balance there. And each -- each bill, each committee has approached it slightly differently. The Congressional Budget Office said that this one will work. And we will work to get the best one in the end.
MARGARET WARNER: So, the White House is satisfied with making sure that just 94 percent of Americans end up with insurance?
NANCY ANN-DEPARLE: Well, we think that the Senate Finance bill is a -- is a good step forward. But, as I said, there are four other bills up there that we're also going to be working with the Congress to -- to mold this, in the end, to get the best bill possible.
MARGARET WARNER: Now, let me ask you about another major charge in this report which has to do with the new taxes and fees, and if you -- on the Cadillac plans and drug and device makers -- if you lump it altogether, what they seem to be saying is, that's just larding more costs on to the system, and that, instead, this bill should be doing more to reduce the -- the sort of cost curve, the sharp trajectory of the cost curve.
And there just isn't enough there. Now, that -- that is being said by other critics of all these bills that are up there.
NANCY ANN-DEPARLE: Some are saying that. Others are saying that we're moving too fast to reform the health care system. So, this is a complicated subject.
But I would say, in particular, about the high-cost excise tax on the Cadillac plans, that's a -- that's a particularly egregious example of the analysis. And it's flawed, in that they're assuming that -- they say in the report, well, most people agree that this -- these taxes would never be borne by plans because, in fact, this would discourage these plans from existing anymore; people wouldn't want to buy these high-cost plans anymore.
And, yet, they go on to say, but, if we were to spread the costs around to everyone, here's what it would do to premiums. Well, they say themselves -- this is sort like of an analysis where you said, we all know the earth is round, but, if it were flat, look what it would look like. It's absurd. And I think they know that.
MARGARET WARNER: Let me finally ask you, how serious a hit is this, to take one of the allies in your sort of coalition, to suddenly have them turn on this? And how do you interpret it? Do you think now they're trying to kill the bill, or is this a negotiating tactic, trying to shape it as it goes forward?
NANCY ANN-DEPARLE: Well, I think it's probably more of a negotiating tactic.
As I said, we're closer than we have ever been before to getting real insurance reform done. And the president has asked everybody to be at the table and everyone to work together to get this done. And it -- it's a shame when one special interest group tries to step out and create more leverage by, you know, putting out a report like this. I think the American people will see through that, though.
MARGARET WARNER: Nancy DeParle, director of the White House Health Office, thank you.
NANCY ANN-DEPARLE: Thank you.
MARGARET WARNER: And now Karen Ignagni, president and chief executive of America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group that paid for the study.
Thank you for coming in.
KAREN IGNAGNI, President and CEO, America's Health Insurance Plans: Thank you very much.
MARGARET WARNER: Let's just pick up where Nancy DeParle left off. She essentially called your group a special interest group that is trying to come in now and gain leverage in the 11th hour of negotiations.
KAREN IGNAGNI: We have worked very hard from the beginning of this year to enter the health care reform discussions with legitimate proposals that would solve the problems that the American people were telegraphing they wanted solved, guarantee issue, no preexisting condition requirements, everybody in the pool, everybody stays in the pool, nobody loses coverage.
To make that work, not because we said so, the experience at the state level indicates that you have to have everybody participate. A number of policy analysts have come to the same conclusion that we have.
And what happened in the states was exactly the following, that, in states that enacted market reform without everyone participating, you had rate shock. You had people leaving the pool who were young and healthy, spiraling up the costs for everyone else.
This is not a projection. This is what happened at the state level. They had to repeal legislation. They had to change legislation. And we shouldn't let past be prologue here.
MARGARET WARNER: But is the difference between -- I think the earlier versions of the bill, well, 97 percent of the Americans would be covered.
KAREN IGNAGNI: Uh-huh.
MARGARET WARNER: Here, it's 94. Is that really that critical?
KAREN IGNAGNI: Well, Margaret, we don't think 94 is the right number.
CBO has not...
MARGARET WARNER: The Congressional Budget Office.
KAREN IGNAGNI: The Congressional Budget Offices analyzes and does a fantastic cost of looking at on-budget costs. We have our own models, which are very in-depth.
But we knew that it was important to get an independent validation. This is the second study. We shared...
MARGARET WARNER: But are you saying -- Sorry. Don't mean to rush you.
(CROSSTALK)
MARGARET WARNER: But are you saying you think more -- fewer, even fewer Americans will enlist in this, if it's this version?
KAREN IGNAGNI: Yes. Based on -- based on the actuarial analysis -- this is now the second actuarial analysis that we have had done. And it confirms what we saw at the state level.
We think that there is an issue. We think a number of members of Congress believe it's an issue. And if, politically, members of Congress can't solve it by doing penalties, we think there are other ways to bring everybody into the pool.
And we have been spending a great deal of time talking with members of Congress. Our members feel very strongly we need reform this year. But we need to do it where -- we need to have reform that works, because no one will be satisfied.
MARGARET WARNER: Now, the White House and the Finance Committee staff is saying you're ignoring the fact that 85 percent of the Americans who will now have to get coverage, they're going to get some form of tax credit or subsidy, and that there's a special category created for really young people anyway, that it will be quite cheap.
KAREN IGNAGNI: Well, two things. One -- just to keep it simple, one, there are 42 percent of people who have coverage now who are -- have incomes over the subsidy level. So, this is a material fact for them, number one.
Number two, if we're talking about subsidies, and we don't have any comprehensive cost containment in the bill, then we're going to have spiraling costs, increasing the cost of subsidies, creating more on-budget federal costs.
MARGARET WARNER: Now, let's turn to the Cadillac plans...
KAREN IGNAGNI: Uh-huh.
MARGARET WARNER: ... the really high-value plans...
KAREN IGNAGNI: Mm-hmm.
MARGARET WARNER: ... which you all are very critical of. Nancy DeParle says, that's exactly how you...
KAREN IGNAGNI: We're not critical of the plans or the employers or unions that have negotiated them.
MARGARET WARNER: No, you're -- no, you are critical -- you -- you are critical of taxing them. You are critical of the bill for wanting to tax them.
KAREN IGNAGNI: What the report does is, they look at the taxes. And there are two parts to the tax. One is an excise tax, a new health care tax that would be on pharmaceutical price -- costs on devices on health insurance. According to CBO, that gets passed through to individuals.
Our point -- and then we looked at the Cadillac tax -- if you have not everyone in the pool, if you have costs shifting from not doing comprehensive cost containment, if you have new excise taxes, that's increasing costs.
If we were to do cost containment, Congress wouldn't be backed in to having to deal with excise taxes and spiraling people up to a Cadillac level faster.
MARGARET WARNER: I -- what I wanted to ask you, though, is, would not putting a tax on these very high-value -- meaning high-usage of health care services -- plans induce employers and workers to choose, in fact, less generous ones?
KAREN IGNAGNI: Well, it may do that.
But I think the ethical issue here and the social issue is whether that's the right place to start the domino rolling. If Congress has not had the ability, for whatever set of reasons, to make cost containment across the board front and center, which we think they should, and you're dealing with the end result, which are employers that are offering comprehensive benefits to their workers or unions that have negotiated them -- and we are not the only one making this observation -- that seems to us like the wrong end to start the domino.
Where we would start it is to encourage all the health care stakeholders to do what they said they were going to do last summer to step up and contribute to cost containment.
And let me tell you what we're doing. We are -- we have promised administrative simplification, massive administrative simplification. The legislation requires us to do it. We stand behind that. We will stand behind it. We will get it done.
So, we think that there are others that could step up. And we could have more effective cost containment.
MARGARET WARNER: Bottom line, are you saying that, if the bill that, say, emerges from the Senate or comes to the Senate floor looks a lot like this Baucus bill, that then the health insurance industry would oppose it?
KAREN IGNAGNI: What we are saying right now is exactly what we're saying today, which is that we have a piece of legislation that needs to be addressed. There are issues that need to be attended to. And, if they are attended to, then we can get that affordability promise solved and fulfilled, and we can get the promise of bringing more people into the system.
That's the way we started out this year. That's the way the country started out this year. That should be our goal. We need a workability standard. We need to a sustainability standard, because people won't be satisfied if in fact the costs increase.
MARGARET WARNER: All right, we have to leave it there.
KAREN IGNAGNI: Thank you.
MARGARET WARNER: Karen Ignagni...
KAREN IGNAGNI: Thank you.
MARGARET WARNER: ... thank you so much.
KAREN IGNAGNI: Thank you.
GWEN IFILL: Find out why requiring every American to have health insurance coverage remains a sticking point for some in Congress. That's on our Web site, NewsHour.PBS.org.
Comments
This is just a step on the way to the final bill.
Next, the various committees will come up with a final bill behind closed doors, not on C-Span as the President promised last year. This is when the special interests and lobbyists will pile on on the little goodies that protect themselves at the interests of the taxpayers.
We can only hope that in the interest of transparency that the bill is posted on the internet for at least 72 hours so the media and the public can try to figure out the real cost.
Let us also hope that the CBO is allowed to review the final product so we know the true cost.
I might sould like a pessimist but I am a realist!
Posted by: Pat H | October 13, 2009 7:28 AM
AUP: "Time for competition when it comes to health insurance... we need the choice of a public health insurance plan"
Government is NOT competition. Government is NOT choice. Government IS monopoly. The classic monopoly. And just as expensive and corrupt as monopolies always are.
Posted by: Honesty | October 13, 2009 8:00 AM
If this study is a "political document", what can we call Democrat plans to take over our health? I call it Politics, from start to finish, with the ultimate goal being a massive power/money grab, Perhaps the Health Insurance 'industry' abided the Obama push for a takeover, believing that cooler saner heads would mitigate the damage of ObamaScare. The reality has set in that there is no mitigation of Obama's demands from within his fiefdom.
'Joining with the govt' is like joining the Mob. There's only one way out
Posted by: bluecollarbytes | October 13, 2009 8:22 AM
So Mark, you've managed to report a story by quoting the unions and PBS. Unbiased right. The fact is we have another major spending bill going to Congress that no one has read. The CBO is liberal biased (Pelosi appointees) so we can expect the cost of this bill to double in reality. What has the government done well lately? Amtrak, USPS, GM, GMAC, Chrysler, Freddie, Fannie, The Fed, the big banks, AIG, and now they want to dabble in health care.
Posted by: Greg | October 13, 2009 8:52 AM
Stop trying to placate the insurance lobby. No public option? Just vote NO!
Posted by: Hjames | October 13, 2009 8:57 AM
This may be a minor, technical point, but to my knowledge the bill hasn't actually been written yet. What, exactly, is the Senate voting on? The standard practice as I understand it is to draft the legislative text BEFORE voting to adopt it. Am I mistaken?
Posted by: The Crusty Curmudgeon | October 13, 2009 9:00 AM
There are 1700 companies selling health insurance in the US. In Florida we are allowed to purchase insurance from only 16 of them.
Open that up and we get instant competition. And it doesn't cost the taxpayers a dime.
Posted by: Kathy | October 13, 2009 10:05 AM
Anitrust? What a joke. They won't let these insurance companies even compete with each other. This is not the insurance companies doing this if government's doing. Let the insurance companies compete with each other across state lines and let's see what competition does to premiums. I don't know if the Democrats pushing this bill are stupid or just dishonest.
Posted by: Robert | October 13, 2009 10:06 AM
I suggest that all members of both parties think long and hard before casting your vote on this highly controversial bill. I would like to remind them that reform is necessary but most of the healthcare does not need to be overhauled, all that needs to be addressed is the portion that would allow the poor coverage. One last thing NObama says that illegals will not be covered, and thats probably true for the time being, however in the three years that its going to take to implement this bill he is going to
give an amnesty to all the illegals which will sky rocket the costs. So in closing,I would like to remind you your butts are on the line in 2010.
Posted by: Paul | October 13, 2009 10:56 AM
Do the brain dead right wingers not understand that "allowing insurance to be sold across state lines" means removing most all of the regulations that currently exist on insurance companies? Are they too ignorant to know that most all of the regulations that exist on what insurance companies must cover, and how they run their business are state regulations, and that allowing Insurnace plans to be sold across state lines will make those regulations unenforcable? Do these well propagandized right wing sheep not understand that they are demanding that it be easier for their insurance companies to deny them services, and to make it easier for their insurance company to drop them entirely f they become ill? Are they really so naive as to believe that the insurance companies are promoting the interests of the patient, rather than promoting that which will make the insurance companies the most profit? Is it possible that these people are that completely incapable of reason and analysis?
Posted by: How dumb is the right? | October 13, 2009 11:22 AM
Wow. Just great. I didn't know about the anti-trust thing.
All the facts and figures in regard to the health care costs aside, one question that keeps nagging me is, what makes us think that the government can run health care when they can’t even deliver a letter without running a deficit?
Posted by: Hal (GT) | October 13, 2009 12:06 PM
@Hal:
[O]ne question that keeps nagging me is, what makes us think that the government can run health care when they can’t even deliver a letter without running a deficit?
----
Cute bumpersticker thought. Real deep.
"The Government" is all of us, combined. It happens to do many things very well. You seem ok with Government roads, Government Military, Government Universities, Government Police and Fire. Etc. Or do you drive on your own roads with protection from your own police?
The GOOPers like to talk about the US being the "greatest country on earth,etc." but then proceed to bash the country, without even acknowledging the prospect that its government is capable of being good and beneficial. Is it perfect? No. But that does not mean it's destined to failure. If our government can't do anything, that means our people can't do anything.
You may be a loser, Hal, but thankfully we're not all like you.
Posted by: a blinkin | October 13, 2009 12:47 PM
I haven't watched the ad, but I'd surmise that this "union-backed campiagn" doesn't disclose another class of organizations that is generally exempt from anti-trust laws:
Labor unions.
Posted by: DaveB | October 13, 2009 2:03 PM
Blinkin,
Everytime soemone questions the ability of the gov't to run something, all the libs, including you, run back to defense (police & fire being the local version) and infrastructure. Why not tout the success of medicaid or how medicare has kept to its original busget? Why not tout that great fiscally sound retirement package of Social Security? The gov't has yet to run a social program that meets the customers' needs and comes in under it original budget.
Posted by: Terry | October 13, 2009 9:45 PM
Terry:
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security have, in their relatively short lives, become sacred cows. For all their limited-government talk, no Republican Congressman or Governor or anyone of any stature has suggested that these programs be eliminated. That fact by itself attests to the value of these programs to Americans.
They certainly are not perfect. But as the old saying goes,if we can put a man on the moon, we can make Medicare better. There is no reason why our government cannot successfully manage healthcare. We're basically smart people and this is, literally, not rocket science.
Posted by: a blinkin | October 13, 2009 10:06 PM
Posted by: How dumb is the right? | October 13, 2009 11:22 AM
*
Oh, please tell me more. How is it, for example, that an insurance company based in Nevada and selling insurance in California won’t be subject to all the rules and regulations imposed by California? (Crickets.)
*
The truth is that your position is ill-conceived rubbish. Every State has the right to insist that out-of-state companies comply with their regulations as a condition of doing business in their state. They also have the right to (and do) condition doing business in a state upon companies making themselves amenable to suit in their courts. State governments are not run by a bunch of mindless mannequins. They can set make regulations to protect their own citizens against abuses from out-of-state competitors. Your ignorance of the way governments work is appalling.
*
Also, in a very interesting way, you argument undercuts the claim that the federal government has the right under the interstate commerce clause to regulate health care insurance. If health care insurance is not a service or item of commerce traded between states, and the non-trading of health care insurance between states is not viewed as a detriment or hindrance to commerce, then how can the federal government possibly regulate it? The federal government is a “limited government” - meaning that it has a limited number of powers. It has the power to regulate interstate and international commerce with the U.S. That doesn’t give it unlimited power to deal with all commerce. There has to be some nexus between an activity and interstate commerce before it has power to regulate it. So, if insurance isn’t sold across state lines, where is the required nexus? Thank you. You’re just brilliant.
Posted by: How dumb are you? | October 14, 2009 5:24 AM
Terry, you forgot to mention the postal service as an example of the federal government's prowess at running, well, anything.
Posted by: Disinterested Observer | October 14, 2009 8:56 AM
"Time for competition when it comes to health insurance... we need the choice of a public health insurance plan"
A public option IS NOT COMPETITION - It is us paying for insurance through taxes that the government controls. And the government has never shown they know how to do it:
"At its start, 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). This was a supposedly "conservative" estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion."
Competition is NOT fining people because they don't purchase health insurance.
Competition is allowing people access to ALL 1300+ insurance companies.
Posted by: FLZapped | October 14, 2009 9:07 AM
Terry, you forgot to mention the postal service as an example of the federal government's prowess at running, well, anything.
Posted by: Disinterested Observer | October 14, 2009 8:56 AM
When's the last time you sent a letter through USPS that didn't get there? For 45 cents, to and from anywhere in the country. The USPS is not profitable, but it's the government and doesn't need to profit. It works; it provides needed benefits. And not a single blowhard, phony Republican (redundancy noted) wants to eliminate the USPS.
If you folks want to walk the talk, then let's amend the Constitution to radically reduce the powers of the Federal Government. Too scared to do that? Fine, let's at least revoke major programs like USPS, Roads, Universities, all regulatory agencies, Medicare, Food Stamps, etc. Republicans talk about how much they hate these things but lack the courage to put it to "anupperdown vote" as Dear Leader used to say.
Posted by: a blinkin | October 14, 2009 10:58 AM
"If you folks want to walk the talk, then let's amend the Constitution to radically reduce the powers of the Federal Government."
Yes we can!
Yes we can!
Yes we can!
"Fine, let's at least revoke major programs like USPS, Roads, Universities, all regulatory agencies, Medicare, Food Stamps, etc."
Let's do that for all of these items not listed in Article I, Section 8. The federal government has power to run a postal system (however ineptly) and establish roads, and to regulate interstate commerce (NOT to regulate everything under the sun in the guise of regulating interstate commerce), but the other items you listed belong to the states to handle.
If the federal structure of the Constitution were properly understood and applied, all of these social welfare programs would be happening at the state level, which is also where the great majority of other legislation and taxation should be happening. Instead of paying 25% to the feds and 5% to the state, it should be the other way around, with the legislatures of the states (who are the sovereign entities) being allowed to do their jobs AND be held accountable for their actions.
Posted by: Thoreau | October 14, 2009 11:29 AM
The insurance industry will always be greedy, hopefully the health care reform will help people that need it.
Posted by: Amy | October 14, 2009 3:50 PM
This new information was based on a study performed by Price Waterhouse, who was hired by the insurance lobbyist. This study looked at the cost, without any attention being payed to the cost savings within the bill. The overall result was so inaccurate, that the accountants who participated in the study distanced themselves, and explained just that. To look at this for what it really is, is to know that the insurance companies are basically saying, pass this bill and we raise your premiums!
Posted by: edwin sanchez | October 14, 2009 8:17 PM