Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[jinx]

In House, Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists’

ASHINGTON — In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident. Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.

...


Some differences were just a matter of style. Representative Yvette D. Clarke, Democrat of New York, said, “I see this bill as an exciting opportunity to create the kind of jobs we so desperately need in this country, while at the same time improving the lives of all Americans.”



Representative Donald M. Payne, Democrat of New Jersey, used the same words, but said the bill would improve the lives of “ALL Americans.”



Mr. Payne and Mr. Brady said the bill would “create new opportunities and markets for our brightest technology minds.” Mr. Pascrell said the bill would “create new opportunities and markets for our brightest minds in technology.”


In nearly identical words, three Republicans — Representatives K. Michael Conaway of Texas, Lynn Jenkins of Kansas and Lee Terry of Nebraska — said they had criticized many provisions of the bill, and “rightfully so.”



But, each said, “I do believe the sections relating to the creation of a market for biosimilar products is one area of the bill that strikes the appropriate balance in providing lower cost options.”

[classicman]

Sad but true. Although thats nothing new.

I agree that the spending (upwards of $!/4 billion) has influenced the legislation...watering it down to their benefit.

They (particularly the insurance industry) are now spending $billions more on media buys with the hope of killing the bills completely...because in the end, it is not particularly favorable to their interests.

On balance, IMO, the benefits to most Americans far outweigh the marginal benefits to the affected industries.

Or we could simply go back to the status quo of the last 40+ years, with no meaningful or comrpehensive health care reform.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Or we could simply go back to the status quo of the last 40+ years, with no meaningful or comrpehensive health care reform.

I'm still not sure that this is comprehensive reform. I'm not sure it really addresses the problems within the system. It definitely adds a lot more people, no doubt there. But there are still inherent systemic problems that have been around a long time.

Originally Posted by classicman

I'm still not sure that this is comprehensive reform. I'm not sure it really addresses the problems within the system. It definitely adds a lot more people, no doubt there. But there are still inherent systemic problems that have been around a long time.

It addresses far more than just adding people (30+ million uninsured whose health care costs impact all of us in the form of higher premiums, lost productivity, etc.).

For the first-time, it provides protections to the vast majority of those currently insured.....protections against being dropped for pre-existing conditions...protections against excessive out-of-pocket expenses so that millions wont face bankruptcy as a result of a medical emergency...protections against rating discrimination against women....protections against collusion and rate-fixing by insurance companies.....

For the record, I dont think these bills will fix every problem with the current system...particularly the long-term solvency of Medicare....but, IMO, it represents a giant leap in the right direction as opposed to just a small step..or even worse, just standing still.

There are no guarantees. yet, for all the bitching and whining from the right, I have yet to see a better solution.

The only thing we know for certain is that doing nothing and letting the current system continue to fester will not result in that system healing itself in the public interest.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

I dont think these bills will fix every problem with the current system...
particularly the long-term solvency of Medicare....

Huge issue - especially for me. The changes could be potentially huge and destructive.

but, IMO, it represents a giant leap in the right direction as opposed to just a small step..or even worse, just standing still.

Giant leap - IMO thats a stretch - a Step forward, yes. It is a beginning. Standing still would be a bad thing. On that we agree.

There are no guarantees. yet, for all the bitching and whining from the right, I have yet to see a better solution.

I've not heard one either - In fact, I haven't heard ANY realistic proposal. Perhaps the agree with some of this and their only argument is funding it. I don't think so, but maybe.

The only thing we know for certain is that doing nothing and letting the current system continue to fester will not result in that system healing itself in the public interest.

In this case I agree. Conversely, GM should not get bailed out over and over. It should be broken up and sold/given/transferred/merged with companies that have success productive business models instead of keeping that decaying carcass on life support.

[TheMercenary]

This bill does very little to fix the problems in our system. The insurance industry will take some hits but in exchange for a huge increase in income provided by the taxpayers. In the end it will cost every single working person who has a job and pays for their insurance a significant increase in costs. Preimums are not controlled and deductables are not controlled. Very few costs are controlled. Costs will be shifted to the taxpayer and taxpaying public.

In the end an estimated 25 million people will still be without healthcare according to the CBO. That is not fixing the problem. It is a half ass solution and they are missing a chance to fix the problems. Just like the economy the Congress is throwing money at the problem and getting everyone to believe they are fixing it when in fact this is just a few bandaids.

[TheMercenary]

The current bill in front of the Senate was crafted not by Baucus but by his senior aid Liz Fowler who also directs the Finance Committee's health-care staff. She worked for his staff from 2001 - 2005 and then left to work for WellPoint one of the nations largest health insurance corps. The list of Demoncrats is long and large when you look at who is paying back their big supporters and lobbying for support of special interests.

[classicman]

Glad that the ones voting on this don't have to use it?

[TheMercenary]

Now stop that.

[TheMercenary]

Ha.

Lieberman Rules Out Voting for Health Bill

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/he.../14health.html

[TheMercenary]

From Newsweek.

Premiums rise to 23% of median family income under proposed health plans.

Let's start with the numbers. Unfortunately, the word "savings" is used misleadingly. It doesn't mean (as is usual) actual reductions; it signifies smaller future increases. There's a big difference.

In 2009, national health spending will total an estimated $2.5 trillion, or 17.7 percent of gross domestic product. By 2019, it's projected to rise to $4.67 trillion under present policies, or 22.1 percent of GDP. With CAP's "savings," it rises a little less sharply to $4.49 trillion, or 21.3 percent of GDP, according to Harvard economist David Cutler, the study's co-author who provided these figures. Similarly, family health insurance premiums rise from 19 percent of median family income in 2009 to 25 percent in 2019 under present policies and 23 percent with CAP's "savings."

The point is simple: Even with highly optimistic assumptions, health spending remains out of control. It absorbs more of government, business and family budgets. Higher health spending would put pressure on future budget deficits, already projected to total about $9 trillion over the next decade. If new taxes and Medicare "savings" are real, they could be used exclusively to pay down deficits, not finance new spending.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Jeffrey Flier, dean of the Harvard Medical School, gave the various health bills a "failing grade" and said they wouldn't "control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care." Quoted in Newsweek, Dr. Delos Cosgrove, head of the Cleveland Clinic, said much the same. Richard Foster, the chief actuary of the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, doubts the cost-saving provisions touted by CAP would save much money. He's also skeptical that Congress, facing complaints from hospitals and a squeeze on services, would allow all the Medicare reimbursement cuts to take effect. True, Congress has permitted some reimbursement reductions to occur but has repeatedly blocked the Sustainable Growth Rate adjustment for doctors, which most resembles the new proposals.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...sts_99526.html

[SamIam]

*Sigh* Another quote from Tin Foil Hat Quarterly above.

WASHINGTON -- We are now witnessing a determined counterattack by the Obama administration and its political allies on the matter of health care costs. Many critics (including me) have argued that President Obama's "reform" agenda wouldn't control rapidly rising health spending and might speed it up. The logic is simple. People with insurance use more health services than those without. If government insures 30 million or more Americans, health spending will rise. Greater demand will press on limited supply; prices will increase. The best policy: Control spending first; then expand coverage.

How dare those Americans currently without healthcare go out and get their various needs taken care of. Why, by golly, they just might end up productive members of the work force again. Think of the millions that could save. Gee, soup kitchens might have to go out of business and the rest of us wouldn't have to cross to the other side of the street when they see a schizophrenic coming. The US is going to the dogs, I tell you.

Why do I keep hearing a little voice saying, I got mine. Srew you.

Must be the bronchitis that I made an extravagant doctor's visit to get treated.

Originally Posted by SamIam

*Sigh* Another quote from Tin Foil Hat Quarterly above.



How dare those Americans currently without healthcare go out and get their various needs taken care of. Why, by golly, they just might end up productive members of the work force again. Think of the millions that could save. Gee, soup kitchens might have to go out of business and the rest of us wouldn't have to cross to the other side of the street when they see a schizophrenic coming. The US is going to the dogs, I tell you.

Why do I keep hearing a little voice saying, I got mine. Srew you.

Must be the bronchitis that I made an extravagant doctor's visit to get treated.

I'm just continually befuddled and bemused by the tin foil hat brigade.

One day...its all about government take-over of health care.

The next day...its all about a pay-off to the insurance lobby.

Is it all about socialism or are the tin foil hats opposed to greater competition and a significant role for free market in which (gasp!) the insurance companies will make money while at the same time, consumers get more accessible and affordable health care, with first-time protections against industry abuses?

But wait...why is the insurance lobby spending so much to defeat this bill?

Help! I dont what to believe.

Or maybe I do..and I know bullshit when I see it.

Its the tin foil hats talking out of both sides of their mouths.

[TheMercenary]

You will not find a quote by me anywhere that states that we do not need healthcare reform. The problems which I have pointed out is that the bills do not address the problems in healthcare today. What we do have is a health insurance crisis and the reforms being put before the people have been crafted to do nothing more than give more to health insurance companies under the guise of reform. They have sold us out to 20 more years of servitude.