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.
Etaoin Shrdlu: Stated on March 23 at 8:47pm
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.
The bill Etoain has been written in an ambiguous way so that it can be reinterpret for further debate and that Sebellus will be the ultimate judge in any gray areas. But then Etaoin you are one of those liberal bias individuals that does not see the whole picture .
Oh Please Etaoin who stated on March 23 @ 8:24
"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!"
So then Etaoin I have to be one of those without an exemption. That sure sound like discrimination to me. I would love to have an exemption on my insurance premiums.
Some people on Medicare are already dying since there are many Health Professional that do not accept Medicare patient because of low reimbursements and the time to get paid. Remember, Medical Professionals have to pay medical school loans, overhead to run offices and staff.
Did you read today that CBO stated that Obamacare is going to cost 800,000 lost jobs in the medical profession over the next 10 years. That the real cost will be 1.13 Trillion dollars instead of the 1.04 Trillion. By the way Etaoin a Trillion is eleven zeros'.
Why do you not also quote the Constitution for "the general welfare" , Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 1 for individuals the right to have a home, a car, a good paying job, etc? You are the one that is interpreting.
Give the states the right to sell insurance across state line, health insurance savings accounts,etc. You forgot to mention that Obama refused these other parts of health care reform.
Food stamp recipients shouldn't be any more limited in their food choices than their neighbors????
She can not be serious.
On one hand she aknowledges the benefits of "real" food by suggesting greater education, but doesn't want to expand the common sense measures (that cost nothing I might add) that are already partialy in use.
On the other hand she thinks forcing responsible citizens to purchase insurance is perfectly ok.
Let me get this straight...if I'm on welfare I get to endanger my childs health with poor (govt purchased) food, but if I'm an upstanding member contributing to society I can't be trusted to make the right decisions?
What the h*** is wrong with this country?
meangreen, responding to keithme, on March 23, 2011 @ 9:48 pm wrote: “I thought Obamacare was going to reduce health care cost. . . . Get sick and tired of people so misinformed or just plain ignorant to see the truth.”
PART ONE
Look in the mirror, sir, and you’ll see one of those misinformed people.
While I agree keithme’s calling insurance companies thieves was over the top (as are most sweeping generalizations), you engage in a few yourself!
“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.”
- 1) The only people I hear referring to the President as “Messiah” is Republi-Cons like yourself. I certainly don’t think he’s of divine origin, but neither do I believe he’s the Anti-Christ (as so many people like you seem to believe).
2) I don’t recall Obama making any such promises - however, the Insurance Exchanges that will be set up starting in 2014 will allow (indeed force) greater competition.
3) Funny, though, how Republi-Cons (who normally are so beloved of “States’ Rights”) have no problem trying to eliminate State regulation of the insurance industry (while suggesting nothing to replace it), and (of course) insist we’ll all be better off without State tort law - which they’re happy to use the Federal government to destroy (sorry, “reform”). Hypocrisy anyone? (And, of course, there’s precious little evidence such “reform” actually will lower health costs. Though it certainly will lower medical responsibility!)
4) What savings accounts are you talking about?
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
“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, . . .”
- What the heck are you talking about? The only ones I saw using procedures to prevent votes were the Republi-Cons: you know - the filibuster and secret holds!
“Private Insurance sure has increased life span as stated Monday, that average life has increased to 78yrs.”
- Yeah, it’s also responsible for the sun rising in the morning! I see the concepts of cause and effect are foreign to you. Our life span has increased mainly because of increased sanitation, improvements in agriculture, and improvements in the practice of medicine - much of it do to government “interference” you so despise. I doubt insurance played much of a role.
P.S. - If I failed to respond to everything you wrote, don’t take that as assent.
meangreen on March 23, 2011 @ 9:54 pm wrote: “But when will those exemptions be lifted? Remember there are over 1000 entities that Sabellus has given from unions to companies.”
And what has that got to do with the price of eggs in China? You prefer a “one size fits all policy”? I thought conservatives hated that sort of thing.
I imagine the exemptions will remain in place until they are no longer needed. I believe some of them are actually designed to “sunset”, since they were granted only to provide a gradual changeover in certain situations.
Why not provide a specific example of an exemption you object to, stating what (beyond its mere existence) you find wrong with it (and no union-bashing please, especially since you just admitted companies are getting exemptions too). You can also discuss the reasons stated for granting the exemptions, and then we can debate the merits!
That’s known as using facts and reason to decide issues of public policy, not brain-dead ideology (whether of the Left or Right).
P.S. - Actually, I wish there were a way we could debate things more directly. NPR’s websites allow us to create profiles with a “wall” we can use to correspond. Too bad WAMU’s websites don’t do the same.
meangreen on March 23, 2011 @ 10:03 pm wrote: “The bill Etoain has been written in an ambiguous way so that it can be reinterpret for further debate and that Sebellus will be the ultimate judge in any gray areas. But then Etaoin you are one of those liberal bias individuals that does not see the whole picture .”
Nice try evading the point: Republi-Cons keep deliberately mis-quoting Pelosi! I bet if I tried a stunt like that (mis-quoting a Republi-Con) you’d scream bloody murder.
As for alleged ambiguities in the law - again care to provide a few specific examples? It’s rather hard to debate conclusory allegations with no facts to back them up.
Also, most legislation requires administrative discretion. Shall we repeal all of our criminal laws because of the great discretion they allow the police and prosecutors in deciding if, when, and how to enforce them?
And by the way, “the ultimate judge” is a little institution known as the Supreme Court!
meangreen on March 23, 2011 @ 10:23 pm wrote: “So then Etaoin I have to be one of those without an exemption. That sure sound like discrimination to me.”
Nonsense! Are you next going to rail against the “discriminatory” exemptions on taxes not-for-profits like charities and churches receive? What about the “discriminatory” exemptions for gun shows (which don’t have to bother with background checks before selling a deadly weapon to anyone who just walks in)? And, gee, back when the draft still existed how did you like the “discriminatory” exemptions homosexuals were granted? (I’ve never understood people fighting to get into the military, but then I’m a child of the 60’s.)
The point is that you cannot claim an exemption is discriminatory until you know the facts and reason behind it. Oh, but there I go again, demanding evidence to back up your assertion, and a full discussion of the issue. I guess it’s because (liberal that I am) I can’t “see the whole picture” without such things!
“Some people on Medicare are already dying since there are many Health Professional that do not accept Medicare patient because of low reimbursements and the time to get paid.”
- Even assuming those assertions are true (care to name even one person who died because of this?), what’s your alternative? Without Medicare many of the people who depend on it couldn’t afford any medical treatment. Yeah, let’s abolish the program - it’s a great way to (in Scrooge’s words) “decrease the surplus population”!
By the way, I can’t help noticing you keep changing the subject in order to evade the points I make. I guess you think if you just keep hurling mud at the law some of it will stick. Too bad it keeps washing off!
meangreen on March 23, 2011 @ 10:23 pm wrote: “Did you read today that CBO stated that Obamacare is going to cost 800,000 lost jobs in the medical profession over the next 10 years.”
Great job parroting more Republi-Con misuse of quotes. What the CBO actually said was that the health care law will reduce employment because some people will no longer have to work just to afford health insurance. Golly, why did your Republi-Con sources leave out that part of the CBO report? Could it be due to the fact that part destroys the argument they (and you) are trying to make?
Horrors! By 2021 one-half a percent won’t have to work “just” to afford health care. Does that mean the Republi-Con plan for full employment requires forced labor? What about the decline in employment should the stock market surge so people can retire and live off their investments!
meangreen on March 23, 2011 @ 10:23 pm wrote: “Why do you not also quote the Constitution for ‘the general welfare’ , Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 1 for individuals the right to have a home, a car, a good paying job, etc?”
Let me explain how the Constitution works. It states what powers the government has, what powers it doesn’t have, and what rights we have that the government can’t take away. It does not state what the government should do with those powers - that is known as a question of public policy, not law, and is decided by our elected representatives (hopefully based on fact and reason).
I am not claiming people have a “right” to health coverage. I am claiming that Congress has the power, under the General Welfare clause, to enact programs such as the health care law we are debating. That’s all! Whether it should do so is another matter entirely.
By the way, you know what else is based on that Clause (along with other clauses)? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, Workers Compensation, among other things.
Plus, if you remember, I was responding to LCJMI’s claim that “National solutions to the health care problems are unrealistic”, by pointing out that if it’s so unrealistic what about “the people on Medicare who would die without it”, and why does Congress have power to provide for the General Welfare?* I guess taking things in context isn’t one of your strong points either!
* See LCJMI’s Comment of March 23, 2011 @ 10:55 am, and my response of
March 23, 2011 @ 8:24 pm.
P.S. - I’ve already addressed your arguments about crossing state lines, etc., so I won’t repeat myself.
somegy on March 24, 2011 @ 4:25 am wrote: “Let me get this straight...if I'm on welfare I get to endanger my childs health with poor (govt purchased) food, but if I'm an upstanding member contributing to society I can't be trusted to make the right decisions?”
PART ONE
Great job distorting what Sebelius said. You must be a Republi-Con.
(Although I do agree that limiting food stamps to the purchase of healthy foods is a good idea - wouldn’t that offend your libertarian sensibilities?)
You are mixing apples and oranges. The individual mandate isn’t imposed because you “can't be trusted to make the right decisions”. It exists as a way of providing insurance coverage for all.
Insurance is a risk allocation system - the more people in the insurance pool the lower the premiums. If the only ones buying health insurance are the elderly or sick, the premiums will be unaffordable.
Furthermore, it would be grossly unfair to allow all of the benefits of the new health care law to be applied to people who decide to “game the system” by postponing buying insurance until they need medical care. One provision of the law prevents insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. Why should you be able to wait until you get cancer or diabetes before getting insurance? That’s a bit like waiting till you have a car accident before getting auto insurance and then putting in a claim!
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
I’m not crazy about the mandate myself, but I have made a “modest proposal” for an alternative. “Rugged individualists" like yourself will be allowed to “opt out” and not buy insurance, but you opt out for life! That means (since you hate interference from “big government”) you never can get the benefits of this law, nor of the Emergency Medical Treatment Act (signed by that old “commie” Reagan) - which says hospitals must provide emergency life-saving treatment regardless of your ability to pay. Nope, you’re a liberty-loving Libertarian, who needs no such help, and you’re willing to gamble with your future (and your family’s). Of course, if you lose that wager, if you someday need health care you can’t afford, and can’t buy the insurance, then I expect you to be true to your principles and die!
Any takers?