Healthcare – is the bipartisan sheen gone?
ABC’s Z. Byron Wolf reports: Even as the pace quickens on healthcare reform, there are signs that the last sheen of bipartisanship is wearing off the process. For starters, Republicans are not in the room as Democrats draft the healthcare reform proposals. There could be a lot of activity on healthcare reform over the next week or so. Democrats will release a list of the legislative options they are considering, brief Republicans on where they in the bill-writing process, and hold a public hearing on the options. Democratic staffers maintain that by the end of next week we will see a fully formed legislative proposal for healthcare reform. Republicans, meanwhile, are in a tough spot. They want to oppose a public health insurance option, but they don’t want to oppose healthcare reform. As the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell put it on the Senate floor this morning, “‘In America in 2009, doing nothing is simply not an option. We must act and act decisively. The question is not whether to reform health care. The question is how best to reform health care.” On the first point he and the President and Democrats agree. On the latter point, the rift is becoming more apparent. Republicans are not yet publicly complaining they’ve been cut out of the process. But there are signposts that healthcare reform is becoming more and more one-sided: 1. President Obama met only with Democrats, liberal and moderate, earlier this week to discuss healthcare reform. The subsequent letter outlining the principles he endorses yesterday was addressed only to the Democratic chairman of the two relevant committees. 2. The letter noted that both he and the Senators have tried to work with Republicans and said he hopes some will join on. But it did not offer any fig leaves across the aisle. He didn’t even cc them, according to the version of the letter released. 3. Every day this week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been on the Senate floor slamming the idea of a public option, raising the specter of rationing and long delay in treatment. If there is a public option, he argues, it will eventually be the only option since a public option will kill the marketplace.
4. Despite McConnell’s very public speeches, Obama’s letter included his strong support for a public insurance option to work alongside private plans. It’s hard to envision a reform plan that would get McConnell’s vote. McConnell is the Republican leader for a reason; he’s a good bellwether for Republican senate conference. 5. Don’t forget that in Democrats’ hip pocket is the idea of using the filibuster-proof reconciliation process to pass healthcare reform on party lines. It was supposed to be kept as a last resort. But with Republicans out of the process, President Obama open to a mandate and endorsing a public insurance option, reconciliation is looking more likely.
Email
Gulf of Mexico to Become Gulf of America?
Can Mitt Romney Win Conservatives Back?
THURSDAY, June 4 (HealthDay News) — In 2007, medical problems and expenses contributed to nearly two-thirds of all bankruptcies in the United States, a jump of nearly 50 percent from 2001, new research has found.
They randomly surveyed 2,314 bankruptcy filers in early 2007 and found that 77.9 percent of those bankrupted by medical problems had health insurance at the start of the bankrupting illness, including 60 percent who had private coverage.
Most of those bankrupted by medical problems were “solidly middle class” before they suffered financial disaster — two-thirds were homeowners and three-fifths had gone to college. In many cases, these people were hit at the same time by high medical bills and loss of income as illness forced breadwinners to take time off work. It was common for illness to lead to job loss and the disappearance of work-based health insurance.
The study also found that well-insured families often had to cope with high out-of-pocket medical costs for co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services. Medical bills for medically bankrupt families with private insurance averaged $17,749, compared to $26,971 for the uninsured and $22,568 for those who initially had private coverage but lost it during their illness.
The highest average costs were incurred by people with diabetes ($26,971) and neurological disorders ($34,167), the researchers found.
Hospital bills were the largest single expense for about half of all medically bankrupt families, while prescription drugs were the largest expense for 18.6 percent, according to the study in the August issue of the American Journal of Medicine, which was published online June 4.
“Our findings are frightening. Unless you’re Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy,” lead author Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, said in a news release from the Physicians for a National Health Program.
“For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection. Most of us have policies with so many loopholes, co-payments and deductibles that illness can put you in the poorhouse. And even the best job-based health insurance often vanishes when a prolonged illness causes job loss — precisely when families need it most. Private health insurance is a defective product, akin to an umbrella that melts in the rain,” Himmelstein said.
Posted by: SearamblerOne | June 4, 2009, 3:10 pm 3:10 pm
As bad as most liberals would have you think they were when republicans were in office, you ain’t seen nothin like it will be if the democrats are allowed to continued with their plans. You think we’re paying now. Wait until the middle and upper class have the joy of paying for everyone’s healthcare.
The only way we will ever regulate healthcare is by regulating the private insurance companies and pharmacudical companies. Until we put limits in place on these people, we will never make progress. Socialistic medicine is substandard and more expensive.
Posted by: john | June 4, 2009, 4:43 pm 4:43 pm
In reply to John’s comment that “socialist medicine is more expensive, and substandard”:
Our current “wonderful” system is the most expensive system in the world by far, with at lest 40 million uninsured.
John, did you read on this same news posting that 60% of bankrupticies are caused by medical bills?
This doesn’t happen in those terrible “socialistic” countries that have a national health care program.
Mitch McConnel admits that a national plan would drive private insurers out of business. Why is that if not that a pubic plan would be so much cheaper?
Do you realize how much private companies suck off the top?
Jim Gilmore
Portland, OR
Posted by: Jim Gilmore | June 4, 2009, 5:15 pm 5:15 pm
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: Frank | June 4, 2009, 6:06 pm 6:06 pm
Once again republicans choose to sit back and let others govern, I guess being without any suggestions of their own and unable to do more than obstruct any and all attempts by the democrats to get things done, they’re happy to wait and hope for democratic failure to get them back into power so that they can continue their destruction of America.
You better pray for the dems to fail boys, because if they don’t you and your self serving, good for nothing party are as dead as the whigs and just as irrelevant.
Posted by: JR | June 4, 2009, 6:08 pm 6:08 pm
Gil, How many socialist countries have to been to ? These socialists governments are backrupted. I suggest you to go and live in one of those European countries for few years and asure you that you will sing to another tune.I have lived in Europe and I know…
Posted by: Frank | June 4, 2009, 6:11 pm 6:11 pm
Yeah, Frank, so have I, as well as S. Korea and Australia, and the healthcare in these places, on top of being available to everyone, is on par or better than that in America. And if you want to talk about bankrupt, where do think the unregulated capitalist democracy known as America is right now?
Posted by: Fear of the other | June 4, 2009, 7:05 pm 7:05 pm
I think everyone should “pay up” to save ourselves from overwhelming costs of healthcare. Businesses and individuals cannot keep pace! Saving lives and keeping people healthy should not be a business of profit. I always find it interesting that conservative, Christ loving folks always seem to want only what is in their best interest individually instead of what is in the best interest of their communities. It is not adding up. It is hypocritical. WWJD? He certainly wouldn’t put money and profit above a persons health and well being! Now walk the walk and talk the talk people!
Posted by: CES | June 4, 2009, 9:11 pm 9:11 pm
My brother had heart surgery in Australia and got excellent care and the cost was reasonable because the lawyers down there aren’t involved in medical care.
What would happen in this country if the ambulance chasers weren’t trolling after every doctor out there?
If you think medical is expensive now just wait until it’s free!!
Posted by: Jeff | June 4, 2009, 10:51 pm 10:51 pm
The problem with a public option is that someone has to pay for it and its not cheap.
But I agree with others that we can have public and private insurers. WHat we need, though is for there to be tough legislation keeping these companies in line and forcing them not to deny or overcharge people because they don’t want to insure them for various health concerns. You either insure everyone who applies, or you don’t get to insure anyone. That would go a long way just in itself.
I just hope our politicians have the guts to fight these companies. A public option alone will never fly in this country – it just won’t so people need to accept that. But a combination of public and private with a good dose of regulation would really help lots of people. But even that will not be free.
The problem with the cost is that everyone wants someone else to pay for it. There’s got to be a fair way for everyone to participate and pay. Perhaps then we will get all the people looking for a free lunch to pay up too.
Posted by: Jon F | June 5, 2009, 2:47 am 2:47 am
The Democrats are playing a very dangerous game.
If their HC reform measure passes without AT LEAST the appearance of bipartisanship and it is either unpopular or unsuccessful the Republicans will hang it around their necks for a very long time.
The proposals I have read, in my opinion, are doomed to failure. The reason? Cost, not quality, is the only consideration. If your only concern is cost, your only avenues to reduce cost is by cuts in reimbursement or rationing of services.
If you address HC reform in terms of quality you will improve patient outcomes and reduce costs secondarily.
We should already be thinking in terms of reforming the reforms.
Posted by: Bigheelfan | June 5, 2009, 8:04 am 8:04 am
I would so much rather have Congress do nothing that pass any of these monstrous healthcare bills they are considering.
But if you are going to do it, do this first: subsidize higher education for healthcare professionals, streamline the process of accommodating immigrants with healthcare experience, streamline the FDA and NIH research, regulate “alternative medicine”, and initiate tort reform.
Anything else is just pushing services and costs around and it’s clear that America has a demand healthcare services that exceed what the busy individuals in healthcare currently can keep up with.
Posted by: Jeff | June 5, 2009, 8:46 am 8:46 am
We are in serious trouble.
The Democrats are rushing to meet an artificial deadline on healthcare legislation, even though we have debated this for years.
They are playing politics with close to 20% of the American economy.
Look where political solutions have gotten us with the auto industry, farm and energy policy, social services initiatives, education, etc.
Costly non-effective rat-holes that do not serve those that they were intended to serve. Huge bureaucracies and endlessly escalating government expenditures.
The GOP members of Congress represent 100 million Americans whose representatives deserve a place at the table. They won also, despite being in the minority. The Democrats forget that at their peril.
What’s the rush?
Posted by: parkbench | June 5, 2009, 9:59 am 9:59 am
We are better off if the GOP is not in the room when healthcare reform is drafted. The GOP is only interested in preserving a broken system for the benefit of corrupt companies that pay for their election and control. The GOP regularly betray their constituents on behalf of insurance companies, drug corporations and medical conglomerates. We need a public option and the GOP will only ruin efforts to create a competitive market.
Posted by: cahnaz | June 5, 2009, 11:21 am 11:21 am
The US is deeply in debt we can not afford this large of a govt. program. Regulation that will reduce costs,ensure portability and help those who cannot afford health insurance is needed but how does that translate into the need for a public option? This is another sign of our government over-reaching.
Posted by: John | June 5, 2009, 11:47 am 11:47 am
Some ask “why the rush?” after decades of debate with the cost of health care rising at twice the rate of inflation. Well, how about because of the reason for rushing the war in Iraq: failure to act will result in deaths of Americans that can be prevented by acting now!
Posted by: mulp | June 5, 2009, 1:07 pm 1:07 pm
One only has to look at Medicare to see the future of socialized medicine. It is one, very inefficient as a provider. Two, it is disliked by doctors because it is not only slow paying but it is unprofiitable business for doctors. Three, even with the elimination of private insurance and suppression of costs, it is the biggest unfunded liability our govt has – bigger than social security! State of the art medical care and drugs are developed almost exclusively in the US. People come to US for care from the soicalized countries. It is not vice versa. Before you throw out the most advanced medical care in the world, we better have considerable discussion and not just political whim. There are much better solution than govt run medical care.
Posted by: JG | June 5, 2009, 2:11 pm 2:11 pm
There never was a bi-partisan spirit in Washington, and that’s a good thing. Countries like Cuba and China lack opposition parties.
Considering the uninsured make up less than 15% of the population, I don’t see this as a pressing crisis. Why should the 85% of country with insurance give up what they have so the leaches of society can get another free government hand out?
Posted by: Dave F | June 5, 2009, 2:47 pm 2:47 pm
This is an easy one for Democrats…just make the rich pay for it. We can’t sustain things like social security and medicare, but heck, why not throw in universal health care too? Obama obviously doesn’t have a problem with spending money we don’t have, so what’s the big deal?
What the heck does the government have to do with the MEDICAL field to begin with? Like I need Pelosi, Reid, and Obama screwing with private medicine.
Posted by: nathan118 | June 6, 2009, 1:27 am 1:27 am
Obama screwed up the auto industry and now he wants to screw up healthcare.
Posted by: CW | June 9, 2009, 6:45 pm 6:45 pm
Let’s face it; the Party of NO is never going to help the President save America so Bipartisanism is never going to happen. Chaney and Limbaugh already told us they want Mr. Obama to fail so why should the Democrats keep trying to get the Republicans to do what’s best for the American people? Obama should just shove through the things he wants and to heck with the Limbaugh/Palin Party.
Posted by: V. Brame | June 14, 2009, 7:42 pm 7:42 pm