Health Care Debate Gets Heated on Hill
EmailABC News’ Z. Byron Wolf reports: If President Barack Obama needs an indicator of how difficult it will be to enact a wholesale reform of health care, he might not have gotten it at last week’s White House health care summit. While some differences were apparent, there weren’t any raised voices as he answered town-hall style questions from members of both parties. But, health care reform will happen in the halls of Congress, not at White House summits. And things were a bit more heated on Capitol Hill today when Obama’s Budget Director Peter Orzsag discussed health care reform with the Senate Finance Committee. For instance, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the committee, had expressed concern last week that any public health care plan would crowd out private insurers, particularly those who offer private Medicare Advantage plans to seniors, which he argued are particularly important in his rural state of Iowa. Grassley raised the same concerns to Orzsag today during a hearing. The budget proposed by the President, Grassley pointed out, would cut funding for Medicare Advantage programs by more than $170 billion. Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage programs account for nearly a quarter of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. "Question, if we take $176 billion out of this Medicare Advantage program through plan bidding, how many of the ten million beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage do you estimate would lose their current coverage?" asked Grassley. The budget director took the opportunity to "take a step back" and consider the entire logic behind the Medicare Advantage programs, which are subsidized by the government. "First, I know many people believe that capitalism is founded on private markets, and it is. But I very firmly believe that capitalism is not founded on excessively high subsidies to private firms. That is what this system delivers right now," said Orzsag. "For every Medicare beneficiary in Medicare Advantage, the federal government pay $1,000 more than covering the same beneficiary under traditional fee-for-service. In addition, it is true that Medicare Advantage plans then take part of that extra payment and deliver it in the form of either additional benefits or lower premiums to beneficiaries. But the data also suggests that every dollar of additional benefits costs the federal government $1.30 in cost. So what we’re doing is we’re all paying $1.30 in order to deliver a dollar to a subset, 20 percent, of Medicare beneficiaries. I don’t think that is competition. I think that is an unwarranted subsidy." The attack on the programs, which Grassley has championed, drew a heated response from Grassley. "Well, you’re going to take half of my time lecturing me on capitalism," said an agitated Grassley, "Can you answer — can you answer my question about how many of the ten million beneficiaries enrolled would you estimate would lose? And if you can’t give me a figure on the savings, how much comes from less enrollment versus less expenditures? At least tell me how many of the ten million you think will go because, in 2007, your agency that you headed at that time said that it would cause plans to leave the program and it would effect my area of the country, rural America, more than urban America. So I want to make sure that we — if we have a national system of health care, it’s going to deliver the same thing in Iowa as it does in California. Because, for 40 years, it didn’t." Orzsag said the cuts to Medicare Advantage account primarily for cutting growth of the program and not cutting seniors off of it.
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Health care will be a nightmare. Obama is naive to think otherwise…
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Posted by: matt | March 10, 2009, 12:46 pm 12:46 pm
Here we go again. Affordable healthcare for people who can’t afford healthcare. That worked out so well with mortgages, I’m not surprised the government would want to be our hero again. How about we provide educations for people who can’t afford higher education, too.
Posted by: mmonroeliveson | March 10, 2009, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm
Give em hell Grassley!!
You have great points and the clowns nonanswer is typical liberal speak.
Socialist Orzsag lectures on capitalism, lmao!
Posted by: hailey | March 10, 2009, 1:16 pm 1:16 pm
Hey Grassley,
WHY DON’T YOU COME RIGHT OUT AND SAY IT:
“This porky pig Medicare Advantage program is an example of the Government Waste that everyone says should go!”
Posted by: John | March 10, 2009, 1:38 pm 1:38 pm
REPULICANS REVEAL THEMSELVES:
FIRST they say: A voluntary public health insurance program is so, so, unfair. Weep. Weep.
THEN they say: We want to keep the Expensive, Wasteful, Medicare Advantage program that spends…
ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS MORE per person than Medicare.
Republican == HYPOCRISY
HYPOCRISY == Republican
Posted by: John | March 10, 2009, 1:45 pm 1:45 pm
If private insurance is so good, how come opponents basically admit that a government plan would be more effective and cost less?
It was fun hearing how Grassley got so schooled by Orzag… I can see why he was so mad… Grassley sounded like an idiot!
Posted by: Mike | March 10, 2009, 1:53 pm 1:53 pm
funny is teh biggest waste of money the most bloated outragous spending program we have paid for by fed is teh military yet rethuglicans just love spending trillions and trillions a year on that.
Posted by: T | March 10, 2009, 1:56 pm 1:56 pm
T- “funny is teh biggest waste of money the most bloated outragous spending program we have paid for by fed is teh military yet rethuglicans just love spending trillions and trillions a year on that.”– Your absolutley right, lets stop the constitutional mandate to provide for a common defense and instead, provide governemtn run schools, colleges, health, welfare and homes.. everyone can sit back and let the governemtn print money til its only good for tolet paper and then when we get attacked by a foreign element, we can send YOU to protect us.. how’s that sound… your comment shows a complete and total lack of understanding about our government…I’m guessing your are a proud graduate of one of our government run public schools…
Posted by: arkie vet | March 10, 2009, 2:27 pm 2:27 pm
“T” has never read the US Constitution, and it shows.
Read it, understand what you read and then you can comment on what the only job the federal government has.
Posted by: sTupid | March 10, 2009, 2:27 pm 2:27 pm
Mike–”If private insurance is so good, how come opponents basically admit that a government plan would be more effective and cost less?”– Care to elaborate on who says that (outside the curretn administration).. Fact iis it WOULD cost less, but would be far inferior to private sector medicine if its placed on an across the board scale…
Posted by: arkie vet | March 10, 2009, 2:30 pm 2:30 pm
Why do the Republicans continue to live in the pass? Most Republicans are too old and don’t want change this is why you need to pass a law on term served in the House and Senate. It is always a real old Repulicans aposting change.
Posted by: gl | March 10, 2009, 2:35 pm 2:35 pm
gl– real old republicans .. you mean like reid..no wait, he’s a dem, pelosci, no, i know.. Kennedy..wait how many decades has he been there? Please.. now only republicans are squatters in congress..?? Do they send you the kool-aid for free or do you mix it yourself??
Posted by: arkie vet | March 10, 2009, 2:45 pm 2:45 pm
Every time I see a poster use the word “kool-aid” — I want them to consider something…
Point your finger.
Look at it…. One finger points out and three point back at yourself!
There are thoughtful and intelligent people on all sides of the political spectrum.
Name calling and finger pointing only makes YOU look foolish and ill informed.
Posted by: dassis | March 10, 2009, 3:06 pm 3:06 pm
“Look at it…. One finger points out and three point back at yourself!”
LOL, i have to ask, did you actually spend time thinking that one up?
Posted by: Mike_C | March 10, 2009, 3:42 pm 3:42 pm
Thank you for letting me contribute $1.00 per pack to Chips without asking me.
Posted by: Lizzie | March 10, 2009, 4:10 pm 4:10 pm
If the Medicare programs worked so well, why is it a debate. Uh, why are some seniors eating cat food, and cutting their pills in half to afford this big “elephant”. You better believe President Obama is going to make it right for seniors. All these years that were the faces of the “poor”, the elderly suffered without ‘dignity’. Shame on Grassley
Posted by: sngeorgia | March 10, 2009, 4:46 pm 4:46 pm
Young buck Orzsay ran circles around the “stuck on stupid fellow from Iowa”. Atta Boy.
Posted by: sngeorgia | March 10, 2009, 4:47 pm 4:47 pm
The constitution states what the responsibilites of government are and no where does it say that it is to provide health care, it does refernece funding for the military. Besides if we look at how government has run Social Security and Medicare I wouldn’t want them running health care. Those of you advocating government health care for all are just as greedy as the CEO you were complaining about a few weeks ago. The definition of greed from Wikipedia is “Greed is the self-serving desire for the pursuit of money, wealth, power, food, or other possessions, especially when this denies the same goods to others. It is generally considered a vice, and is one of the seven deadly sins in Catholicism.” I see no difference between those wanting government healthcare and the CEO’s as being greedy for something that belongs to someone else.
Posted by: sandcrab1612 | March 10, 2009, 5:56 pm 5:56 pm
Although the public share of health expenditure in the United States is much lower than any other OECD country except Mexico, the public expenditure on healthcare is much higher per capita than in most OECD countries. So we pay a lot more in taxes devoted to medical care — not including insurance premiums, co-payments, fees, and other health costs -– than taxpayers in those 27 countries that have universal coverage. Our public expenditure provides coverage only for the elderly and some of the poor (through Medicaid and the SCHIP program for children) while other countries provide universal coverage while spending less.
How much less? Nations with comparable standards of living like France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, the United Kingdom, Canada, Norway, and Japan spend roughly between half and two-thirds per capita what we spend annually. They cover everyone and their results are measurably better. And the supposed downsides of universal coverage, such as lack of access to sophisticated medical technologies, are belied in many of these countries. For instance Japan has lower per capita health expenditures than the United States (and universal coverage,) but its citizens have greater access to MRI machines, CT scanners and kidney dialysis equipment than Americans do.
Posted by: cowgirl | March 10, 2009, 6:02 pm 6:02 pm
sand crab…your logic contradicts your argument: “Greed is the self-serving desire for the pursuit of money, wealth, power, food, or other possessions, especially when this denies the same goods to others…..this gaurentees the same goods to everyone…does not qualify as greed by your own definition
Posted by: cowgirl | March 10, 2009, 6:07 pm 6:07 pm
Mike_C… No — it’s an old expression. And by the way, it is true both physically and metaphorically.
sand crab… you DID just disagree with your own point.
Posted by: dassis | March 10, 2009, 8:13 pm 8:13 pm
I want every Republican senator and house rep rounded up and put on a barge heading out to high seas. I want every Repub voter to have a serious health issue that will leave them bankrupt and barely scrapping by as a result of the unavoidable illness and treatment incurred from our now blatantly expensive, wasteful, greedy, inefficient and myopic health care system that functions more like a leech and parasite on the average American than a system intended to prevent disease, suffering and illness. Let every Republican minded voter go with the Republican lobby and medical client. The rest of us should go for affordable and fair health care programs. Repubs, you can die from the insurance industry blood/money suckers!!!!!
Posted by: Demsrgreat | March 10, 2009, 8:18 pm 8:18 pm
How many of you who are supporting the cuts in funding for Medicare know that most Medicare recipients are losing access to physicians because Medicare doesn’t reimburse enough to even cover the costs of running an office? Medicare pays the eqiuvalent of 5 minutes of time with a physician, and these patients need more time than just 5 minutes. Cutting the funding will force more physicians to deny care to Medicare recipients, which will increase those who don’t have access to health care.
Think about that before advocating cuts in Medicare spending.
Posted by: healthcarewrkr | March 10, 2009, 8:59 pm 8:59 pm
Demsgreat:
Congratulations. You are a perfect example of what’s wrong with this country. You hate everything and everybody that disagrees with you. While you’re at it, why not get rid of all the ugly people (I’m sure you’re handsome). All the old people (no doubt you’re young, for now). All the children (they’re noisy and expensive), and I’m sure you’re a model citizen. All the rich people (so you can have their money). Why don’t we just make you GOD?
Posted by: Taxpayer | March 10, 2009, 11:05 pm 11:05 pm
cowgirl & dassis Let me put it another way. If I am paying for your healthcare then do I have the right to put limits on what you do to keep the costs to me as a payer down. As an example would be unsafe sexual practices, using drugs, or other risky behavior which could cause health problems. I don’t believe that I should have to pay for your health care (a socialist idea) if you have no responsibility to me as the user to take all steps (even if it means changing your life style) to limit the risks that you want me to be responsible for.
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | March 10, 2009, 11:18 pm 11:18 pm
Grassley does not understand capitalism. Running government programs for no-bid, for-profit corporations is fascism, not capitalism. Obama, Orszag, Geitner understand. They are trying to restore true free markets with sensible government regulation. The Republicans want a government-for-profit-of-corporations aristocracy. Aristocracy is the death-knell to wealth creation–they sit on wealth without the talent to know how to use it productively.
Obama/Orszag/Geitner’s only fault is not being more forceful in breaking thru the ideological blockage that is the Congress of both parties.
Posted by: ideoblock | March 10, 2009, 11:19 pm 11:19 pm
ideoblock – Who do you think the investors in these companies are? Most of the investors are middle class who have used the stock market to increase their personnel wealth over their lifetime. The rate of return in the market is usually higher than you can get in a bank or government bond and most people are willing to take this risk for the higher return when they are young and as they near retiremnt age they scale back to less risky investments. Obama and company is doing more to wipe out the wealth of every citizen in this country than any other administration in the history of this country. Without the for profit corporations there will be no jobs for many as they take their profits and reinvest them (add jobs, buy new equipment, etc.) back into the company. Also investors in the stock market pay taxes or their investments, I make less than $50k per year and am invested in a managed fund (several differnt stocks managed by a fund manger) but in a normal year have to pay capital gain taxes on any gains (differance between what I bought a stock for and what I sold it for). All gains in a year are taxable but conversly in a year like last year where most stocks went down I could only claim $3k as a loss no matter what the final figure was. I make money on my gamble I pay taxes on all of it but if I lose money I can only claim $3k, is this what you call fair?
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | March 10, 2009, 11:38 pm 11:38 pm
Sandcrab….I am laughing my butt off at you!
You sound so pathetic, guess who pays for the congress healthcare….you guessed it…the taxpayer!
Why am I paying for “their” Healthcare when I can’t afford my own?
So take you clueless comments and go tell Anne Coulter about it…I am sure you two will get along just fine!
Posted by: Republicans are Clueless | March 11, 2009, 2:58 am 2:58 am
For those of you who do not like universal health care, just read today’s USA Today (3/11/2009). This paper has an excellent series on health care in America. There is no choice; it is coming.
Posted by: beto | March 11, 2009, 5:09 pm 5:09 pm
Republicans are Clueless – You are correct that the taxpayers are paying for the healthcare of the members of Congress. We the taxpayers do not pay all of their healthcare, we pay a portion like some employers do and they pay the rest from their pay. The amount they pay out of their pocket varies with the insurance that they choose (do a google search for FEHB and you will see the plans available for them depending on where they live (regional plan) or a national plan available for all government employees). They have the same healthcare options as the lowest government employee, nothing special just because they are in Congress. Just so you know their retirement paln while in Congress is the same as any other government employee and has been since somewhere around 1984.
Posted by: sandcrab1612 | March 12, 2009, 8:17 pm 8:17 pm