By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
As President Barack Obama prepares for a nationally broadcast news conference Wednesday, here's a suggested script:
"I want to get health care reform correct in Congress. I want a fair way to pay for it. And I want it to help the most people possible.
"That's why I have dropped my insistence that Congress rush a health care bill to my desk sometime in the next month.
"Instead, I'm announcing today that I will work with Congress (and let's face it, that means working mostly with the Democrats) to craft the best measure possible. Then I will sign that bill -- whenever it gets done."
On Monday and early Tuesday, Obama was backing away from his earlier demands of getting the House and Senate to pass their measures in August, with a goal of a final bill to his desk by October.
A delay is appropriate; health care reform can't be handled in a slapdash manner. The issue is too important. And it would be too costly -- in terms of money and in terms of Americans' health care -- to rush a bad plan through.
Plus, Obama now faces opposition even from some conservative Democrats. They are pushing, and correctly so, for a plan that calls for more cuts in health care expenses, to free up money to pay for expanded care for millions of additional Americans now without health care.
Meanwhile, the idea of taxing wealthy Americans to pay for much of the new system has bogged down, even among Democrats. So where's the new funding scheme?
Obviously, Obama hopes to sign something by the end of the year. That would help give Democrats a little breathing room before they have to go on the campaign trail in the 2010 elections -- and before they have to defend whatever financing mechanism they eventually agree on to finance health care reform.
Delicious
Digg
tiffany jewellery
MoreTiffany is a famous tiffany jewelry Shop which sell directly Tiffany Rings, Earrings, Necklaces, Pendants, Bracelets, Bangles, Accessories.
Tiffanyline is a discount tiffany jewellery online store, everybody can afford tiffany jewellery as a memorable jewelry gift.
Save up to 60% on affordable cheap tiffany jewelry, beautiful discount tiffany rings, tiffany necklaces,tiffany Pendants, tiffany earrings and tiffany Bracelets.
Discounted tiffany
Sale Outlet provides hundreds of designer Tiffany Ring, necklaces and other jewelry in wholesale price. Tiffany specializes in.
ugg boots
Good ! I like it ! Welcome to read following news: ugg boots,Nike dunk sb,discount ugg boots, uggs ,nike dunk low,ugg boots sale,UGG Bailey Button boots,new nike sb,UGG Classic short boots,UGG Nightfall boots,cheap nike dunks,UGG Classic tall boots.
then why do they call it "health care reform"
To Kcpunky, (hope I got that right), I believe Obama and his minions have repeatedly referred to their ideas as "health care reform:, so where is the reform? All I see is another welfare program that will cost far more than intended and be far less effective than promised. It will also reward millions of people who don't want to work for their general laziness.
Not to mention the reduced number of people going into the medical profession because while the risk of lawsuits will be as high as ever, their pay will be more limited.
But my favorite part of this whole debacle is that even though medicare will be broke by 2017 to 2019, we are going to reduce the payments made to medical providers but yet somehow the system will work better. This while many doctors complain about the low reimbursement rate on medicare and medicaid. Yeah, using Obama math I guess that makes sense.
A far better solution would be a combination of High Deductible Health Plans, FSA's that you can roll over and more tax credits for business to provide health care (and for people who have to buy it for themselves). Wellness programs, health education, tort reform and multi-state pooling would also help keep costs in check. Funny that dems want to kill FSA's (or at least tax them, which is the same thing), make no mention of tort reform or high deductible plans.
Lets not make the same mistake as the stimulus (pork) package!
Obama needs to not repeat his mistake he made with the stimulus package (even though he did that one on purpose) of rushing to get it passed rather than getting it right. Now with the stimulus package, he obviously knew that if it saw the light of day it would not stand up to public scrutiny so he rammed through with the laughable reason that it had to be acted on right then. It is even more laughable given his administration's remarks that most of it is yet to come (so we had to hurry up and pass it since most of it was going to be months and even a year or more in the future).
Unfortunately, most of the democrats proposal seem to be concerned with giving health care to the poor (more welfare) and to the uninsured rather than actually reforming the system so that it works. The two are related but are not the same thing. OF course leaving tort reform out is idiotic, but obviously the Dems know they can't make their money train mad by doing that.
One of their main goals is obviously to get a public "option" so that they can drive insurers out of business. There is a provision in their house legislation that bars private insurance companies from issuing any new policies starting the 1st of the year after the bill passes, only allowing insurance through the "insurance exchanges" which undoubtedly the democrats will try to rig to either not let the insurers compete or at least make it impossible for them to win (it already will be due to the government subsidy that will be involved).
Someone let me know when actual reform is on the table rather than just socialized medicine.
two things
on the stimulus package, a number of economists have said that where it fell short was not because it was too much, but because it was too small to have the intended impact on a $17 trillion economy, though it did definitely blunt the impact of the recession the Obama administration inherited.
On healthcare reform, there's a significant distinction between social insurance and "socialized medicine" that you don't seem to be getting. The former's what's on the table -- offering a not-for-profit insurance pool that will be available for any of us to opt into as an alternative to the current for-profit insurance industry.
No need to delay..
it's not as if we're taking up this subject for the first time and that no one's every thought about it before. We know what needs to be done. There are good models to draw upon.
Opponents are hoping to stall the bill into next year's election while they look for another Harry & Louise and collect BIG DONATIONS from BIG INSURANCE and BIG PHARMA. Business, labor, hospitals and the AMA are all in for reform. Full speed ahead!
Health care and Illegal Immigration
The American people can never have affordable Health care, other than the wealthy, politicians, hospital staff, employer based and federal employees? In will not happen because the US taxpayers are paying in-perpetuity--$billions--for the 20 million plus illegal immigrants and their families? Learn about the costs, facts and the lies and propaganda passed around by Liberal-Socialist newspaper editors and even our own government. .SAY NO TO ANOTHER AMNESTY! SAY NO TO ANY PATH TO CITIZENSHIP. RESCIND THE INSTANT BIRTHRIGHT LAW. RESCIND ANY KIND OF BENEFITS TO THOSE WHO CANNOT PROVE THEIR CITIZENSHIP! WE MUST HAVE A PERMANENT E-VERIFY FOR EVERY US BUSINESS. NO TO IRREVERSIBLE OVERPOPULATION! ERUPT YOUR ANGER IN THE EAR OF YOUR Senator and Congressman today at 202-224-3121---BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
Obama Administration Official on doctors fees not being covered
No money...no incentive to provide care. Mandate physicians accept medicaid or the public option and you lose doctors who simply quit their profession.
-----------------------------
AP July 21, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) - A senior administration official says billions of dollars to raise fees for doctors treating Medicare patients are not covered by President Barack Obama's pledge to pay for health care legislation.
Budget Director Peter Orszag said Tuesday that's because the administration always assumed the money would be spent to prevent a cut of more than 20 percent in doctor fees.
The Congressional Budget Office said last Friday the higher payments cost $245 billion over 10 years. It said including the money in the overall bill would result in deficits totaling $239 billion.
On Friday, a few hours earlier, the president declared: "I've said that health-insurance reform cannot add to our deficit over the next decade. And I mean it."
another interface lie
Please show the post where I mentioned the pg16 information from the bill. You can't because I didn't. But you are consistant with your elitist approach to things.
The only problem with the "protection" clause is the fact that to "compete" with a govt financed option you have to meet certain rules, such as no restriction for existing conditions. So it is not insurance, it is socialized health care. And since the govt is willing to spend without regard to revenue (see deficit) there is no ability to compete. The only real option would be to pay cash for services, which is what happened in Canada, until it was outlawed.
As stated before there is a difference between insurance and health care. So continue to lie and ignore facts and use talking points from the dems and npr. As always you validate what a lib is all about.
hmm?
Show me the post where I claimed you did. I simply said below that those who had been spouting the misinformation (such as the page 16 balderdash that hr2454tax posted) were presumably like you, in that they hadn't even bothered to read that which they were criticizing.
Eh...yes and no. You can
Eh...yes and no.
You can keep your current plan if you so choose.
However the bills do state that if you 1) lose 2) change plans and/or 3) your plan makes and vital changes in coverage you must be enrolled in a government qualified plan.
That means that if Blue Cross changes your co-pay amounts or what drugs are covered. Your plan has had vital changes and you must enroll in a qualified government plan that provides coverages for things that the government deems necessary.
It also states that if your insurance comes from your employer you can keep it (for up to 5 years) unless there are changes in the coverages and or plans. But within 5 years all employers will have to provided "qualified" managed care plans as deemed by the government to employees.
So while right in one degree...reading further shows you that essentially within 5 years most Americans currently insured will have to change plans as per their employers and/or if you have a private policy you will get to keep it as long as your insurer makes no vital changes to the plan.
So you are only telling half the story. There is more than just creating an alternative plan here. Plain and simple there is more to this than what is being told to the people.
I'm going to repeat this
Clearly, neither you nor hr2454tax bothered to continue to read the bill to page 19. “Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.”
It does not outlaw individual private coverage – you can still buy the plan on the Exchange where they will compete with the public option, not be replaced by it.
Jeez.
i did not say
Clearly, neither you nor hr2454tax bothered to continue to read the bill to page 19. “Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.”
It does not outlaw individual private coverage – you can still buy the plan on the Exchange where they will compete with the public option, not be replaced by it.
Jeez.
it was outlawing private coverage. What it does do however is say that if a person loses, changes or the plan changes they must be enrolled in a qualified managed care plan.
Meaning, that my plan may not change with the passage of this bill. However, if I decided to change plans, my plans makes vital changes OR I lose coverage then I will be REQUIRED to enroll (under government mandate and threat of penalty) in a managed care plan approved by the government.
meaning that if I have Blue Cross Plan ABC and I love it. I keep it. But if BC changes my policy or I want to change providers then I have to choose a plan that is deemed "qualified" by the government.
Those qualified plans will be different than what we have now. They will require coverages for things the government deems necessary. Such as coverage for all pre-existing conditions, etc. Meaning that they will most likely be far more expensive by the private provider.
The goal being that people will find the government option cheaper (no need to make a profit or lose money as the government option) and thus enroll instead of going for private insurance.
The 5 year rule on employer provider insurance obviously has the goal of when they shop for a new group policy...those privately provided will be far to expensive with new government mandates and thus employers will choose the government option.
So in essence it is not socialized medicine or universal healthcare en masse. It will overtime for the most part drive most Americans to the government plan and then...Universal Healthcare as provided by the United States Government.
Socialized medicine not by force or dirct mandate but by attrition and destruction of the private healthcare insurance industry
distinction
As WoodyKC correctly points out, there's a distinction between health insurance coverage and healthcare that I don't think you're quite getting.
Obama Care and Socialism
Creating An Insurance Monopoly: A government-run plan similar to
Medicare would be set up in competition with private insurance, with
people able to choose either private insurance or the
taxpayer-subsidized public plan. Subsidies and cost-shifting would
encourage Americans to shift to the government plan. For more on this
story, please read the complete article titled "Reagan Refutes The
ObamaCare Hypothesis" posted on http://www.cliffyworld.com
Just a little note to the Star...
More and more people every day realize that Obama is LYING.
Obama's continued reiteration of His statement that you can keep your insurance and doctor if you like them are a LIE.
A BIG FAT LIE. Go to WWW.HOUSE.GOV READ IT FOR YOURSELF. ON PAGE 16 IT CLEARLY SAYS THAT NO NEW PRIVATE INSURANCE POLICIES CAN BE ISSUED, NO NEW PARTICIPANTS CAN BE ADDED, AND NO CHANGES TO EXISTING POLICIES CAN BE MADE FROM THE VERY SECOND THE BILL IS SIGNED.
Everything Obama says about this bill, other than he wants it right NOW no matter what it says, is a LIE.
This bill will in NO WAY decrease costs, nor will it change availability. Even the CBO says it won't.
The current problems are primarily a matter of perception. Many, many people who are otherwise sane, intelligent people, have bought into the concept that they should have every single medical appointment, test, procedure, and prescription ever invented and never have to pay even a single penny for any of them. The idea that people are turned away from treatment now is another LIE. NO ONE can be turned away from treatment in any ER. At absolute worst they will be transferred to a public hospital when their condition is stabilized. If they do not have insurnance and are eligible for medicaid/medicare/schip they will be signed up, if not yes they will get a bill later, but THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR RECEIVING TREATMENT, EVERONE IS TREATED - ALWAYS, EVERY SINGLE TIME, EVERY SINGLE PERSON, FOR EVERY CONDITION. If they agree to pay $5 a month and do that, in somewhat less than a year (total of $60) the hospital will write it off as a bad debt and it will be dropped. People who claim they are denied CARE are LYING, an insurance policy that is catastrophic care only isn't going to pay for taking your 4 year old to the ER for an earache with no fever or other serious complication but you did it because you don't want to pay the copay you would have at the Dr's office, but the kid will be treated anyway. They can get whatever medical care they need, they will get a bill, if they pay a small amount a month for about a year the hospital/dr/whoever will drop it and write it off.
The Obama fantasy is falling apart, moderate and conservative (in particular fiscal conservatives) DEMOCRATS don't want anything to do with this bill.
SAY NO TO OBAMACARE
SAY NO TO OBAMA'S LIES
SAY NO TO PELOSI'S LIES
SAY NO TO ALL DEMOCRAT LIES
here's another one
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/5129#comment-29800
That's incorrect. They will be paying the bill, because they now have an affordable option that they can buy into, as opposed to now, when many ERs are simply forced to swallow the costs of emergency care for the uninsured.
And it's also illogical to argue that ERs will be used more -- they're full now because they are a line of last resort, used by those who don't otherwise have access to medical care. When they have insurance coverage, they will have less incentive, not more, to use the ER, since they will have access to regular medical care upfront.
depends
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/5129#comment-29800
That's incorrect. They will be paying the bill, because they now have an affordable option that they can buy into, as opposed to now, when many ERs are simply forced to swallow the costs of emergency care for the uninsured.
And it's also illogical to argue that ERs will be used more -- they're full now because they are a line of last resort, used by those who don't otherwise have access to medical care. When they have insurance coverage, they will have less incentive, not more, to use the ER, since they will have access to regular medical care upfront.
Depends on how the plan is set-up. You forget that subsities will be included for low income. Meaning that for a large portion of those on the "public option" they will not be paying a dime in premiums or very little at the most. In essence them going to the ER will not cost them out of pocket more than going to a docotrs office. So there is no incentive to not flood ERs.
Speak to hospitals....the vast majority of people in their ER waitings rooms are not totally uninsured. They are for the most part, minus those with true emergencies, those with government payor sources in which the covered has little to no financial output required and this no incentive not to use the ER for routine care.
Insured or uninsured ERs are seeing more people who do not get what emergency means.
uninsured in ERs
That's true.
"uninsured persons accounted for nearly one-fifth of the 120 million hospital-based emergency department visits in 2006."
http://www.disabled-world.com/medical/rehabilitation/uninsured-emergency-room.php
And clearly reducing the use of ERs by uninsured folks for otherwise routine care will lighten the load on ERs and reduce the costs they're currently forced to eat.
As for the rest of your claim, until you give a source for your information, I'm going to consider you just to be spouting hot air, given your past history.
LOL
As for the rest of your claim, until you give a source for your information, I'm going to consider you just to be spouting hot air, given your past history.
and quoting DisabledWorld.com and the NY Times opinion pages are not reputatable and qualified sources either.
So until you provide proof from valid and reputable sources pretty all you say is just as much hot air...since that is what 99% of Midwest Voices is....we fit right in :)
But to answer your question most patients in the ERs that are not privately insured are medicaid patients. They have little to no financial stake in their healthcare costs and therefor no incentive to use anything else.
Once could argue the number of private physicians willing to take low Paying government insured patients drives them to free clinics and ERs...I will grant that.
But if you look at a "public option" for healthcare that probably will pay as little or less than medicaid for doctors, what incentive is there for doctors to accept that public option plan? Thus driving those same people into the ERs.
In the end the biggest issue that the public option insurance plan creates is the potential for massive physician shortages as reimbursement rates dwindle and the incentive for years in schools and hundreds of thousands in debt decrease
And speaking of lies...
If hr2454tax is referring to H.R. 3200, page 16, that page specifically and explicitly protects your right to keep your doctor and your insurance if you choose to.
Interface
way to address issues and support your position...thanks for providing the healing benefits of laughter.
just replying in kind, Woodster
Don't expect a substantive reply if you insist on submitting a post bereft of substance.
Over 50% of the people
Do not support the Obama health care plan according to Washington Post/ABC poll released yesterday.
Folks are becoming aware of this crappy legislation and they realize it is time to stop it dead.
judging from the comments
from the right-wing blogosphere, it appears to me that the current polling is more a result of a concerted disinformation campaign than any legitimate assessment of the legislation's merit.
The for-profit insurance industry is doing all it can to back the disinformation campaign.
le tme try
The for-profit insurance industry is doing all it can to back the disinformation campaign.
what "concerted disinformation" has been spread by the "right wing blogosphere?"
please, as you always ask of posters who disagree with you, be very specific in detail of what is being given to the American people and how it is blatantly wrong information.
thanks
hmmm, let's see
don't have to go far -- here's a post by a certain regular that you'll recognize:
As I pointed out in response, your characterization is simply wrong -- no one is being forced into any particular plan. You can pay for a private plan that offers more or different services if you want. It's your choice.
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/5134#comment-29917
Moreover, as Edith points out in response to one of the other right wing lies that keeps popping up, presumably by folks like Woody who haven't even bothered to read that which they're criticizing, it's simply not true that "no new private insurance policies can be issued."
Clearly, neither you nor hr2454tax bothered to continue to read the bill to page 19. “Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.”
It does not outlaw individual private coverage – you can still buy the plan on the Exchange where they will compete with the public option, not be replaced by it. The advantage of the Exchange is that the coverage no longer has one of the problems of individual coverage – skyrocketing premiums should you become ill.
We should have the freedom to choose a plan of our choice, and that's what the bill allows for.
This spring, due to the
This spring, due to the demand decrease, the highest fuel price came down below $40 per barrel, though, the 'similar' insurance premiums still go on rising, which may imply that health care is not optional, but essential, and the inaction could bankrupt family, business, and government beyond this recession, as all across the board agree.
Earlier, the revised HELP BILL with the public option and employer mandatory has got a green light from the CBO, yet still, a new 'incomplete' analysis of emerging House legislation said it would increase deficits by $239 billion over a decade.
But, CBO does not score any savings from prevention / wellness and the rest, even as Prevention / Wellness is an actual and essential part of the savings, without which the reform would be meaningless.
And I think the other things such as increased productivity / consumer confidence, 'potential stem cell effect', 'decreased mental stress', and 'massive job creation', 'stock price effect' and etc considered, the reform might be within reach. Most importantly, a few years later, if the excessive war and military spending goes toward the health care program, the cost issue does not matter at all, I think.
Edward M. Kennedy argues, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good, "Everyone won't be satisfied and no one will get everything they want. But we need to come together, just as we've done in other great struggles in World War II and the Cold War, in passing the great civil-rights laws of the 1960s, and in daring to send a man to the moon. If we don't get every provision right, we can adjust and improve the program next year or in the years to come. What we can't afford is to wait another generation."
Thank You For Reading !
Broad Public Support Roughly
Broad Public Support
Roughly three quarters of Americans support what they're hearing from Washington on health care, according to a June survey from the Employee Benefits Research Institute.
The ideas they favor include an option to purchase insurance from a government-run plan (a.k.a. "the public plan"); requiring insurers to cover all people regardless of their health problems; expanding Medicare and Medicaid; and mandating that everyone have insurance and that all employers pay toward coverage.
A new poll, meanwhile, showed that large numbers of people are worried about whether they will have future health coverage, with nearly one in four concerned that family medical bills will drive them into bankruptcy.
The survey of 508 people was conducted in June by the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.
And there have been many different polls that show the public is overwhelmingly in favor of Obama's version of reform, which includes a public option (for example, a CBS News/New York Times poll had 72% in favor and even a poll done by healthcare reform opponents showed 83% in favor of the public option).
Additionally, the post buries the news in the paragraph:
On health care, the poll, conducted by telephone Wednesday through Saturday, found that a majority of Americans (54 percent) approve of the outlines of the legislation now heading toward floor action. The measure would institute new individual and employer insurance mandates and create a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. Its costs would be paid in part through new taxes on high-income earners. There are sharp differences in support for this basic package based on income, as well as a deep divide along party lines. Three-quarters of Democrats back the plan, as do nearly six in 10 independents.
Thank You !
good sign
This is possibly the end of the o care initiative. Why, because now people will be able to see exactly what they are trying to accomplish. The o approach seems to be to get it passed before they know what's in there. A little more time with his "stimulas" bill might have protected us from that fiasco.
Maybe we can just get him to go out on another world appology tour. It was so good everyone loves us now.
The WoodyKC approach
The WoodyKC approach seems to be to bloviate ad nauseam in lieu of actually finding out what's in there.