On heath care -- President Obama’s dirty little secret |
2009-06-29 |
By Rich Lowry |
|
President Barack Obama knows health-care policy. Give him an hour and a half to hold forth, as ABC News obligingly did at a town-hall meeting, and he will invariably impress with his fluidity. |
|
Comments:
ambi venkateswaran writes: People lik eyou can only criticize; hope you can be more constructive. Obama is at least rying to tackle healthcare reform which the fat cat rich don't want to do in America. You need to go around the world to see how good the systems are in countries like Japan, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc. The U.S. has a third world level of health care.. Obama is much smart3er and much better educated than you are, going by the content of your highly political article....
Justin Brazil writes: Unfortunately, 80% of Americans are not satisfied with thier health insurance plans. This is impossible, as 47 million of them are uninsured. Throwing these types of figures around is dangerous - they are misleading and innacurrate. If 80% of Americans were satisfied with thier insurance, then we wouldn't have elected Obama to fix things. Are you trying to imply that there is no problem with the healthcare system? I can assure you that it is completely broken. Why do you think that 60% of US homeowner bankrupcies are related to healthcare costs? In this article, you are implying that the unregulated market it capable of providing good health care coverage, and you are missing the point - it's not. Bring on the socialized health-care, I say! The citizens of this great nation should not have to worry about thier health coverage - health care should be a universal benefit that all Americans share. I don't care if my taxes are raised to pay for it, either - it'll be cheaper than paying $550/mo for private healthcare! - Justin
John Ferrara writes: Dear Mr. Lowry, Although I am truly hopeful that America will ultimately adopt national healthcare, I am as always impressed with your argument. Here is the point I think you miss: we simply cannot afford to keep the present system of private insurance which takes an ever increasing % of our GNP to fund just one of the many obligations we must fund. Whether I spend an extra dollar on taxes or health insurance does not matter to me; I still have one less dollar. You may be right that the president's plan may undermine private insurance. But if we can reduce the overall cost of health care, this may be something we simply must do to remain competitive in the global marketplace, and to simply have a few dollars left over for all the other things aside from health care that we also need or love. Again, though, thank you for a well reasoned piece, if only to challenge my beliefs. John Ferrara
Greg Lang writes: Mr. Lowry, You are essentially in this piece arguing for the status quo. What about the millions of uninsured individuals in this country? What about the 20% who are not happy with their care? What about the possibility that some of the 80% supposedly happy with their care right now might not realize they are getting less service for higher premiums? The problem with our healthcare system right now is that profits come before patients. Healthcare ought to be considered a fundamental human right. If those profiting off of it have to take a little less to make certain that right is enjoyed by every American, then so be it. And if private insurers collapse and only the government plan remains, as you posit, good riddance. I'd much rather buy healthcare from a non-profit organization that doesn't pay its executives millions of dollars a year than from a for-profit company that does. That said, I don't believe doctors should be paid less. They ought to be well reimbursed so the profession continues to draw our best and brightest. We can pay doctors well, simply by implementing a series of increased taxes on cigarettes and junk food, along with an increased income tax on those earning over $1,000,000.00 a year. There are currently at least 6.7 million people in this income bracket in the United States right now. Is it socialism? You betcha. Should we care about the plight of the wealthy individuals who will bear the burden? No. I think those who are currently denied their fundamental right to healthcare are more deserving of our empathy.
Brian writes: It's sad to think that a smaller newspaper outside of New York or the Beltway would get the story right. This is the best article I have read to date on the subject of private health insurance, and how the Obama agenda will likely destroy an entire industry. Yes, I know. You're not a fan of private health insurance plans. Nobody is. In fact, it's the worst possible health insurance available - except for all the other proposed alternatives. What Barak Obama and the liberals propose to do is to destroy and industry, and with it, thousands and thousands of jobs and careers, but they will do so in a way that lets them wash their hands of their actions. If this happens, the layoffs will far exceed those of the auto industry. Those employees who survive this will likely be forced to work at much lower paying jobs for the Federal government. And our economy will suffer. That is because for every job lost, other jobs and businesses that depend on a good economy - your dry cleaner, a grocery store, a shoe store, even a department store, will close, That never stopped a liberal. And who will be the winner in all this? Duh unions. The unions' end game is to control the large bureaucracy of government workers from what will eventually be a federally-run single-payer health system. And when they do, it will make unions more powerful and corrupt than they have ever been. It is the unions, and liberal fringe groups like ACORN and MoveOn.org that are behind HCAN (Health Care America Now), which is screaming for a government-run single payer system. And guess who these organizations supported in the most recent election? You guessed it: Barak Obama and liberals. And guess who will lord Do you think I'm a Republican? Guess again. I'm not. I don't work for a private health plan either. I am just a middle-of-the-road American who is outraged by what I'm seeing taking place. In the socialist mind of Barak Obama, the ends justify the means. It matters not how many jobs and lives are destroyed, because what is important is liberal socialist dogma. Beneath the silken-smooth oratory of Barak Obama is a Machiavellian mind with an insidious agenda. If you value your future, fight for it. It is up to us to hold the liberals accountable. They believe their cause is right and just, and do not want to any real debate. Welcome to the USSA.
Anthony Hobbs writes: Excellent! and very correct! I would like to see a law passed making it a felony to make a profit from the pain and suffering of others that are not so fortunate. If it destroys the bloated system we have that only is really for the upper crust then very good! If we were to remove the extreme laws and rules we have protecting the profits of insurance companies and elite ie open the door to MD's and medicine from other countries who would work for a reasonable amount. It is not correct for our elderly to have to go elsewhere for their meds. Everytime I drive to Mexico I see lines of the elderly waiting in line at the pharmacies in the border towns for their perscripitions they can't afford here, and don't tell me the medicine is inferior I know better. Anyway I am 100% behind Obama unless he begins to work for the status quo....
John Roberts writes: I dont get the point of this article. I am in independent but am of the opinion that the govt should focus on the reduction of health care costs and not on the viability of health care insurance companies. Clearly, these health care companies dont care about our country - why should we care about them?
Jimmy writes: The problem with private insurance is the are middle men, required to make profits which in the end only increases health care costs. Health care should never be about making profits, period. We do need a singular plan, covering all Americans, and running at cost, not profit. Same goes for health providers as well, they need to be operating at cost, not profit levels. The system today is broken. Take home medical equipment for example. A gel-cell battery from a home medical supplier going through insurance will cost upwards of $130. Go to your local marina store and buy the same exact battery for $75. The system is flawed, status quo will only make things worse.
Joe Ramirez writes: You claim the Federal Government has the ability to negotiate prices and private insurers do not? False! Private insurers have been negotiating prices so your statement that that insurers are at a disadvantage is a lie. Why is it that insurers are only paying out, on average 69% of the premiums - and keeping 31% for costs and profits? The basis for your article is groundless.
Bill Broughton writes: As anyone who works in the health care field knows private insurers most definitely DO dictate prices to doctors and hospitals by simply saying this is all they will pay for such and such a visit or procedure. As a matter of fact they are often in the vanguard of price cuts before Medicare catches up with the lower reimbursement.
Norm Strong writes: Mr. Lowry is exactly right. His argument is flawless. A limited public insurance plan will undoubtedly lead to fewer private insurance customers, and to a reduction in costs overall. Yipee, I can hardly wait. Anything that reduces health care costs has got to be good. All that wasted money is, of course, going to somebody, and that somebody will surely try to prevent any change that will reduce his income. But it's good for the country.
Jerry McNutt writes: 47 million people is only 20% of the American population? I don't believe for a second that 80% of Americans are happy with their health coverage. Perhaps you meant 80% of the people who have it covered by their employer - which can still be very expensive. You're losing sight of the issue here. The issue isn't making sure health care providers have healthy bottom lines. The issue is making sure that Americans have health coverage and aren't dying needlessly because that can't afford over-priced plans that are designed to deny any and every request for coverage. This over-blown reaction to government health care is simply a way to get people to fear change. We need government health care. It's proven successful in other countries - despite Republican rhetoric - and our current system is a proven failure and fraud.
Earl Hines writes: Obama and the democrats know exactly what they are doing. This and other initiatives are clearly aimed at socializing the country and changing the political landscape for long-term one party control. This healthcare BS is just a step. If voters that are not already on the public take don’t wake up in 2010 and 2012 it will be too late
Brian Schupp writes: ..." Private insurers are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the federal government because they don't have the power of the government to dictate prices to doctors and hospitals"...sorry, but with the kickback systems private insurers have in place around the country, they DO dictate prices to doctors and hospitals, and they all share in the extra fees the insured pay daily! Its the oldest scheme in the book--doctors/hospitals simply raise the fees they charge, the "insured" has to make up a greater portion after his insurer sets the amount they are willing to pay, the dr/hosp then discounts the actual fee to the insurer and they both share the over-charge. While I am opposed to nationalized health care, the current system is so corrupt it has to be dismantled one way or another!
Harry Khatzis writes: I suggest this is one more place that the government does not belong. I suggest that the current people running the government go back and read the Declaration of Independence and why we through off the oppression of the King. If the government insists on running every aspect of our lifes then people will start a list of reasons why we need a new form of government. One with a better set of checks and balances.
jake writes: Your article suggests a public plan would be awful because it might result in some people leaving the private insurance. But what you don't explain is exactly what the country's 47 million uninsured are supposed to do. Hope they don't get sick today? While suggesting flaws in Obama's plan for a public option, you don't mention what your plan for a public option would be. You also fail to address the current cost of health insurance. The current cost of health insurance in the US is simply unsustainable. It doesn't matter how many people are satisfied or not. They won't be satisfied when they're broke when health care costs continue to rise and reach 19.5% of the GDP by 2017. You seem to be making a case against a public option because it might mean some people actually use it. Your article addresses neither the uninsured nor the rising costs of health care. In 2007, the US spent $2.26 trillion on health care, and growth in spending is going to average 6.7% anually over the next ten years. And you're worried about $3.5 trillion over the next ten years. Are you kidding?
George Steinen writes: "Private insurers are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the federal government because they don't have the power of the government to dictate prices to doctors and hospitals." I think most people would say that private insurance companies do the same thing all the time.
Mark Stewart writes: You have posted some Brazen sophistry yourself. 80% of Americans are happy with current healthcare? Where did you get that. Healtcare is broken for all except the well to do. Ask any Doctor, Insurance companies today dictate what doctors get based on a complex set of pay rules. What will be impcated is profitability and that should be validly considered. If you're going to claim someone is misleading, then you should not mislead yourself!
hsr0601 writes: the Commonwealth Fund showed what Obama’s advisers know, that a public plan competing with the private plans — even if it pays more than Medicare does — saves the nation trillions and most Americans get health insurance.
hsr0601 writes: I'd like to encourage you to read this promising study report. Public health plan could save money faster: policy group. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A nationwide health insurance exchange that includes a Medicare-like government option could save $1.8 trillion more than if only private plans are offered, a prominent private U.S. health policy group said on Wednesday. Federal spending on health-related costs would still rise from 2010 to 2020, but they would be less with a plan that pays doctors and hospital rates similar to the Medicare program for the elderly and disabled, according to a report by the Commonwealth Fund. The New York-based health policy research group compared possible savings a health insurance exchange could bring under three different scenarios. One would include a Medicare-like plan along with private insurance. Another would instead offer a government-run plan with rates somewhat higher than Medicare. The final one would be private insurance with no government plan at all. Such an exchange would offer a central point for consumers to shop for and compare health plans. An exchange that instead offered a plan with rates slightly higher than Medicare but below current private plan rates would save nearly $800 billion over one with only private options, according to the Commonwealth Fund's analysis. "Offering a public plan choice and the design of this choice makes a difference in the pace of change," said Cathy Schoen, the group's senior vice president. Whether Democrats' plan to revamp the U.S. health care system and provide coverage to the roughly 46 million uninsured Americans includes a government-run insurance plan is a major sticking point as Congress finalizes its proposal. Supporters say such an option would offer Americans an affordable alternative. Most people with health insurance in the United Stated get it through their employer or the government. But those who do not have coverage through work and do not qualify for Medicare or the Medicare program for the poor can face a tough time buying a policy. The Commonwealth fund echoed those sentiments, saying private plans could lower premiums as more people seek insurance and that lower administrative costs with the government-run options may force private plans to streamline. "It would provide a strong incentive for private plans to innovate and compete," Schoen told reporters. Opponents say a cheaper, government plan will make it impossible for private plans to compete and may drive some out of business. It could also encourage employers to drop coverage and make employees buy a government-backed plan, they say. Overall, an exchange with a Medicare-like plan will save nearly $3 trillion through 2020, saving consumers up to $2,200 per household, Commonwealth found. About $2 trillion of that would come after about five to six years, it said. In comparison, an exchange including a government plan with higher rates would save $1.97 trillion and a private plan-only exchange would save almost $1.2 trillion. Both options would save a household $1,600. Still, an exchange won't keep health costs from rising, the report added. The increase in federal budget costs from 2010 to 2020 with the Medicare-like public plan would be $112 billion, it found. That is compared to $232 billion under the public plan with somewhat higher rates and $360 billion under a private plan-only exchange. All three options would help insure nearly all Americans, it said, with the number of uninsured dropping to about 4 million people by 2012. The group's analysis assumed other changes would also be made to the U.S. healthcare market. These include payment reforms to the Medicare program, an expansion of existing government coverage and new regulations that would require insurers to cover a wider range of consumers. Hospitals and doctors would also see their revenues grow with any of the three exchanges but at a slower rate, the report said. Thank You !
nancy beard writes: Thank you for the opportunity. I have been a RN for almost 40 yrs. and have witnessed health care as a RN staff nurse all the way to Nurse Administrator and Consultant;I have also been a patient a few times. I have seen hc costs and MD charges and hospital costs soar especially in the last 15 years. Fortunately my salary has increased(not in tandem to the hc costs). My husband and I are retired and have medicare and, fortunately, a very good secondary hc policy. My husband has emphysema; I do not know what we face in terms of his hc costs. I do know that Humana also offers hc coverage for people who do not have coverage at lower costs than other companies. I fully understand the remarks in Mr. Lowry's opinion and I definitely think that he has named very possible outcomes. I also think that there are other outcomes that could occur, given looking at other means;however, addressing these issues would be politically deadly so President Obama and any other President would not dare "go there". The 3 isssues I think could be addressed: 1. The congressmen in DC do not pay SS and have very attractive health care and retirement plans. Why can we not look at federal government employee benefits and tool them down to reduce costs? Upon employment a RN automatically gets 5 weeks vacation in a vets hospital in my city; in a non-govermental hospital a RN gets 10 days after 1 yr. 2. MDs, Hospitals and insurance companies etc. could, if they would, scale costs along the lines of actual and reasonable care. Insurance companies,like the auto and financial industries pay big bonuses to CEOs.Couldn't they be scaled back? 3. The DRUG companies are making a killing!!!Mostly, the spending for researching for future drugs could be suspended for awhile. Looking at the DNA of a "possible" alien from the "50s" and we have children on our streets!!! Thanks.
Bruce Ewert writes: Re: "he respected health-care research firm The Lewin Group estimates as many as 119 million people could migrate from private insurance to the government plan..." Perhaps you should be open and add " The Lewin Group is part of Ingenix, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the UnitedHealth Group." as Lewin VP John Sheils did before his recent testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. Re: "...some 80 percent of Americans are satisfied with their health care..." Since you did not provide a source, I can only quote Gallup numbers that state that 59% of Americans state our healthcare system has major probems, while another 14% state it is in crisis. I have a simple question for you, Rich. Why can't all Americans have the option of the same benefits as well over a third of us do under Medicare or Tricare (for veterans)?
William Knauss writes: You say "47 million don't have health insurance but 80% are satisfied with their health care". You must be kidding! In any case I am one American that is not satisfied with my health care and will not be satisfied until every one of the 47 million uninsured american, and the presently insured, has equal access to quality health care, regardless of whether they can afford it. If this causes the health insurers some discomfort, maybe they can ask the goverment for a bail out just like AIG did.
Linda E. Dunn writes: Obama doesn't have the experience or knowledge to implement this program. People are mostly happy with their current health plan. Seems to me Obama is simply providing insurance for the uninsured. Our country was built on integrity, individualism and pride. He is quickly attempting to distroy these values.
Guy Jones writes: I am a small broker with one employee that provides I believe...more importantly my customer believe a great service in helping them with their health care. I don't know of anyone who enjoys paying for health care...but, who does...at least the have a choice...not something shoved down their throat. Americans like choice...and freedom. The current health care system isn't perfect...but, it works. I think Obama is trying to make as many changes quickly while they have majority. His party likes big goverment and involvement. I on the other hand like the less goverment side...You see what happens when the goverment tries to do TOO much. Just one person's opinion....worried also about their job...who has worked hard to get where he is to support himself and his family.
Jake Gibbons writes: Do I understand correctly that employers will now be freed of the oppressive costs of health care if they choose? Maybe that would be a good thing for the economy.
We Welcome your Comments
Please understand we believe if you are going to comment you should be bold enough to identify yourself. Please fill out the form below and your comments will be submitted. Comments will be edited for vulgarity. Please provide either your email address or telephone number so we can verify the source.
