Good Intentions Aren't Enough with Health Care Reform
Share
Yesterday at 11:57pm

Now that the Senate Finance Committee has approved its health care bill, it’s a good time to step back and take a look at the long term consequences should its provisions be enacted into law.

The bill prohibits insurance companies from refusing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and from charging sick people higher premiums. [1] It attempts to offset the costs this will impose on insurance companies by requiring everyone to purchase coverage, which in theory would expand the pool of paying policy holders.

However, the maximum fine for those who refuse to purchase health insurance is $750. [2] Even factoring in government subsidies, the cost of purchasing a plan is much more than $750. The result: many people, especially the young and healthy, will simply not buy coverage, choosing to pay the fine instead. They’ll wait until they’re sick to buy health insurance, confident in the knowledge that insurance companies can’t deny them coverage. Such a scenario is a perfect storm for increasing the cost of health care and creating an unsustainable mandate program.

Those driving this plan no doubt have good intentions, but good intentions aren’t enough. There were good intentions behind the drive to increase home ownership for lower-income Americans, but forcing financial institutions to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them had terrible unintended consequences. We all felt those consequences during the financial collapse last year. Unintended consequences always result from top-down big government plans like the current health care proposals, and we can’t afford to ignore that fact again.

Supposedly the Senate Finance bill will be paid for by cutting Medicare by nearly half a trillion dollars and by taxing the so-called “Cadillac” health care plans enjoyed by many union members. The plan will also impose heavy taxes on insurers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, and clinical labs. [3] The result of all of these taxes is clear. As Douglas Holtz-Eakin noted in the Wall Street Journal, these new taxes “will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health-care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums.” [4] Unfortunately, it will lead to lower wages too, as employees will have to sacrifice a greater percentage of their paychecks to cover these higher premiums. [5] In other words, if the Democrats succeed in overhauling health care, we’ll all bear the costs. The Senate Finance bill is effectively a middle class tax increase, and as Holtz-Eakin points out, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation those making less than $200,000 will be hit hardest. [6]

With our country’s debt and deficits growing at an alarming rate, many of us can’t help but wonder how we can afford a new trillion dollar entitlement program. The president has promised that he won’t sign a health care bill if it “adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade.” [7] But his administration also promised that his nearly trillion dollar stimulus plan would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. [8] Last month, our unemployment rate was 9.8%, the highest it’s been in 26 years. [9] At first the current administration promised that the stimulus would save or create 3 to 4 million jobs. [10] Then they declared that it created 1 million jobs, but the stimulus reports released this week showed that a mere 30,083 jobs have been created, while nearly 3.4 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was passed. [11] Should we believe the administration’s claims about health care when their promises have proven so unreliable about the stimulus?

In January 2008, presidential candidate Obama promised not to negotiate behind closed doors with health care lobbyists. In fact, he committed to “broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are. Because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process. And overcoming the special interests and the lobbyists...” [12] However, last February, after serving only a few weeks in office, President Obama met privately at the White House with health care industry executives and lobbyists. [13] Yesterday, POLITICO reported that aides to President Obama and Democrat Senator Max Baucus met with corporate lobbyists in April to help “set in motion a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign, primarily financed by industry groups, that has played a key role in bolstering public support for health care reform.” [14] Needless to say, their negotiations were not broadcast on C-SPAN for the American people to see.

Presidential candidate Obama also promised that he would not “sign any nonemergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days.” [15] PolitiFact reports that this promise has already been broken three times by the current administration. [16] We can only hope that it won’t be broken again with health care reform.

All of this certainly gives the appearance of politics-as-usual in Washington with no change in sight.

Americans want health care reform because we want affordable health care. We don’t need subsidies or a public option. We don’t need a nationalized health care industry. We need to reduce health care costs. But the Senate Finance plan will dramatically increase those costs, all the while ignoring common sense cost-saving measures like tort reform. Though a Congressional Budget Office report confirmed that reforming medical malpractice and liability laws could save as much as $54 billion over the next ten years, tort reform is nowhere to be found in the Senate Finance bill. [17]

Here’s a novel idea. Instead of working contrary to the free market, let’s embrace the free market. Instead of going to war with certain private sector companies, let’s embrace real private-sector competition and allow consumers to purchase plans across state lines. Instead of taxing the so-called “Cadillac” plans that people get through their employers, let’s give individuals who purchase their own health care the same tax benefits we currently give employer-provided health care recipients. Instead of crippling Medicare, let’s reform it by providing recipients with vouchers so that they can purchase their own coverage.

Now is the time to make your voices heard before it’s too late. If we don’t fight for the market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven reform plan that we deserve, we’ll be left with the disastrous unintended consequences of the plans currently being cooked up in Washington.

- Sarah Palin

I agree with Sarah on this one. Though I would like to know if she thinks the U.S. should do anything about the 47 million Americans who do not have health insurance. Should we?

I fail to see how requiring people to buy Health Insurance differs from requiring people to buy driver's insurance; sure some people don't buy driver's insurance, but the vast majority comply with the Law (see the state of Mass.)

As for opening up Insurance Cos to do business across State Lines, I found the following interesting:



By the way, I have heard several reliable sources estimate that reforming Malpractice Laws would save less than 1% off of the cost of Insurance (many States already have malpractice caps, and this was their estimated savings.)

Market based insurance coverage is what got us into this mess in the first place. Market based health care is a failure, which is why it needs reform.

(sorry, once again, sloppy quoting. I am referring to the original article by Sarah Palin, touting market based health reform.)

New York Post 10/10/09 - "Reforming medical-malpractice laws could save the federal government $54 billion over 10 years and slash doctors' and hospitals' insurance costs by 10 percent, according to a congressional study released yesterday.

But there's one problem -- none of the Democratic-run proposals advancing in Congress include any of the reforms covered in the Congressional Budget Office analysis. "

Of course the CBO is often wrong.

The $54 billion represents 1/2% of Healthcare costs in the next 10 years ("The agency's conclusion: A package of reforms that included a $250,000 cap on damages for pain and suffering and a $500,000 cap on punitive damages "would reduce total national health care spending by about 0.5 percent." --WAPO quoting from the CBO's report.)

"“It’s really just a distraction,” said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth.” “If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So we’re not talking about real money. It’s small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.--Washington Independant”

Meanwhile, administrative costs were $150 BILLION IN 2008.

The cost of relying on Private Health Insurance has driven our per capita expenditure on medical costs to the highest in the World, and it is putting our businesses, especially small businesses, at a disadvantage.

Only a liberal, book writing prof. would call $5.4 Billion a year not real money. It is never real money when it is someone's money. Ask yourself this, why did Congress expempt itself from this mess? They want everyone to sacrifice but themselves. I believe in charity. I donate what little I can to projects that really help people. Taking away my healthcare that I worked years to earn is a smack in the face. Making people give up what they have already been taxed to death on is pathetic. Theft. Plain and simple. You can donate all the money you want. How much of Patron Saint Tedd, "I can't swim to save your life", Kennedy's estate went to charities? "You should give the poor this, " and, " YOU should give the poor that". Eough

That argument can effectively be turned right back atcha, tjt, by saying that only a conservative with an agenda would totally ignore the $150,000,000,000 PER YEAR and somehow land at the Chappaquiddick.

And just why is the right wants to turn literacy into a crime. Talk about Mao Zedong! You guys are waging your own Cultural Revolution.

No one is talking about taking away your healthcare...where do you people get these ideas? Now I remember, From multi-millionares who don't give a rat's patoot whether they speak the truth or not.

I prefer to deal in FACTS, and the fact is that tort reform alone will not solve the escalating cost of Healthcare. As bris notes, the runaway administrative cost of relying on Private Insurers helps drive costs up over $150 Billion per year; now let's put our thinking caps on; compare saving $54 billion in Tort Reform over ten years to reducing yearly administrative costs through fair competition.

What the hell are you talking about? Who took away your healthcare?

I have said this before in more then one post , but done on the right have any thing to say.

My wife worked for 30 years , all most never missed any time. Her own company took away here health care. Not even a SORRY.

I well tell all of the conservative , right , if my wife still had her health care and your company took yours , she would be right there fighting , so you could get yours back.

My wife would never be so selfish as to only care for her self.

Just because you have worked all those years doesn't mean that you well not be next.

But if you are , the so called liberals , well be right there to help you fight the fight.
C

Chuckee, my story is kind of similar to your wife's. By the way, I am sorry this happened to her.

I worked all my life, various jobs and finally owned my own business. My healthcare did not carry over to my self employment. I am now uninsured. I cannot get insurance because of pre-existing conditions (when you reach the age of 50, that alone is reason enough for you to be denied coverage, I sadly found out.)

I have a paid-for house, and retirement savings. In recent years, my health, despite my healthy habits, has gone downhill due to degeneration of cartilage. I need surgeries I can't afford.
Besides being uninsurable, I am "too rich" to qualify for any sort of stopgap program. (Owning my house.) I am losing my ability to work because of my cartilage degeneration.

I am faced with this dilemma: I can pay for healthcare, but I will have to deplete my savings, and then finally sell my house. I have nowhere to go after that. What if I outlive my money?

The healthcare debate is real and personal to me, and it irks me that it seems to be a political game to so many. This is no game.

I agree about how bad things are.

When my DH was treated for cancer we had a PPO and yet the insurance companies refused to pay after saying they would. They sent us bills for $13000 and $20,000 and we paid our deductibles and our 20%.The bills kept coming.

Then our credit was great and we had a high Fico Score but our credit cards were canceled when I paid one bill that said " oncology " It was only for $350.00 but it canceled our credit when we needed it most.

Something needs to be done. By the way we had Blue Cross and now United Health Care and they are all the same. Our Dr said we had grounds for a lawsuit . Who can fight another battle when they are fighting cancer.

This is health care?

It is hard to find someone who doesn't have a negative healthcare story. The situation is beyond ridiculous.

Statistics? 122 people a day die because of no or inadequate health insurance/care.

This isn't a fun little game to banter and lie about. This is real. And, wait long enough, all of you will be affected unless it is fixed.

Yes. The world sucks. People die. If the government has a cheap option, meaning inexpensive and extremly poor in service and waiting times, companies will not pay for the existing plans. This will destroy competition. Pay a small, compared to the expense of healthcare plans, and dump everyone on the garbage government plan. I retired disabled. My company can't just drop me. If this plan comes along, they CAN and WILL pick a cheaper option. This WILL take MY current plan away. You want me to appologize for taking care of my family? Sorry, not gonna happen. And yes, I know there are rich, selfish idiots on both sides of the fence. I'm not one of them. Dems just want more people sucking on the teat of society so they have a voter base. Simple. Not all Dems. Just the ones worried about getting elected. Please stop inferering that because I'm conservative, you are somehow more caring than I. You don't have a clue. You have silly stereotypes that have been fed to you.

I am not a debater so please not try to debate me.

But I have to stay you are wrong. I also retired disabled. After a few years my company found a way to cut cost by taking away retires health plan and then telling the ones on disability that they were retirees and took our health plans. We didn't have a leg to stand on. perfectly legal. Now that sucks!!

You better think again. One day you could be on the other side of the fence . Think about it. Drop you like a hot coal. What well your family do then?

What should we do about the 47 million Americans who cannot afford health insurance?

Lodz:

The solution is simple. Start a war, plunder & pillage the country we went to war with, take the plundered proceeds and appropriate them to the healthcare bill. See! That was easy.

I'll be the first to admitt, I don't have the all the answers. I do know that screwing over the middle class is not the answer. That is what this will do. People love the, "Stick it to the rich", propaganda this administration pushes. Guess what? This won't effect them. It will water down and dilute healthcare for people like me, stuck in the middle. More people will die. Those who can afford to pay cash for their surgeries will still get them when they need it. I'm for reform, reform that works. Spreading out the death and misery to a larger group of people isn't reform. Weed out waste and fraud. Try things that work, like stop paying trial lawyers billions to drive good doctors and hospitals out of business to line their pockets. You want to increase medicare to cover those most needy? Fine. Start actively dumping those just too lazy or busy spending money on fun things to pay their share. I know their are people that need help. I have family on medicare, they need it. Just be real enough with yourself to admitt there are people out there that bring misery and death to themselves because they don't like working. Should we sacrifice for a healthy person who is just lazy? What about them? Who should have to wait if it is a choice between that person or my child? Do you hold people responsible for themselves? Again, I'm talking about someone who is actually just lazy. Or don't you believe there are any?

I repeat: What would you do about the 47 million Americans who cannot afford health insurance? If you are compassionate, you must have a response.

I honestly don't believe there is any such thing as "just lazy" in the sense you're using it. There are those who've given up and see little left for which to strive. There are those with mental health problems that keep them muddled, and there are those with physical ailments that sap their energy.

It's against the laws of evolution to be "just lazy". People who have something for which they might strive tend to do it. People will run to the light at the end of the tunnel, but if all they see is darkness, they sit down and give up.

That's what I think, anyway.

GOD!!! Do you read responses????

That is why we can never rationaly discuss this issue. I'm not trying to be rude(not with you at least, people like Lodz who ask questions then don't read what I bothered writing is a different issue). We see two different sets of facts. I've met people who are just lazy. No, I don't know if all or some of them have underlining mental issues. I would have to go with the odds and guess not all or even most do. They would rather party, make babies they will never care for and sleep. It is not against the laws of evolution if their are suckers to buy them food, pay for their shelter and feed their offspring. Evolution has spawned some interesting creatures. One of the most successful are parasites.

What about the Wal-mart worker who cannot afford medical insurance.

They have tried tort reform on a state by state basis and it did not bring down health costs. Now if you want to bring down costs for the doctors get rid of the army of workers who work in the hospital dealing with the differnt health insuance companies.

When people talk about tort reform and healthcare costs. They are ignorant of the facts. But it makes a good talking point for those that are to lazy to spend the time learning about the issue.

30% of the health care pie is eaten up by the insurance companies. They add no value to the quality of health care.
If the health care providers want to continue with the same system. They need to streamline. Instead of just adding the extra costs to the consumer.


BTW:Medical tort reform is a state issue. So all you deep red states "Where is the reform?"

Not agreeing with anyone in this burn your clothes off thread. In my state most of the clients on state funded programs are: walmart employees. Yes, they do work hard but somehow fail to get enough to live on. 67% of employees in my state had some kind of state assist. hmmmm.

It is a constitutional question. A fundamental issue. There is a difference in forcing people to buy insurance to drive a car (which is not a right) as opposed to simply living (remember the pursuit of happiness stuff?), which is a right.

I think that there will be a court case that may go to the Supreme Court if people are forced by the Federal Government to buy health insurance.

I'll say it again, I don't have all the answers. I can, however, spot a horrible idea like the ones snaking through Congress. A better idea than this would to be give those people on the economic margin a $5,000 voucher to purchase insurance. It would be cheaper than this mess. How about that? Again, just an idea.

Right lilstraw.
In the old days 50's through 70's you would just pay $40.00 out of pocket
to see a PCP. No middle man. The doctors liked that. Only if something very serious happened (stroke..cancer) you would have catastrophic coverage and the insurance would kick in.

No that's too good of an idea.
Then there's no govt control which is what they really want.
Either way we're screwed. As Musician said, Private insurers
won't cover you when you need a 20,000 operation and the Govt won't either
after 65. I'll just go for the morphine drip and throw in the towel.

Another way to bring down costs is to have patients uses PAs and Nurses whenever possible/sensible. Why should someone w/strepe throat see a doctor? Not necessary.