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.
HEALTH CARE LAW REPEAL EFFORTS: EMPTY-OF-RESPONSIBLE-LOGIC, JUVENILE POLITICS
If there was an honest belief among U.S. legislators that there are flaws with the U.S. health care legislation passed last year, then these people would have put together a package of proposed alternative legislation before attempting to repeal the health care legislation...
And, if they were conducting themselves responsibly and with intellectual honesty, instead of attempting to repeal the 2010 health care legislation- without proffering any replacement(s)- U.S. legislators would have first presented some 'alternative health care legislation' as proposed amendments to the passed-into-law in 2010 health care legislation using the House of Representatives' normal legislation/bill tabling procedures during the current sitting of Congress...
What is occurring now smacks of junior high-school mentality antics; is damaging to the U.S.'s image world-wide and wastes valuable govt resources...
______________
Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada
I have individual health insurance and policy and chemotherapy is not covered for my cancer. Yet, if I had group policy with the same carrier, chemotherapy would be covered.
Why was this situation allowed to develop and remain, and will it be addressed through 2014?
Thanks for this excellent discussion of the ACA repeal proposal, discussions of alternatives and other important related points.
I am disappointed that there was no discussion of a Single Payer solution, it's projected cost savings and other benefits we could all enjoy.
I predict that in order to contain costs while preserving accessibility to good care, we will be having Single Payer discussions in coming years.
With over 50 million americans uninsured at this time, it is amazing that anyone would consider the present health care system to be a success. In fact, the system we presently have has a death panel that determines who shall receive the care they so desperately need. Those who have health care pay far too much for what they receive. A press which has been bought and paid for is obvious based upon the pundits who appeared on your show today.
hainc on January 19, 2011 @ 10:48 am wrote: “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,...”
PART ONE
You really should stop being so gullible as to blindly accept, and then repeat, all the Republi-Con lies, especially since the truth is so easily discoverable (such as by downloading and reading the bill, going to various fact checking websites, or demanding proof for the outrageous slanders like the one you just repeated.
There are no ‘death panels’ in the healthcare law! That is simply a lie, courtesy of “Saint Sarah of Alaska” that the Republi-Cons repeated whenever they could. Want to refute me? Then post the section number you claim creates such a ‘panel’, so we can go read it and see for ourselves.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
The only real death panels have been brought to you courtesy of the Republi-Cons. The Texas Advanced Directive Act (signed by Bush, and passed by the Legislature of that most conservative state), which allows doctors to terminate life sustaining services they deem “futile” against the wishes of patients our their families. Or, there’s my state of Arizona whose Governor and Legislature (not content with killing people by denying funds for transplants) want to “balance” the budget by throwing more people to the wolves! Then, of course, there’s the Republi-Con’s “holy, perfect, pure, and sacred” free market, which (unless regulated) denies people coverage for pre-existing conditions (thereby essentially creating monopolies since people can’t change their insurers once a condition arises), discriminates against people buying in the “individual market” by charging premiums way in excess of what group plans offer, and (of course) when time comes to pay out on insurance policies dreams up ingenious ways to avoid doing.
This is what has been, is, and will kill people - not Palin’s hallucinations of ‘death panels’ in the new healthcare law.
russleopard on January 19, 2011 @ 10:51 am wrote: “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.”
I think what the guest was referring to is the fact that the amount the employer pays for health insurance is not included as income for the employee. Therefore, the employee is not taxed for this either by the income tax, or by the payroll tax. Thus, this practice does reduce the payroll tax, since otherwise you would have to pay the FICA rate on the premiums paid for that insurance.
Mark Silva on January 19, 2011 @ 10:53 am wrote: “Smartly, Obamacare.com was registered by Obama's administration and now takes you to an information page about the health care law.”
I don’t think so. If that were true the extension (the last three letters) would be “gov” and not “com”. This is like the website “www.whitehouse.com, which formerly was a pornography site. Even the “Obamacare.com” site’s “About Us” page admits it has no connection with the government!
okietaxpayer on January 19, 2011 @ 11:01 am wrote: “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.”
What blows my mind is how, after a full year of hearings and discussions (not to mention the fact the bill was posted on the internet before it was voted on) people can still repeat that nonsense.
And before anyone jumps up with that old chestnut about Pelosi saying we have to pass it and then read it, I suggest they read her entire statement (http://pelosi.house.gov/news/press-releases/2010/03/releases-March10-con...). What she actually said, referring to the misinformation being spread by Republi-Cons, was that ““But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Republi-Cons always omit that last part when misquoting her.
P.S. - As for the number of pages of the law, it’s under 2,000 once printed in normal typeface and single spaced. Plus, quite a bit of important legislation is very long. Check out the Immigration Law, the Military Code, or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sometime!
seatosea on January 19, 2011 @ 11:40 am wrote: “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.”
You completely misunderstood what the guest was talking about. This was not about the individual mandate in the new law (which doesn’t go into effect in 2014), this was about the tax policy regarding employer provided health insurance which has been in effect for decades!
Much of the opposition to the new law is based on phenomenal ignorance like yours.
Jim978 on January 19, 2011 @ 12:57 pm wrote: “And this from the same folks who say they are pro-life!”
Ah, but as Arizona’s Republi-Con government is busy proving (yet again), they are only “pro-life” as long as it costs them nothing!
Brian Lupiani:
My Democratic Congressman (Congressional District 23) who was voted out of office told me during an office meeting that he does not get Blue Cross/Blue Shield which is offered to the congress. That he used some other company.
I guess he could afford it since congressmen and women make around $170,000 a year.
Etaoin Shrdlrupt:
Hate to blow your bubble but then you show ignorance in many of your posts.
Medicare has and does deny treatment if an elderly person falls, breaks their hip, and does not show any improvement. Medicare will not pay physical therapy after the two week period if improvement is not shown. Which indirectly is a death sentence for that elderly patient.
What does this have to do with the Medical Reform Act. 80% of medical cost expense in this country goes toward the late stage care. This is where the cutting will be taking place like Medicare.
But then people say this is totally different than Medicare. Not so. Many of these so called exchanged will be subsidized by taxpayers and one of the reason this law was passed was to cut costs.
Now this Administration for PR purposes is throwing bones to different entities to make this law favorable to the American public. One example is exceptions like with McDonalds offering insurance to entry level workers.
Once this program hits full steam by 2014, many of the promises by the Demar$e politicians who passed this law will disappear.
Rightnow Katheen Sabuilus has the power to have the last word.
Shrdlrupt:
Are you an attorney that can read the fine print and know it is written in an ambiguous form that can be challenged by the courts. This was written like this for a purpose so that certain challenges like abortion, trans-gender surgery may come up for debate in later years through the courts.
Guess who want to control the courts?
MonminMclean:
It will become a more of a government run health care. Just give it time. We are currently seeing all "these bones" thrown to these different entities. This is not going to decrease health care. But it is done more as a public relation stunt.
Obama famous speech that you can see on you tube speaking to Planned Parenthood in 2005 has stated he want a "one payer system". He stated it might take 15 years but so be it .
Look it up.
shipscarver:
Have you ever contacted your drug company to see if they will give you a discount? They state in their commercials that they help certain patients.
Really tarascon:
If Medicare works, why do some states like Texas, 50% of providers do not accept Medicare patients.
You mentioned that some doctors mentioned one-payer systems. Are these the ones that are going to retire. Because I have spoke to one left leaning Doctor who told me that after 12yrs of school,training and debt, that perhaps financially she will start seeing the light.
If you are not aware the 500,000 or so providers are not being asked to directly sacrifice in bringing down health care costs. But many of them know this is temporary? These are one of the highest paid professions.
Alex Z
Guess who one was one of the biggest supporters for the Health Reform Act?
The insurance companies. It means adding more policy holders. Being that you work for a Health Insurance company, do you know what the profit margin for the industry?
It is only 6% (US New & World Report) August 2009. Don't have which week but you can google it up. This excluded Life, auto, etc.
Now to answer your question on high costs, that is why allowing companies to compete across state lines will help reduce expense. Have a high risk programs for people that cannot get insurance anywhere. There are only 8 million chronically uninsured that cannot get insurance.
CBO figures show that 60 Billion in yearly litigation. Lets reduce this.
Jim978
Jet Magazine which markets to Afro-Americans stated a few years ago that total homicides in the African-American population in the US for that year were 16,000 people. 93% was black on black killings.
That is one-third of your Harvard study in unexpected deaths? Where is the concern form individuals like yourself or like minded people for these senseless deaths .
Got it: It is the Gun Lobby, Republicans, etc for lax gun laws. It is the gun's fault that if fired.
meangreen on January 22, 2011 @ 9:30 am wrote: “My Democratic Congressman (Congressional District 23) who was voted out of office told me during an office meeting that he does not get Blue Cross/Blue Shield which is offered to the congress. That he used some other company. I guess he could afford it since congressmen and women make around $170,000 a year."
Did he also mention that members of Congress and their staff are actually given a choice of insurance from a pool of insurers, giving them the choice of which specific insurance plan to use? Do you realize this is exactly what the new healthcare law will allow the rest of us to do when the Insurance Exchanges it creates go into effect in 2014, and that this should result in lower premiums (especially for people who buy insurance as individuals)? And, most importantly, do you realize that in 2014 members of Congress will have to get their insurance the same exact way - through the healthcare law (thus refuting another well-worn Republi-Con lie)?
But don’t take my word for that last bit. Read Section 1312 (d)(3)(D) of the law, which says Congress and the staff must do this. Then contrast it with Sections 1312(d)(1) & (3)(A) - (C), which says the rest of us can buy insurance outside of the Exchanges. Congress has no such option.
To meangreen, writing on January 22, 2011 @ 9:52 am:
PART ONE
Love to blow your bubble, since when it comes to ignorance (and irrelevancy) you are the true master. (Also, substituting insult for reason - can’t be bothered to get my name right, can you?)
Your “response” to Mr. Lupiani ignored the question he asked: “Have ANY Republican / Tea Party congresscritters gone on record as turning down their OWN government-provided health care?” Of course we know the answer is no. In fact, one Tea Bagger loudly protested when he discovered his “evil”, “socialist”, “big government” Congressional healthcare benefits wouldn’t start immediately after the election! He’d actually have to wait until he took office. The horror, the horror!
Similarly, your “response” to my Commentary of January 20, 2011 (@ 7:36 pm) is another masterpiece of irrelevancy, since you take it out-of-context to change the topic. I was replying to hainc’s Comment (of January 19, 2011 @ 10:48 am) in which he spoke of “death panels” based on economics (a repeat of Palin’s lie). You reply talking about something else entirely, that has nothing to do with the new healthcare law!
1) You are talking about Medicare, a program that already exists, not something created under the new law.
2) You are talking about a decision to stop paying if there’s no improvement. Pray tell me why a useless treatment should continue? This has nothing to do with economics.
3) “Medical Reform Act” - what’s that sir? We are debating the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which together comprise the new healthcare law. There’s no so-called “Medical Reform Act” involved.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
In fact, the closest thing I’ve found (searching the internet) was a proposed bill named “H.R.3970 - Medical Rights and Reform Act of 2009”. Sponsored by a Republican, it never became law. Is that what you are referring to?
4) Then we have the most important point: even if there are provisions to lower healthcare costs in Medicare by “letting people die” purely for economic reasons (and the burden is on you to prove those provisions exist by citing them), what’s your alternative? Ending Medicare altogether? You act as if there’s an alternative. Remember, people aren’t restricted to Medicare (or the new healthcare law). If they can pay for their own healthcare none of this matters. If they can’t, then repealing the new law is the true death sentence!
(And please don’t give me any nonsense about the “private market”. This law was created precisely because people are unable to afford insurance in the unregulated private market, and the law will help them get it!
5) Finally, why don’t you address the point I raised about the real death panels. Such as the Texas Advanced Directive Act (signed by then Governor Bush, and passed by the Legislature of that most conservative state)? It allows doctors to terminate life sustaining services they deem “futile” against the wishes of patients our their families. And please note, this has nothing to do with economic cost. The termination takes place even if the patient is paying for the healthcare themselves (i.e.: it’s not a Medicare or Medicaid related law).
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
Or my state of Arizona, whose Governor and Legislature (not content with killing people by denying funds for transplants) want to “balance” the budget by throwing more people to the wolves (removing them from our Medicaid program)! All in the name of economics. (They’d rather balance our budget that way than by closing tax loopholes for corporations, or by ceasing to waste money on lawsuits against the Federal government.)
Then, of course, there’s the Republi-Con’s “holy, perfect, pure, and sacred” free market, which (unless regulated) denies people coverage for pre-existing conditions (thereby essentially creating monopolies since people can’t change their insurers once a condition arises), discriminates against people buying in the “individual market” by charging premiums way in excess of what group plans offer, and (of course) when the time comes to pay out on insurance policies dreams up ingenious ways to avoid doing so.
There, sir, are your “death panels”. Why do you even avoid discussing them?
meangreen on January 22, 2011 @ 9:59 am wrote: “Are you an attorney that can read the fine print and know it is written in an ambiguous form that can be challenged by the courts. This was written like this for a purpose so that certain challenges like abortion, trans-gender surgery may come up for debate in later years through the courts. Guess who want to control the courts?”
Huh? What the heck is that supposed to mean, and what the heck are you talking about? The only ones I see raising ‘challenges in the courts’ are your precious Republi-Cons!
Now you’ve gone from irrelevancy to inanity!
meangreen wrote on January 22, 2011 @ 11:37 am: “It will become a more of a government run health care. Just give it time.”
Ah, the old “slippery slope” argument - last refuge of someone with nothing rational or fact based to argue.
Hey, wasn’t the Patriot Act the start of the inevitable march to a full-blown police state? Wasn’t Bush’s insistence (in his signing statements) that he could ignore any laws he disagreed with (especially since he actually did this thereafter) the first step in creating a dictatorship? Aren’t the Tea Baggers, with their violent rhetoric about Second Amendment Rights, targeting their opponents, lock and load, and bullets instead of ballots, just setting the stage for a violent insurrection?
See, I can write nonsense just like you.
meangreen on January 22, 2011 @ 11:51 am wrote: “If Medicare works, why do some states like Texas, 50% of providers do not accept Medicare patients.”
Gee, that proves we should do away with Medicare, I guess. (Funny, a moment ago you were screaming about cutting some Medicare payments, now I guess you want to eliminate them all together.)
Many people on Medicare can’t afford to pay for the same treatments they would have to if it was ended. That’s the basic fact you keep ignoring. So what’s your alternative?
Oh, and are those 50% you cite the same ones who lobbied for that Texas “death panel” law which allows them to kill their patients! That’s certainly a proven way to reduce costs.
meangreen on January 22, 2011 @ 12:27 pm wrote: “Guess who one was one of the biggest supporters for the Health Reform Act? The insurance companies. It means adding more policy holders . . . . Now to answer your question on high costs, that is why allowing companies to compete across state lines will help reduce expense. . . . CBO figures show that 60 Billion in yearly litigation. Lets reduce this.”
1) Yeah, that’s why they sent their employees to join the protests at those Tea Bagger rallies - because they were such enthusiastic supporters of this law.
2) Yes, more policy holders for the insurers (one reason many people would prefer a public option). But here’s a little fact you ignore: insurance is all about shared risk. The more people insured the lower the premiums each one has to pay. That’s called a “free market” solution to the problem of insurance costs.
3) Guess what, the new healthcare law allows buying insurance across state lines, through those exchanges. What it doesn’t do is what Republi-Cons want: eliminate State regulation of the insurance industry (with no “big government” Federal replacement, of course). Funny how Republi-Cons are all for “states rights”, except when they’re against it!
4) One way to reduce litigation: have insurance companies honor their policies and not engage in “clever” ways to avoid making just payments. Yeah, and if people would just stop engaging in crime think of all the money would could save by firing the Police, the prosecutors, and closing all the prisons!
Let us all know when you finally enter the real world.
meangreen on January 22, 2011 @ 12:40 pm wrote: “Jet Magazine which markets to Afro-Americans stated a few years ago that total homicides in the African-American population in the US for that year were 16,000 people. 93% was black on black killings. That is one-third of your Harvard study in unexpected deaths? Where is the concern form individuals like yourself or like minded people for these senseless deaths .”
And what has that got to do with the price of eggs in China? Next I suppose you’ll cite statistics about how many people die in natural disasters, or fires, or some other irrelevant inanity you can dream up.
The point the earlier Comment was making (by Jim978 on January 19, 2011 @ 12:57 pm) is that repeal of this healthcare law could cause people to die for lack of affordable treatment - and how is that “pro-life”? Answer: for Republi-Cons human life is sacred only when it costs them nothing!
Yes, we should do something about gun violence and homicides. But the only one I see blaming “the Gun Lobby, Republicans, etc” is you, sir. As I said, more irrelevant inanity on your part.