Last night, the president gave his second address of his administration to a joint session on Congress. This one on Health care.
Like you, I listened carefully. And, like you, I probably now have more questions than I did before the speech.
So, looking critically at the speech, here are the things I’m going to be blogging about as we go through this debate:
Others are self-employed, and can’t afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer.
Why is this…and what, if anything, in the bills proposed address it?
Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or too expensive to cover.
Examples? Shouldn’t insurance be something you purchase not when you need it, but when you’re healthy for those tough times that come later? Isn’t this a question of responsibility?
We are the only democracy — the only advanced democracy on Earth — the only wealthy nation — that allows such hardship for millions of its people.
Who is he referring to specifically? What system do they have? What are the costs and benefits to those nations by providing the system? How does the system work?
More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won’t pay the full cost of care.
This is obviously something that needs to be addressed. It’s similar to the concept of “ex post facto” and completely undermines the concept of insurance in the first place.
We spend one and a half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it.
Really? What’s his source? How come people come to the U.S. for the kind of care we offer at our hospitals and clinics? Could part of the problem be the choices Americans make regarding health? And, if those choices are poor, should the government legislate, should insurance companies be prevented from uninsuring them?
Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers.
Absolutely, but the plan you’re floating costs $1 trillion. More on this later.
Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.
Totally agree, which is why I’m skeptical about 1000-page bills. Why don’t we break this down into bite-sized pieces, addressing specific aspects of the health care issue, instead of broad, sweeping, government intervention.
If you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.
Probably, at first. But if there is a public option, that is less costly than private plans, wouldn’t employers jump at this instead? And, if it overburdens the medical profession, could it not ultimately harm or diminish the quality of the care?
It will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies.
Looks expensive, and like regulation, to me. What do they say about good intentions and unintended consequences?
Now, if you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who don’t currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices.
He talks about an interesting concept of the “insurance exchange”…I’d like to learn more about this proposal.
Now, for those individuals and small businesses who still can’t afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we’ll provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need.
O.K. But might that not drive prices up further due to overinflated demand?
Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those — especially the young and the healthy — who still want to take the risk and go without coverage….And that’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance.
Yikes! What will you do to them if they don’t comply?
Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.
Politifact is also calling
Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public — and that’s how we pay for this plan.
And here’s what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future. (Applause.) I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize. (Applause.) Now, part of the reason I faced a trillion-dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for — from the Iraq war to tax breaks for the wealthy. (Applause.) I will not make that same mistake with health care.
Second, we’ve estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system, a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care don’t make us any healthier. That’s not my judgment — it’s the judgment of medical professionals across this country. And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid.
The president goes onto say that the plan will, indeed, cost nearly $1 Trillion, but that it can be paid for by savings from Medicare. He’s hoping that slowing the growth in health care costs by 0.1% that the deficit can be reduced by $4 trillion “over the long term”. I’m wondering what that “long term” is.
He also equates this spending to Iraq and Afghanistan, which I found interesting…and have heard this point from other people as well. Is health care as necessary as national security?
The role of government is to protect the people and create the conditions necessary for commerce to thrive. Regardless of how you feel about Iraq and Afghanistan, they are operations meant to protect the American people.
Is health care reform as vital as defeating Al Qaeda, removing Saddam Hussein, and stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan?
Secondly, if there is so much waste in the health care system, how come it’s taken us until now to do anything about it? And why do we need a broad-sweeping public health bill in order to cut government waste? Can’t we just target the waste and save the money? Do we have to create yet another bureaucracy to manage public health?
There is something counter-intuitive to this aspect of the president’s proposal.
Regardless, at least now we have a proposal. Let’s hope we can have an open and honest debate.
This is tremendously significant legislation, if only because of the massive amount of “reform” the bill contains. Personally, I think it goes too far. But I hope that our legislators find a way to pare it down into something managable and do so in a bi-partisan manner.
