Health Care Politics
posted by: Marc Seltzer 164 days ago
Consistent with his free-market approach to all things economic (emergencies aside), President Barack Obama has given some suggestions on how he believes reforms can make health care more affordable and efficient. Mr. Obama has endorsed the creation of a public insurance entity from which Americans could choose to buy their health insurance, and which would offer competition to private insurers.
This approach is par-for-the-course for a President who addressed the financial crisis with public-private solutions instead of wholesale nationalization, and who believes in helping all Americans obtain health insurance but rejects the Canadian and European approaches to socialized medicine.
Mr. Obama has also smartly pressed for putting medical records on line as a way to track care and results in order to find ways to reduce costs and provide superior care. A much-talked-about article by New Yorker writer and M.D., Atul Gawande, has illustrated that high costs in health care sometimes serve private financial interests at the patient's and public's expense rather than primarily reflecting patient needs. Reformers hope that a public insurer could seek to both lower costs and provide high-quality care, inducing private insurers to match better care for lower cost.
While Congressional Republicans, some Democrats and insurance companies are speaking out against the public plan, saying it will undermine private insurers, recent public-opinion polls show popular support for a public insurance entity. Seventy-two percent of respondents in a nationwide poll supported the idea, including one in four Republicans. The President is going on the offensive, going so far as to mock lobbyists and legislators for protecting the insurance industry from competition.
Congressional Democratic leaders Henry Waxman, Charles Rangel and George Miller have unveiled a house bill containing the outlines of a public plan and proposal to insure 95% of Americans. Senate legislation, being spearheaded by Democrat Max Baucus and separately in the offices of Senator Kennedy and others, is still being developed.
Any reform of such a massive sector of the economy is bold. But with health care costs eating up an ever-greater share of public and private resources, change is required. It will take years for the new legislation to transform our health care system, but the mantra of "more for less" is a good guiding principle. Our spending on health care is unsustainable, damaging to public sector budgets and private business competativeness. If we don't want to give up the excellent care a majority of us enjoy, we will have to innovate. Looking to competition, even that created by the introduction of a public insurance entity, and trying to bring more people into an efficiently-managed program, makes sense.
It's about time Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders on health care received some bipartisan support for their efforts.
This approach is par-for-the-course for a President who addressed the financial crisis with public-private solutions instead of wholesale nationalization, and who believes in helping all Americans obtain health insurance but rejects the Canadian and European approaches to socialized medicine.
Mr. Obama has also smartly pressed for putting medical records on line as a way to track care and results in order to find ways to reduce costs and provide superior care. A much-talked-about article by New Yorker writer and M.D., Atul Gawande, has illustrated that high costs in health care sometimes serve private financial interests at the patient's and public's expense rather than primarily reflecting patient needs. Reformers hope that a public insurer could seek to both lower costs and provide high-quality care, inducing private insurers to match better care for lower cost.
While Congressional Republicans, some Democrats and insurance companies are speaking out against the public plan, saying it will undermine private insurers, recent public-opinion polls show popular support for a public insurance entity. Seventy-two percent of respondents in a nationwide poll supported the idea, including one in four Republicans. The President is going on the offensive, going so far as to mock lobbyists and legislators for protecting the insurance industry from competition.
Congressional Democratic leaders Henry Waxman, Charles Rangel and George Miller have unveiled a house bill containing the outlines of a public plan and proposal to insure 95% of Americans. Senate legislation, being spearheaded by Democrat Max Baucus and separately in the offices of Senator Kennedy and others, is still being developed.
Any reform of such a massive sector of the economy is bold. But with health care costs eating up an ever-greater share of public and private resources, change is required. It will take years for the new legislation to transform our health care system, but the mantra of "more for less" is a good guiding principle. Our spending on health care is unsustainable, damaging to public sector budgets and private business competativeness. If we don't want to give up the excellent care a majority of us enjoy, we will have to innovate. Looking to competition, even that created by the introduction of a public insurance entity, and trying to bring more people into an efficiently-managed program, makes sense.
It's about time Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders on health care received some bipartisan support for their efforts.
Read more: politics, economics, president obama
comments
In response to Charles Temm Jr: by your logic, we should also halt all public funding of firemen, police, and maybe some of the less life or death related services like the DMV and the library. Of course, we all know that health care isn't a life or death issue....
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Do any writers on Care2 even know what the free market is? How can anyone who has ever had a job in this nation or taken an economic course even start an article with such a moronic statement as "in keeping with his free market approach Obama is..."?
This man has done NOTHING consistent with the market on anything. That is exactly why we are in such a mess economically and declining further daily instead of making any sort of recovery after some 14-16 months of a recession. He took a 'normal' recession that usually ends in 14-18 months and is looking to extend it years IF it recovers even then.
From taking over huge sectors of the economy, increasing taxation, regulation, and exploding the debt, this president has done nothing to either revitalize or stabilize our national economy. Even the socialistic states of the Europe and Asia are chiding us for our policies and our chief foreign banker is openly laughing at the idea we have a plan to get back on track.
And now he and some of his fellow travelers in Congress wish to add a massive "single payer" insurance plan on an already broke Treasury. Yeah Obama understands the economy, I hope his wife does the family books or we'll have to bail them out too if he runs their personal finances in the same way.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
To Sally and others concerned about scofflaws refusing to buy affordable insurance or faking disabilities: a single-payer system ideally would tax based on ability to pay - as we do now with the Medicare tax. Competent record-keeping would scrutinize disability claims. Many of these abuses have been blown out of proportion by opponents of "government programs." Cost for individual insurance can be staggering, esp. of people have serious health conditions. Getting disability coverage on any public plan is difficult and requires in-person scrutiny. I know; I went through it with my Down Syndrome adult daughter. However, no system is perfect. What we have is no system at all!
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Crystal, your medical records will not be public. Instead of hiring someone to transcribe a doctor's recorded notes, the doctor will put them into the computer him/herself. The VA already does this. My records are available to any medical provider I see at the VA, but only if they know the last 4 digits of my SSN. They only get that info when I check in for an appt. When I need medication, the Dr puts the Rx in the computer & it is transmitted directly to the pharmacy. A lot of people hours & paper are saved by doing it this way. Also, the pharmacy makes fewer mistakes because they don't have to try & read a Dr's scribble. The Dr doesn't have to search back through hundreds of pages of notes because my medical history including all meds (prescribed & OTC) is easily searchable. If a newly prescribed drug will react with one I'm already taking, the Dr will be instantly notified & can change the Rx.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I am very concerned about losing my right to privacy by having my medical records computerised and made public. I also beleive in nationalized health care. I liked the statement made about a healthy nation is a healthy workforce. And a healthy nation will make for a happier nation. I know the Insurance companies have much to lose financially but I think it's time this stop being about who gets rich off the sick and lets give our people a fighting chance.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I have seen over the years, the general public, people that made good money, that could have afforded insurance choose to not get it and instead got cars, homes and then when they were sick, live off the governemnt........it is still being done...loop holes loop holes...there are still alot of problems as well with wrong billing in the Dr. offices, and uneducated people even nurses that have no idea about certain areas of medicine that give approval for a surgery for instance working for an HMO or a PPO and guess who pays for that? You in the end........that is just one area of wrong doing...............too many areas for just the congress, senate, pres and so on to know how to correct when they themselves do not know what is going on in this medical history of ours..........a HUGE problem .................don't know what the answer is, yet we all think we do...........we are coming to a crisis that will be the biggest mess, a bigger mess than the other messes......and it will get bigger!!! I also and I know you who read this have seen this or ehard of this type of story.people feeding off disbility and do not ahve a disabilityu...how this occurs is beyojnd me, but it does and it is from fraud and other loop holes that got them this disability . Yet other's that have a real problem are declined and declined...end up getting an attorney and paying the attortney fees for this assistance..........WOW...waht to do waht to do??? People ahve a conscience no more !!!!! Thew vic
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Obama health care we need both parties this is health care which is in need of help, a trillion dollars is too much but maybe both parties can come to agreement toghter. Patricia Carroll
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Obama is committed to reform but he does not go far enough to insure all. We need single-payer to eliminate the mountains of paperwork connected with private insurance, and the uncertainty of adequate coverage - or any coverage at all! Meanwhile the conservatives have eviscerated Medicare by privatizing elements, partly with Advantage plans and completely with Part D drug coverage. (The US buys coverage from private plans and gives insurers a bounty for every head they bring in!) Obama would stop or reduce this drain on the Medicare trust fund. But many of the solutions being debated leave us wide open to gouging by the insurers. The cost if $1 - 1.6 trillion? That is over TEN YEARS, rarely pointed out. Krugman says the Wall Street bailout was $1.8 trillion! Did anyone ask, "Where is the money coming from?"
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Let us at least begin. How many years has it been where Washington decided because they got theirs. Public/Private need to be considered so lets talk about it, don't just say no. Those who just say no probably have good insurance, but what about those who do not? Lets put everything on the table and be bi-partizen. We really have no choice. What is it costing our Government now for health care? Trillions, people. Change can work for the better. It is just not about me!!!
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Interesting show on ABC last night about Obama's plan. There are some things that still concern me on this plan, I didnt like what he said about end of life decisions but I have to appriecate his honesty about it being a hard conversation that needs to be had. Evidence based medicine is "integrating individual clinical expertise and the best external evidence" Question is, who makes the decisions on what is the best external evidence? In theory this makes sense and should be a GUIDELINE for treatment, however, each individual is different, we all respond to medication differently, we also can say that some of our genetic makeup will predetermine our fate. Will evidence based medicine lead to a world in which our DNA could be a determining factor in the treatment we recieve? If I am in heart failure will I be refused a transplant because my father and mother both lost their lives due to heart failure? If I test positive for altered P53 gene or BRCA-1? What I also noticed is how he skirted the question regarding treatment for his own family,does he feel comfortable that his family would receive the best care under this plan? I didnt get that. What stands out to me the most is where he said that the money is going to come from. Barney Frank was on O'Rielly last night and he spoke of getting the money in different arenas. We cannot jump into this without our eyes open to the impact on all citizens.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Facebook account:
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
1175321