‘Top Line’ — Centrist Group Still Concerned About Health Care Bill
EmailABC News’ Rick Klein reports: Today’s vote by the Senate Finance Committee will provide a major boost for President Obama’s bid to overhaul the nation’s health care system — and the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, gives Democrats at least (and maybe only) one Republican to point to as evidence of bipartisanship. But much of the hard work remains ahead. On ABCNews.com’s “Top Line” today, Ralph G. Neas, the CEO of the National Coalition on Health Care, applauded Finance Chairman Max Baucus’ “heroic accomplishment” of getting the bill through committee — but said the measure still doesn’t do enough to control costs. “In its current form, we cannot yet support it,” Neas told us. “We would like to see more people covered, and maybe most importantly we think [the bill] falls short on the cost containment issues — both the short-term cost containment issues, but more importantly, long-term cost containment.” Neas said he’d also like to see the final bill raise taxes less than current drafts call for. “We spend $2.5 trillion a year on health care, as you all know. We don’t have to spend $3.0 trillion or $3.5 trillion,” Neas said. “We just have to spend the money more wisely and efficiently and fairly. So I’m hoping we can lower the taxes in both bills and have effective long-term as well as short-term cost containment. That’s the secret to all of this.” The coalition represents a broad cross-section of labor, business, religious, medical, and education interests, and has taken a mostly centrist tack in helping shape health care reform efforts. Neas also said that Democratic efforts to get Republicans on board have been worthwhile, even if the only GOP vote they wind up getting is Snowe’s. Those efforts will make it easier to get conservative Democrats to support a final bill, he said. “The most important thing about trying for bipartisanship is that you convince the fiscally conservative Democrats that you’re trying to pull out all the stops, that you really want Republicans,” Neas said. “And the Republicans keep on rebuffing every attempt at bipartisanship, and it becomes apparent that they’re gonna try to deprive Barack Obama of any health care bill at all. Then those so called Blue Dogs, those fiscally conservative Democrats, are much more likely to go with the president.” Click HERE to see the full interview with Ralph Neas. We also checked in with Republican strategist Kevin Madden on Snowe’s political calculation, as well as Liz Cheney’s new venture, and GOP Chairman Michael Steele’s new attempt to reach out to young voters with a revamped Website that features a good bit of Steele himself. “As the chairman I think he right now is the chief salesman for anything related to the introduction of a new product related to the Republican Party, so I think it’s perfectly appropriate,” Madden said. “The question now is, where does it go from here? Is it about GOP.com or is it about the chairman? I think what you’re seeing today is a very smart first effort. It’s gotten good reviews from a lot of the people who are into the hyper-technical aspect of it.” (The Website features a new “face” of the GOP every time you hit refresh. It took me six clicks to come across a white male face; it belonged to the late Sen. Leonidas C. Dyer, R-Mo., whose anti-lynching bill was filibustered by Senate Democrats, in 1922.)
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Can we see the final bill and CBO scoring before we vote, PLEASE?
Posted by: Shane | October 13, 2009, 2:43 pm 2:43 pm
Shane….they are not going to post it….all efforts for that from both sides (72 hours was the request)has been denied…so much for transparency and working for we the people. Its truly a sad state of affairs
Posted by: jmw1824 | October 13, 2009, 7:40 pm 7:40 pm
Shane and JMW – The Baucus bill has been posted for over a week and has been scored by the CBO. The Dem leadership has agreed to post the final bill 72 hours before a final vote. What are you two talking about?
Posted by: Mark from atlanta | October 13, 2009, 8:45 pm 8:45 pm
What changes about a bill in the 72 hours that it’s posted? Those who were going to read it will read it as it’s being written and those who will say they didn’t read it still won’t read it even if left up for a year.
72 hours is all about delay since all that is left is the final vote and everyone knows how they will vote long before any of this happens.
Show one place in history where a vote changed during the 72 hours it was posted and I will gladly retract my statement.
Posted by: Chuck | October 13, 2009, 9:11 pm 9:11 pm
Mark from Atlanta – I realize that the Bacucus bill is online and that the CBO has made an initial scoring of the bill but the problem is that the Finance committee is the only committee which submits bills in conceptual language rather than legal language. Because of this they have stated that they can not provide an acurate score until the bill is in legal language and if past examples are to be looked at the final cost will probably go up. Betteer to wait until the final bill is on the table.
The big problem is that they are planning to spend money that they have to borrow and will take money from seniors to provide their goals. Also the claimed cost is misleading as nothing will be spent until 2013 but they start ripping off the seniors and the taxpayers as soon as the bill is passed resulting in costs which are not true for the ten year period. To determine the true costs they need to look at what will be expended from 2013 to 2023.
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | October 13, 2009, 9:59 pm 9:59 pm
The Dems on the Senate Finance Committee voted on partisan lines to deny the 72 hour window to give the public a chance to review the bill. Just like they voted against specific language banning illegals and also against the Congress who vote for a government option be required to enroll in the government option they want to force on the American people.
Of course my biggest concern is besides the people who will get the welfare subsidies to buy coverage the majority of us taxpaying Americans will have to pay more for our coverage and that doesn’t even account for the taxes that are coming.
Has anyone forgotten Obama wants immigration reform and none of the CBO scoring takes into account what would happen when all the illegals become legal and receive subsidies. You don’t realize they are pushing that off until next year for a reason…they don’t want Americans to realize how expensive this plan really will be.
Posted by: Disappointed American | October 13, 2009, 10:13 pm 10:13 pm
Doctors on Strike for Freedom in Medicine (google doctors on strike)cites H.R. 3200 with 10 violations of our rights:
1. Forcing people to buy health insurance.
2. Forcing employers to provide health insurance for employees.
3. Forcing one group (wealthy, soda-drinkers, etc.) to pay for the health insurance of another group.
4. Forcing future generations to pay for the health care of the present generation.
5. Forcing patients to participate in a government-run plan.
6. Forcing doctors to participate in a government-run plan.
7. Forcing hospitals and other health care providers to participate in a government-run plan.
8. Forcing insurance companies to compete with a government-run plan.
9. Forcing insurance companies to write policies that offer coverage for specific conditions.
10. Forcing one group (older Americans on Medicare) to accept reduced benefits in order to fund other public health care plans.
These are not rumors. These are stubborn facts that make Americans stubbornly resist Pelosi Obams Reid Care (PORC). American’s believe that the end – universal health care – does not justify the means – gross violations of our rights. However, the left-over lefties behind PORC embrace the idea that the end justifies the means. So did Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Chavez. Oh, and did I mention the One’s mentor, Saul Alinsky? The collectivist justification is that the interests of the collective require the subordination and sacrifice of the individual.
Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | October 13, 2009, 11:30 pm 11:30 pm
The Democrates and the President should enforce the implementation of a government-run health-care system. That’s not the best development for the insurance companies and their muppets, the Republican Senators and Congressmen. But who cares when it’s the best development for the AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!
Posted by: Arizonan0123 | October 14, 2009, 12:43 am 12:43 am
As we move ever faster towards effecting major changes in health insurance coverage under the guise of Health Care Reform it is critical that we make a seperation in the debate: health insurance is NOT health care.
No matter how many people have coverage, and no matter how many plans are available, health insurance does not and can not guarantee appropriate, cost efficient, effective care.
These points, ignored in the ‘debate’, outline major steps that could be taken to start providing cost efficient, appropriate, and effective care to all Americans:
1. Commercial health insurance should truly be insurance:
We don’t use our home or auto insurance for anything other than to repair damage caused by catastrophic events, so why do we treat health insurance any differently? We’ve become accustomed to using our health insurance to pay for all of our health care, whether it’s a major heath care event, or a well patient checkup that could easily be paid for entirely out of pocket. Health insurance plans should reflect a catastrophic event coverage structure, such as $1,000,000 lifetime/$15,000 per ‘health care event’ with an annual total deductible, and monthly or annual premiums, like home or auto insurance (which we don’t actually use unless we absolutely must).
1a.Health Care Event:
A ‘health care event’ would be defined as any provided care related to a single disease state. If a patient sees a doctor 5 times a year for migraine treatment and monitoring, it would be considered 1 health care event. If a patient is seen in the emergency room for kidney stones and then follows up with a urologist 3 times over the next 6 months, that would also be considered 1 health care event.
1b. Healthy Person Benefits:
Just like auto insurance companies offer ‘good driver’ benefits such as reduced premiums and better coverage, health insurance companies could also offer a ‘healthy persons’ benefit.
1c. Public Option:
The public health insurance option would provide catastrophic coverage with lower premiums and deductibles based on income, but would not offer a full credit towards these costs. The patient will still be contributing to their health care costs.
1d. Medicaid & Medicare:
The role of Medicaid and Medicare would become that of a safety net for those that can not afford commercial or public insurance.
1e. Claims Management:
The patient could be responsible for submitting a claim to their insurance provider and be reimbursed after the service – like an auto claim. Health care facilities and providers could also opt to submit claims as well and could provide payment grace periods to their patients who submit their own. Claim forms would allow the claimant to provide proof of payment towards their plan’s deductible.
1f. Triggering Event:
Deciding when a claim is paid would be determined by the specific health insurance policy, as agreed to by the plan purchaser. It would no longer be a sometimes arbitrary decision made by a panel after the health care event. Everyone will already know what their health insurance will and will not cover and why.
2. Non-catastrophic health care should be paid for by the patient:
Physicians and patients need to set prices for care, not insurance companies, and in order for this to happen the patient needs to pay for their health care. Currently a hospital or physician bills an insurance company for the service at the rate the insurance company allows, not at a real market driven rate. Once a health care provider is forced to actually set prices based on what the real patient market can bear, prices will go down. HSA’s are the best vehicle for putting the patient in the driver seat and allowing them, along with physicians, to set true market prices for care. Supply and demand needs to be part of this equation, not artificial prices and markets created by Insurance companies.
3. Health Insurance companies should provide insurance, not medical decisions:
Insurance companies would be removed from the role of approving or denying point of care medical decisions, a role best relegated to the physician and health care providers. They no longer approve or deny health care, but pay claims as required by the patient’s insurance plan – just like with home or auto insurance.
4. An open market is the best option for reducing costs and providing appropriate benefits:
Health insurance companies would provide plans and benefits at-will, as the market allows. Any company that currently offers any kind of insurance, such as Geico or Allstate, would be allowed to offer commercial health insurance plans to any person, across state lines.
5. The focus of health care will need to change from acute to preventative care:
Changing the focus of health care from acute to preventative care is paramount in changing the health care landscape and reducing costs.
6. We need to cap malpractice awards and reduce the cost of education for health care providers:
There are other more effective means of punishing physicians and providers for willfully negligent care than through punitive awards. That said, litigation is not unnecessary for all negligent events. Capping awards however would reduce malpractice premiums across the board, while providing relief in limited cases to the patient population. We need to provide affordable education to physicians so they don’t begin practice with $200,000 or more in debt, which in the end is paid for by the patient as the physician and their employer seek ways to pay for this cost.
Posted by: sprice | October 14, 2009, 3:31 am 3:31 am
How much do you keep up with your health?
Posted by: Whitney Potthast | October 19, 2011, 1:20 am 1:20 am