Public debate over 'public option' for healthcare

[FayeforCure]

Here is a good summary of the major issues with Healthcare Reform:

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-healthcare10-2009may10,0,5755824.story?page=1

From the Los Angeles Times
Public debate over 'public option' for healthcare

Interest groups begin spending millions to sway opinions over Obama's plan to offer a choice between private and government coverage. The debate could threaten larger plans for a healthcare overhaul.
By Noam N. Levey

May 10, 2009

Reporting from Washington â€" President Obama has pledged to find a middle ground in his drive to reshape the nation's troubled healthcare system.

But even before Congress debates a healthcare bill, the president is getting sucked into a fiercely polarized fight over a centerpiece of his agenda: a new government insurance program that patients could choose instead of private coverage.

The battle over the "public option" has mobilized interest groups on both sides of the political spectrum with millions of dollars in their campaign war chests. Television ads promoting and attacking the insurance provision are already hitting airwaves.

The Obama administration and its allies are now scrambling to contain a full-throated ideological debate that some fear could threaten the most ambitious healthcare campaign in nearly a generation.

"Everybody needs to keep their powder dry," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said in an interview. "We have a huge opportunity to accomplish very significant health reform. . . . Let's not have any sparks that could light a fire."

The sparks, however, are already flying.

Conservatives have zeroed in on the insurance proposal as a potential Achilles' heel in Obama's healthcare plan, casting it as a move toward Canadian-style government healthcare and contending that federal bureaucrats will dictate personal medical decisions.

Meanwhile on the left, longtime advocates of a single-payer system are also fomenting a showdown with the right to force Obama and Democratic leaders to stand firm behind a new government program.

"This has become a lightning rod," said Maine Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, a Republican who Democrats hope will work with them on healthcare. "There is a lot of suspicion. . . . I'm afraid this could easily be used as an excuse for not moving any further."

Policymakers and politicians have battled for decades over the government's role in a system that relies on both public programs such as Medicare, which serves the elderly, and private insurance, which covers most workers and their families.

Fifteen years ago, the Clinton administration's healthcare campaign was derailed in part by an insurance industry campaign featuring a fictitious couple named Harry and Louise who worried aloud about government making their medical choices.

Now, with the debate flaring anew, Obama and his congressional allies are struggling ***to head off the conservative assault and tamp down a liberal revolt, even as they work to keep major healthcare groups, including insurers, at the negotiating table and off the political warpath.***

At a recent White House meeting, the president assured a group of House Democrats that he was still committed to a government insurance option.

Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius tried to defuse the issue on the other side of the aisle, telling GOP lawmakers on the House Ways and Means Committee that the administration had no intention of driving private insurers out of business.

Sebelius noted that many state governments offer their employees a choice between public and private health insurance.

Baucus, who plans to introduce sweeping healthcare legislation next month, said he had recommended starting with less controversial elements of healthcare reform. "We don't have to deal with the public [insurance] option on the first day," he said.

Baucus, Obama and others see a new government program as crucial to covering the approximately 46 million people in the United States who have no insurance. They also argue that a public alternative would pressure private insurers to control costs and improve quality.

The federal government already provides health insurance to about 83 million Americans through Medicare, Medicaid and other public programs, including those offered by the military.

Private insurers, meanwhile, face growing criticism for refusing to cover people with preexisting conditions and dropping coverage for sick customers. "This is a benchmark that will set a high standard that private plans have to meet," said Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at UC Berkeley who advocates a public option.

But insurers say more federal regulation could ensure affordable, high-quality insurance for all. In recent months, the industry has offered to guarantee coverage and stop charging more to people with preexisting medical conditions.

A government-run insurance program, industry leaders and many conservatives maintain, would have an unfair advantage and ultimately drive insurers out of business.

That would inevitably mean a single-payer system, said Stuart Butler, vice president for domestic policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "The probability that a monopoly would serve customers well is close to nil," he said.

GOP lawmakers are intensifying warnings that a public insurance plan will lead to nationalization of healthcare and new limits on patient choice.

That's a message that will resonate, said veteran GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio. "People don't want government agencies, boards or regulators standing between them and their doctors. . . . They understand that government control inevitably leads to rationing."

Pushing that message is the Conservatives for Patients' Rights Action Fund, a new group founded by former hospital executive Richard L. Scott and assisted by CRC Public Relations, the conservative public affairs firm that worked on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in the 2004 presidential election.

The fund is in the midst of what the group said would be a monthlong, $1-million television advertising campaign featuring doctors from Canada and Britain -- both of which have single-payer systems -- discussing waiting lists and limited patient choices. A new ad featuring dissatisfied patients from those countries began airing this weekend.

At the same time, MoveOn.org, the liberal grass-roots powerhouse, has been mobilizing its 5 million members to pressure Congress not to compromise on the creation of a new public plan option.

Last week, the group aired its second healthcare ad of the year, featuring a pair of undertakers bemoaning a public plan that could make people live longer. MoveOn's first ad went after the insurance industry for opposing Obama's public option.

"We're not taking anything for granted," said Nita Chaudhary, MoveOn's national campaigns director. "This is likely to be our biggest fight for the year."

MoveOn has been joined by other liberal advocacy groups such as Health Care for America Now, which aired its own ad last month promoting a public plan. Last week, it aired a second ad highlighting Scott's former work for healthcare giant Columbia/HCA, which a decade ago paid $1.7 billion to settle fraud charges against the company.

noam.levey@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-healthcare10-2009may10,0,5755824.story?page=1

The Public Option is to insure those with pre-existing conditions which the private insurance industry doesn't want to insure anyway, and those who simply cannot afford private insurance.

The private insurers shouldn't be so concerned with the public option, those who want to keep their private insurance will continue to have that choice.

It is the private insurance industry who is wanting to limit our choice, by opposing any public option, instead they want tax payer subsidies for their industry.

The Canadian dissatisfied patients ad is quite hilarious, as it's a known fact that we have 250,000 Americans every year, who engage in Medical tourism ,.........to have their heart surgery in Thailand for example.

There is even an entirely new industry that will facilitate this kind of medical tourism for you.

[mtraininjax]

The sad fact is that every American deserves healthcare. The reality is that the US govt cannot afford it, and still pay their bills. With the new rounds of spending, I just learned tonight that 46 cents of every dollar the US govt spends, will go to pay for debt.

Folks, we cannot afford to keep spending. Soon China and the rest of the world will stop buying the fed treasuries, and only the US Govt will be buying them, producing money on top of money, to the point where we have inflation like we saw in the late 70s.

Medicare and Social Security are bigger animals than Healthcare.

[jaxnative]

Trojan Horse Alert
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, March 10, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Health Care: Americans need to ask themselves if they really want to drive private insurers out of the medical marketplace, because that's what President Obama's plan would do.

The public should be thankful these days for any small favor it gets. Here's one: The White House health care reform juggernaut appears to be losing steam.

A few weeks ago, the administration lost Tom Daschle, the man it was depending on to steer its agenda through Congress. Now it's finding that not everyone out there shares its sense of urgency. With the economy in deep trouble and the banking system still largely paralyzed, fixing health care â€" which has lots of problems but no crisis â€" can wait.

The debate has barely begun. Let it be a very long one.

Maybe, for a year or two, the politicians should do nothing more than talk. That would be far better than to rush ahead with the plan that the president was promoting during his campaign and, we have to assume, would prefer to see enacted now.

As we said at the time, Obama's plan is a blueprint for socialization in stages. It starts with a basically good idea â€" setting up a truly national market (which we don't have now) for private insurance â€" and stacks the odds against the insurers by putting a tax-subsidized plan in the mix.

The private plans would have to be at least as generous as the public plan; this was stated explicitly by the Obama campaign. However, they would be denied its subsidy, so it would be impossible for them to match its benefits and still make money.

It would be like herding sheep into the fold and letting the wolf in. Or you can think of the public plan as a Trojan horse. Once allowed inside the gates of the health insurance market and given an unfair advantage, it will eventually out-compete its private rivals and gain monopoly power.
At least two interest groups, big labor and the insurers, get this.

Unions that want to see government-run health care see the public insurance plan as a crucial step toward that ultimate goal. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has been circulating petitions insisting that Americans need "the choice of a public plan, so we're not left at the mercy of the same private insurance companies that have gotten us into the mess."

Insurers see their survival in the medical market at stake. As a result, Obama is already having trouble keeping all the health care players at the table.

Last week, the AFSCME and another union, the Service Employees International Union, pulled out of the Healthcare Reform Dialogue, a coalition of unions, employers, insurers, hospitals, doctors, patients, drug companies and consumers. The group had been meeting since last September. According to members who spoke to the New York Times, they could not agree on two issues. One was the proposed mandate on employers to pay for insurance. The other was Obama's public insurance plan.

Politically, health insurers are an easy target. They get no attention when they do one part of their job â€" protecting consumers from being ruined by medical bills â€" and plenty of attention when they do the bad-cop work of controlling costs.

As much as possible, they say no to exotic, untested and wasteful medical procedures. They earn the wrath of doctors by doing so, but they keep premiums from being even worse than they are now.

They also use their bargaining power to get discounts for their policyholders on drugs and medical procedures. If the government were to take over their job, it would have to do exactly the same things, only with no competition to give consumers a choice.

All the chatter about health care reform really boils down to the question of who will hold the commanding economic heights and pay most of the bills. Will that ground be shared by government and a viable private-sector insurance business, as it is now, or will government take it all?

The choice is between giving consumers a real market of competing insurers and steering them steadily toward single-payer.

That's a weighty decision, and it must not be rushed.

[FayeforCure]

jaxnative, there are many countries that have universal healthcare systems where a public plan exists alongside private health insurance.

Heck private healthcare insurance even exists in Canada.

http://www.canadian-family-medical-plans.com/

Please check the excellent PBS series Healthcare Around the World, to find out about various universal healthcare plans that include both private and public plans.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

Another word of caution: check to see who funds the ads that oppose a public plan,.........usually they are front groups that are mouth pieces for the health insurance industry.



Here's what you really need to know:

5 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT OBAMA'S PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION

1. Choice, choice, choice. If the public health insurance option passes, Americans will be able to choose between their current insurance and a high-quality, government-run plan similar to Medicare. If you like your current care, you can keep it. If you don'tâ€"or don't have anyâ€"you can get the public insurance plan.2


2. It will be high-quality coverage with a choice of doctors. Government-run plans have a track record of innovating to improve quality, because they're not just focused on short-term profits. And if you choose the public plan, you'll still get to choose your doctor and hospital.3


3. We'll all save a bunch of money. The public health insurance option won't have to spend money on things like CEO bonuses, shareholder dividends, or excessive advertising, so it'll cost a lot less. Plus, the private plans will have to lower their rates and provide better value to compete, so people who keep their current insurance will save, too.4

4. It will always be there for you and your family. A for-profit insurer can close, move out of the area, or just kick you off their insurance rolls. The public health insurance option will always be available to provide you with the health security you need.5


5. And it's a key part of universal health care. No longer will sick people or folks in rural communities, or low-income Americans be forced to go without coverage. The public health insurance plan will be available and accessible to everyone. And for those struggling to make ends meet, the premiums will be subsidized by the government.6

And finally you may want to watch how Americans are getting third world charity healthcare from an Australian Philanthropist:

Third World Medical Expeditions in America

http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/163/lifeline

[Doctor_K]

The sad fact is that every American deserves healthcare. The reality is that the US govt cannot afford it, and still pay their bills. With the new rounds of spending, I just learned tonight that 46 cents of every dollar the US govt spends, will go to pay for debt.

Folks, we cannot afford to keep spending. Soon China and the rest of the world will stop buying the fed treasuries, and only the US Govt will be buying them, producing money on top of money, to the point where we have inflation like we saw in the late 70s.

Medicare and Social Security are bigger animals than Healthcare.

And they want to structure ObamaCare like Medicare.  Meanwhile, Medicare is now forecast to go bankrupt much more quickly than recently anticipated.  How can someone be supportive of something that is destined to fail? 

I don't get it. 
OH wait; yes I do - it's called 'getting lost amidst the rhetoric."

[BridgeTroll]

Or... tell them what they want to hear...

[Doctor_K]

Indeed.  In this case, it's the same difference.

It's all about the votes, at the end of the day.

[Sigma]

2. It will be high-quality coverage

Government-run plans have a track record of innovating to improve quality

 

3. We'll all save a bunch of money.

   

The public health insurance option will always be available to provide you with the health security you need.

                           

Oh Jesus!  I can't stop laughing!  Somebody please bring me my oxygen, or better yet, bring me whatever Faye is smoking!

[Doctor_K]

No problem!  Courtesy of my tax dollar!

[Sigma]

Progressives who back this plan get offended that people with more resources can get better care, just as they can get better housing, better food, and better entertainment, among many other things. Like in all other arenas, their prescription for equality of result will mean that everyone gets treated equally poorly, and that we will eventually start culling out the weak in favor of the strong. We’ve essentially returned to the eugenics arguments of the early 20th century, a dark period of human history we should be avoiding rather than embracing on the floor of the Senate.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/12/video-are-the-elderly-cost-effective/

[mtraininjax]

Meanwhile, Medicare is now forecast to go bankrupt much more quickly than recently anticipated.

Medicare is already spending more than it brings in, this started last year.

[Sigma]

Ill-Conceived Taxes
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Health Care: Many question how the high cost of government-run medical care available to all can be paid for. No problem. Just raise federal revenues by making consumer goods cost more.

And don't forget tax-exempt employer-provided health care benefits. That's a rich source of untapped government revenues if lawmakers take away the tax-exemption status.

Washington, at least the left side of the swamp, is determined to provide universal health care whether or not we need it, want it or can even afford it.

Make no mistake, the cost will be steep. The Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm, has estimated that universal medical care will require roughly $1.5 trillion to $1.7 trillion over 10 years.

Len Nichols, an economist who heads the health policy project at the New America Foundation, has issued similar findings. He figures that the cost of guaranteed coverage will run $125 billion to $150 billion a year.

Projected costs of government programs, particularly entitlements, are always low. Medicare loses $60 billion each year, roughly half of one analyst's annual cost of health care for all, due to fraud.

But even if those estimates are accurate, there's still the problem of funding a program for which a single dollar has yet to be appropriated.

Rather than cut back on other programs, the Washington solution is to raise new taxes. To fund health care, the Senate Finance Committee is thinking about placing levies on soft drinks, alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, health savings accounts and junk food, and taxing, for the first time, employer-provided health care benefits.

The public needs to understand that it will be paying more for goods and services in return for national health care. Grocery bills will be higher; that bottle of wine that should go with dinner might have to be left on the store shelf instead; a cold Coke on a hot summer day would be a rare luxury rather than a frequent pleasure;guilty indulgences could simply become unaffordable to many.

Americans also need to be aware of the failings of government-run health care in other nations. Disease survival rates in developed countries with nationalized systems tend to be lower than in the U.S., while waiting times are much longer and poor treatment more common.

Higher costs, diminished results. Americans won't like a system that's more expensive and delivers less. But that's what we'll get as long as the public doesn't have a full understanding of how ruinous government-run health care is.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=327108098260411

[jandar]

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/05/03/9330606-sun.html

In Toronto, emergency room waits for minor conditions range from five to six hours and for serious conditions from 11 to 22 hours.

You wait an average of 16 hours in Quebec:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/05/21/ot-er-waits-080521.html?ref=rss

Quebec average 16 h 30 min

Even our slow hospitals here in Florida are quicker than that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15817906/

Hospitals in Arizona (4 hours, 57 minutes), Maryland (4 hours, 7 minutes), Utah (4 hours, 5 minutes), New York (3 hours, 58 minutes), and Florida (3 hours, 57 minutes) are among the worst, with wait times near or exceeding four hours.

Just to show a private system is no different than a public system, and most of the time is worse off.
Ottawa pays spends over 40% of its annual budget on healthcare alone.

Many doctors trained in Canada practice in the USA. They cannot afford to pay their loans back on salaries they would receive in Canada. Is the US Universal Healthcare going to pay all doctors fees enough for doctors to be able to pay back loans? Or will the taxpayer pick up that tab as well?

Hell, Vets make more than most Doctor's in Canada who subscribe to the healthcare system.

[Sigma]

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/your_money/consumer/090514_Dead_People_Get_Stimulus_Checks

Dead People Get Stimulus
Checks
Published : Thursday, 14 May 2009, 5:28 PM EDT

MYFOXNY.COM - This week, thousands of people are getting stimulus checks in the mail. The problem is that a lot of them are dead. A Long Island woman was shocked when she checked the mail and received a letter from the U.S. Treasury -- but it wasn't for her.

WATCH DICK BRENNAN'S REPORT (VIDEO, LEFT)

Antoniette Santopadre of Valley Stream was expecting a $250 stimulus check. But when her son finally opened it, they saw that the check was made out to her father, Romolo Romonini, who died in Italy 34 years ago. He'd been a U.S. citizen when he left for Italy in 1933, but only returned to the United States for a seven-month visit in 1969.

The Santopadres are not alone. The Social Security Administration, which sent out 52 million checks, says that some of those checks mistakenly went to dead people because the agency had no record of their death. That amounts to between 8,000 and 10,000 checks for millions of dollars.

The feds blame a rushed schedule, because all the checks have to be cut by June. The strange thing is, some of the checks were made out to people -- like Romonini -- who were never even part of the Social Security system.   

This is the same government that you want to run our health care system?  Amazing.

[Lunican]

That's a 0.0192% error rate.

Also, did those dead people cash them?