August 28-31, 2009
Aug 28 02:43 Message Mismanagement Aug 28 04:01 Michele Answers Critics, Supporters Alike Aug 28 04:49 Health Care Forum Aug 28 06:05 Section 431(a) Aug 30 07:53 The Democrats' Compartmentalization Problem Aug 30 08:29 New York Myths Aug 30 11:00 Calling Out Harry Reid Aug 31 07:14 St. Cloud Health Care Forum Exceeds All Expectations
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Message Mismanagement
For weeks, President Obama has been telling seniors that the $500,000,000,000 in Medicare cuts wouldn't affect them. Yesterday, Democratic Rep. Betsy Markey of Colorado told a townhall audience that Medicare cuts will adversely affect seniors :
Some people, including Medicare recipients, will have to give up some current benefits to truly reform the nation's health-care system, Rep. Betsy Markey told a gathering of constituents in Fort Collins on Wednesday.Meanwhile, Speaker Pelosi hadn't heard that Rep. Markey had made that statement:
Markey has repeatedly said during the August congressional recess that Medicare spending needs to be reined in to help pay for reforming the broader health-care system.
"There's going to be some people who are going to have to give up some things, honestly, for all of this to work," Markey said at a Congress on Your Corner event at CSU. "But we have to do this because we're Americans."
"Republican opponents of reform are coming out with one outrageous smear after the next, all aimed at derailing our progress. We must be able to counter their special interest-funded attacks and set the record straight," Pelosi wrote in a letter to Democratic supporters.Don't look now, Nancy, but one of your minions just validated one of the bits of 'misinformation' that you're whining about. That's before we start talking about what Ezekiel Emanuel has said on the subject of rationing:
"That's why I have set a goal of raising $100,000 in grassroots donations before the August FEC fundraising deadline," says Pelosi.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician's duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient's needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree.That's rich. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel thinks the Hippocratic Oath is old-fashioned and quaint. I wonder if senior citizens share that opinion. I wonder if parents of special needs children share that opinion. I'm betting that Dr. Emanuel's opinion is shared by only a handful of people.
Betsy McCaughey has done some outstanding reporting of the health care. She's got an outstanding op-ed in today's WSJ. Here's an important observation in her op-ed:
The health bills being pushed through Congress put important decisions in the hands of presidential appointees like Dr. Emanuel. They will decide what insurance plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have, and what seniors get under Medicare . Dr. Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. He clearly will play a role guiding the White House's health initiative.Once a bureaucracy is created, it takes on a life of its own. Adding new regulations or changing old regulations doesn't require new legislation, just a new directive from the agency's director. The only thing capable of stopping such directives is legislation forbidding a specific action. Entrusting someone like Dr. Emanuel with such decisions is dangerous, especially his stated beliefs on the elderly.
That's why it's important that the current legislation gets defeated or scrapped. Anything less will kill seniors.
Posted Friday, August 28, 2009 2:45 AM
No comments.
Michele Answers Critics, Supporters Alike
According to this article , Thursday's townhall event featuring Rep. Michele Bachmann and special guest Rep. Michael Burgess, M.D. (R-TX), had several feisty confrontations.
Others were more confrontational. Ilya Gorodisher of May Township questioned some of Bachmann's claims on health care, saying she was spreading misinformation.Ms. Gorodisher should read Betsy Markey's statement about cutting Medicare before accusing Rep. Bachmann of spreading misinformation:
"Why do you persist in stretching the truth to the point of lies?" he asked.
Bachmann responded by questioning President Barack Obama's statement that the plan would not be a government takeover of health care. "Is there misinformation out there? Yes," she said.
"Is it you? Are you twisting the words?" Gorodisher responded.
Markey has repeatedly said during the August congressional recess that Medicare spending needs to be reined in to help pay for reforming the broader health-care system.President Obama has said repeatedly that health care won't be rationed. Every time that Republicans have offered amendments that would forbid rationing of care, Democrats have defeated those amendments. Thanks to Rep. Markey's statement, we now know why they've defeated those amendments. Though they've avoided say so until Rep. Markey's townhall, Democrats have known that they'd need to impose draconian cuts to Medicare. (Yes, draconian fits since President Obama wants to cut Medicare by $500,000,000,000 while Medicare enrollment is expected to expand by 30 percent.)
"There's going to be some people who are going to have to give up some things, honestly, for all of this to work," Markey said at a Congress on Your Corner event at CSU. "But we have to do this because we're Americans."
One significant difference between Rep. Bachmann's meetings and other townhall meetings is how she responded to her critics :
Bachmann, a Stillwater Republican, called the Democratic plan a "government takeover" and suggested that the vast majority of those the U.S. Census Bureau identifies as uninsured do not need government assistance. She thanked everyone for coming and speaking, even those who attacked her views. She was accompanied by Rep. Michael Burgess, a Republican from the suburbs of Dallas, Texas, who is a physician and a knowledgeable, reasonable foe of the Democratic plan.Rep. Jim Moran threatened to throw people out for their rowdy behavior. He also demanded to see a man's drivers license before letting him ask a question. Arlen Specter told dissenters that they could leave anytime. AARP walked out of a meeting at which seniors disagreed with them.
'Radical' Rep. Michele Bachmann? She thanked the people for their questions whether they questioned her beliefs or whether they agreed with her.
Rep. Bachmann didn't get in dissenters' faces because she understands that this issue, unlike other issues for the past fifteen years, is deeply personal. She's the embodiment of a public servant, too.
'Moderate' hotheads like Sen. Specter and Rep. Moran could learn a lesson from a 'radical' like Michele Bachmann.
Posted Friday, August 28, 2009 4:01 AM
Comment 1 by Tommy Johnson at 28-Aug-09 08:18 AM
Gary, speaking for myself, as a blogger in Media Row, I, too, commend Michele Bachmann for taking any and all questions and comments from those lined up at the microphone.
That said, what do you think of Michele's "big eraser" plan for eroding state's rights? Or are you another "conservative" that believes in state's rights (except when you don't)?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 28-Aug-09 09:10 AM
TJ, I don't know what you're referring to when you talk about Michele's "big eraser" so I'll decline comment until I've heard what was actually said.
Comment 3 by Tommy Johnson at 28-Aug-09 09:13 AM
Gary, here's the exact quote:
***
"We could do this: there's a law right now at the federal level that says that states can, in effect, draw boundaries around their state and insurance companies don't have to compete with other companies outside of their state. This drives, this jacks the cost of healthcare way higher than what it would need to be. If we took a big eraser, and erased those lines, of each state's boundaries, and allowed people to buy health care anywhere in the United States...in other words, if we, if we allowed more competition among insurance companies, rather than less competition, we would see more insurance products, cheaper prices, and people could buy what they want." - Rep. Michele Bachmann, Lake Elmo, MN, August 27th, 2009
***
"If we took a big eraser, and erased those lines, of each state's boundaries..."
O
M
G.
What other issues does Michele Bachmann feel states shouldn't control; other issues to pull out a "big eraser" and obliterate state borders?
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 28-Aug-09 09:35 AM
TJ, While I agree that Michele's statement sounds like she's ignoring the Tenth Amendment at first blush, it isn't. States rights only push up until it meets federal rights. Regulating interstate commerce is a federal responsibility.
Comment 5 by Tommy Johnson at 28-Aug-09 09:52 AM
Gary, I love how "conservatives" argue intra- versus inter- when it suits their purposes. Like I said, Republicans are all in favor of state's rights (except when they're not).
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 28-Aug-09 01:24 PM
TJ, What part of enumerated powers don't you understand? States rights are the law of the land except when the Constitution gives the authority or responsibility to the federal government.
Comment 7 by Lady Logician at 28-Aug-09 02:14 PM
Tammy - and I love it when liberals excoriate conservatives for doing something that they do on A DAILY BASIS! I mean come on - ObamaCare is a prime example of the federal government stealing a states rights to self governance!
Here is a hot news tip for you Tammy - those lines that Michele wants to "erase" are part of the reason why our health care IS SO DAMMED HIGH IN THE FIRST PLACE! When I moved to Minnesota (from Wisconsin) I could not keep my Wisconsin health insurance plan because of Minnesota's "boundaries" even though it was better in every way to anything that was offered in Minnesota.
So which is it - do you want cheaper, better access to health care or not? If you do then these boundaries really do need to go.
LL
Comment 8 by eric zaetsch at 28-Aug-09 05:33 PM
I agree with you all.
The commerce clause has, when the politicians [including judges] wanted it to, to obliterate state lines, and Lady Logician's health insurance portability could go under that exception big enough to drive a Kenworth through.
Back to Gary's post, the question of where the money for "reform" will come from, is in part related to whether there will be real "reform" or cosmetic no-change-at-all except everyone has to pay insurance companies, and the old folks get screwed in the bargain, as with the big news that got zippo coverage, no COLA for Social Security. With the boomer bulge hitting Medicare, there will be retrenchment and if the Obama and Rahm bait-and-switch turns out to be what it's looking like [blame it on Baucus, but he's only one Senator from Montana after all] then it is just backhanded shorting the elderly from the deal they have now, and huffing and puffing and no public option not even a miniscule fig leaf one for Obama and Rahm to hide behind.
Ellison is the only Minnesota congressmember to say so far, if not even a public option, then no vote, no bill, and there are Dems who fear that more than anything, given promises were made.
We live in interesting times.
Bachmann - dumber than dirt. She said people should have a choice, which is why she opposes public option. Which word do you figure she doesn't get? Public, she understands - she has a bit of difficulty with "option" in wanting folks [the public] to have a cnoice [which some call an "option"]. Bless the stupid wench. Go Tarryl!!
Comment 9 by Gary Gross at 28-Aug-09 09:08 PM
Eric, the term "public option" is a euphemism for government monopoly. It isn't that Republicans have a problem with the public having options. It's that we're opposed to the federal government taking over the health care system.
And, yes, we have video proof that public option is code for single-payer. Jacob Hacker, a Harvard professor, is on the record as saying that public option is code for single-payer. I know this because I posted about it a month ago.
Comment 10 by Walter Hanson at 29-Aug-09 10:13 AM
Tommy:
What did Michelle say to create the oh my God. Part of the problem with insurance is that you can't get cheaper competing plans.
There are lots of products in the United States we can buy from other states and have shipped to us, but health care insurance which the liberals consider a right we're stuck with only Minnesota approved plans.
That doesn't make sense Tommy if you believe in freedom. I guess though if you believe in government control you love it.
So I guess Tommy secretly supports Michelle Bachman even though he can't admit it.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 11 by Paul Andersen at 29-Aug-09 12:01 PM
I think this Video of Bachmann responding sums it all up nicely:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9kMG4szGW4
Comment 12 by Tommy Johnson at 30-Aug-09 11:33 AM
Let's take what Bachmann said, replace "insurance" with "credit cards", and see how it reads...although not an exact analogy, you'll get the picture of how Bachmann's "insurance" plan just might work out - for "insurance" guys like Billion Dollar Bill McGuire!
***"We could do this: there's a law right now at the federal level that says that states can, in effect, draw boundaries around their state and credit card companies don't have to compete with other companies outside of their state. This drives, this jacks the cost of credit cards way higher than what it would need to be. If we took a big eraser, and erased those lines, of each state's boundaries, and allowed people to get credit cards anywhere in the United States...in other words, if we, if we allowed more competition among credit card companies, rather than less competition, we would see more credit card products, cheaper prices, and people could buy what they want."***
Yeah, "right."
Barry Goldwater has got to be spinning in his grave, over what Bush and Bachmann have done and said. And Michele Bachmann has once again proven that GOP does indeed stand for GreedOverPrinciples.
Response 12.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Aug-09 08:39 PM
Oooh that hurts coming from an idiot like you. Your smartalecky remarks hurt so much. There's so much intellectual depth to them.
Health Care Forum
This Saturday, the Central Minnesota Conservative Coalition will hold its first official event at the St. Cloud Public Library. King Banaian will moderate a health care forum from 9:00am-11:00am. Panelists will include Rep. Steve Gottwalt, Dr. John Davis & Dr. Shawn Preisler, partners at Family First Chiropractic and Dave Borgert, the Director of Government Affairs for CentraCare Clinic.
Seating is limited so make sure you get there early to get a good seat.
The participants were picked to give citizens an education from a wide variety of perspectives. Rest assured that there will be alot of lively discussion between panel members.
Posted Friday, August 28, 2009 4:49 AM
No comments.
Section 431(a)
After reading this post from Declan McCullagh , I'm more convinced than ever that we should scrap the current health care legislation and start from scratch. Here's what convinced me:
One of the problems with any proposed law that's over 1,000 pages long and constantly changing is that much deviltry can lie in the details. Take the Democrats' proposal to rewrite health care policy, better known as H.R. 3200 or by opponents as "Obamacare."Talk about Big Brother looking over your shoulder. Thinking that Chairman Waxman would knowingly write those provisions into the legislation is stunning and appalling. It's also totally unacceptable. I can't help but believe that the vast majority of people would find it repulsive and intrusive.
Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."
Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details, there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable, to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."
Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.
It's time to pull the plug on H.R. 3200. This type of intrusion into our private life is unacceptable.
Posted Friday, August 28, 2009 6:08 AM
Comment 1 by eric zaetsch at 28-Aug-09 11:44 AM
HF 676 is a better bill, without any hidden agenda charges possible. You might disagree with it, I like it, but it's not evasive or uncertain.
Comment 2 by eric zaetsch at 28-Aug-09 11:49 AM
I do agree with the notion that the IRS is tasked with policing income tax complinance or noncompliance and crossing wires can only lead to inopportune short circuits, where short circuiting can end up correlated with someone's enemies list. It's happened, and one President resigned with that as part of the problems. If the IRS is ineffective at present funding levels it is a funding question, not a question of a spider web situation of overlapping jurisdictions - that can lead to responsibility and accountability haziness where things are not done or done wrongly, and it's hard to smoke out who's to blame. But, again, the Conyers bill avoids a lot of that while being fairer to people with a Medicare for all despite age concept that is long overdue for enactment.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 29-Aug-09 08:58 PM
The only problem with "Medicare for all" is that Medicare is broke, highly ineffective at providing quality treatment, and requires massive expenditures for supplemental insurance (witness GM going broke on "retiree health care" when Medicare SHOULD have taken care of all of it) to avoid the rationing built into the system.
Medicare and Medicaid are the largest health insurance providers in the country. If the government can't compete with private insurance-- on cost, quality and availability-- among these captive "customers," then another government program is not going to help. Let Congress be honest and fix these abominable failures first, before creating another.
The Democrats' Compartmentalization Problem
Starting the morning after Ted Kennedy's death, Democrats have said that they should pass sweeping health care reform as a tribute to Sen. Kennedy. Thus far, that desperate attempt to revive Teddycare has failed. Sen. John Barrasso told ABCNews that Sen. Kennedy's death hasn't changed the dynamics for passing health care reform:
Today on ABCNews.com's "Top Line," Sen. John Barrasso, one of the Senate's two medical doctors, called Kennedy's death "a great loss," but not something that has changed the political dynamics surrounding health care.The Democrats have a compartmentalization problem. While Democrats want to use Sen. Kennedy's death as an emotional catalyst to jumpstart the Democrats' health care reform agenda, the American people have said with their actions that Sen. Kennedy's death has nothing to do with the Democrats' pending legislation. In other words, they've compartmentalized and moved on.
"It is a loss to the nation, but I will tell you, people are actually focused on what's in the health care bill; that's what's turning out at all of these town hall meetings," said Barrasso, R-Wyo.
"What I'm hearing all across the country is 'kill the bill,'" he said. "So when Nancy Pelosi and others may say that this is a contrived...these are contrived events, she may be saying that just to try to lessen the effect of them. These are hard working American people who are turning out, have great concerns about what the government is trying to do in terms of health care and taking over health care. There is opposition very loudly spoken all across the country to this. And if people don't realize that this is real, then I'd have to say Nancy Pelosi is absolutely out of touch with the rest of America."
Here's the Democrats' real problem: Sen. Kennedy's death didn't remove the public option from H.R. 3200. Sen. Kennedy's death didn't eliminate Section 431(a) from H.R. 3200. Sen. Kennedy's death didn't eliminate the public's perception that health care would be rationed. Sen. Kennedy's death didn't cause President Obama to walk back his Medicare cuts.
In short, Sen. Kennedy's death is nothing more and nothing less than the passing of a legendary U.S. senator.
Unless the Democrats make sweeping changes to their health care reform bills, people will still reject the Democrats' reform agenda. I've said repeatedly that the problem wasn't the terms used in promoting the Democrats' bills. It was that the Democrats' bills just weren't popular, especially with seniors.
"People are focused on the details of the bill," Barrasso told us. "I held up the House bill at a town meeting in Wyoming, and somebody yelled, 'burn it' because they know what the details are, then held up the Senate bill, all of the loose leaf papers that are together in that and somebody else said, 'Start a bonfire.'"This is the typical response to the Democrats' health care legislation. This response isn't isolated. That's why the Democrats' health care legislation is doomed for failure. That's why I'm convinced that Harry Reid doesn't have the votes to pass health care reform. I don't think he's got the votes to pass it even with budget reconciliation.
If the Democrats' only change to the health care bill is to attach Ted Kennedy's name to it, they're in for a tough fight. The American people know the difference between a cheap political ploy and substantive change that meets their needs.
Posted Sunday, August 30, 2009 7:58 AM
No comments.
New York Myths
After last season, rumors spread in New York that Brett Favre was a diva, an egomaniac. Running back Thomas Jones even told a NY radio station that Brett Favre didn't meet the players' expectations . I never took Jones' statement, or other Favre-related rumors, seriously. Likewise, I didn't take seriously the ESPN reports that serious divisions had already developed in the Vikings' locker room.
What's causing the rise of these gossip stories is the editors' knowledge that anything Favre-related sells papers. It doesn't have anything to do with whether it's accurate or not.
What caused me to not trust the Favre-related stories is something that's been a hallmark Twins tradition. Under TK, the Twins respected the game but they had fun every day. Bert Blyleven, Kent Hrbek and Kirby Puckett played the game the right way but they were world-class pranksters, too.
That's what Brett Favre brings to the Vikings. There's no question but that Favre is one of the fiercest competitors in sports history. There's no questioning whether he's been a prankster, too. This leads to an important question in deciphering whether Brett Favre is a diva, as the NY media has suggested: What player wouldn't love playing with someone with Hall of Fame talent, a competitive nature and a funloving attitude?
Back in the day, everyone loved playing alongside Kirby Puckett. They saw in him the same things we see in Brett Favre.
Now it's time to watch Mr. Favre settle in with his new team and to watch the victories to start piling up en masse.
Posted Sunday, August 30, 2009 8:29 AM
No comments.
Calling Out Harry Reid
If there's an inescapable truth about Harry Reid, it's that it's common for him to speak with a forked tongue. Thanks to Sherman Frederick's column , we now have proof of Reid's duplicitousness:
On Wednesday, before he addressed a Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce luncheon, Reid joined the chamber's board members for a meet-'n'-greet and a photo. One of the last in line was the Review-Journal's director of advertising, Bob Brown, a hard-working Nevadan who toils every day on behalf of advertisers. He has nothing to do with news coverage or the opinion pages of the Review-Journal.Reid's bitterness implies that Reid's temperament isn't befitting a U.S. senator, much less the temperament of the leader of the Senate. Harry Reid must go. It's imperative that he not be returned to Washington, DC. He isn't a leader. He's corrupt. Worst of all, his priorities aren't Nevada's priorities.
Yet, as Bob shook hands with our senior U.S. senator in what should have been nothing but a gracious business setting, Reid said: "I hope you go out of business."
Later, in his public speech, Reid said he wanted to let everyone know that he wants the Review-Journal to continue selling advertising because the Las Vegas Sun is delivered inside the Review-Journal.
Reid is one of several long-serving Democrats afflicted with DC-itis. Other Democrats fitting that description are Christopher Dodd, Arlen Specter, John Murtha, John Conyers and David Obey.
But to fully capture the magnitude of Reid's remark (and to stop him from doing the same thing to others) it must be called what it was, a full-on threat perpetrated by a bully who has forgotten that he was elected to office to protect Nevadans, not sound like he's shaking them down.Congratulations are in order to Sherman Frederick and the Las Vegas Journal-Review. They're speaking out against a thug and a glass-jawed elitist. It's time that more people and more newspapers started speaking out against DC's elitists. After all, there are two inarguable facts on our side: 1. They work for us, not vice versa and 2) WE OUTNUMBER THEM!!!
No citizen should expect this kind of behavior from a U.S. senator. It is certainly not becoming of a man who is the majority leader in the U.S. Senate. And it absolutely is not what anyone would expect from a man who now asks Nevadans to send him back to the Senate for a fifth term.
A couple weeks ago, I was talking with a close friend about Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. I said that an important principle of Rules For Radicals was the bullying factor. I said then that the best thing that could happen to stop a bully in his tracks was to pop him first and give him a bloody nose.
The thing about bullies is that they're full of bravado...until they meet a bigger bully. When you rock a bully, they're usually disoriented. I think that's what Sen. Reid is right now. He's always been the biggest bully in Nevada. He's never had people push back. He's never had to have a Plan B in his playbook because his Plan A, bullying people, has ALWAYS worked.
Now the Las Vegas Journal-Review is pushing back. They're the biggest bully because you can't defeat someone who buys ink by the barrel.
For the sake of all who live and work in Nevada, we can't let this bully behavior pass without calling out Sen. Reid. If he'll try it with the Review-Journal, you can bet that he's tried it with others. So today, we serve notice on Sen. Reid that this creepy tactic will not be tolerated.Three cheers to Mr. Frederick. If more media outlets took this attitude, sales would skyrocket and trust would be rebuilt. It's important that media outlets first build a rapport with their customers. It isn't that important that they build a rapport with the people they cover.
When all the votes are counted that first Tuesday in November, 2010, Harry Reid will be a defeated soon-to-be ex-senator. That's what happens when you try bullying the biggest bully in town. That's what happens when you ignore the will of the people. Good riddance.
Posted Sunday, August 30, 2009 11:05 AM
No comments.
St. Cloud Health Care Forum Exceeds All Expectations
Saturday morning, the Central Minnesota Conservative Coalition held its first issues forum at the St. Cloud Library. Though the event wasn't hugely publicized, 46 people showed up for the forum despite it being held on a gorgeous August morning.
The panelists included Rep. Steve Gottwalt, Dave Borgert, the director of government and community relations for the St. Cloud Hospital and CentraCare clinics, Dr. John Davis & Dr. Shawn Preisler. Dr. Davis and Dr. Preisler are partners in the Family First Chiropractic Clinic. King Banaian was the moderator for the event. The event was held to highlight the conservative approach to health care reform.
One of the things that popped out at me the most is when Dr. Davis said that there aren't many health insurance policies that cover chiropractic medicine or lasik surgeries. He then noted that inflation rates for chiropractic treatments and lasik surgeries are miniscule compared with inflation for insured medical procedures.
Rep. Gottwalt said that his employer, Coborns, Inc., is one of many employers statewide that are taking a proactive approach to lowering health care premiums by actively promoting wellness programs. Rep. Gottwalt said that companies are taking a more active role in private health insurance reform because it's in their best interest.
Mssrs. Gottwalt and Borgert said that reform legislation that didn't include tort reform wasn't reform. They agreed that the reason litigation drives health care costs up is because doctors "who are 99.95 percent sure" they've diagnosed the problem order tests to protect themselves from lawsuits. It makes sense that each time a test is run to protect doctors instead of diagnosing an illness drives costs up.
The panelists agreed that rationing of care already exists. Their fear was that health care might get rationed in the future for political, not medical, reasons. When Medicare sets their standards, it establishes how others do things.
Finally, Rep. Gottwalt said that he was working with Rep. Tom Huntley on legislation that would eliminate many of the mandates but would instead establish a minimum level of coverages. The goal is to establish a solid minimum policy that's affordable but that would allow people to buy more expensive policies if they'd like.
Posted Monday, August 31, 2009 7:15 AM
Comment 1 by Wellescent Health Blog at 31-Aug-09 09:16 AM
The key to these plans has to be a minimum level of health insurance coverage that ensures people can't go bankrupt due to illness when they start out with this minimum insurance. This means ensuring coverage cannot be cut off once the patient has become too sick. Given the recent AMA report stating that 62% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills and more than 75% of those who go bankrupt started with health insurance coverage, any solution that doesn't solve this issue, doesn't bring reform.
Comment 2 by eric z at 01-Sep-09 10:10 AM
Aside from errors and omissions concerns, and coverage costs, many procedures are ordered not for cya reasons, but because the lab's there, it's fixed overhead exists, and it's use can be compensated under plan schedules - it's churning the account in other words. It's milking an existing cash cow. These reps from that situation at that conference have a clear motive and incentive to hide any such tendencies and blame the plaintiffs' bar instead of their own institution's greed and policy.
Beyond that, Gary it is good you reported. Without your effort sessions like that can be missed by those not attending.
Was the turnout 46 including the several mentioned in the second paragraph, or 46 from the public and press?
Finally, that minimum coverage, it would disallow the preexisting condition exclusions and rescission tricks, or would there be flies in the ointment?
Also, why could it not be available via private insurers AND by a public option? That argument that the privateers could not compete, that's anti-capitalistic, isn't it?
Or am I missing something?
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 01-Sep-09 04:33 PM
Eric, The public option is a euphemism for step 1 to single payer. Jan Schakowsky & Jacob Hacker were captured on video admitting that.
If truth in advertising laws applied to the public option, it would properly be known as the government monopoly.
Get rid of the myth.
Comment 4 by eric z at 02-Sep-09 12:44 PM
Gary, I wish comment 3 were true.
I think single payer is the only sane way to go.
Olbermann had a segment last week on the obscene amounts of executive compensation at UnitedHealth:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/32566040/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/
"And they nominally are a health group-United Health Group, the insurance giant literally instructing its employees to go to town halls and spit talking points. How they have rigged the system to lower how much insurance pays of your bills. How they bought the independent agencies designed to protect you from that. How they have colluded with elected officials to fatten their profits at your expense. How their CEO has made $750 million so far, and will make more if the public option does not pass."
Gary, I don't think you'd argue the guy, Hemsley, is worth that much, nor would you say that backdating the stock options was fair. I think you'd be hard pressed to defend that kind of rapaciousness. Have a go at defending it, if you want to.
That guy Hemsley - he's a poster child for why reform is needed.
My bet, before there's a bill he will be hauled in front of Waxman's committee, and can have a shot at defending who he's been. It will be an instructive step, for everyone, if/when it happens.
