House Democratic leaders are looking to blend the three House Healthcare Reform bills together by next week, though Speaker Nancy Pelosi prefers to postpone a vote until the Senate Finance Committee does before bring their bill to the House floor.
In the meantime, a Republican member of the Senate Finance Committee, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, sought to delay the SFC's vote until the bill was put into "actual legislative language" as opposed to the "plain English" version, and the Congressional Budget Office had made its final estimate of cost. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), whom the Dems are courting as the possible only Republican vote, agreed that she wanted to know the final numbers as well.
The request didn't fly as Dems pointed out that Republican committee members had, in the past, voted on plain English versions of legislation and based on general but not final CBO estimates, in particular the Medicare prescription drug plan and the Bush tax cuts. No wondering why the Republicans pushed those through without final estimates. I can't say I blame Democrats for doing the same. We can't cut back on this bill anymore anyway.
Information from CQ Politics Sept. 23, 2009 Midday Update.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Baucus v Snowe
As noted in the sidebar, Senator Baucus wants to send his healthcare bill to the Senate floor by the end of the week. However, Olympia Snowe wants more time. Senator Snowe is under fire from an ad by MoveOn. Org and other members of the coalition fighting for a public option.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Employer Paid Heathcare at $30,000?
Here are some sobering statistics from Drew Altman at the Kaiser Family Foundation. In 2009 average healthcare premiums for family coverage will hit $13,375. I already knew that since that's what I would pay if my daughter hadn't graduated to a separate policy. (Come to think of it, that is what I pay since she can't afford to pay her own premiums.) But here's something I didn't know. If premiums continue to rise at only the relatively modest rates they have over the last five years, by 2019, the average family premium will reach $24, 180. If prices rise at the average rate they have over the last 10 years, family premiums will average $30,803.
Let's add some perspective in addition to what Mr. Altman notes. According to the US Census Bureau the real median household income for 2008 was
$50, 303. So let's say in 2008 the average family premium was $12,500, since that's what I was paying. That amounts to nearly 1/4 of the median family income. What is even more frightening in terms of healthcare costs is that between 2007 and 2008 real household median income declined by 3.6%.
These are household statistics, not individual income statistics. So what this says is that by 2019, healthcare costs for employers could amount to more than the cost of hiring another employee. Is it any wonder that, already, many companies that provide medical benefits are hiring more part-time, and consequently ineligible, employees?
In my second post on this blog, "It's Your Problem Too" I noted the many ways the currently insured can find themselves unexpectedly uninsured. So what do you think will happen to your employer provided healthcare when costs go that high?
Under most of the current bills, employers will be penalized for dropping coverage, but with costs like that it may be worth it to just pay the tax. That's why we need cost containment as well as universal coverage, and that's where the hard part comes in.
As Altman points out, cost containment has been cut back or eliminated from most bills. This same issue has arisen every time any attempt has been made toward healthcare reform since the '80s. Somewhere along the line we, as consumers, bought into the idea––as we did with housing and cars––that more has to be better and side-effects be damned. But the side-effects of too much healthcare, like the side-effects of too much oil consumption, can be detrimental to your health as well as your wallet.
Statistics show there is no correlation between the greater number of tests and procedures Americans undergo as opposed to other nations, and better health. As I've pointed out in more than one post, our overall health outcomes are not the same as countries with more streamlined healthcare delivery, they are actually worse.
Opponents of healthcare reform since the first Clinton attempt have used the word "rationing" as a scare tactic. Rationing in today's political lexicon connotes something necessary being withheld. In reality we are talking about elimination of wasteful spending on unnecessary services that could harm your overall health.
Let's take as an example the proliferation of CT scans and MRIs. In this blog post by Judith Graham of the Chicago Tribune on the need for data sharing to cut down on unnecessary testing, a physician points out how too many of these imaging tests can be harmful.
Another post at KevinMD points out:
I can personally attest to the back pain issue he mentions later in the article. The first time I experienced a pain down my right thigh, I went to my PCP who sent me for an MRI and then to an orthopedist, who had me return regularly for appointments where he'd do no more than ask me to bend this way and that. One day, I noticed the pain subsiding and canceled my next appointment. Two years ago, suffering from more severe pain that I traced to a new exercise I had added to my regimen, I considered seeing my PCP again. Treatment had changed by then, and I figured he'd send me for physical therapy. Instead I went online first and read exactly what Dr. Kevin said, wait six weeks and, in the meantime, stretch your hamstrings whenever possible. I continued my exercise regimen but eliminated anything I could feel in the back area. In six weeks it was gone, and I had saved my insurance company thousands of dollars while saving myself the dangers of another MRI.
This isn't rationing. It's good practice that benefits everyone. Changing healthcare delivery is also the only way we can make healthcare affordable to all, but it will never happen if opponents whip up a frenzy of fear and politicians continue to pander to the uninformed.
Let's add some perspective in addition to what Mr. Altman notes. According to the US Census Bureau the real median household income for 2008 was
$50, 303. So let's say in 2008 the average family premium was $12,500, since that's what I was paying. That amounts to nearly 1/4 of the median family income. What is even more frightening in terms of healthcare costs is that between 2007 and 2008 real household median income declined by 3.6%.
These are household statistics, not individual income statistics. So what this says is that by 2019, healthcare costs for employers could amount to more than the cost of hiring another employee. Is it any wonder that, already, many companies that provide medical benefits are hiring more part-time, and consequently ineligible, employees?
In my second post on this blog, "It's Your Problem Too" I noted the many ways the currently insured can find themselves unexpectedly uninsured. So what do you think will happen to your employer provided healthcare when costs go that high?
Under most of the current bills, employers will be penalized for dropping coverage, but with costs like that it may be worth it to just pay the tax. That's why we need cost containment as well as universal coverage, and that's where the hard part comes in.
As Altman points out, cost containment has been cut back or eliminated from most bills. This same issue has arisen every time any attempt has been made toward healthcare reform since the '80s. Somewhere along the line we, as consumers, bought into the idea––as we did with housing and cars––that more has to be better and side-effects be damned. But the side-effects of too much healthcare, like the side-effects of too much oil consumption, can be detrimental to your health as well as your wallet.
Statistics show there is no correlation between the greater number of tests and procedures Americans undergo as opposed to other nations, and better health. As I've pointed out in more than one post, our overall health outcomes are not the same as countries with more streamlined healthcare delivery, they are actually worse.
Opponents of healthcare reform since the first Clinton attempt have used the word "rationing" as a scare tactic. Rationing in today's political lexicon connotes something necessary being withheld. In reality we are talking about elimination of wasteful spending on unnecessary services that could harm your overall health.
Let's take as an example the proliferation of CT scans and MRIs. In this blog post by Judith Graham of the Chicago Tribune on the need for data sharing to cut down on unnecessary testing, a physician points out how too many of these imaging tests can be harmful.
There’s the rub. If the physician had access to the [original] MRI, he wouldn’t need to order three CT scans that expose the young woman to radiation and potential complications associated with the chemicals used to produce color contrast in the scans, Anastos said. The MRI would have been enough to determine whether the tumor was benign.
Another post at KevinMD points out:
The problem is that these scans are so sensitive, incidental findings are often found. In many cases, they may not be the true cause of the symptoms, and worse, can necessitate more invasive testing that can have serious side effects.
I can personally attest to the back pain issue he mentions later in the article. The first time I experienced a pain down my right thigh, I went to my PCP who sent me for an MRI and then to an orthopedist, who had me return regularly for appointments where he'd do no more than ask me to bend this way and that. One day, I noticed the pain subsiding and canceled my next appointment. Two years ago, suffering from more severe pain that I traced to a new exercise I had added to my regimen, I considered seeing my PCP again. Treatment had changed by then, and I figured he'd send me for physical therapy. Instead I went online first and read exactly what Dr. Kevin said, wait six weeks and, in the meantime, stretch your hamstrings whenever possible. I continued my exercise regimen but eliminated anything I could feel in the back area. In six weeks it was gone, and I had saved my insurance company thousands of dollars while saving myself the dangers of another MRI.
This isn't rationing. It's good practice that benefits everyone. Changing healthcare delivery is also the only way we can make healthcare affordable to all, but it will never happen if opponents whip up a frenzy of fear and politicians continue to pander to the uninformed.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Baucus Plan Falls Short––No Surprise
The Baucus plan for healthcare reform––more accurately the Senate Finance Committee plan–-has been unveiled. It puts me in mind of the much awaited Iraq Study Group report a few years ago. Everyone, including the President and Congress, took a holiday from voicing any Iraq policy until the report came out. As though it would actually turn up something new that everyone didn't already know.
The Baucus plan comes in as far less expensive than the House plan––$774 billion over ten years vs. 1.042 trillion over the same period.
Paul Krugman outlines the problems better than I can, but the biggest and most important issue–-and the one probably responsible for the lower price tag––is the replacement of a public option with those useless non-profit insurance cooperatives that will never happen.
The Baucus plan comes in as far less expensive than the House plan––$774 billion over ten years vs. 1.042 trillion over the same period.
Paul Krugman outlines the problems better than I can, but the biggest and most important issue–-and the one probably responsible for the lower price tag––is the replacement of a public option with those useless non-profit insurance cooperatives that will never happen.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Pelosi Says House Bill WILL Include a Public Opton
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the bill the House will send to the President this fall will include the Public Option.
Read more...
Read more...
Public Option: Yes We Can
Add your name now.
Note: There are a lot of petitions going around, and you may think if you've signed one, you've signed them all. Up until now most have exhorted Congress to pass some form of healthcare reform. Another went to President Obama urging him to give his strong suppport to the Public Option. This one is different. This petition tells Congress that we the voting public demand the Public Option be part of any healthcare reform package.
In the latest news from Democracy for American, Howard Dean says they've polled Congress and tally 218 House and 51 Senate Democratic votes for the Public Option. He goes on to explain why 51 (and not 60) Senate votes is enough for passage. There's also a new CBS News Poll that shows a vast majority of Americans (77%) believe a Public Option is important to reform.
Add your name to the petition.
Note: There are a lot of petitions going around, and you may think if you've signed one, you've signed them all. Up until now most have exhorted Congress to pass some form of healthcare reform. Another went to President Obama urging him to give his strong suppport to the Public Option. This one is different. This petition tells Congress that we the voting public demand the Public Option be part of any healthcare reform package.
In the latest news from Democracy for American, Howard Dean says they've polled Congress and tally 218 House and 51 Senate Democratic votes for the Public Option. He goes on to explain why 51 (and not 60) Senate votes is enough for passage. There's also a new CBS News Poll that shows a vast majority of Americans (77%) believe a Public Option is important to reform.
Add your name to the petition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
