No-Cost Health Reform
The No-Cost Path to Cheaper Health Care
Republicans are offering common-sense reforms that would lower costs.
By JOHN SHADEGG
Wall Street Journal
If your car isn't working as well as it should, the next logical step would be to take it to a mechanic, right? And if that mechanic tells you he can fix it with a simple, inexpensive repair, most people would get the repair—not junk it and buy a new car! Unfortunately, that's exactly what our Democrat-led Congress is doing in its efforts to "reform" our nation's health-care system.
It is true that many Americans cannot find affordable health coverage. However, it is the government-imposed barriers that make coverage expensive, especially for the working poor in America. Fixing these problems would cost the taxpayer absolutely nothing, yet congressional Democrats refuse to consider these no-cost solutions.
The already high cost of insurance is often increased by excessive state regulations. States have passed more than 1,800 benefit mandates, requiring insurance companies to cover services from hair prostheses (wigs) to infertility treatments to acupuncturists to massage therapists. These state mandates raise the cost of insurance, which, in turn, increases the number of Americans who are priced out of the health-insurance market.
You may be thinking, what if I don't need a hair prosthesis or infertility treatments? Tough luck. Instead of having a choice in coverage you do need, you'll likely be paying for health insurance at an exorbitant cost to cover things you may never use or desire.
The solution: Allow American families to purchase health coverage across state lines. According to a study by the University of Minnesota, 12 million more Americans would be able to buy coverage if this simple solution were enacted into law.
Another no-cost solution? Give Americans the option to take the cash their employer uses to purchase health care and let them buy a plan on their own. If they are happy with their current plan, let them keep it. If not, let them take their business elsewhere and buy their own health coverage. This would force the insurance industry to innovate and control costs, or face losing business to companies that do.
Americans should also be able to purchase their health insurance on the same tax-advantaged basis as their employers. If your employer purchased health insurance on your behalf today, he would be able to do so with pre-tax dollars. However, in today's market, if you go it alone, you won't get any tax incentive to purchase your own health care. This would be a simple remedy to our still antiquated tax code, which favors big government and punishes individuals.
Allowing insurance portability and fixing the tax code is just a cost-savings start. How about enacting restrictions on runaway medical malpractice litigation such as pre-litigation review panels and loser-pay provisions for frivolous suits? Making any one of these changes to our health-care system wouldn't cost taxpayers a single cent and could save us billions over the long term.
These ideas considered separately or enacted together will reduce costs for those who have health-insurance coverage and enable others to afford it. The savings could be used to fund high-risk pools for individuals with pre-existing conditions, and to provide tax credits and vouchers so no American goes without basic health coverage.
But rather than consider these common sense proposals, congressional Democrats are insisting we push through a new trillion-dollar government controlled scheme.
Proponents of ObamaCare can't cite one shred of evidence that giving politicians and Washington bureaucrats more power and control will produce better quality health care or lower costs. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office admitted it has had no time to study exactly how much the bill will increase premiums for average Americans—something it routinely does for health-care legislation that is moving through Congress.
Does anyone believe the billions in new taxes as well as hundreds of pages of new rules and regulations being proposed will lower the cost of health care in America? But not knowing how much this will harm families didn't stop Congress from advancing one of the most sweeping pieces of legislation our nation has ever seen. That's scary and irresponsible.
Why aren't we trying, or even debating, these no-cost solutions that insert choice into the health-care reform equation? Before Congress acts and passes an expensive, untested, new health-care system, the American people need to be heard.
It's common sense BUT at the end of the day all the facts and figures don't mean a thing.
Like I said before it all comes down to power, control, and another dependent class of voters.
The current health care system does have issues that need to be fixed such as tort reform, the lack of competition and all the red-tape.
Heard this yesterday and it's good way to explain it;
If you have a car and it runs fine but you need new tires. Do you throw away the car that runs fine and buy a new car or do you just fix the tires?So I have a question for anyone who supports the Obamacare bill that passed the House:
Let's say I make $100,000 a year, I live in Ohio and I currently pay $50 a month for my health insurnace.
Can anyone provide a link to where I can find out exactly what I would be required to buy or pay should this bill become law?
It sounds as though I would be required to purchase a "qualified plan" that will cost me at least $15,000 in premiums. Is this correct? Because this would make even Maine insurance costs seem reasonable.
Seriously, I think this is something people should be able to understand, don't you?I doubt it..
Do you think Fred has figured it out yet?
Justin, it would not matter if a policy in Maine cost $1,000 and a policy in another state cost a $1.00.
It all comes down to two things:
1. One groups need for power and control
2. One groups need to be controlled
Some people just feel more secure having some higher authority, in this case a centralized government, think and make decisions for them.
Like C.S. Lewis said "tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."You might find this interesting. In the 1980 and 90's I was a licensed agent for Golden Rule. At that time Augusta was looking into legislation that would require health insurance companies to accept all applicants regardless of existing conditions. We were notified from Golden Rule that if it was passed, their insurance would no longer be offered in Maine. And it happened. There was a connection between the owner of Golden Rule and Newt Gingrich.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1996/01/medikill
www.goldenrule.com
www.anthem.com
Do you need instructions as well?Justin, YOU are the one who quoted 10%, not me back it up! We've been down this road before with the same results. What's your source? I named mine. Did you dream those numbers?
What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says
Here are some important passages in the 2,000 page legislation
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY,
Wall Street Journal 11.09.09
The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.
What the government will require you to do:
• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.
Eviscerating Medicare:
In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.
• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."
The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."
A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.
• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.
• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.
• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.
• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."
Questionable Priorities:
While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.
• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."
These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.
• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.
• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."
• Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.
For the text of the bill with page numbers, see www.defendyourhealthcare.us.
Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former Lt. Governor of New York state.
Justin, liberals have a problem with doing things for themselves, they need directions from Washington and Augusta first.
Fred, is it against your religion to do things for yourself?
You can get your own insurance quote. Try it.
You may well be right, but I think they are more credible than Justin.
Fred, the Kaiser Family Foundation is hardly a credible nonpartisan source.
Drew Altman the CEO made contributions to Hilary Clinton and Obama in 2008 and John Kerry back in 2004.
Average family policy in Ohio; $11425. in Maine; $13102. Source, Kaiser Family Foundation. Do the math, Justin. It's not that hard. Don't look like 10% to me.
And is that Ohio insurance worth the paper it's written on, justin? Or is it just for young, healthy people who promise never to get sick.
You don't sock away trillions in assets by providing health care to just anyone.One true indication of ignorance is not using specific examples or experience to formulate an opinion. We have such examples in health care. Dirigo for the "no competition public option" and Ohio (and other states) for allowing private competition. It just so happens that health insurance costs in Ohio are almost 1/10 of the cost we pay in Maine.
Learn.Bob, it's really no surprise that AARP endorsed this plan. The CEO of AARP, Barry Rand, was a major donor to the Obama campaign.
Freedom of "choice" for a public option?
You mean like Dirigo?
Good point.Dueling Health Care Plans
November 5, 2009 — Ron Chusid
There was a lot of reaction to both the Democratic and Republican health care plans today. The tea baggers protested once again against what they have been misled to believe to be the Democratic Plan. Two groups which really understand both the issue and what is actually being proposed issued endorsements. I received a two page fax from the American Medical Association this afternoon endorsing the House plan.The fax praised the plan for expanding care, reforming the insurance markets preserving patient-physician decision making, investing in quality care, prevention, and wellness, and repealing the flawed formula for calculating Medicare payments.
Obama discussed the significance of this endorsement saying members of the AMA “are men and women who know our health care system best and have been watching this debate closely. They would not be supporting it if they really believed that it would lead to government bureaucrats making decisions that are best left to doctors. They would not be with us if they believed that reform would in any way damage the critical and sacred doctor-patient relationship.”
On this topic, the fax from the American Medical Association said:
[Preserving the power of patients and their physicians to make health care decisions–rather than insurance companies or government officials–is of paramount importance to all physicians and to the AMA. While H.R. 3962 includes a number of new government oversight bodies, the AMA has not identified any new authority that would overpower the relationship between patients and their physicians. Furthermore, expanded coverage and choice should help empower patient and physician decision making.]
He also gave one reason why so many physicians are endorsing health care reform:
[They’ve seen what happens when patients can’t get the care they need because some insurance company has decided to drop their coverage or water it down. They’ve seen what happens when a patient’s forced to pay out-of- pocket costs of thousands of dollars that she doesn’t have, to get the treatment she desperately needs. They’ve seen what happens when patients don’t come in for regular checkups or screenings because either their insurance company doesn’t cover them or they can’t afford health insurance in the first place. And they’ve seen far, far too much of their time spent filling out forms and haggling with insurance company bureaucrats. So the doctors of America know what needs to be fixed about our health care system. They know that health insurance reform would go a long way toward doing that.]
Obama is certainly right on that. All the scare stories raised by the right wingers are nothing compared to the horror stories we see every day under our current system.
The other key endorsement came from AARP. Obama commented:
[When it comes to the AARP, this is no small endorsement,” he said. “For more than 50 years they have been a leader in the fight to reduce the costs of health care and expand coverage for our senior citizens. They are a nonpartisan organization and their board made their decision to endorse only after a careful, intensive, objective scrutiny of this bill. They’re endorsing this bill because they know it will strengthen Medicare, not jeopardize it; they know it will protect the benefits our seniors receive, not cut them.]
The Republicans felt they had to come up with a counter plan rather than vote against the Democratic plan without having anything. What they came up with was worse than no plan. Ezra Klein reviewed the Congressional Budget Office’s evaluation of the plan noting how it compared to the Democratic Plan: “The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan.”
The Republican National Committee announced plans for a twelve hour online town hall to “explain the democratic health care bill.”
Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Hari Sevugan issued the following response: “We’re planning a twelve second town hall to explain every last detail of the GOP health care plan.”
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=10944
......Competion between insurance cos is as believable as ethics between hedge fund managers.
But don't give the public the "choice" of a public option, huh, Justin? That just wouldn't be fair to the profit mongers.
Republican Health Insurance Reform Bill Insures Almost Nobody
Brian Beutler | November 5, 2009, 9:05AM
Earlier this week, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner made a prediction. The Republican health care plan, he said, "will cover millions more Americans" than the Democrats' plan. Bold. But here's what the experts say:
"By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 3 million relative to current law, leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, roughly in line with the current share."
Oops. You can read the entire analysis here (PDF)http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10705/hr3962amendmentBoehner.pdf.
To Boehner's dismay, the GOP bill was leaked to the media earlier this week, and quickly became a focus of derision for experts and activists who noted that, among other failings, the bill didn't include some of the most popular insurance regulations in the Democrats' bill, including a ban on pre-existing condition discrimination.
What else does CBO find?
Though some consumers would find their premiums reduced modestly, "in the large group market, which represents nearly 80 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by zero to 3 percent compared with amounts under current law, according to CBO's estimates. The figures are presented for 2016 as an illustrative example."
The GOP bill does require less new government spending, but that's what you get when you don't insure anybody. And though it does reduce the deficit, it does so by billions less than the Democrats' bill does.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/republican-health-insurance-reform-bill-insures-almost-nobody.php?ref=fpb
Exactly Darin. Universal insurance is not "no cost" it is extremely "high cost" and only benefits insurance comapanies, drug companies and trial lawyers. Like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, all this would do is guarantee customers at taxpayer expense.
If you really want to punish these companies and bring down costs, make them compete with other companies."it is the government-imposed barriers that make coverage expensive"
Universal "Health Care" is a shill for the pharmaceutical industries and big trial lawyers.
The real "no cost" plan is Universal Healthcare...the rest of this babble is shilling for insurance and drug companies.