Private Health Care Joins Obama

Started by Symmetric Chaos3 pages

Private Health Care Joins Obama

The claim:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_overhaul_savings

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Monday portrayed the health care industry's promise to cut $2 trillion in costs over 10 years as "a watershed event" in the long search for a solution to the millions of uninsured.

Whether that is true won't be readily known as debate begins in Congress over sweeping health care legislation. What is known now is that the move puts the industry groups involved firmly inside the process of expanding coverage, with the hope they can steer the final product toward something that doesn't restrict their profitability.

"I will not rest until the dream of health care reform is achieved in the United States of America," Obama declared in the White House's State Dining Room as he announced the voluntary offer made to the White House Monday by a consortium of hospitals, insurance companies, drug makers and doctors.

They told Obama they would slow rate increases by 1.5 percentage points a year by improving coordination, focusing on efficiency and embracing better technology and regulatory reform.

Government economists say the shaved costs would create breathing room to help provide health insurance to an estimated 50 million Americans who now do not have it.

It's a substantial change from the time in the early 1990s when President Bill Clinton took on health care reform, only to see industry leaders fight back hard, ultimately killing the White House proposal before it could gain any traction.

Still, even Obama acknowledged that the step announced Monday would be meaningful into the future only if it is not a singular event, but part of a larger and successful effort toward universal health care coverage for Americans. He said the country "can, will and must" accomplish this goal by the end of the year.

"There's so much more to do," he said.

"We can't continue down the same dangerous road we've been traveling for so many years," Obama said. "Reform is not a luxury that can be postponed, but a necessity that cannot wait."

He indirectly criticized some of the groups at his side for killing the effort last time.

"All too often, efforts at reform have fallen victim to special interest lobbying aimed at keeping things the way they are, to political point-scoring that sees health care not as a moral issue or an economic issue, but as a wedge issue, and to a failure on all sides to come together on behalf of the American people," the president said.

The industry letter said "these and other reforms will make our health care system stronger and more sustainable."

Although the offer from the industry groups doesn't resolve thorny details of a new health care system, it does offer the prospect of freeing a large chunk of money to help pay for coverage. And it puts the private-sector groups in a good position to influence the bill Congress is writing.

The industry groups are trying to get on the administration bandwagon for expanded coverage now in the hope they can steer Congress away from legislation that would restrict their profitability in future years.

Insurers, for example, want to avoid the creation of a government health plan that would directly compete with them to enroll middle-class workers and their families. Drug makers worry that in the future, new medications might have to pass a cost-benefit test before they can win approval. And hospitals and doctors are concerned the government could dictate what they get paid to care for any patient, not only the elderly and the poor.

It's unclear whether the proposed savings will prove decisive in pushing a health care overhaul through Congress. There's no detail on how the savings pledge would be enforced. And, critically, the promised savings in private health care costs would accrue to society as a whole, not just the federal government. That's a crucial distinction because specific federal savings are needed to help pay for the cost of expanding coverage.

Costs have emerged as the most serious obstacle to Obama's plan. The estimated federal costs range from $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years, and so far Obama has only spelled out how to get about half of that.

A few less optimistic notes:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_overhaul_analysis

WASHINGTON – The White House trumpeted the news: health care providers taking a $2 trillion scalpel to their costs and pushing the U.S. toward Barack Obama's vision of health coverage for all. But don't line up yet for those insurance cards.

First, a reality check for the nation's 50 million uninsured.

Pledging restraint on costs Monday at the White House were groups representing hospitals, doctors, drug makers, medical device manufacturers and a major health care labor union _a Who's Who of health care interests. The president posed proudly with them and called it "a watershed event."

But none of the groups can actually dictate to their members. Doctors in New York or hospitals in Los Angeles are free to charge what they please.

Also, medical providers have a long track record of avoiding fiscal constraints, as witnessed by the government's efforts to tamp down Medicare costs.

And there's one more catch: Even if every penny of the promised savings shows up, not all of it would be used to help cover uninsured Americans. Actual savings to the government are all that can be counted as Congress tries to pay for subsidies that will be needed to help make health insurance affordable for everyone.

The medical groups' pledge is "a very hopeful sign," said economist Robert Reischauer, head of the Urban Institute. "But when we get down to hammering out the details, health care reform remains both complex and philosophically and politically difficult to accomplish."

Costs could still turn out to be the greatest obstacle to Obama's health care plan.

Outside experts estimate the taxpayers' tab could total between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Some go as high as $1.7 trillion. Obama's budget proposal includes a down payment that may cover less than half the bill.

The president wants to build on the current system in which most people get coverage through private insurers. But he wants to change the rules so the sick can't be turned down. And he wants to provide subsidies to help low-wage workers and even some in the middle class afford their premiums.

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio isn't impressed. "Today's announcement promises savings with no concrete plan to achieve them and no enforcement mechanism if they don't," he said Monday.

Indeed, it's too early to tell whether Monday's White House meeting will be remembered as a turning point or as a political mirage. The administration is projecting an image of a new coalition for health care, with Obama and most of the health care industry and consumer interest groups claiming the political center.

Left out, for now, are conservative Republicans, who oppose Obama's direction but have yet to articulate their own vision, and liberal Democrats who have been hoping to move toward a nationalized system like Medicare for all. As the debate heats up, the voices from both ends of the political divide will get louder — and the pressure on the center will increase.

Still, the sight of health care industry leaders volunteering to hold back spending is still pretty unusual.

By joining Obama, providers are acknowledging at least some responsibility for a bloated and dysfunctional system that economists say is unaffordable.

In the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton attempted to overhaul health care, the battle lines quickly hardened. Obama, who has gone out of his way to woo the interest groups, praised their willingness to sacrifice on Monday.

The groups don't just have the national interest in mind. Industry is worried that Congress will create a government health plan to compete with private insurers. Such a plan would quickly become the biggest in the country and could use its power to set lower payment rates, driving costs down on the backs of medical providers.

"I think the reason all these groups want to actively participate in the process is they don't want to see a blunt instrument used to get spending down," said Mark McClellan, who ran Medicare for President George W. Bush. "This is an opportunity to get everyone behind a better approach to improve the way health care works."

That's just what the groups say they want to do. Their proposals include coordinating care for people with chronic illnesses, rewarding quality not quantity, and using technology to root out waste and prevent errors that get patients sicker.

But it's hard to put numbers next to any of those ideas. For example, what if better care for chronically ill patients turns out to increase costs? None of the groups has set a target for how much its members should have to pony up.

Congress is going to need hard numbers to pass Obama's plan this year.

Robert Laszewski, a former health insurance executive turned policy consultant, said he's betting the consensus won't last.

"When Congress comes up with mechanisms to reduce costs that actually take money out of the hands of doctors, hospitals and insurance companies, that's when we're going to find out if things are really different this time," he said.

Basically the private health insurance providers have said they're willing to work with the government to restructure the system and Obama is implying the he wants to steer away from a nationalized system. At the same time critics say that Obama hasn't explained where funding will come from at this point and that there's no way to be sure either side will see this any farther than this.

I like the adds that are crawling all over the dial these days. The whole right wing push is saying that socialized medicine has left all English and Canadian citizens squirming in agony and dying because government beauracracy and project budgets are being cut. They've even gotten doctors in those countries to join in the fun by providing a platform for those doctors to ***** and moan because they aren't paid as well as doctors in this country who get to benefit from private healthcare.

If you want to see the horrors of de-regulated, socialized medicine of the sort these supposedly horrific governments provide for their citizens, one need look no further than the hundreds of loop holes the private insurance industry in the US uses to deny benefits to millions of paying customers that end up getting sick every month. The laws in the US guarantee medical help to anyone who enters the emrgency room, but refuses to consider the circumstances of their bank accounts. Those same people also seem to stop listening when it comes to the fact that those same poor people now have thousands of dollars in debt, making it even harder for them to live up to the expectations those people have of them.

However, I am squarly against President Obama giving the insurance companies an equal "seat at the table" during the debate over how to go forward with this issue. But, I also realize that there's no national infrastructure in place that could handle the demand is the government removed private corporations from the equation. Too bad, Mr. Obama isn't being a socialist in this case.

Does anyone remember the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact?

Does anyone know how much health insurance CEO's actually make?

How about we reform healthcare by making campaign financing public, making it illegal for any lobbyist to meet with a congressman without their conversations being recorded and broadcast, making private health insurance illegal, taxing the rich at 74%, get rid of medicare and medicaid in favor of a universal healthcare system with Healthcare written into the constitution as a fundamental human right, and open up all of the former insurance underwriter CEO's to civil suits for damages and injuries with massive cash payouts.

Lol.

The thread title has the word "private" in it. That means vagina, cock, and balls. teehee

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Does anyone remember the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact?

Does anyone know how much health insurance CEO's actually make?

How about we reform healthcare by making campaign financing public, making it illegal for any lobbyist to meet with a congressman without their conversations being recorded and broadcast, making private health insurance illegal, taxing the rich at 74%, get rid of medicare and medicaid in favor of a universal healthcare system with Healthcare written into the constitution as a fundamental human right, and open up all of the former insurance underwriter CEO's to civil suits for damages and injuries with massive cash payouts.

So which is Obama, Molotov or Ribbentrop?

Otherwise I agree. Total transparency is essential. Sadly, the expectations of transparency can't be forced only on the government. It would also have to be demanded of the media. This would mean that the media would have to literally become the 4th estate, which would make it subject to the regulation of the government (ie the people), which would mean socialism, dictatorship and all the other tag lines that make the right AND left go ape shit. This is one viscious circle that unfortunately works out only for conspiracy theorists.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Does anyone remember the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact?

Does anyone know how much health insurance CEO's actually make?

How about we reform healthcare by making campaign financing public, making it illegal for any lobbyist to meet with a congressman without their conversations being recorded and broadcast, making private health insurance illegal, taxing the rich at 74%, get rid of medicare and medicaid in favor of a universal healthcare system with Healthcare written into the constitution as a fundamental human right, and open up all of the former insurance underwriter CEO's to civil suits for damages and injuries with massive cash payouts.

You think that the rich people driving your economy would stay if you taxed them like that?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You think that the rich people driving your economy would stay if you taxed them like that?

At that tax rate, hell, even George Clooney and Susan Sarandon might leave.

$2,000,000,000,000 in cuts?

Sounds like a lot of jobs going down the drain to me.

Wow, i'm disappointed. I was hoping that Obama would keep the insurer's claws out of his proposal.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You think that the rich people driving your economy would stay if you taxed them like that?

It always has before Ronald Reagan came in and ****ed up the whole country.

The only places where the rich don't pay that much or close to it are in dictatorships and caliphates.

Under a certain conservative republican named Dwight Eisenhower the tax rate on the rich was closer to 90%!

Originally posted by Darth Jello
It always has before Ronald Reagan came in and ****ed up the whole country.

The only places where the rich don't pay that much or close to it are in dictatorships and caliphates.

Under a certain conservative republican named Dwight Eisenhower the tax rate on the rich was closer to 90%!

I hate when people just start making up numbers and facts.

Yeah, everyone knows that 99% of those type of people are assholes anyway. 😒

Originally posted by Darth Jello
It always has before Ronald Reagan came in and ****ed up the whole country.

The only places where the rich don't pay that much or close to it are in dictatorships and caliphates.

Under a certain conservative republican named Dwight Eisenhower the tax rate on the rich was closer to 90%!

That has little to do with what I said. The tax rate being very high after the first and second world war has no bearing on the reactions of people nowadays. And as the world is today, it is more likely that the rich would find other, cheaper ways.

Of course the whole idea is just unfair and silly, but lets just focus on the practical problems, instead.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That has little to do with what I said. The tax rate being very high after the first and second world war has no bearing on the reactions of people nowadays. And as the world is today, it is more likely that the rich would find other, cheaper ways.

Of course the whole idea is just unfair and silly, but lets just focus on the practical problems, instead.

Unfair? Maybe. Silly? Not really.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Unfair? Maybe. Silly? Not really.
It is a bit silly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It is a bit silly.

For a goverment in need of revenue to tax the people most capable of surviving on a fraction of their income?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
For a goverment in need of revenue to tax the people most capable of surviving on a fraction of their income?

To that degree, yes.

Originally posted by chithappens
I hate when people just start making up numbers and facts.

Maybe you should have listened in history class instead of covertly reading the fountainhead.

For those who haven't heard. The health insurance companies are already backing out of the agreement, claiming there was no agreement and promising hikes. So either this was a Obama's way of making them even more unpopular with the public using the same strategy he used on the republicans or he really is stupid enough to think you can negotiate with plutocrats.

Originally posted by Bardock42
To that degree, yes.

Well okay, yeah 90% is absurd. I thought you were referring to non-flat tax systems.

George Bush's fault.