U. S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-03-23/u-s-health-and-human-services-secretary-kathleen-sebelius
One year ago today, President Obama signed into law sweeping changes to the nation’s health care system. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act re-organized a sector that accounts for one-sixth of the national economy. Some of its more popular elements have already kicked in. Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. And some preventative treatments are now free. But the law faces threats. In a mostly symbolic vote, the GOP-controlled House voted to repeal the Act as one of its first actions. And portions of it could be overturned by the Supreme Court. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on the health care overhaul law.
Guests
Kathleen Sebelius
secretary,Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Related Video
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius responds to a caller in Nantucket, Massachusetts - a small-business owner who is paying $1,600 per month for health insurance coverage for her family of three, with a $5,000 deductible due to her son's pre-existing condition. "At this point, unfortunately, there aren't a lot of new provisions available," Sebelius said. "Right now, as a taxpayer, the family from Nantucket is also paying for everyone who doesn't have insurance who is coming through emergency room doors accessing the health care system, often in a very expensive way," Sebelius said. The Secretary added that more insurance options for small business owners will be available in 2014 as the health-care exchange system expands:
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius responds to a caller who objects to the part of the health care reform law that requires individuals to purchase health care. The caller argues that she and her family are in good health and don't utilize the health care system enough to warrant having to pay for insurance cost:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The repeated claims by Diane that her show is unbiased is laughable. Giving exclusive voice to only one side of the Obamacare debate for an entire show pretty clearly demolishes those claims. Nevermind the softball questions Diane asked the HSS Secretary. Diane's personal liberal biases come through clearly in nearly every show and on nearly every subject.
It couldn't have been too hard to find any number of thoughtful guests to offer alternative viewpoints to the HSS Secretary, yet the show opted to not do that. This particular show is a prime example of why a growing number of people have become aware of the liberal bias of NPR programming and are increasingly opposed to its continued public funding.
Skip, your second-to-last sentence goes right to the heart of why health care insurance has become so expensive. The purpose of insurance is to spread the risk and cover the cost of unexpected calamities that would otherwise be financially catastrophic to the insured individual. Instead, health care insurance has come to be expected to pay for any and every health care-related expense, no matter how common, predictable, and trivial.
Why, for example, should an insurer be expected to pay for an annual flu shot instead of the person receiving the flu shot? The need for a flu shot every year is known in advance, and the cost isn't beyond the reach of the average person. So why isn't that an expense that a person budgets for and pays for out of his own pocket instead of expecting someone else to pay for it?
If more people assumed personal responsibility for themselves and their choices in life, instead of expecting insurance companies and government to take care of them from cradle to grave, then the cost of insurance and government would go down.
Thank you for this program. I just got in to the end of the hour. Please forward this to Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. I want the administration to know of another person that applauds the administration's work to revise the health care system.
I live in Texas where there is a 'high risk insurance pool' program. This is a Texas subsidized insurance program for Texans who have been refused by other insurance companies. I have been self employed for at least 20 years. I pay for individual insurance.
I have an 18 year pre-existing condition. I have a tumor on my pituitary gland -- benign, non-cancerous. My doctors can't understand why insurance companies consider this condition 'high risk'. It has been controlled for the 18 years with medication, and yesterday, my doctor took me off the medication. The change being that I am now post-menopausal.
The problem is that I am 'stuck' on this 'high risk' designation and paying extremely high health insurance premiums. My illness has long been an inexpensive cost in the high risk insurance pool. I have long provided premiums that covered the costs of others within the pool. With the drop in the economy I have had to lower my own costs by moving my health insurance to extremely high deductible. It has prevented me from getting tests like a colonoscopy that could be a great preventive tool in my health care. (history of cancer in my family.)
Through the years, I have wished for an ombudsman type service that could help me navigate through the insurance conglomerate to get me out of the 'high risk' designation. Is there any help for me out there?
Yes and the total Canadian bill was seven pages versus our 2700 pages for an 80% effort. I would think that part of this "socialist" bogeyman is the inclusion of 2693 pages of other stuff that nobody read and will create twenty years of costly bureaucratic messes and legal challenges.
This bill is very poor and can not be compared to the Canadian system in either intent nor effectiveness.
R.barnes.va, if I'm following your math, you say you paid Anthem $2,349.99 in premiums, in exchange for which Anthem paid around $13,000 in medical expenses for your wife. That means you came out $10, 650.01 ahead in the deal And you're complaining about that deal?! Who wouldn't jump at any other type of investment in which the return is five times the investment in a single year!
Sacrifice and pay the premiums; that is what I do. I have no cell, cable or new car payments, but I have insurance! The govt needs to stay out of it.
The intention of creating the "affordable" healthcare act is honorable, but the way it was implemented is very dishonorable. How it's funded, how hardly no one, including Obama, Reid and Pelosi, had READ the bill! Are we running our country by people that have lost common sense? As a self employed proffesional, I pay $1400 a month for coverage with a high deductible, and this bill doesn't address any of my challenges. Also, paying 3% from the sale of the largest assett a family owns to pay for it (their home) is preposterous! What about tort reform for the nation, so that the lawyers are controlled? This will help bring costs down!
When will we work together for a real solution dealt honestly with the American public?
taknmyshot, I applaud you! That's exactly the kind of personal responsibility that has been the bedrock of a our great nation for over two centuries.
I don't listen every day, but a few weeks ago there were 2 conservatives on the show.
I was a bit upset with that because I didn't like what they said.
There are about an equal number of liberal and conservative veiws on.
Also a lot of her shows are not political in nature.
On the whole NPR and PBS are good for conservatives also.
My kids grew up watching Sesame street and I'm sure a lot of conservatives and their kids enjoyed it also.
There is car talk, wait wait, don't tell me, a Prairie home companion, and lots of classical music.
Just because you think Diane Rehm is biased, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I know a whole lot of people who have no health insurance.
One needs a back operation, another needs to go into rehab.
Hearing aides are not covered now, and a don't think dental work is either.
It's hard to concentrate on work or school if you can't see well, your teeth hurt or you have terrible back pain.
I think this will benefit the majority of Americans. Republicans included.
I hope that not much is cut from this program. It'sw a lot better than what is available now.
I don't listen every day, but I've noticed several times where two conservatives have been on with no liberal on.
NPR and PBS are important to lots of people, whatever party they belong to.
THere is A Prairie home companion, wait wait don't tell me, Car Talk, Music show, and then there are Sesames Stret, and others that Kids with parents of both parties both enjoy, as well as Antique roadshow, and many others.
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The point that everyone seems to be missing is that we are all already paying for each other. Cost-shifting accounts for as much as 30% of the typical employee premium. All of us are paying for everyone's expensive emergency room visits, and diseases related to smoking, obesity and other controllable health issues. Anyone complaining about "the government trying to control what I do" should realize we are all connected in this. I'd like to see more people offended by paying for other people's poor health decisions than people offended by "government controlling what I do."
If anyone in this country steps off a curb and gets hit by a bus -- anyone, from Mother Teresa to Charles Manson -- we will take them to the hospital and do everything possible to save their life....on all of our dimes! We have agreed as a nation that we care about life more than we care about money, and that is the right and moral decision. We are all connected, life is precious -- these are the foundations on which any health policy must be formed.
For a long time now health insurance has been completely out of reach for me and my family. As a teacher, the insurance offered to me is almost 30% of my income. We do the best we can to stay healthy and avoid hospital visits, even when at times we need them. One of the main advantages that the German system has over our own is that alternative medicines are widely available and accepted. Many alternative treatments are geared more toward preventing problems and staying healthy rather than addressing major problems when it is almost too late. Alternative medicine such as homeopathy really works, in many cases, much better than what we now have available but the FDA will not approve or accept these treatments so they can gain a foothold in the U.S. My niece had eczema and was told here that there was no cure. She suffered greatly even with the steroid teatment the doctor prescribed. She was taken to Mexico and treated with homeopathic medicine and was CURED in a few weeks. My son had a similar situation. We've got to think outside the box to find a viable solution to this problem.
No matter what Katheeln Sebelius, President Obama or Diane Rehm say the success of Obamacare rests on a single notion: That the government can make health care better, less expensive and more efficient. The government openly admits that there is 500 BILLION dollars in fraud in Medicare and Medicaid More efficient? Less expensive?
When will the intellectuals realize that freedom works better than government force unleashed against innocent citizens?
So I have never smoked, I'm careful about what I eat, I exercise. I'm 52 and not on any form of medication. I've seen a primary care doctor three times just in my life, primarily to get my cholesterol levels checked (they're well within healthy norms). Now insurers are required to pay for the care of individuals who knowingly engage in unhealthy lifestyles (no Mdme Sec, you're not going to change behavior by simply waving your magic information wand; people already know the dangers of smoking, alcohol, fat, sedentary lifestyles, but still choose to continue). This causes my insurance premiums to rise. I now have to pay for the care for people who knowingly engage in behavior that results in high cost treatment. Regardless of what Ms Pelosi says, healthcare is not a right. Why is it someone else's right to have me pay for their selfish harmful stupid behavior? I'm tired of all the anecdotal stories about people who are helped by this act. They are helped at the expense of other people who are economically harmed by it. If Ms Rehm wants to contribute $$ to fund the care of these folks, that's her right, but it shouldn't be forced upon the rest of us.
I am self-employed AND work 2 part-time jobs in order to pay all the bills... I am single, live in Maine, have been uninsured for 4-5 years, and i just turned 50... If the new health care bill is not affordable to me - how will i benefit from the newest HCR [reform]?
Also, to comment on JimDavis comment [above mine] - doesn't he realize he [and everyone else] are already paying for everyone "unhealthy habits"... The only difference being that
that would now be shared by ALL, not just those currently paying for insurance????
Secretary Sebelius and the U.S. Surgeon General Regina Benjamin have done a very poor job of informing the public about health care reform legislation and its benefits. Instead of getting out in front and proactively appearing before organizations, civic groups and the media, they let the opposition drive the narrative with negativity. From Day One, they should had a team of people who job is to inform the public, allay fears and build support.
Dear Kalina (two above):
I'm so tired of the misguided text-book academic unsubstantiated argument that we're all currently paying for the care of the unhealthy. It simply isn't true. The cost of care for those who have previously been uninsured and have not received care will exceed the amount they pay in in insurance premiums. Hence, I must pay for their care.
If you're suggesting that, as so many have argued, the price I pay for healthcare reflects the care provide the uninsured, again I say you are woefully ignorant of how providers charge. First of all, not all care provided uninsured has been spread amongst the insured through the charges to them. Guess what?!?! -- many uninsured enter into payment plans with hospitals and pay their bills, often reduced to reflect what an insured patient would be charged for the same care received.
Are you suggesting that now that hospitals will receive payment for what had previously been uncompensated care, that they will now reduce their charges? You're in the same dreamworld of Pelosi/Sebalius who rely on university scholars and not hospital CFOs for guidance.
To darshan33 writing on
March 23, 2011 @ 7:38 am:
Thanks for your anti-Semitic and anti-Israel tirade, which of course has nothing to do with the topic!
Marvin Wagner on March 23, 2011 @ 9:03 am wrote: "The only cure is to change the system to treat health care as a human and Christian right."
Though I hope you didn't mean it this way, I must ask: Surely you don't believe non-Christians aren't deserving of health care?
Next time, be more careful (and inclusive) with your adjectives!
Charles Strehgl on March 23, 2011 @ 10:55 am wrote: "Now the law says we will have to buy this overpriced service. That is not going to be possible for most of us. Let the courts try to make us."
Actually, the law provides exemptions for those who cannot afford insurance, and provides subsidies to assist people in obtaining insurance. Finally, the courts will not be in the business of "making" you do anything. What will happen is that a surcharge will be added to the income tax of those without insurance who don't qualify for those exemptions.
I mention all this not in support of the law, but merely to demonstrate (yet again) how many people are discussing this without knowing what they are talking about!
JAR on March 23, 2011 @ 10:55 am wrote: "What does Ms Sebelius tell my son who is healthy, with good health habits, and in his twenties who now must pay higher premiums for all others. . .?"
What she should tell him (you, and that caller who was also spouting a philosophy of "rugged individualism") is the following "modest proposal": we will change the law so that you can "opt out" of this, and all other government health care programs, but we will hold you to it
Should you ever need health care, because a car accident leaves you with broken bones, blood pouring from wounds, and a ruptured kidney, or because of cancer, or old age, you will be left entirely on your own. Insurers can deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions, impose lifetime caps on your benefits, charge discriminatory high premiums if you purchase as an individual, etc. Best of all, you get no help from Medicare, Medicaid, or even the Emergency Medical Treatment Act (signed by that old "commie" Reagan), which mandates hospitals provide emergency life-saving care without regard to your ability to pay.
Nope, you're a "rugged individualist" - which means if you can't prove you can afford treatment (by an audited net worth statement prepared within 30 days by a CPA) you're left at the curb to die!
I imagine that when enough such incidents occur, you and your son will be rushing to "join up" and buy insurance.
LCJMI on March 23, 2011 @ 10:55 am wrote: "The expemtions granted to some unions and corporate sectors are the best indication that this plan is unfair and unsound. . . . National solutions to the health care problems are unrealistic; . . . "
Please, if there were no exemptions you'd complain about a "one-size-fits-all" approach".
As for national solutions being unrealistic: tell that to the people on Medicare who would die without it. Had the states been doing such a great job we'd have no need for a national program. Remember, the Constitution gives Congress the power to provide for "the general welfare" for a reason. (Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 1).
Tell you what, though, I'll be happy to give every state the chance to come up with an alternative, which is exactly what the new law does!
msandrews on March 23, 2011 @ 11:03 am wrote: "The repeated claims by Diane that her show is unbiased is laughable. Giving exclusive voice to only one side of the Obamacare debate for an entire show pretty clearly demolishes those claims."
What's laughable is that you obviously couldn't be bothered to check the archives and discover the many instances where Diane had guests on both sides of this issue, as well as shows with only the opponents speaking.
She's not required to revive a form of the "Fairness Doctrine". This was an opportunity for Sebelius to explain the law she will be administering. There have been and will be plenty of opportunities for other voices to be heard (such as the callers who expressed disagreement, and were treated with more respect than you get almost anywhere else).
stephenc on March 23, 2011 @ 11:43 am wrote: ". . . hardly no one, including Obama, Reid and Pelosi, had READ the bill!"
I assume you are referring to the deliberate misquote of Ms. Pelosi that keeps cropping up. She never said no one had read the bill, here's her exact words:
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." - http://pelosi.house.gov/news/press-releases/2010/03/releases-March10-con...
Republi-Cons always omit that last part. Why? Because it utterly destroys the lie they’re trying to tell! She wasn’t claiming it had to be passed before it could be read (in fact, it had been available on the internet for weeks, and had been debated for over a year). She was expressing the (foolish) hope that once passed people would take the time to read it, and see how false were the claims Republi-Cons were making about it.
jeffbeamer on March 23, 2011 @ 1:59 pm wrote: "When will the intellectuals realize that freedom works better than government force unleashed against innocent citizens?"
And when will you realize that mindlessly parroting lasseiz-faire ideology is no substitute for reality?
No one suggests the government is the solution to all our problems, but history teaches it can be part of the solution, just as it also teaches that the "pure, perfect, holy, and sacred" free market is anything but.
So there are problems with government programs? Tell me, when did you hear of anything that worked perfectly? The question is: are we better with this new law than we would be without it? I think the answer is yes. (Though I agree we can do better.)
Remember: the Constitution did not enact lasseiz-faire, Social Darwinism, Libertarianism, or Atlas Shrugged!
jim davis on March 23, 2011 @ 2:29 pm wrote: "Why is it someone else's right to have me pay for their selfish harmful stupid behavior? I'm tired of all the anecdotal stories about people who are helped by this act. They are helped at the expense of other people who are economically harmed by it. If Ms Rehm wants to contribute $$ to fund the care of these folks, that's her right, but it shouldn't be forced upon the rest of us."
Provided, as I've written above, you're willing to die according to your "rugged individualist" principles (not just live by them when it's convenient), I have no problem letting you "opt out".
Then, when you suffer a medical catastrophe, and can't afford care, in Goldfinger's words: you will be expected to die!
jim davis on March 23, 2011 @ 5:51 pm wrote: "You're in the same dreamworld . . . ."
That describes the almost incomprehensible nonsense you wrote. Yes, hospitals sometimes are able to work out payment plans with the uninsured, but do those plans pay 100% of the costs? No. And what about those who don't "work out" such plans - what happens to those costs? Do the hospitals just "eat them"? Of course not.
Ever wonder why aspirin (which you can buy at $5 a bottle at Costco) costs $10 a tablet in a hospital? It's called overhead - the hospital increases its charges so that it can recoup these losses. Of course, that means you pay more for your own treatment (co-pays), and your insurer pays more as well. Guess how that cost is recouped? By higher premiums.
Welcome to the real world!
keithme:
That is the biggest BS that the insurance companies are thieves. I thought Obamacare was going to reduce health care cost. He is leading us to the same situation with Medicare and Medicaid with Obamacare. It is broke or heading that way.
Get sick and tired of people so misinformed or just plain ignorant to see the truth.
Where is competition across state lines that "The Messiah" promised us during the campaign, tort reform costing 60 Billion (CBO), or saving accounts he has gotten rid off.
Sabellus is one of the biggest liars. Right before the Dem's shoved an unpopular bill down our throat with a procedural vote in not allowing the Senate to vote on it, Sabellus withheld info to the CBO on the true cost.
Private Insurance sure has increased life span as stated Monday, that average life has increased to 78yrs.
Etaoin:
But when will those exemptions be lifted? Remember there are over 1000 entities that Sabellus has given from unions to companies.