Email a Friend
Print Article
Health Care Reform: Myths vs. Facts
By Andy Miller
WebMD Guest Blogger
August has turned into a month of myth-making on health reform.
Half-truths, distortions, and downright falsehoods have mixed freely with the facts in the incendiary debate, stoked by town hall meetings, talk radio, and the Internet.
Misinformation can travel as fast as email. Some unfounded rumors have received mainstream attention, such as former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's claim that ''death panels'' would encourage euthanasia. Another widely circulated myth: Bureaucrats would deny care to a person going blind in one eye if the other eye functions normally.
Neither side in the battle appears to have a perfect truth-telling score. Here's a look at the facts behind several claims about reform:
CLAIM: The health care reform bill does this and that…
THE FACTS: There isn't just one bill. The Senate has produced one, and the House has created another version. Yet another bill is expected to emerge soon from the Senate Finance Committee, and it may look very different from the others. The legislative process has many miles to go before each chamber enacts a final version of reform -- if it gets that far. Reform opponents, meanwhile, may have an advantage in that it's easier to make charges about a moving target -- or targets.
CLAIM: The Democrats' health reform will require counseling sessions that will encourage seniors on how to end their life sooner.
THE FACTS: The noisiest fact-defying issue of all. The House legislation would let Medicare reimburse doctors for their time if seniors choose to consult them on end-of-life issues, such as making a living will or hospice care. There's no requirement for Medicare members to do this; it's voluntary. The reform legislation has nothing regarding euthanasia. AARP's John Rother says rumors that suggest the provision calls for government to encourage euthanasia 'is a gross, and even cruel, distortion -- especially for any family that has been forced to make the difficult decisions on care for loved ones approaching the end of their lives.''
CLAIM: Health care reform will lead to rationing of medical services, and the government will decide what care people get.
THE FACTS: Plenty of rationing already exists in the health care system. Insurance companies and employer benefit plans often limit a person's choices of medical services. For the uninsured, elective procedures are difficult to get, if not impossible. But reform would specifically bar some forms of rationing: Insurers would no longer discriminate against an individual with a pre-existing medical condition.
The rationing argument ignited when former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey wrote in an opinion piece that government research comparing the effectiveness of medical treatments would eventually limit seniors' access to services.
But FactCheck.org says the council overseeing the research is barred from issuing requirements on insurance coverage. President Obama says the research goal is to provide information to doctors and patients about what treatments may work best for a medical condition. And Julius Hobson, a health policy adviser for the law firm Bryan Cave in Washington, says private insurers would be more likely than Medicare to use that treatment information to make rationing-style decisions.
CLAIM: If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan; if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor under reform.
THE FACTS: President Obama has used this line often to tamp down fears about change. But keeping a health plan or a doctor isn't a guarantee even under the current insurance system. Employers now switch insurance plans frequently to get the best possible deal. Doctors, if dissatisfied, can drop out of health plans. So it's difficult to see how reform could ensure that individuals can keep their health plan or doctor.
Obama's plan builds on the current job-based coverage system, and insurance provided by large employers may stay the same. But reform may mean some employers may choose to drop their current coverage and pay a penalty instead. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says millions would gain job-based coverage under the House Democrats' legislation, and that millions would lose it.
CLAIM: The House bill is entirely paid for by a combination of Medicare cuts and taxes, and won't add to the deficit.
THE FACTS: The CBO says the House bill would add $239 billion to the deficit over 10 years, with that extra money reversing a scheduled Medicare pay cut to doctors. Democrats don't count that increase as part of the cost of reform, saying it's a separate issue.
Obama has estimated that about $500 billion to $600 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings can be achieved by restructuring the delivery system, establishing new ways of paying doctors, reducing waste, decreasing medical errors, increasing efficiency, and other changes.
Long-term savings from such ''game-changers'' could be substantial, but would accrue over a 20- to 30-year timetable, says Josh Gordon, policy director for the Concord Coalition, a grassroots organization advocating fiscal responsibility.
The reform bills aren't yet paid for fully, FactCheck.org concludes.
CLAIM: Health reform will cover illegal immigrants.
THE FACTS: Not true. Both the House legislation and the Senate health committee bill rule out subsidizing insurance coverage for anyone who is not a citizen or legal resident. Illegal immigrants get care now -- often in emergency rooms, with the cost frequently borne by hospitals, those who have private insurance coverage, and even taxpayers.
CLAIM: Reform will lead to socialized medicine, like the British system.
THE FACTS: Some Republicans and other opponents of the plan have repeated phrases such as 'government takeover of health care' to rouse opposition. But the Democratic legislation doesn't create a ''single-payer'' system in which government controls health care. The bills would preserve the private insurance system.
Reform would increase government regulation over health insurers. And an option for a public insurance plan, run like Medicare, would inject more federal funding into health care and could alter the market while competing with insurers in an exchange. A public plan would add to government's role, ''but it's not a takeover of health care,'' Hobson says. Recently the White House has backed off somewhat in its insistence on a public plan as part of reform.
CLAIM: Reform will raise your taxes.
THE FACTS: True for the richest Americans, under the House legislation. House leaders have proposed a surcharge or tax on the wealthiest individuals to help pay the cost of reform.
Obama has talked about limiting tax deductions for the wealthiest, and has insisted that the middle class not receive higher taxes. 'It's clear that some taxes will be raised to pay for reform,'' says Gordon. Other tax ideas include a levy on lush, Cadillac-style benefits plans.
CLAIM: Health care overhaul will contain health care costs.
THE FACTS: Health care costs for years have risen faster than inflation, and as a result, insurance premiums have more than doubled over the past decade. But while containing these costs is a goal of reform, many experts believe the current House legislation doesn't do enough. Gordon says greater cost control could be accomplished by capping the tax exclusion on employer health benefits, creating an independent commission to evaluate Medicare payments, and moving Medicare to a system that rewards quality of care, not quantity of services.
CLAIM: The U.S. has the best health care system in the world.
THE FACTS: Statistics suggest we're not getting enough bang for the buck. The U.S. spends 20% more per capita on health care than the next highest-spending country, and 50% more than the third. Countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development with the highest life expectancy spend half as much per capita as the U.S., notes FactCheck.org, which also cites a 2000 report from the World Health Organization that ranked the U.S. 37th in overall health system performance and 72nd on level of health. 'If you're concerned about primary care, you may be better off in another developed country,'' says Hobson.' If you need to see a specialist, you can't beat the U.S.''
CLAIM: Reform will cut benefits to people on Medicare.
THE FACTS: Obama calls this a myth, and he's right, according to AARP. None of the proposals would reduce seniors' benefits, the organization says. And Obama says reform will narrow the infamous 'doughnut hole' in Medicare prescription drug coverage. Health reform supporters do plan to eliminate subsidies to private insurance companies who offer Medicare Advantage coverage; the effects of the cuts on those plans are unknown.
CLAIM: Reform will lead to government subsidizing abortion.
THE FACTS: PolitiFact.com, a fact-checking web site, says the legislation contains nothing that would require the use of taxpayer money for subsidizing abortion. An amendment in House legislation aims to ensure that federal funds are not used for this coverage.
Obama noted recently that 'we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care.'' PolitiFact also says people could have a choice of a health plan that has payment for abortion coverage, and one without it. It's possible that women with subsidized coverage could buy a plan that has abortion coverage. The final wording on this issue, though, won't be clear till later in the process.
SOURCES:
Politico; CNN; Medical News Today; PBS.org; The Wall Street Journal; AARP Bulletin; FactCheck.org; Dow Jones Newswires; The Los Angeles Times; Kaiser Family Foundation; The Washington Post; The Associated Press; PolitiFact.com; NPR; Julius Hobson, health policy adviser, Bryan Cave LLP; Josh Gordon, policy director, the Concord Coalition
WebMD Guest Blogger
August has turned into a month of myth-making on health reform.
Half-truths, distortions, and downright falsehoods have mixed freely with the facts in the incendiary debate, stoked by town hall meetings, talk radio, and the Internet.
Misinformation can travel as fast as email. Some unfounded rumors have received mainstream attention, such as former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's claim that ''death panels'' would encourage euthanasia. Another widely circulated myth: Bureaucrats would deny care to a person going blind in one eye if the other eye functions normally.
Neither side in the battle appears to have a perfect truth-telling score. Here's a look at the facts behind several claims about reform:
CLAIM: The health care reform bill does this and that…
THE FACTS: There isn't just one bill. The Senate has produced one, and the House has created another version. Yet another bill is expected to emerge soon from the Senate Finance Committee, and it may look very different from the others. The legislative process has many miles to go before each chamber enacts a final version of reform -- if it gets that far. Reform opponents, meanwhile, may have an advantage in that it's easier to make charges about a moving target -- or targets.
CLAIM: The Democrats' health reform will require counseling sessions that will encourage seniors on how to end their life sooner.
THE FACTS: The noisiest fact-defying issue of all. The House legislation would let Medicare reimburse doctors for their time if seniors choose to consult them on end-of-life issues, such as making a living will or hospice care. There's no requirement for Medicare members to do this; it's voluntary. The reform legislation has nothing regarding euthanasia. AARP's John Rother says rumors that suggest the provision calls for government to encourage euthanasia 'is a gross, and even cruel, distortion -- especially for any family that has been forced to make the difficult decisions on care for loved ones approaching the end of their lives.''
CLAIM: Health care reform will lead to rationing of medical services, and the government will decide what care people get.
THE FACTS: Plenty of rationing already exists in the health care system. Insurance companies and employer benefit plans often limit a person's choices of medical services. For the uninsured, elective procedures are difficult to get, if not impossible. But reform would specifically bar some forms of rationing: Insurers would no longer discriminate against an individual with a pre-existing medical condition.
The rationing argument ignited when former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey wrote in an opinion piece that government research comparing the effectiveness of medical treatments would eventually limit seniors' access to services.
But FactCheck.org says the council overseeing the research is barred from issuing requirements on insurance coverage. President Obama says the research goal is to provide information to doctors and patients about what treatments may work best for a medical condition. And Julius Hobson, a health policy adviser for the law firm Bryan Cave in Washington, says private insurers would be more likely than Medicare to use that treatment information to make rationing-style decisions.
CLAIM: If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan; if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor under reform.
THE FACTS: President Obama has used this line often to tamp down fears about change. But keeping a health plan or a doctor isn't a guarantee even under the current insurance system. Employers now switch insurance plans frequently to get the best possible deal. Doctors, if dissatisfied, can drop out of health plans. So it's difficult to see how reform could ensure that individuals can keep their health plan or doctor.
Obama's plan builds on the current job-based coverage system, and insurance provided by large employers may stay the same. But reform may mean some employers may choose to drop their current coverage and pay a penalty instead. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says millions would gain job-based coverage under the House Democrats' legislation, and that millions would lose it.
CLAIM: The House bill is entirely paid for by a combination of Medicare cuts and taxes, and won't add to the deficit.
THE FACTS: The CBO says the House bill would add $239 billion to the deficit over 10 years, with that extra money reversing a scheduled Medicare pay cut to doctors. Democrats don't count that increase as part of the cost of reform, saying it's a separate issue.
Obama has estimated that about $500 billion to $600 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings can be achieved by restructuring the delivery system, establishing new ways of paying doctors, reducing waste, decreasing medical errors, increasing efficiency, and other changes.
Long-term savings from such ''game-changers'' could be substantial, but would accrue over a 20- to 30-year timetable, says Josh Gordon, policy director for the Concord Coalition, a grassroots organization advocating fiscal responsibility.
The reform bills aren't yet paid for fully, FactCheck.org concludes.
CLAIM: Health reform will cover illegal immigrants.
THE FACTS: Not true. Both the House legislation and the Senate health committee bill rule out subsidizing insurance coverage for anyone who is not a citizen or legal resident. Illegal immigrants get care now -- often in emergency rooms, with the cost frequently borne by hospitals, those who have private insurance coverage, and even taxpayers.
CLAIM: Reform will lead to socialized medicine, like the British system.
THE FACTS: Some Republicans and other opponents of the plan have repeated phrases such as 'government takeover of health care' to rouse opposition. But the Democratic legislation doesn't create a ''single-payer'' system in which government controls health care. The bills would preserve the private insurance system.
Reform would increase government regulation over health insurers. And an option for a public insurance plan, run like Medicare, would inject more federal funding into health care and could alter the market while competing with insurers in an exchange. A public plan would add to government's role, ''but it's not a takeover of health care,'' Hobson says. Recently the White House has backed off somewhat in its insistence on a public plan as part of reform.
CLAIM: Reform will raise your taxes.
THE FACTS: True for the richest Americans, under the House legislation. House leaders have proposed a surcharge or tax on the wealthiest individuals to help pay the cost of reform.
Obama has talked about limiting tax deductions for the wealthiest, and has insisted that the middle class not receive higher taxes. 'It's clear that some taxes will be raised to pay for reform,'' says Gordon. Other tax ideas include a levy on lush, Cadillac-style benefits plans.
CLAIM: Health care overhaul will contain health care costs.
THE FACTS: Health care costs for years have risen faster than inflation, and as a result, insurance premiums have more than doubled over the past decade. But while containing these costs is a goal of reform, many experts believe the current House legislation doesn't do enough. Gordon says greater cost control could be accomplished by capping the tax exclusion on employer health benefits, creating an independent commission to evaluate Medicare payments, and moving Medicare to a system that rewards quality of care, not quantity of services.
CLAIM: The U.S. has the best health care system in the world.
THE FACTS: Statistics suggest we're not getting enough bang for the buck. The U.S. spends 20% more per capita on health care than the next highest-spending country, and 50% more than the third. Countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development with the highest life expectancy spend half as much per capita as the U.S., notes FactCheck.org, which also cites a 2000 report from the World Health Organization that ranked the U.S. 37th in overall health system performance and 72nd on level of health. 'If you're concerned about primary care, you may be better off in another developed country,'' says Hobson.' If you need to see a specialist, you can't beat the U.S.''
CLAIM: Reform will cut benefits to people on Medicare.
THE FACTS: Obama calls this a myth, and he's right, according to AARP. None of the proposals would reduce seniors' benefits, the organization says. And Obama says reform will narrow the infamous 'doughnut hole' in Medicare prescription drug coverage. Health reform supporters do plan to eliminate subsidies to private insurance companies who offer Medicare Advantage coverage; the effects of the cuts on those plans are unknown.
CLAIM: Reform will lead to government subsidizing abortion.
THE FACTS: PolitiFact.com, a fact-checking web site, says the legislation contains nothing that would require the use of taxpayer money for subsidizing abortion. An amendment in House legislation aims to ensure that federal funds are not used for this coverage.
Obama noted recently that 'we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care.'' PolitiFact also says people could have a choice of a health plan that has payment for abortion coverage, and one without it. It's possible that women with subsidized coverage could buy a plan that has abortion coverage. The final wording on this issue, though, won't be clear till later in the process.
SOURCES:
Politico; CNN; Medical News Today; PBS.org; The Wall Street Journal; AARP Bulletin; FactCheck.org; Dow Jones Newswires; The Los Angeles Times; Kaiser Family Foundation; The Washington Post; The Associated Press; PolitiFact.com; NPR; Julius Hobson, health policy adviser, Bryan Cave LLP; Josh Gordon, policy director, the Concord Coalition
54 Comments:
author needs to disclose his past background and political ties. article isn't quite on point. doubt if he has read the entire bill.
Because you disagree with him, you assume he hasn't read the entire bill? Have you?
Though it doesn't reveal his political leanings, if you click on his name, it takes you to his credentials.
I too have to question whether the author has a bias.
As for the issue of rationing, I would recommend reading economist Martin Feldstein's essay in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, in which he argues that curbing government spending on Medicaid and Medicare as proposed in the legislation will lead to rationing of care.
Another point: The bills in the House and Senate all call for government intervention in health care to varying degrees. The question is: why isn't Congress considering free market reforms that would make health care more affordable?
However, doesn't the fact that government is horrible at running businesses (i.e. the post office, etc)have any weight? I think it has all the weight in the world. They should just regulate the industry so that the public can't be taken advantage of and stop trying to "bail" us out.
How you solve a problem: Characterize the problem, then decide which solution solves the problem. I haven't heard one iota of evidence as to WHY we pay more for insurance per capita than we get. Until you explain to me that, I can't support a plan that would include the government running any business.
The worst sickest blind person is the one that do not want to see.
Like the author says there is not just "the bill" as you guys keep referring to. There are a few different ones
Much of the craziness surrounding health care reform has been the result of not having this kind of reporting. I consider the lack of this level of information a blunder on the part of the Obama administration. I consider the fear-mongering and anger-baiting a disgrace that shames the RNC.
I will tell the Medical Community a FACT: Vitamin D PREVENTS MANY DISEASES if it is present in the body at the correct level. MUCH higher that the present MDA.
BUT you will NOT hear ANY OF THEM SAY THIS PUBLICLY. WHY? BECAUSE it will PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS!!!
HR 3200 is the most widely cited of the Bills being discussed which is why many of the previous posters keep referring to "the Bill".
Some points to know:
3200 will create a situation where rationing will occur. Private insurance does cause some rationing but "the Bill" creates a situation where a given hospital can only admit a patient with a particular condition if they are not already holding X number of patients with that same condition. IE, each hospital has only so many allotments for different common conditions.
Next, 3200 not only raises taxes to help pay for "the Bill" it also uses the IRS as an enforcement agent if you do not buy into some government snctioned plan. In other words, at the end of the tax year, you are "fined" (taxed) for not having coverage. That "fine" is applied to all levels of income, not just the highest.
The Public Option in HR 3200 also has an unfair advantage in that all costs for the healthcare coverage are subsidized by these "fines" and taxes. This effectively makes the Public Option look more attractive to the average consumer because they will see an upfront cost to them that seems less than private insurance, but not the additional costs happening behind the scenes, effectively attracting people to the public option over private insurance. This would be unfair competition for private insurers and could drive many out of business. Not the sort of thing you want to do in a bad economy.
Suggestions:
Remove stateline barriers for insurance providers so that we all can buy insurance competitively.
Tort reform to reduce doctors insurance costs.
Remove the undercutting pricing that Medicair and Medicaid get on services and prescriptions as these costs are passed onto private insurance holders.
It doesn't really matter what the bill says it will do. The government has never been able to do what it has intended to do with social security, medicaid/medicare, or other social programs even with good legislation. Specifically, costs are always more than expected and the results are never as good as predicted. To illustrate, "Cash for clunkers" has been a nightmare for small dealerships due to hiccups in government payout. It doesn't matter what the government promises or puts into legislation; it cannot implement programs effectively because of the sheer monstrosity of the projects that it undertakes. Our founding fathers understood this and were correctly convinced that all reform must take place at the state and local level in order to be successful.
As a health care provider that frequently uses and refers patients to this site, I am dumbfounded that you would post such a biased opinion.
Have any of you stuffing the straw-man with the 'rationing' argument actually dealt with an insurance company about a serious health issue? I have, and it's not fun. 'Rationing' occurs all the time. I don't understand why some mystical free-market profit incentive makes it magically better. The obvious truth is that a profit motive greatly encourages the kind of rationing that underlies most of the terrible stories about inhuman health-care decisions that are all too common in our wonderful national health system.
I'm actually embarrassed to be a republican right now.
My party has nothing to offer and the only counter argument is "death panels."
I want my party back.
As I see it, it seems most medical and informed sources are providing reliable information, however these are not considered reliable.
Publications like wall street journal and fox news are known to be agenda machines for Republican party. Still, what they write is considered gospel truth.
I am in Singapore. I have two options for healthcare. Govt and private.
Basic difference is that Govt is cheaper and very good indeed for most of the cases. Private on other hand is faster and very useful for those situations where you can afford the additional cost and you need care immediately.
I am not forced to choose one or the other. I have a choice.
So I find the debate about govt option taking over the private option as not true. There would be ways for private to differentiate from public or non profit option.
The author is obviously pro health care reform. However, he cites a number of independent sources, which lend credibility to his statements.
It may also seem like bias, because so many of the myths stem from the opposition's deceptive tactics. If one side lies more than the other, obviously they'll be debunked more.
I say we get our billion$ of bailout money back from AIG, B of A and all the other free market banks and insurance companies who don't want government meddling in their business - that way we save a bundle on taxes and can buy our health insurance outright! Then we let this free market thing take over ALL government run businesses, like:
1.) Public Schools - It may cost you your house just for Junior to finish elementary school but maybe he'll subsidize you after he pays off his college loans!
2.) Colleges and universities like UCLA and UC Berkley. Who cares if you won't pay off that college loan until you're 80! Serfdom is waaay better than socialism!
3.) DMV - so your fees may go up, but gas is cheap, right?
4.) Post Office - we all know this thing works terribly - I mean how often do you get YOUR mail? I say we start boycotting USPS and send ALL of our mail thru UPS or Fed Ex - so what if it's $10 to send a letter - we're worth it!
5.) Medicare - I can speak for my 82 year old dad, who just had a knee replacement - this thing is a joke! Not only did his surgery get scheduled within 2 months, go smoothly and renew his lease on life, he didn't even have to pay a dime! Who needs that kind of government meddling!
6.) Social Security - again, my 82 year old dad can tell me what a waste of time that socialist program has been! Not only does this thing keep shelter over his head, food on his table, and an occasional dog bone for his beloved Chihuahua, he doesn't even have to clean toilets for it! Useless!
7.) Police, FBI, CIA and all law enforcement - we all know these guys are useless and this is better left in the hands of private businesses - Brinks could do a better job!
8.) All Military including Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines - again more useless government subsidized businesses. Blackwater and Brinks are far superior alternatives.
9.) Politicians - this may be the hardest to let go of, but really would we be better off just going private here? I think I know a few corporations that would pick up the tab.
10.) National Memorials and Parks like Yellowstone and Mt. Rushmore - again useless socialist spending. Taco Bell Chipotle Park is a much better idea! Run for the border!
11.) U2 and Bono - oh sorry, they are privately subsidized by Blackberry. What was I thinking?!?!
There are more of course, but I will need more than measly little a comment box to list. Truth is government can't run anything! So, why have any government programs at all. I say get rid of society and it's social-ist ideas and live like lizards again. Cold blooded, individualistic and easily grows back body parts which will eliminate any need for health care.
BTW, you guys are right. Government can't run anything smoothly. Private businesses are way better at that. Take AT&T, I only have to wait 30 minutes and navigate 3 or 4 different departments to get the help I need. After that, I only have to call back 2 more times to get the problem fixed! Or my Blue Shield insurance. Dealing with them is a breeze! Sure I've wrestled with them over costs 3 or 4 times..a year, but I was way out of line! I mean why did I think my insurance company would pay for blood tests! I can send that stuff to my vet. Or how about Adelphia or Enron, these guys are well oiled machines who know how to run a business and are always out to give you the best service at the lowest price just like Blue Cross, Health Net, Aetna, Nationwide et al.
Let's face it, government is totally useless - just look at who they employ! Taco Bell for presidente!
The flow of malarkey from the right wingers in this country is endless. Virtually every policy issue becomes mired in an onslaught of misinformation and disinformation from the right wing propaganda machine. They are obstructionist and their modus operandi is to cultivate fear by distortion.
A major legitimate concern about health insurance reform is cost. The CBO estimates that draft bills before Congress could cost a trillion dollars over the coming decade. What would that mean to each of us?
A trillion dollars over a decade means $100 billion each year, or $273,972,602 a day. Using its online population meter, the Census Bureau reports there are about 307 million people in the US. Their share is roughly 89 cents a person each day. Can we afford that for 10 years? Given that taxpayers will end up with the bill, what are the tax implications? The IRS reports that in 2008 about 154,346,000 people filed individual returns. That means each tax filer would pay $1.78 more each day for 10 years to extend coverage to forty-odd million people currently not insured. That's $47 a month or $650 a year per tax filer. Many of the uninsured are also taxpayers. Maybe they would be willing to pay that for health insurance.
Alternatively we can abandon reform efforts. In the US we now spend $2.1 trillion a year on health costs--$6,840 per person, or $13,606 per tax filer a year. The amount rises faster than inflation.
Why would anyone want health reform that lets your young graduate son get decent medical care even before he has found a job, that lets your schoolgoing child's teachers afford healthcare for their families, that allows you to take time off from work and not be afraid to fall sick?
Down with all this caring for those less fortunate. We want to wallow in our sickness. Let's try harder to go below the 37th rank in healthcare in the developed world.
Its wrong to care for those that cant afford health care. Keep it out of reach for anyone that cant afford it and it will sort itself out soon enough. We don't need those people anyway!
For anyone who has not thought about this issue...health care in this country is already highly rationed. It is rationed by the health plan insurers and if you are one of the approximately 50 million Americans who have no plan at all then you would probably think it is rationed in the extreme.
This is a puff piece based on Rahm-Chicago-Obama talking points. What a shill job! WebMD's authority and credibility are diminished by this piece.
It is obvious certain reforms are needed. However, I go with the maxim that all enormous problems can only be caused by enormous entities. In this case, the only entity large enough to cause this problem is Government itself. So if you accept this argument, how can you expect more Government to make things better? Truly, they will make things much, much worse and lead to a myriad of unintended consequences.
Let me here support my assertion that Government is at fault. Here are 10 things Government does to limit supply and increase demand.
1. Tax deductibility of health insurance premiums. This was not the case 75 years ago. It was pushed by the unions and big business. Subsidy increases comsumption.
2. Endorsement of the AMA's monopolistic practices concerning education and licensing.
3. Ditto for teaching hospital accreditation.
4. When was the last time you saw a practicing nurse become a doctor? The Government has allowed AMA protectionism to exist for too long. Furthermore, the nursing shortage is largely due to no real career path for nurses. That and having to work with infantile doctors.
5. Governments mandate benefits. In fact, they gold plate the care. I cannot go get "bronze-level" care. My provider has to comply with every OSHA and HIPAA regulation.
6. Government has allowed tort litigation to go on unchecked. Again, we all want victims of malpractice to be compensated. However, large awards mean that every dollar of award raises the cost of medicine on everyone...and results in billions of unnecessary, defensive medical tests. It also causes doctors and other professionals to leave the field, thus lowering supply.
7. Medicare is untouchable. But most seniors grossly overuse the medical system. Some use a thousand times the health care that young people use. And much of it is unnecessary. I have a family member who took the ambulance at least once a week for several years. Nothing is free, all users should think twice about buying anything.
8. Government pushes insurance, but insurance is part of the problem. Insurance shields people from their poor choices. This is results in what economists call moral hazard. You rock climb because they can put you back together. This increases demand for medicine.
9. Approximately 30% of the uninsured are illegal aliens. This problem is a pox on our republic. Yet Republicans and Democrats have sold out the citizens. What is worse, admission of 3rd world aliens and sick people in general has lead to epidemics of formerly diminished diseases.
10. Government has done a poor job of regulating the insurance industry. They have had 50 years to figure out reforms, but they have done nothing. Pre-existing conditions and shrinking risk pools of people are long-standing problems. Government could have put in minor reforms, but hasn't.
So government, either on its own, or in cahoots with big labor, big business, the AMA, the insurance industry, and special interest groups has created this mess. Why would any sane person think they can be trusted to overhaul the system when they cannot even put minor reforms into place?
And finally, the preceding are utilitarian arguments. It is my personal opinion that we will lose our precious liberties if we place this great responsibility on government. You supporters of the Democrat plan...I would think you would not want the government telling you what to do. You may think you have a free pass right now, but how about when we get a right-wing president and a Republican controlled congress? You don't think Obama's extreme left wing polices are going to spawn an extreme right wing reaction? And for those of you who think Reagan was extreme, you have no idea what is coming your way. So please, think about how much government you want when the wind is blowing the other direction.
Thank you for your consideration.
A major legitimate concern about health insurance reform is cost. The CBO estimates that draft bills before Congress could cost a trillion dollars over the coming decade. What would that mean to each of us?
Since 2001 the US has spent nearly 1 trillion on financing various wars (http://costofwar.com/). Besides the loss of life, what has that meant to us?? I've seen anger over loss of lives, but regarding the cost of war, nothing like the bs over healthcare. Americans don't blink an eye over spending a trillion dollars to end lives, but unleash hell over spending the same money to save lives.
Let's stop financing needless wars and use the trillion dollar savings over the next decade to finance healthcare.
Hell, with the payback of the $388 billion dollars of social welfare from banks we may even get dental.
Plain and simple, Bush cut taxes for the rich in his decade long destruction of the USA. It's time to remove those tax breaks for the 20% or so of society that take 85% of the income.
You really have to ask yourself, why are health insurance companies paying their executives million dollar salaries and spending lavishly on corporate events, yet raising premiums by huge percentages every year and sometimes claiming financial hardship? These execs deliver record profits by unethically cutting costs and raising premiums anyway they can. Our health care increasingly relies on companies that ethically seem on par with credit card companies/loansharks and who merely want to maximize profits at every legal opportunity.
If there is one thing we all share in common, it's our vulnerability to disease. Rich or poor, disease can strike anyone at anytime and likewise insurance can deny anyone at anytime. Unless you have millions in the bank, a huge percentage of Americans are targets for emotional, financial and physical hardship beyond our worst nightmares. And to top it off, during your hardship, Aetna is making record profits off of your disease and possible death? It is morally bankrupt and seriously un-Christian to profit off of anyone's misery.
2006 - Aetna CEO John Rowe had total compensation of $30.6 million and Cigna CEO H. Edward Hanway received $12.3 million.
Republicans would be hilarious if they weren't so diabolical. It's just so cynical to pretend to be for the people, all the while lining their pockets with money from corporations. They've learned a few political tricks and use them to great advantage. You see, it doesn't matter what the issue is, they have learned that if you you yell the loudest and make the most outrageous claims, you make the greatest impression and the greatest impression reaches the greatest amount of people. It doesn't matter if it's a blatant lie, psychologically it sticks and subconsciously informs peoples' decisions, whether they realize it or not. Like when you were ten and some kid told you a classmate had cooties - you just always associated the two. Democrats just can't bring themselves to outrageously scaremonger like that but perhaps they should try.
"Government can't run anything smoothly."
Wow, you really are some kind of patriot. Government is just a corporation. It can run as smoothly as any privately owned corporation of equivalent size and scope. Of course you can cling to your baseless claims and continue to look like a moron, who am I to judge.
"I want my party back."
You are not alone.
"Why would any sane person think they can be trusted to overhaul the system when they cannot even put minor reforms into place?"
Sometimes the infrastructure itself is flawed. No sense in putting a band-aid on a broken leg.
"It is my personal opinion that we will lose our precious liberties if we place this great responsibility on government."
The United States is a government of the people. Citizens have sovereign status in this nation which is something people like you just don't comprehend. It means the government is the people. So your argument is then rendered as followed: "We will lose our precious liberties if we entrust ourselves with a great responsibility". Now perhaps you can see it for the foolish notion that it is.
Funny the dolt that said "WebMD's authority and credibility are diminished by this piece." when there is a clear disclaimer at the bottom. Obviously trying to harm someone professionally over is clearly a political issue to the one making the comment. Seems the author of that comment diminishes his own credibility every time he writes something on the internet.
@ "puff piece" author: "I go with the maxim that all enormous problems can only be caused by enormous entities. In this case, the only entity large enough to cause this problem is Government itself. So if you accept this argument, how can you expect more Government to make things better?"
What a bogus argument. So you agree that our system is seriously broken in many ways, but you advocate against fixing it because ...? And what is your proposal? In that long winded message, there was not a single solution, only more finger-pointing at failed old policies. Yes, things are broken. Yes, we all get it. Now what are we going to do about it? NOTHING? When a better solution is being presented, embrace it, or least try to understand it. "It won't work" is a lousy comeback. And don't try to scare supporters by threatening a backlash from Republicans (silly bullying tactic). If you are referring to the wind blowing the Sarah Palin way, have you forgotten why Republicans lost the election? Maybe she was just a storm in a tea cup, huh? Mr. living-in-your puffed-chest bubble, that tea cup doesn't even belong in most Republicans' living rooms.
I don't see what the big deal is I mean there are 46 million humans including babies and children in our country with NO health care and all we care about is ourselves? Well I am willing to TAKE A CHANCE with whatever if it means those babies, children, parents and grandparents can go to the dentist or the doctor!
SHEEEEZZ, folks!
EVERYONE in America GETS health care TODAY!
Try to get into an emergency room in any hospital today - guess what?
Loaded with people GETTING FREE health care!
Those who DO NOT have health care mostly:
1. Working, but don't want to pay for it.
2. ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
3. Young people who don't buy it 'cause they KNOW they are invincible.
4. Keeping your health insurance when you leave an employer (quit, laid-off, fired) - heard of COBRA?
5. Children getting health care - heard of CHIP?
6. MEDICAID !!!!!!!
Further - want to reduce medical costs - how about those shark lawyer government LACKIES passing TORT REFORM!
Car insurance doesn't cover oil changes, new tires, and windshield wipers. And bad drivers can be charged more while good drivers can be charged less. If we could be sensible about the difference between medical coverage and medical care we'd go a long way in lowering costs. This idea that everything should be free for everyone is a bad idea. People need to start taking personal responsibility for their own health.
This government has checks and balances. At least that is what I was taught. Now if all the government employers, including the congress and senate, etc., live under the same rules and regulations as the rest of the population of American, including health care. We would have a good system.
Legislators who oppose Bill 3200 HAVE PRESENTED OTHER OPTIONS! This process has been anything but bipartisan!
The opposing views are not allowed in the closed-door sessions with the Pelosi-Reed gang. Just because you have not heard about other ideas, doesn't mean they don't exist--such as intra-state competition between ins. companies, health care savings accounts, expanding medicaid, to name a few. The media wants you to believe that the Republicans are sitting on their hands saying "no, no, no" That is simply not true.
"If you need to see a specialist, you can't beat the U.S.''
With all this commenting I have yet to read about this issue.
Who will work hard to be the very best specialist within a certain medical field? Will doctors still be motivated to perform?
I wonder if the U.S. will still be the one country with the best specialists?!
Having just watched a town hall meeting on CSPAN and read some of the above comments, I feel discouraged at level of thinking by many. If the only principle many people can understand and believe in is "all government is bad", they will make it so. It is scary to think that paranoid people like this want to make policy decisions but have no appreciation for the FACTS.
I have recently had much better health care in both France and Switzerland than I get for the same problem in the US, and at 1/10 the cost. We must improve.
The main problem with the proposed bills is that they don't adequately reduce costs. They need to reward quality of care, not quantity of services, as well as provide competition to the for-profit insurance companies as other countries do.
Anonymous
1.Public Schools- State and local tax sent to DC to turn around and impose ineffective programs that you must comply with to get your money back well maybe some of it. The US rates in the world in public schools? The health insurance supporters like to use that one when comparing the US to the world. I was also under the crazy idea that I send junior to school to subsidize himself.
2.Post Office- I get mail, junk mail. Bills and transaction with everyone else is done online. Stuff I order comes from UPS or Fedex so yeah we don't need it.
3.Medicare- Glad your dad got his knee replaced. Well managed indeed. Btw could you please send him to work at Wal-Mart to pay for the $457 BILLION budgeted by Medicare for FRAUD?
4.Social Security- Assuming you father gets the maximum as of 2009 of $2323.00 per month of how much of that does he turn around and pay back in increased taxes due to government borrowing of social security? Who knows maybe what he didn't spend in taxes would have allowed him to pay for the knee himself. Yes sir a finely tuned machine.
5.Law enforcement- Do we need them yes are they run well? You tell me. Wasn't it the CIA that got us all that terrific information about WMD's in Iraq not to mention those unsavory terrorist.
6.National Parks etc- I give credit where credit is due. Government runs them well rarely within budget but are managed well just the same.
http://www.nalc.org/postal/perform/productivity.html
The U.S. does have the best health care in the world. The reason for the difference in life expectancy has little to do with the health care system, but rather U.S. lifestyles. Americans work more per week than any other country, there is obviuously more restaurants (a lot of them fast-food places), advanced technology which limits human activity, and I could go on with many things. A person living in Europe, for example, works less hours per week. (In France, I think the max is 30-40). Europeans are usually more active and stay fit. There is less environmental pollution, less fast food restaurants, less commotion. In other words, they live simpler lives than Americans. Americans just live in so much excess and stress plays a part in this. If Americans just changed their lifestyles, our life expectancy would go up and we'd all be healthier. But nobody wants to do that and we're stuck in the mess we're in now! Hell, even when people go to the doctor, most people don't even follow the doctor's instructions so don't complain if you don't want to change!
The US has the best health care in the world? Where's the evidence for that?
More people are denied health insurance than are approved for individual plans - that is a fact. Ask for underwriting statistics.
Seniors who are unemployed or widowed should not be denied health insurance, and, they are. That is a fact as well. Or, they are rated so high they cannot afford it. The state provides high risk plans which are barely, if at all, affordable.
This is a crisis and needs to be corrected, not frosted.
Americans have poorer health, in part because we don't regulate trans fats, harmful preservatives and also harmful medications go to market too quickly.
It's primarily a pharmaceutical industry interest to regulate food supplements and vitamins so you no longer have freedom of choice for simple food based products. If Americans are to take control of their own health they also need access to choices and not suppression of choices and basic rights like protection from known harmful foods and food additives.
i and my husband bust our asses to pay for our health insurance, we both work 40+ hours per week to maintain our coverage through work; we both work in corporate restaurants but we only pay 125 a week for a family of 5 i just wish that people would take into consideration their health care benefits when taking a job (sorry for the rambling)our insurance is through applebees, but i work for darden (olive garden, red lobster, long horn, and many others)at any darden restaurant you can have insurance on the day that you are hired for about $30 a week (single person), if other companies had this kind of responsability maybe this would be a different sitiuation
I have to respond to the person left a note who says he is from Singapor. What they have done is excellent, but we keep forgetting that USA is a "Capitalist" state not so much as a "democracy"
Cheers!
FYI: We do need Health Care Reform...
Government Health Care Reform?? I do not know about the rest of the country, but here in Denver, Colorado about 95% of the people are without flu shots and 99% of the people are without H1N1 vaccines! When it comes to health care it seems that the government is about 1% to 5% efficient! We are in trouble!! MDs go to school for a long time and spend alot of money getting an education. The cost of a higher education is quickly rising. Say goodbye to quality doctors, because the government is going to use the least expensive doctors that it possibly can. I prefer, in fact insist, that a doctor prescribing medicine or operating on me knows more about medicine and human anatomy than myself. America’s infrastructure is failing! We need to fix it. Who wants to drive across a collapsing bridge or overpass and fall into a river or freeway below? Let us not forget about all the poor people underneath the rubble. Health care is not going to matter much then. America is fighting wars here at home and in the Middle East. The economy is extremely unstable. Yes, people are worried about health care, but many are also worried about paying rent/mortgages and buying food. Unemployment is conservatively estimated at 10% across the country. Meanwhile, oil companies get huge tax breaks, yet the price of gas remains high. There are technologies to make cars that do not pollute, but that will never happen because the oil companies are getting HUGE tax breaks!!! How about the rest of us?!? Drugs like alcohol and nicotine are legal and taxed, yet many people have absolutely no will to ever drink or smoke. What about legalizing other drugs and taxing them. People are using other drugs that are not legal and the money is going towards fighting America. Wake up!!! Legalize these drugs and TAX them. Prohibition does NOT work. Haven’t we learned that yet?!? People who use illegal drugs are going to use them whether they are illegal or not and the same with people who do not. Certainly some drugs that are illegal should remain illegal. The only way to pay for a national health care plan is to raise taxes. Taxes will end up being at least double what they are now and then it is doubtful that that money will actually end up going towards health care. It is much more likely that much of money will end up in some government official’s pocket, and then the rest will go towards fighting wars. If we are really lucky 1% to 5% of the tax increase will go towards health care. Cash for Clunkers: Those cars were supposed to go to scrap. Many of these cars have already been resold and are back on the road! And we are ready to let the government handle heath care? There are plenty of good people working in government, but unfortunately they are overpowered and outweighed by all the corruption. It’s a nice dream and I believe President Obama and all Presidents of the U.S. have had the best intention for our country, but there are many other problems to fix in the U.S.A. and with the government before a national health care system is going to work. Health care reform is NOT going to create very many new jobs or rebuild the economy. Good quality doctors are NOT going to practice medicine for less money!! They can not. They have large bills to pay. Is it really a good time to implement a national health care system? Maybe we need national health care, but can we afford it?!?
Dear Americans,
Stop trying to be so "politically correct"... Democrats... Republicans both have their points... We need a reform but we dont need the government running our healthcare system. (Our government is great just not as good as running businesses) We need to reform the system and strenghten it... Why are we so focused on pointing fingers and telling people between right and wrong rather than helping people come up with a solution? Make proposals... state your point... Why dont we do constructive criticism and actually start caring more about our country. What's happening to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? WHERE ARE ALL THE AMERICANS not Mexican americans, not African Americans, Not Asian Americans just think AMERICANS (We are all foreigners)... I mean WE ARE IN AMERICA... we need to be more patriotic... We have so many issues in this country... and yet we just argue and point fingers at who's wrong and right... Look at other countries and how they have their healthcare systems and how efective or ineffective their systems are.. look at their pros and their cons and how to solve their cons... We need to be more united and love our country more.
I'm with the person that posted a comment on August 22nd, restating quotes and tearing them down. We have become a country full of educated, self-righteous, dick heads. What is one of the factors that cause our health insurance costs to increase? Why hasn't anyone mentioned litigation? I think we can all empathize that several conditions and diseases manifest and present themselves in similar ways. Why wouldn't a doctor assume that the most logical and highly probable answer is correct? And if for some reason, the most probable answer is wrong? Let's sue them! And make our money the American way....
none of the health care options that are being presented in these bills are free, medicare isn't free. granted the cost is less, most people with medicare are elderly or disabled and can no longer work. look up the list of illnesses that render you unisurable. and you do not get health care for free if you don't have insurance, even if you go to the e.r. the hospitals will send you a bill and if you don't pay it they will go to their lawyer. insurance companies restrict you on any pre-existing conditions they will not pay untill you have been paying for their insurance for x amount of months and if you have cancer, a history of cancer, or m.s. they will not insure you unless you can pay more than you make a month for coverage that isn't nearly as good as what healthy people have and they pay less for it.
I don't know what to believe. I have a feeling that in the end the insurance companies, the pharmaseutical companies and the politicians they pay will get what they want. Meanwhile, I own a couple of small businesses that are just hanging on. No one is bailing me out. I pay $700 a month for health insurance for my family with a $3500 deductible. I can't afford insurance for myself let alone try to subsidize it for my employees and I can't afford more taxes if I still have to pay such high premiums. What keeps me from dropping our insurance and just doing what everyone else does? I'm hoping that by the time I have grand children there will be universal health care. No one should have to pay if they get sick, no one should be able to charge $100 a pill or $1000 a shot, and insurance companies should all go to hell. I'd love to see that before I die.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
All comments must meet our Terms and Conditions. This includes not "posting material that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory, threatening, harassing, abusive, slanderous, hateful, or embarrassing to any other person or entity as determined by WebMD in its sole discretion." Posts that do not meet our terms and conditions will be removed.
Much like the WMD fear mongering we witnessed earlier right wing without constructive proposals to reverse the healthcare run away train in US yet again scaring good people of this country.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
All comments must meet our Terms and Conditions. This includes not "posting advertisements or solicitations of business." Posts that do not meet our terms and conditions will be removed.
Post a Comment