House Republicans and Health Care Reform
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-01-19/house-republicans-and-health-care-reform
The House prepares to vote this week on a measure to repeal the health care law. Diane and guests explore how undoing the legislation might affect medical coverage, costs for consumers and jobs.
Guests
Ron Pollack
executive director of Families USA, a national non-profit organization for health care consumers.
Sudeep Reddy
economics reporter, The Wall Street Journal.
Joseph Antos
Wilson H. Taylor Scholar in Health Care and Retirement Policy at the American Enterprise Institute.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Have ANY Republican / Tea Party congresscritters gone on record as turning down their OWN government-provided health care?
As a voter, I am insulted by the Republicans sound-bite "job killing act." Clearly, this does not reflect reality. Voters are being purposely misled. We deserve better. Tell us what you object to in the bill and what you propose.
Norma Kacen
I would simply ask this. When has a government spending program ever come in at what we were told it would cost? .
The health care reform law, while helpful and necessary to some, does have an impact on jobs in this way: Insurance brokers who specialize in small group have decreased their number of changes between insurance carriers. My spouse works for a major carrier in new group sales and has seen a big decrease in business due in part to high unemployment's impact on group insurance rates and in part due to groups not changing providers to opt out of changes required by reform laws. Many groups choose to stay with their current carrier rather than be subject to the reform laws.
As a voter, I am insulted by both Republicans and Democrats and the way they throw #s around in terms of deficit reduction. I use common sense, if you add 20 to 30 million to the healthcare rolls, with little or no cost containments I don't see how there can be a reduction in the US deficit.
This is a shameful day for the Diane Rehm show and NPR. Every news show (that talks almost daily on the jobs problem) have categorically refused to talk about National HIring Day, and it's here 1.19.11. Readers need to know that NPR has not and will hot report fairly on the news, Their coverage is narrow unfair, and slanted.
Though the news media has did not talk about it - National Hiring Day is here today. This is a day that corporations are encouraged to hire new employees. The day suggested is Wednesday JANUARY 19, 2011. Corporations are called on to put patriotism ahead of excess profits and help their country in hard times. Those corporations that cannot hire, are asked to stop firing for that month.
There has never been a time In American History where it is less difficult for Corporations to hire, and more helpful to all Americans if they did.
This may help us all.
Hello!
Why does no one ever talk about how I am subsidizing the uninsured and if we go back to the old way I will continue to do this. Why does no one mention how the middle class always pays for all. Why does no one sue to eliminate me paying for people without insurance?
The republicans should also repeal the law that requires hospitals to treat all who come to the emergency room.
Either we are a society that looks after the weakest, in a fair way, or it becomes survival of the fittest.
If you hear the plan called "Obamacare" you know it's a cheap shot at a health care plan written and passed by Congress, not the president. The same goes for "death panels," which the nonpartisan Poynter Institute rated as the No. 1 lie of 2010.
The republicans/conservatives are simply angry that our good President was successful at accomplishing something so positive for our nation. By their reasoning, they need to counter and obstuct everything that he does to make him fail and then they can get their seats of power back. Those are their marching orders. So sad. What we as a nation need to do is impliment a single payor universal healthcare system that we all participate in. Most countries do this with great success and it wonderfully benefits their citizenry. Most people that I know and speak with are very supportive of the Affordable Care Act and see through the nonsense that conservatives are throwing out as arguments. Regarding the unconstitutionality aspect: Bunk! Seniors are required by law to have pharmaceutical coverage (Part D) & we are required to have homeowners and auto insurance. Let's face it, we all have skin in this game and we all must participate. Diane, Please...stop lending credence to the conservative voice and no longer have their points of view represented on your show. They only distort and discolor our opportunities to grow and progress.
I suspect there will be bipartisan (though insufficient) support for repeal, more bipartisan than the original passing of the act. I believe members of Congress, and clearly the House, got the message in November. Congress overstepped its authority and the American public responded strongly.
A medical advisory board that denies coverage for certain medical procedures based on economics is essentially rationing and, taken to the extreme, a death panel. Is it worth spending $250,000 to extend a person's life for one month, two,...
I have NEVER understood why the conservative right oppose this bill. Had this not been Obama's key agenda item, this is exactly the type of plan the Republicans would propose and have implemented in other states, like Massachusetts. Not only does it require individual responsibility (a key conservative issue), in the form of the individual mandate, this is NOT government-run health care – it simply reforms the existing private health care system we already have. And how can the Christian right deny the social justice aspects of this issue? I cannot imagine that Jesus Christ would campaign against access to health care for the poor. How in the world did our political ideologies get so muddled on this issue???
When determining cost of health care, what is included?
cost to providers
cost to patients
cost to employers
cost to insurance companies
cost to government
If malpractice insurance is lowed who benefits? providers only?
Thanks,
Carol from San Antonio, Texas
Listening to cspan yesterday, a man called furious that his wife's insurance had gone to $1500.00! He blamed the health care bill! People do not understand that this is not the blame of the health care bill. Please comment
I pay dearly for my Medicare and the top coverage AARP insurance for Supplemental and Part D. Thanks to the donut hole, I pay out, in cash, over $5,000 a year for my prescription med's alone, from my gross income of $22,000 a year (too high to obtain any help). None of my med's are Brand Name, all generic, but thanks to the Republican, "don't negotiate the price," support for the drug industry. My life is controlled by prescription expense. The new provision for a discount on Brand Name in the donut hole is helpful to some, but just another example of hands out for pay offs, from the drug company lackey politicians. No help for me as my emergency funds/life savings are depleted. Even when my saving are gone in a year or so, my retirement income of a whopping $22,000 will preclude me from help. So, all I have to look forward to is, death by drug price as I reach 70.
Until our government secures our borders, we can not even HOPE to provide for our citizens.
With our economy in such dire straits, this is UNaffordable Health Care. All of the *Special Intrests* need to step BACK. Washington has a mandate from the voters to represent the welfare of our own citizens.
The lawyers block tort reform. Who in Washington can take on the Lawyers? The Lobbyists are poisoning the well.
If there were no other arguments in favor of the Democrats' health care bill, the view of members of Congress, holders of health policies we subsidize for them, trying to take coverage way from voters would be an enormous selling point. I'd be curious to know how many Republicans are looking at their own party with squinty eyes now.
In my very Republican district, most doctors tended to favor reform legislation. Some say, candidly, that even as Republicans they favored singer payer because, though it's no cure, it tends towards reform of how health care is administered by insurance entities.
Medicare works. Why it shouldn't be enlarged into a cradle-to-grave, coast-to-coast program -- enlarging the "pool" of insured to include the young and healthy?
The MD Health Insurance and Federal Health Insurance Plans were a godsend to me but very few people have applied for the coverage, or know about it. I pay $235/month w/$200 deductible. I lost my coverage when I became unemployed. Because of pre-existing conditions the only alternative I had was to marry my long-time boyfriend. Individual BCBS coverage would have been $1079/month. Delaware unemployment is $330.
I've worked for major Health Insurers and know that the only winners in the Health Care debate are the insurers themselves. Anyone who runs the numbers will see that they are better off financially and statistically in foregoing health insurance. For example:
- a divorced father with one child typically has to pay family rates - $1200/month (employee and employer total contribution)
- $259,200 over the first 18 years of the life of his one child.
- Likely benefits over that same period - $6000 to $12000.
- Net loss to family and business contributors - $247,000
But what about catastrophic illness? Should you or your child be affected by catastrophic illness your insurer will NOT cover all the costs of treatment and you will wind up bankrupt anyway.
The Health Care system is a negative lottery that we lose, even if we win. For this reason I usually negotiate away Health insurance in exchange for more income with employers.
Alexander Z
The MD Health Insurance and Federal Health Insurance Plans were a godsend to me but very few people have applied for the coverage, or know about it. I pay $235/month w/$200 deductible. I lost my coverage when I became unemployed. Because of pre-existing conditions the only alternative I had was to marry my long-time boyfriend. Individual BCBS coverage would have been $1079/month. Delaware unemployment is $330.
One of your guests said that not counting employer supplied health care insurance as income reduces both income and payroll tax. It does not reduce payroll tax.
Smartly, Obamacare.com was registered by Obama's administration and now takes you to an information page about the health care law.
I think that arguments based on real, publicly available numbers - on any side of the issues - will lead to more civil discourse for all of us, especially in this debate.
While discussing contentious parts of the bill earlier in the show, your guest Joseph Santos implied that supporters of the bill leave out its critical negatives. He said that the the small businesses who wold be helped by the bill are only those with under 25 employees and who have low-wage jobs.
So what portion of American small business fall into this category? I think that proportion is pretty substantial and will grow, but I would like to know the number. Also, isn't this the segment of working Americans who need affordable healthcare the most?
Does anyone have a understanding of each of the provisions of the bill?
If it takes over 2000 pages to describe the bill, how many bureaucrats will it take to administer the law.
What I see and hear is cherry picking of certain parts of the law depending on the individual's view.
What just blows my mind is Congress voted this massive bill into law and few if any read the bill and even fewer knew the full effect of the bill they voted into law.
While I am not an elected official, I routinely negotiate away Health Care benefits with employers for more cash because it is a negative lottery.
From my post:
I've worked for major Health Insurers and know that they only winners in the Health Care debate are the insurers themselves. Anyone who runs the numbers will see that they are better off financially and statistically in foregoing health insurance. For example:
a divorced father with one child typically has to pay family rates - $1200/month (employee and employer total contribution)
$259,200 over the first 18 years of the life of his one child.
Likely benefits over that same period - $6000 to $12000.
Net loss to family and business contributors - $247,000
But what about catastrophic illness? Should you or your child be affected by catastrophic illness your insurer will NOT cover all the costs of treatment and you will wind up bankrupt anyway.
The Health Care system is a negative lottery that we lose, even if we win. For this reason I usually negotiate away Health insurance in exchange for more income with employers.
Alexander Z
The argument that the new medical law is socialism or impacts businesses negatively is fallacious.
Currently businesses that do not provide health-care coverage are subsidized by the government. When their employees get sick they transfer that cost and burden of heath-care to all taxpayers and those businesses that do provide the coverage.
I believe it was actually first pointed out by the Reagan Administration and they tried to get a Bill passed to make businesses that did not provide insurance play on a level playing field with those that are socially responsible.
I think the Democrats need to turn the argument back on the Republicans, show the American people that businesses that are not providing care are taking money out of our pockets by getting a free ride, burdening our community resources and have a unfair business advantage thereby, forcing them to drop out of providing coverage to be competitive. All of which increases the debts all governments and taxpayer shoulder. Therefore, those without coverage are getting local, state and federal subsidies insurance and not paying for it.
So much for smaller government. Again it is the Republicans burdening the taxpayers and at the same time complaining about taxes and debt.
Once again, a show about health care reform that features no panelist that advocates single payer guaranteed health care for all. Nice job, Diane! Way to keep listeners informed!
MORAL HAZARD associated with MALPRACTICE TORT REFORM
Will tort reform introduce moral hazard making things worse because physicians and other providers will be less concerned about litigation and less concerned about patient injury?
Medical errors may be classified in two broad categories. Over utilization, sometimes called abuse, is failure to do the RIGHT THING and is the major cause of our health care financing crisis. Although providers blame fear of medical malpractice, the cause is the failure of the global subjective memory based decision making methodology. Malpractice tort reform does not address this problem and will not make any difference in medical costs.
The more important errors, at least from the patient's perspective, are the errors to do the THING RIGHT. Thousands of deaths and injuries to patients each year are the result. Moral hazard will be introduced by any tort reform that limits a patient's compensation for damages caused by medical malpractice (failure to do the THING RIGHT).
www.creativedesignforhealthcarereform.us
One of the guests laughingly told us "it was a pretty good deal" for the
worker that the mandated cost of the health insurance would be tax free to the employer. Think about that. Has it become so established that government is entitled to our earnings to keep the ever expanding ship of state afloat that we clap in glee if they let us keep some? Very illuminating.
But the real consequence I see already with my own employer is that they will avoid adding to the payroll any way they can. The tax credit does not
balance what the true cost of having employees is becoming to employers.
This past summer he hired the foreign workers in preference to Americans
to avoid FICA altogether and the State Unemployment tax which had
tripled here in Maryland.
The health reform is humanitarian in concept, it will be damaging in practice, I truly expect. Ask a Briton.
A study by Harvard University concluded that close to 50,000 people in this country die prematurely and unnecessarily each year because they lack affordable health care. Some have argued that the true number is substantially less. But, even if the correct figure is just half of what Harvard estimates, every six weeks the loss of life among those who lack adequate healthcare is equivalent to the loss of life in the 9/11 attacks.
Republicans argue for repeal of the "job-killing" healthcare bill. It sounds like, if they can save lives or save jobs, they are more interested in jobs. And this from the same folks who say they are pro-life!
I read online that Rep. Steve Kagen, MD, Wisconsin, party affiliation not mentioned has refused Congressional Health Care.
I think if Congress were to elminate Congressional Health Care and their other special perks (such as their retirement system) and subject themselves to all the laws and rules they enact on their constituents, then their credibility and trustworthiness would increase tremendously with the voters.