Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Peggy Noonan:

You Are Terrifying Us

[Happy Monkey]

Apparently Peggy Noonan is terrified of her own reflection.

[ZenGum]

She could get surgery for that...

[TheMercenary]

False:
Healthcare Reform will be deficit neutral and $6 billion surplus in 10 yrs

During a town hall meeting, U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, a Democrat from Missouri, tried to reassure constituents that his party's health care reform bill would cost less than expected.

"The Congressional Budget Office most recently came out and analyzed the current plan and said that it was not only deficit-neutral, which has been one of the important factors for the president and congressional leaders, but also that over 10 years it would create a $6 billion surplus," Carnahan told an audience on July 20, 2009, at Forest Park Community College in St. Louis.

The audience laughed in response. (To see for yourself, fast forward this video to the 7-minute mark.)

It's a claim that's been repeated by many Democrats since the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan group that does all the number crunching for Congress, released its cost estimate for the health care bill on July 17.

In its report, the CBO estimated the bill will cost about $1.04 trillion over 10 years. That sum would be partially offset by $219.3 billion in Medicare savings and by $583 billion in tax increases over the same amount of time.

Still, the bill would create a $239 billion deficit, according to CBO.

We were perplexed: How could Carnahan proclaim a $6 billion surplus if the budget office was projecting a deficit?

The confusion comes down to an accounting question about how to treat $245 billion in the House bill that would cover the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so doctors don't face the potential of a 21 percent cut in fees.

In 1997, Congress agreed that, should Medicare reimbursement rates grow faster than the economy, they would be cut. But instead of following its own rules, Congress has put off those cuts year after year with a Medicare "fix." CBO considers that sum as part of the cost of the bill.

But many Democrats don't. Two days after Carnahan's town hall meeting, the House approved a bill that would require all new spending be paid for by new taxes or spending cuts to other government programs, a practice widely known as pay-as-you-go. That bill exempts the Medicare pay fix from these rules, which effectively reduces the cost of the health care reform bill by that same $245 billion. The pay-as-you-go bill is pending in the Senate.

But in the meantime, CBO will continue to include it as part of the legislation's price tag until the pay-as-you-go rules are put into law.

Back to Carnahan's math: If you accept his assumption that pay-as-you-go ultimately passes both houses of Congress and is signed into law, the health care bill will only cost $797 billion over 10 years. The $219.3 in spending cuts and the $583 billion in tax revenue total $802 billion, so that leaves $5.3 billion extra. (That's not quite $6 billion, but it's in the ballpark. We can assume this is the result of rounding.)

Whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge, this kind of budget trickery is nothing new to Washington, said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"It's the best way to do business in Washington," he said. "You inflate the baseline [of a bill] to make it seem like you're spending less."

So as for Carnahan's statement, he is definitely misstating CBO's findings. The budget office did not say there would be a $6 billion surplus, it said there would be a $239 billion deficit. Only when Carnahan added some optimistic assumptions did the math work the way he claimed. We find his claim False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lth-care-refo/

[richlevy]

From here.

I think this is another example of how the '%70 of the country who are covered by insurance' does not mean 'fully covered'. I'm guessing the $3000 limit on giving birth was not in the large print. I think the only way to have a baby for $3000 in this country is to squat and drop in a potato field with a midwife and a horse blanket.

The individual health insurance market can be a scary place for Americans who turn to it for health coverage. If they're accepted to a plan at all, patients often find that their coverage isn't quite what they were promised, and limits and restrictions lead to high medical bills for covered services that aren't really covered. That's how Sarah Wildman ended up with a $22,000 bill from the hospital where her daughter was born, despite having what she thought was good health insurance with a maternity rider.

Pregnancy on the individual health insurance market requires an additional rider that must be purchased before the pregnancy begins. Without this rider, the fetus becomes a pre-existing condition. Prenatal care, delivery, hospitalization, and any complications are not covered. Not a cent.
Wildman discovered that her maternity rider covered her daughter's birth, but with a limit of $3,000. That is not a typo. Her story ended with the company covering 90% of the bills, but, she suspects, this is only because she happened to be writing a story about it.

[jinx]

It cost my ins co $4,000 for me to give birth with a midwife in a free standing birth center. It cost almost $13,000 to get the same job done in a hospital 2 year earlier.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by jinx

It cost my ins co $4,000 for me to give birth with a midwife in a free standing birth center. It cost almost $13,000 to get the same job done in a hospital 2 year earlier.

So they're basing their coverage on the lowest possible cost, even though a majority of women still use hospitals.

If the bill was $22,000, there may have been complications, which would possibly have required a switch to the hospital.

I just wonder if anyone told this woman up front "we're only going to cover $3000 because we're assuming that you'll use a midwife."

[jinx]

So it's the insurance company's fault this woman bought and paid for something and had no idea what it was? I'm sure no one told her specifically how much of anything they would cover... I bet it's just all in writing, in a big book they gave her but she never opened.

The "maternity" coverage we purchased didn't cover my labor, delivery, or hospital stay. It was a sham.

Then why did you purchase it? Duh.

[TheMercenary]

Most people, insured people, have no idea how insurance works until they use it and find out what is not covered. My wife has become an expert on this criminal industry over the years and how they don't work for you. All the while my employer is tooting their horn over what great coverage we have and how much better it is going to be while they raised our rates $3000 a year.

[TheMercenary]

This could certainly be a good change if inacted:

Like many other people, Ms. Krinsk thought that her prescription information was private. But in fact, prescriptions, and all the information on them — including not only the name and dosage of the drug and the name and address of the doctor, but also the patient’s address and Social Security number — are a commodity bought and sold in a murky marketplace, often without the patients’ knowledge or permission.

That may change if some little-noted protections from the Obama administration are strictly enforced. The federal stimulus law enacted in February prohibits in most cases the sale of personal health information, with a few exceptions for research and public health measures like tracking flu epidemics. It also tightens rules for telling patients when hackers or health care workers have stolen their Social Security numbers or medical information, as happened to Britney Spears, Maria Shriver and Farrah Fawcett before she died in June.

“The new rules will plug some gaping holes in our federal health privacy laws,” said Deven McGraw, a health privacy expert at the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington. “For the first time, pharmacy benefit managers that handle most prescriptions and banks and contractors that process millions of medical claims will be held accountable for complying with federal privacy and security rules.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/bu...ivacy.html?hpw

[classicman]

Whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge, this kind of budget trickery is nothing new to Washington, said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"It's the best way to do business in Washington," he said. "You inflate the baseline [of a bill] to make it seem like you're spending less."

[TheMercenary]

Looks like Rahm it Through's plan may have backfired on this one...

Georgia Democrat yells at local doctor over health care

Tensions are running so high at town hall meetings that Rep. David Scott, a Georgia Democrat, yelled at a local doctor concerned about health care after mistaking him for an "astroturf" political operative looking for a fight.

Mr. Scott became visibly agitated when one of his constituents, a practicing doctor, asked a few questions about health care reform during a town hall meeting. The meeting was held to discuss a road project, but was opened up for questions near the end. That's when Dr. David Hill stood up to speak.

Dr. Hill asked Mr. Scott why he was going to vote for a health care plan similar to that implemented in Massachusetts "that is shown not to work" and if he supported a government-provided health care insurance option.

The congressman replied by accusing the doctor of "hijacking" his event.

"I'm listening to my constituents, OK?" Scott said, "These are people who live in the 13th Congressional district, who vote in this district. That’s who I’ve got to respond to … So what you’ve got to understand, those of you who are here, who have taken and came and hijacked this event we dealing with here, this is not a health care event."

"You chose to come and to do it on your own," he yelled. "Not a single one of you had the decency to call my office and set up for a meeting." He went on, in a threatening voice, "You want a meeting with me on health care, I'll give it to you!"

The outburst is yet another example of how confrontational town hall meetings have become over recent weeks, as constituents are becoming more forthright in asking their elected representatives challenging questions. These actions and other forms of protest have been encouraged by limited government advocacy groups opposed to the stimulus package, the Democrats favored health care reforms and other big spending government proposals.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblo...doctor-over-h/

[TheMercenary]

Drug Industry to Run Ads Favoring White House Plan

WASHINGTON — The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Obama’s health care overhaul, beginning over the August Congressional recess, people briefed on the plans said Saturday.

The unusually large scale of the industry’s commitment to the cause helps explain some of a contentious back-and-forth playing out in recent days between the odd-couple allies over a deal that the White House struck with the industry in June to secure its support. The terms of the deal were not fully disclosed. Both sides had announced that the drug industry would contribute $80 billion over 10 years to the cost of the health care overhaul without spelling out the details.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/he...lobby.html?hpw

You can bet some deal lucrative to the big Pharm had to be done to get them on board.

[DanaC]

what would you like to see happen instead Merc?

[TheMercenary]

On the big Pharm or on the overall plan?

On Pharm I would like to see them not have secret meetings at the White House and make behind the scenes deals that favor bussines as usual where they make huge profits on everyone who can pay or has insurance.