Why the Health Care Clock Might Be Ticking
EmailWhite House staffers were working all weekend with members and staffers from the House and Senate to try to resolve more than a dozen major points of disagreement on health care reform — from how to fund it to whether there should be a public plan.
President Obama wants the Senate Finance Committee to finish their bill by Friday.
So all week, starting today, the president will be aggressively pushing for quick congressional action — a prime time press conference Wednesday, a trip to the Cleveland Clinic Thursday.
And from his sick bed, Senator Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., has written an essay in Newsweek backing the president's effort calling health care reform the cause of his life.
In a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, the President's approval rating for handling health care has slipped under 50%. And for first time in our polling significantly more Americans disapprove strongly of his handling of health care reform than approve strongly, so he's dealing with an intensity gap as well.
the fact that the president's job approval rating is so closely tied to the economy, and both are sinking, sheds some insight into why he's pressing for health care reform now. As the economy continues to tank, he may not have for much longer the political strength to push something this dramatic. As our polling director Gary Langer points out, the president's challenge, simply, is that pushback to health reform works. As much as they like the idea of fixing the system, most Americans also are satisfied with their current quality of care, coverage and even cost, and are worried that a new system might make these worse.
The new poll included a question describing an outline of the health care reform plan that House Democrats recently introduced, and 54% expressed support for it. That's not an incredibly high number, and that didn't include any of the pushback language that for so long has worked so effectively on countering health care reform efforts.
- jpt
Rick Santorum Sweeps 3 States 
Pentagon to Open Additional Jobs to Women
I don’t think it’s appropriate for you to say that Ted Kennedy’s essay comes “from his sick bed.”
Posted by: james | July 20, 2009, 8:57 am 8:57 am
If the majority of Americans are happy with the health care they have, more than likely they have a little copay and no other responsibility. If you work for one of the major Health insurance companies, in their “Consumer Driven” idealism, you don’t get this plan. Instead you pony up 5,000 bucks as a deductable, then an add’l 20% on top. Not everything is covered either like if you are sick, it is not covered. If you interviewed those employees, you would have quite a different result. Insurers fought hard to be considered “banks” so they can earn interest on those Health savings accounts”, millions of dollars in interest that doesn’t get put anywhere but in the CEO’s pocket. People deserve far more than this style of plan. This “consumer” would like to see those profit making insurance companies be “driven” out of business.
Posted by: patkeepsie391 | July 20, 2009, 8:59 am 8:59 am
One hears a lot about “affordable” health care – with “affordable” never quantified.
I’d like to see “affordable” taxes – which I’d consider a maximum of 10% one’s income taken for Federal taxes of any nature.
Posted by: Taxed Too Much | July 20, 2009, 9:01 am 9:01 am
Saying that it comes from Ted Kennedy is probably also suspect.
Posted by: Popcorn | July 20, 2009, 9:08 am 9:08 am
If somebody is going to be spending my money, I’d just as soon it be me. That way I don’t have to support a bevy of politicians and graft.
Posted by: Ellen | July 20, 2009, 9:08 am 9:08 am
I don’t think it’s appropriate for you to say that Ted Kennedy’s essay comes “from his sick bed.”
Would “death bed” be more appropriate?
Posted by: fedkatheconvict | July 20, 2009, 9:10 am 9:10 am
His aggressive pushing for this bill to be passed in such haste in spite of (because of) so much push back on the part of the citizens is enlightening.
And frightening.
Posted by: GB from MN | July 20, 2009, 9:37 am 9:37 am
This week we’re sure to hear more from Pres. Obama about how the “the AMA supports healthcare reform. What he won’t tell us:
- A coalition of 17 state medical associations and three specialty organizations is poised to break with the AMA over its Washington work. Another group of state hospital associations is at odds with their Beltway representatives over the deal cut with the White House to help defray universal coverage with $155 billion in across-the-board Medicare cuts. The plan “will do nothing to encourage changes in the delivery of health-care services,” their protest reads, while hurting the nearly half of U.S. hospitals operating on a deficit or close to it.
- The Mayo Clinic — upheld by President Obama and other Democrats as a model for reform — also weighed in on the House bill Thursday, though without the AMA’s fanfare. While noting “some positive provisions,” it “misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite,” the clinic’s policy shop wrote in a statement. “In general, the proposals under discussion are not patient focused or results oriented. . . . The real losers will be the citizens of the United States.”
He’ll also tell us that we “can keep our current insurance plan” if we choose. But this is only a half-truth.
Posted by: tjp612 | July 20, 2009, 9:39 am 9:39 am
Why is the media not reporting that the Senate committee rejected a resolution/ammendment requiring that if a public option is enacted, they would be required to join that option and leave their current federal plan?
Also, will Obama require that specific reporters submit their questions ahead of time for the Wednesday press conference? Just wondering………..
Posted by: Independent Thinker | July 20, 2009, 9:43 am 9:43 am
“You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
Posted by: tina | July 20, 2009, 9:47 am 9:47 am
Glad to see the AMerican people are waking up to what’s really going on, no thanks to any of the broadcasters who only report what the White House wants.
Posted by: rita | July 20, 2009, 10:08 am 10:08 am
It’s the BABY BOOMERS …not just small business!
Obama knew about this while he continues to say he won’t tax the middle class. He is LYING!
Please help those of us who – over nearly all of our working years spanning some three or four decades – have diligently invested in 401k’s, and who would like to have the opportunity to convert them to a Roth IRA in 2010…
BUT, this opportunity – which was to result from legislation signed by President Bush in 2006 (see Note A) – is about to be STOLEN by Obama and his corrupt cronies in Congress (See Michael Nadler’s July 18 article below).
Obama is in a helluva hurry to pass healthcare legislation THIS YEAR. WHY? Well, it is because they intend to surreptitiously plunder the savings of millions upon millions of BABYBOOMERS… who have normal incomes of far less than $250,000! (In 2006, there were about 78 million baby boomers. By comparison, in 2008, there were about 7 million U.S. millionaires. About 500,000 small businesses make more than $250,000. Not only will the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 pushing upper earner incomes back to the 33 and 36% tax brackets, Obama will collect an additional surcharge tax (See Note B below.) to pay for healthcare on your one time greater than $350,000 category income. You can see the enormous potential tax revenue Obama is looking to grab.)
How are they going to bamboozle us, you might ask? Mr. Nadler explains their nefarious subterfuge in a concise manner below.
Now, here’s the amazing thing: McCain warned about this back in October, 2008 …
… maybe McCain didn’t know exactly how the Dems were going to glom onto what would amount to a ‘windfall’ in federal revenue which they intend to steal from the unsuspecting, but he was accurate in his declaration that they were going to TAX our 401k’s!!
In short, Obama – who knew about this – is a “LIAR, LIAR, PANT’S ON FIRE!”
July 18, 2009
A tax break that will raise taxes
Michael Nadler
Obama and the Democrats have been trying to maintain the fiction of adhering to their campaign promise of absolutely no tax increases on anyone making less than $250,000. In addition to already enacted higher cigarette taxes and their massive and unnecessary energy cap and tax (what they call “cap and trade”) proposal, they have now proposed graduated tax surcharges ranging from 1% to 5.4% on adjusted gross income over $350,000 ($280,000 for singles) to pay a portion of the costs of their plan to nationalize healthcare.
But even the healthcare surtaxes will hit many whose earnings are less than $250,000. The reason is that the existing tax law provides a one-time opportunity in 2010 for anyone to convert a traditional IRA or old 401(k) from a previous employer to a Roth IRA. In any other year, such a conversion can only be made by those with income, including the conversion amount, of less than $100,000. In making the IRA conversion, one would pay ordinary income tax on the amount of the traditional IRA converted (treated as income spread over 2011 and 2012 for tax purposes). For many, having their retirement money in a Roth IRA, where withdrawals are no longer subject to income tax and there are no minimum required distributions, can provide benefits that are likely to far outweigh the tax hit on the conversion.
Taking advantage of this one-time retirement account conversion opportunity will push many with normal income significantly less than $250,000 and even modest retirement accounts into the $350,000 or more category, making them subject to one more Obama-Pelosi-Reid tax increase.
Notes:
A. On May 17, 2006, President Bush signed the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 into law. This tax bill included a provision dealing with conversions of traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs. Starting in 2010, the existing $100,000 income test for converting a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA will no longer apply. Conversions that occur in 2010 will be able to have half of the taxable converted amount taxed in 2011 and the other half taxed in 2012.
B. Upper-income families currently face a top income-tax rate of 35%, though that is scheduled to rise to 39.6% in 2011. Under the Rangel plan, married couples making $350,000 would also be subject to a 1% surtax to cover the health plan. The levy would rise to 2% for those making above $500,000 and 3% for those with incomes of $1 million or more. Around 1% of U.S. households filing tax returns make more than $350,000, according to the Internal Revenue Service.
Congressional aides said the surtax rates would go higher as soon as 2013—to 2%, 3% and about 5% for each of the three levels.
Posted by: Anna | July 20, 2009, 10:30 am 10:30 am
Concerned in OH & Independent Thinker – The healthcare insurance available to the members of Congress is through private insurance companies (Blue Cross, Aetna, Group Health, Kaiser, etc) and is the same insurance as all other federal employees utilize. The federal government as the employer pays a portion of their monthly premium (just as many private employers do) as part of their compensation package and the Congressman pays the remainder from his salary. When the Congressman uses the services of a health care provider he (not the government) is responsible for any co-pays or deductibles which are due to the provider at the time of service. For reference just Google “FEHB”.
As far as letting the rest of us into their plans this could be a viable option but it would cost us all money. If Congress were to open these plans to the public the monthly premiums for a family plan would roughly be between $425.00 and $1300.00, for an individual the monthly premium would roughly be between $177.00 and $550.00 (premiums could be shared between the employer and employee if an employer chose to provide healthcare as an employee benefit). One of the differences in the plan costs is the level of benefits provided and the amount the patient pays when receiving healthcare. To me this would be a viable option as the government would not have to make a large outlay to open these plans to the public and they already negotiate the cost and benefits each year with the plan providers, then everyone could have the same insurance as Congress has.
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | July 20, 2009, 10:31 am 10:31 am
If “public option” is good enough for us why isn’t it “good enough for Congress” (and by extension, President Obama)? Is it “good enough” for the unions?
From the WSJ:
In the health debate, liberals sing Hari Krishnas to the “PUBLIC OPTION” — a new federal insurance program like Medicare — but if IT’S GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS, THEN SURELY IT’S GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE POLITICAL CLASS TOO? As it happens, more than a few Democrats disagree.
On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page AMENDMENT courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn that WOULD REQUIRE ALL MEMBERS AND THEIR STAFFS TO ENROLL IN ANY NEW GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH PLAN. Yet all DEMOCRATS — with the exceptions of acting chairman Chris Dodd, Barbara Mikulski and Ted Kennedy via proxy — VOTED NAY.
In other words, SHERROD BROWN and SHELDON WHITEHOUSE WON’T THEMSELVES JOIN A PLAN THAT “WILL OFFER BENEFITS THAT ARE AS GOOD AS THOSE AVAILABLE THROUGH PRIVATE INSURANCE PLANS — OR BETTER,” as the Ohio and Rhode Island liberals put it in a recent op-ed. And even a self-described socialist like Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, who supports a government-only system, wouldn’t sign himself up.
OF COURSE, THEY ALSO QUALIFY NOW FOR GENEROUS CONGRESSIONAL COVERAGE. MOST AMERICANS WON’T HAVE THE SAME CHOICE. Some will be transferred to the new entitlement as it uses its taxpayer bankroll to dominate insurance markets. Others work for businesses that will find it easier to dump their policies and move employees to the federal rolls. Democrats also know that the public option will try to control health spending by squeezing payments made to doctors and hospitals, and by not paying for treatments that Washington decides are too expensive, which will result in inferior care.
No doubt MR. DODD acceded to the Coburn amendment to blunt such objections, and IN ANY CASE HE’LL STRIP IT OUT LATER IN SOME BACKROOM. JUDD GREGG was the only GOP Senator to oppose it, on humanitarian grounds. As he told us in an interview, THE PUBLIC OPTION “WILL BE SO BAD THAT I DON’T THINK ANYONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO JOIN.”
Posted by: tjp612 | July 20, 2009, 10:31 am 10:31 am
Perhaps we should be looking at the major funding crisis the NHS in the UK, is having at this moment.
Does government really know, how to fund such a program?
It appears NOT!
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | July 20, 2009, 10:49 am 10:49 am
As an engineer & project manager that works on schools, I talk to teachers, administrators, parents, builders, district leaders, nurses. They are all overwhelming in favor of health care reform with a public option. The fear tactics from polititions only work for other politicians and keyboard warriors. The real world want this. no one I talk to has been polled but they are active.
Posted by: real world | July 20, 2009, 10:53 am 10:53 am
Obama and the Dems are about to sentence us to the largest entitlement program of all time, and are refusing to reveal the current budget status. Do you think it its projections are better or worse than projected?
It is analogous to going out and buying a new house, car, and college education at one time without knowing or even looking what you have in the bank.
Even if you agree with this health care policy, I cannot see how any honest person would go about it in this way.
Posted by: thomas | July 20, 2009, 11:09 am 11:09 am
Obama and the Dems are about to sentence us to the largest entitlement program of all time, and are refusing to reveal the current budget status. Do you think it its projections are better or worse than projected?
It is analogous to going out and buying a new house, car, and college education at one time without knowing or even looking what you have in the bank.
Even if you agree with this health care policy, I cannot see how any honest person would go about it in this way.
Posted by: thomas | July 20, 2009, 11:11 am 11:11 am
“The real world want this.”
Have you seen the polls? Americans are split on this issue and as more information becomes available, more and more Americans are turning against support for the “public” (i.e., government-controlled) option.
This would explain why Mr. Obama is in such a hurry.
Posted by: tjp612 | July 20, 2009, 11:11 am 11:11 am
I gotta say this about Obama: He is consistent when it comes to profligate spending. He is as reckless in spending political capital as he is in spending taxpayer money. Watch the vulnerable Dems in Congress scatter…
Can’t wait for 2010.
Posted by: tjp612 | July 20, 2009, 11:22 am 11:22 am
The president appears incapable of uttering a single truthful statement about the proposed health care reforms. When he says the economic recovery depends on enacting health care reform he is lying, and a growing number of people realize this.
The architects of the “public option” have explicitly stated that its goal is to drive out private health insurance, and that it will surely do so. The president knows this, but he lies about it. Fewer and fewer people believe him when he speaks, and with very good reason.
Posted by: Fructuoso Solano-Revuelta | July 20, 2009, 11:23 am 11:23 am
“Have you seen the polls?”
Yes i have. I or none of the scores of people i talk to every day have ever been polled.
That’s why I go by the adequate employer chosen health care I have that needs improvements including a public option and the scores of people I talk to on all levels of engineering, building trades, and clients, that have never been polled.
Posted by: real world | July 20, 2009, 11:26 am 11:26 am
“That’s why I go by the adequate employer chosen health care I have that needs improvements including a public option and the scores of people I talk to on all levels of engineering, building trades, and clients, that have never been polled.”
So it would appear Gallup, Rasmussen, NBC/WSJ, etc. could just ask you what’s going on and save tons of time and effort (?)
Posted by: tjp612 | July 20, 2009, 11:31 am 11:31 am
The architects of the “public option” have explicitly stated that its goal is to drive out private health insurance, and that it will surely do so.
that is a REPUBLICAN LIE
we all say the goal is COMPETITION to drive down prices of private health insurance.
STOP LYING…your stated goal is to break the president with…lies..no..lies..no..lies..no
Posted by: moderate | July 20, 2009, 11:32 am 11:32 am
So it would appear Gallup, Rasmussen, NBC/WSJ, etc. could just ask you what’s going on and save tons of time and effort (?)
Yes, and the hundreds of people I talk to weekly
which one do you work for?
Posted by: real world | July 20, 2009, 11:36 am 11:36 am
The health care plan is a disaster, and it didn’t need to be this way.
Obama and the left-wingers in congress refuse to listen to anyone else – even their own moderates. The insist on slamming through a massive overhaul of the economy in a few weeks with huge increases in spending, taxes and regulation in the depths of the worst recession in eighty years.
There is no chance the plan will succeed now, and they have only themselves to blame.
And we will all suffer because of their foolishness.
Posted by: Tim | July 20, 2009, 11:44 am 11:44 am
“Yes, and the hundreds of people I talk to weekly”
Be sure to post often so that the rest of us can be clued in as to what is really happening in the “real world”
Posted by: tjp612 | July 20, 2009, 11:45 am 11:45 am
Health Care is screwed up right now.
Posted by: Microsoft Points | July 20, 2009, 11:58 am 11:58 am
“And we will all suffer because of their foolishness.”
Posted by: Tim | Jul 20, 2009 11:44:57 AM
Well stated.
Posted by: tjp612 | July 20, 2009, 12:00 pm 12:00 pm
health care is already bad we would go from bad to worse. i am already denied some procrdures from my insurance co, with the health care being proposed by our goverment no one will get the car they need. we need to band togeather and fight for our rights. the gov. needs to go after the drug companys it is rediculas the amount of money we have to pay for meds.
Posted by: suzanne kaatz | July 20, 2009, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm
Is Obama going to place EVERY public and government employee into this as well as himself? ROFL, No he just wants you chumps that support him in this system that will ration care. Obama wants politicians to decide if you live or die. Now thats political influence.
Posted by: ChicagBob | July 20, 2009, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm
With Obama care if dont agree with democrats you may not get that appointment to the hospital. OR maybe your paper work will get lost and you will have to start again. Yeah I really want politicians in control of my medical care. Living in Chicago PAYOLA is nothing new. So you want rampant government corruption be in favor of this bill which no one has read but lots of people have been writing.
Posted by: ChicagBob | July 20, 2009, 12:27 pm 12:27 pm
tjp612 – you said “OF COURSE, THEY ALSO QUALIFY NOW FOR GENEROUS CONGRESSIONAL COVERAGE.”
I believe that you are blowing smoke with this statement. Congressmen do not have any special health insurance plan which is any different from that available to any american. The main reason that they have more choices that most Americans is that the Federal Government with its large number of employees is able to utilize several different insurance plans due to the size of the pool they are working with.
The healthcare insurance available to the members of Congress is through private insurance companies (Blue Cross, Aetna, Group Health, Kaiser, etc) and is the same insurance as all other federal employees utilize. The federal government as the employer pays a portion of their monthly premium (just as many private employers do) as part of their compensation package and the Congressman pays the remainder from his salary. When the Congressman uses the services of a health care provider he (not the government) is responsible for any co-pays or deductibles which are due to the provider at the time of service. For reference just Google “FEHB”.
As far as letting the rest of us into their plans this could be a viable option but it would cost us all money. If Congress were to open these plans to the public the monthly premiums for a family plan would roughly be between $425.00 and $1300.00, for an individual the monthly premium would roughly be between $177.00 and $550.00 (premiums could be shared between the employer and employee if an employer chose to provide healthcare as an employee benefit). One of the differences in the plan costs is the level of benefits provided and the amount the patient pays when receiving healthcare. To me this would be a viable option as the government would not have to make a large outlay to open these plans to the public and they already negotiate the cost and benefits each year with the plan providers, then everyone could have the same insurance as Congress has.
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | July 20, 2009, 12:29 pm 12:29 pm
STOP LYING…your stated goal is to break the president with…lies..no..lies..no..lies..no
moderate >>>> How does any for profit company compete against the government who can regulate a favorable system.
Posted by: ChicagBob | July 20, 2009, 12:30 pm 12:30 pm
Both Republican an Democratic Govener’s are coming out against the current bills because of the unfunded manates included in the bills. Increasing Medicaide elgibility will shift healthcare costs from the federal government to the state governments. This will allow the Dems in Congress and Dear Leader Chairman Maobama to claim that the cost has benn reduced to a lower level while the states will be required to pickup the cost.
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | July 20, 2009, 12:33 pm 12:33 pm
How does this bill increase the amount of people who want to be doctors? How does this fix the WILD legal costs which make being a doctor a hard business? HOW does this bill reward medical innovation which can save your life? Where are the real issues addressed in the thousand plus page pile of paper? THIS ISNT not Health care reform. Its Health Care Take Over for power over who lives and who dies in this country.
Posted by: ChicagBob | July 20, 2009, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm
Time for Republicans and Dems to work together to get it done. Republicans should stop trying to score political points.
Posted by: carly | July 20, 2009, 12:39 pm 12:39 pm
Yes Carly, republicans are only trying to score political points. You’re right, only Democrats work for good and the American people. Republicans don’t have any real worries about costs, choice, etc. Oh yeah, and it’s time for me to go feed the pink unicorns down the block and then head off to see the tooth fairy.
Posted by: Aaron | July 20, 2009, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm
Hmm: DEMOCRATIC Congressman Anthony Weiner is proposing a Single Payer amendment today to convert this whole thousand-plus-page insurance-company bailout to Single Payer.
Posted by: Bet Noir | July 20, 2009, 1:01 pm 1:01 pm
What is the rush? Put something together quickly and pass it before it has been read or analyzed? Where is the transparency we have been promised. Where is the posting of legislation prior to the vote? Broken promises. No new politics, just a leap backward to Chicago style politics. I no longer trust Obama’s motives. He has been a major disappointment.
During the press conference, please ask the President if he will promise to place his own family under the system he wants for other Americans.
Posted by: slowdown | July 20, 2009, 1:09 pm 1:09 pm
“If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis . . . ”
Ha. Ha. Ha.
All He’d have to do is tell His craven “Democrats”, TODAY, to support Congressman Weiner’s amendment to replace the thousand-pages of “insurance” blabla with Single Payer.
The One’s short story:
No guts, no glory.
Posted by: Bet Noir | July 20, 2009, 1:27 pm 1:27 pm
Decades of liberal Democrats and their “compassionate’ governance have given the State of California the economic disaster it is in currently. The governor?- Gray Davis was a Democrat and Schwartzeneggar a Republican- irrelevant. Now liberal Democrats are determined to do nationally what they did to California, ruin the country while building up their voter rolls. It is cynical in the extreme but we’re in a crisis that they “can’t afford to waste.”
Posted by: mhr | July 20, 2009, 1:29 pm 1:29 pm
Yes. Yes. It looks like the tide is turning.
We are all holding our breath hoping that health care reform fails, that the auto manufacturers collapse, that more houses go into foreclosure, that millions of more Americans get thrown out of work, that the banks are unable to repay their government handouts
This is excellent news.
As the country gets more bad news this can only help our cause
I hope Obama fails miserably and that socialism gets buried forever. The only way to show Americans that we were right all along is to keep our fingers crossed that things get worse.
Worse is better!!!
Posted by: nor | July 20, 2009, 1:42 pm 1:42 pm
Hind Sight Is 20/20! Hillary would have done SO much better than Barak….On EVERYTHING!!!!
Posted by: toldyaso | July 20, 2009, 1:59 pm 1:59 pm
I do in fact believe there needs to be reform in health care. I do not believe that everyone is “entitled” to the same health care. This sense of entitlement, now termed “equality” is what will tear our nation apart, and will eventually pit one against another. Our nation was built on Liberty, not Equality. Our constitution guarantees life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. It does not guarantee a trouble free “life”, nor “freedom” from illness. Our government has gotten increasingly involved in attempting to guarantee things outside of these. One of these is equality. Equality is socialism, and socialism takes everyone’s freedoms. Liberty (freedom) can exist without Equality, but we cannot exist without Liberty. If Equality is put before Liberty, Liberty will cease to exist. One person, one administration, one service, or one healthcare cannot be all things to all people. What has made our nation great is individualism, which has brought about industrialism, production, invention, growth. How easily we forget our past. Those who have brought about change and progress: The Wright Brothers, Luis and Clarke, Henry Ford, Eli Whitney, Steve Jobs. What would have happened if these inventors decided they wanted to be like everyone else?
Whether it be the Democrats or Republicans…liberals or conservatives, when a desire for popularity, power, or money takes over, we all suffer. So, we have a choice. There will always be limited resources, so do we allocate all of those resources to everyone, regardless of individual contribution, and end up with a product which is mediocre to Americans and the rest of the world, resulting in hurting all, because progress is slowed? Or do we put those resources to benefit most of the population, and risk some are left out, but end up with a quality product, which will benefit most, and be innovative? I belive in the latter, else I would not live here…I would go live in Russia or some other second rate country.
Posted by: wnlvr | July 20, 2009, 2:05 pm 2:05 pm
“Our constitution guarantees life” Posted by: wnlvr | Jul 20, 2009 2:05:04 PM
__________________________________
Interesting, you say the constitution guarantees ‘life’. How can you ‘guarantee’ life?
And how can you guarantee life if you can’t even help people get medical attention?
Posted by: danita | July 20, 2009, 2:17 pm 2:17 pm
John Palys’ Single Payer Plan Idea The Freedom Health Care Plan
Background:
Our health care WAS affordable UNTIL 2 things happened:
1. We went to managed care instead of our older system of “reasonable and customary charges”.
This first change was foisted on us by congress with the idea that it would lower costs. Well it did not. As soon as this happened they started going up! Ask any health care providers’ billing dept.that was working b4 and after the change. This was to prepare us in my opinion for Government to GRAB even more control over us and our $$$ by breaking the system, and then providing “the solution”.
2. We had the large influx of ILLEGAL ALIENS (that means against the law folks!). California’s own statistics show that over 67% of our health care costs are DIRECTLY attributable to ILLEGAL ALIENS, not uninsured AMERICAN CITIZENS.
My Story:
I have been fortunate to have not listened to the established medical field and have used herbal and alternatives such as accupuncture for years. Outside of the REQUIRED checkups for Life and “health” insurance, I have not seen a doctor NOR had prescribed drugs including antibiotics since 1986!!!
Why should I pay for anyone else? My idea IF I were to support such EXTORTION would be that the FEDERAL GOV’T will have nothing to do with it. Look what they did to social insecurity. (If they had actually put the money into the most modest investments, we wouldn’t be having the social insecurity debates we have now.)
My opinion is that they are hoping to “borrow from Peter to pay Paul” the funds to paper over the exisiting social insecurity, medi-broke systems, and HUGE deficit spending that has proliferated.
====================================
The Freedom Health Care Plan Concept
====================================
Plan Basics:
1. Only American Citizens get care.
2. Crossing the border does NOT make you a citizen. Get in line and work five (5) years and THEN you are elegible to receive benefits.
3. IF you are perpetually on welfare, you get BASIC care, sorry no advanced procedures for you.
4. One should have the choice of BASIC, INTERMEDIATE, and ADVANCED care pending extra $$$ paid.
5. One should be able to OPT OUT, and be on your own. Some small emergency services could be provided which you would need to pay back in some fashion later to be determined.
6. Central payer system:
The Central payer would be a PRIVATE ENTITY auditable by some citizen committee and/or UGH!, the Government.
The Central Payer (Insurance Consortium?) would get paid by taking a percentage of the invested return on the Health Care “premiums”. They would NOT be able to refuse payment for any reason unless you have exceded your lifetime cap, or the procedure was not inlcluded in the level you signed up for, ie: BASIC, INTERMEDIATE, or ADVANCED. Each citizen has $xxx,xxx,xxx.xx amount to spend over their lifetime depending on care package selected (Actuaries in the business or some group could figure out what this figure is and premiums are based upon that).
They would have to charge REASONABLE rates for running the CENTRAL PAYER system. This could be determined easily prior to selecting who it would be.
How payments are made:
I get the bill from the provider(s). I check them and decide/argue with them over costs(I’m not paying $50.00 for qtips!!) – Then once we agree, Provider sends bill again, then I sign and send to payer who pays and deducts from my “account”. End of story.
7. If I wish to spend my $$$ on natural herbs, accupuncture – even if health care person is “not accredited”, that’s my decision. Period! It reduces what I have left and if and when I run out – too bad, I’ll have to pay for it myself or not receive services.
8. If you are out of “credits” bcause you used it up, too bad. Buy it yourself privately, or convince someone to give you some of their credits.
9. We should be able to transfer some of our credits to another persons account. This would allow members of a group or church to help smeone out in need who needs some procedure covered that they normaly woudn’t get, ie: BASIC coverage – enough concerned folks could designate their transferred credits could be used for a SPECIFIC CONDITION or WHATEVER service.
10. This is my favorite part – The government cannot spend/”borrow” any of the funds!!!
11. In good years the investments of the fund could either be used to adjust premiums for inflation, a portion refunded back to each payer (an incentive to join), or be applied to “recharge” or increase your credits, or some combination thereof.
I think if this type of plan were discussed, maybe we could get something better than what’s being rammed down our throats.
Your thoughts?
John Palys
Posted by: John Palys | July 20, 2009, 2:31 pm 2:31 pm
First, they need to figure out that “health care” should not include lawyers and insurance companies that suck money out of the system and contribute nothing. Health care is between a doctor and patient.
Posted by: TOm M | July 20, 2009, 4:03 pm 4:03 pm
“First, they need to figure out that “health care” should not include lawyers and insurance companies that suck money out of the system and contribute nothing.”
–> But then how could politicians’ wives, people like MRS. Obama — who made nearly $400,00 a year — make out like bandits in “health care” non-profit management?
Posted by: Bet | July 20, 2009, 4:15 pm 4:15 pm
“And how can you guarantee life if you can’t even help people get medical attention?”
Dear God, that is so small-minded, even for you. Try reading the damn thing sometime.
Posted by: Framer | July 20, 2009, 4:50 pm 4:50 pm
danita says: “Interesting, you say the constitution guarantees ‘life’. How can you ‘guarantee’ life?”
danita, I have to side with you on this one. I know, pretty strange, huh?
The constitution does not guarantee “life” this reference is found in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The constitution states:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. “
Posted by: Jason | July 20, 2009, 7:15 pm 7:15 pm
Danita, here is where I think the Constitution while not explicitly stating the guarantee of “life” it does implicitly guarantee life in the following “…insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”
Posted by: Jason | July 20, 2009, 7:18 pm 7:18 pm
President Obama has been in office 7 months and the Republican Party and their followers have been campaigning for the 2012 Presidential election ever since the November 2008 Presidential election. They make me sick.
Posted by: Ryan | July 21, 2009, 12:27 am 12:27 am