Broken Promises or a Reality Check
In this article, O’s Broken Promises BETSY MCCAUGHEY points out several more very disturbing facts related to the Obama healthcare plan and more of the radical socialization the Democrats have planned.
July 17, 2009 --
PRESIDENT Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests.
Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.
And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).
When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).
It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.
Nowhere does the legislation say how much health plans will cost, but a family of four is eligible for some government assistance until their household income reaches $88,000 (House bill, p. 137). If you earn more than that, you'll have to pay the cost no matter how high it goes.
The price tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to $1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). Half of the tab comes from tax increases on individuals earning $280,000 or more, and these new taxes will double in 2012 unless savings exceed predicted costs (House bill, p. 199). The rest of the cost is paid for by cutting seniors' health benefits under Medicare.
There's plenty of waste in Medicare, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates only 1 percent of the savings under the legislation will be from curbing waste, fraud and abuse. That means the rest will likely come from reducing what patients get.
One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."
This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?
Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to "community transformation grants," home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers -- and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages.
The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.
They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.
Congress should pursue less radical ways to cover the uninsured. We have too much to lose with this legislation.
July 17, 2009 --
PRESIDENT Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests.
Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.
And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).
When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).
It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.
Nowhere does the legislation say how much health plans will cost, but a family of four is eligible for some government assistance until their household income reaches $88,000 (House bill, p. 137). If you earn more than that, you'll have to pay the cost no matter how high it goes.
The price tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to $1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). Half of the tab comes from tax increases on individuals earning $280,000 or more, and these new taxes will double in 2012 unless savings exceed predicted costs (House bill, p. 199). The rest of the cost is paid for by cutting seniors' health benefits under Medicare.
There's plenty of waste in Medicare, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates only 1 percent of the savings under the legislation will be from curbing waste, fraud and abuse. That means the rest will likely come from reducing what patients get.
One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."
This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?
Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to "community transformation grants," home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers -- and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages.
The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.
They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.
Congress should pursue less radical ways to cover the uninsured. We have too much to lose with this legislation.
Labels: healthcare, Obama
posted by Anonymous at 5:30 AM
6 Comments:
Without defending or attacking anything that is floating around in Congress, all of which appear to be very incomplete at the moment, I have a remaining question. What do we do?
We do have a massive number of people without health insurance and who are unable to get the treatment they require. Additionally, the government does provide healthcare for the elderly and the indigent in the country by way of Emergency Rooms. We are already paying tax dollars for this.
Currently our healthcare system is governed not by doctors but by insurance companies who have it in their best interests NOT to pay for health benefits. Needless to say, the less they pay out the higher their profits are. These are the folks who are currently dictating health concerns.
As far as physician choice, I am currently in a dilemma as my primary care physician is part of the Norton network and I have BC/BS insurance. Because of the conflict between Norton and Anthem I may have to change my primary care physician----a thing I really do not want to do as I have a great primary care physician who I like and trust a great deal.
My issue here is this. There is a lot said here about what we CANNOT do to change our healthcare system, but what CAN we do to make it work more effectively?
HB posted ideas a week or so ago.
In addition, the 46 million uninsured that democrats continue to quote includes illegal aliens, young people who choose not to take insurance, many who qualify for medicaid but for various reasons do not sign up, and some rich individuals who choose to self-insure.
The bottom line is that it is not as bad as the media and democrats want you to believe.
But why let a good disaster go without gaining more government control
John, the problem is what we have is not insurance. Do you have any other "insurance" that works this way? Auto, home, life? Your contract for insurance should be between you and the insurance company for what ever you payment you get for getting ill. Your contract for illness care should be between you and your doctor or hospital. Why let the insurance plan pick your doctor?
Get the government out of the way (state and federal) and you could determine with both insurance and provider what service you want or need. government mandated minimum coverage raises the price of insurance. That is the reason many healthy young people choose not to buy insurance.
The tax credit for ins. should be to the individual, not the businesses, then ownership would be portable and price would be lower when combined with relief from mandates.
The reported 45+ million uninsured is not an accurate reflection of the problem. 8-10 million are likely illegal aliens. Another similar number have incomes 50-75+ thousand a year but choose not to get insurance due to high prices from mandated coverage requirements discussed above. Many of the remaining are eligible for medicaid but for personal reasons are not enrolled. Of the remaining say 15 million many are only without insurance for a few weeks or months, between jobs. The gov. chooses to report anyone without ins. for a single day in a year as uninsured. The chronically uninsured( 1-2 years or more at one time) are a fraction of the so called 45 million.
Sign the petition H.B. posted. Don't let the government ruin your sickness care in the worlds best health system.
What ever we do, we just have to do something.
As far as the second anonymous poster, point made there are true regarding young people who choose not to take elective insurance over more pay (you know for a roof over their head, food in the cabinets, etc.)
How ever we are forgetting the private business owner/ operators, small companies who do not have enough employees to offer good health insurance if even at all.
Lets not forget the good old fashioned American Farmer, whose job is the farm, and a once yearly paycheck, after the payments for leased equipment, seed, fertilizer, etc..
Demographics can be played to cater to both sides of isle on this, but the reality is, the system is broken, and its broken badly.
I dont mind saying that for my family of three we pay out nearly $450 per month in insurance premiums, that buys us a policy which has $1200 deductables per member, $30 copays, then after that its an 80/20 as long as we are in "network" and a tier system for rx's that range from $15 to $75.
And I think we are fortunate to have it.
We are by no means rich, and transversely we are by no means poor either.
But I do know that after one DVT following an out patient procedure, I had no choice but to take a massive hardship withdrawal from my 403b, which after all applicable taxes cost me an additional 24.5% of the amount withdrawn.
(of course we could have opted for Floyd Memorials MAP card if we couldnt pay off the HUGE patient portion we owed with in 90 days, and the MAP card is 24% APR)
Is Obamas plan right, maybe not, is it better than the commercial profit driven system we have now, yes, for the average working person it is.
To Chris,
I don't know if your plan is through work or your own. But if your own, what if you had a tax credit of 5000-7000 a year and a tax free medical savings account? Yes a big medical bill would still be something to deal with, but there is a better way than turning over your choices to the government. And I don't support insurance plans choosing your "network" either.
You make the analogy of choices of a roof over your head or health insurance and treatment if you get ill. If you are in your own home, does your insurance cover all home expenses? Recent storm damage to my son's home left him with roof repairs. The ins. would only replace a portion of the roof, the balance was his responsibility or have mixed shingles between front and back. As precious as life is we are not entitled to care at someone elses expense.
There are better ways than what is being offered, but they would not give power over your life to the government and don't think this is anything else but that.
The health insurance industry is NOT driven by true supply and demand economics...not as long as it is being paid for by a second party, corporate America. Your employer does not really care what your needs are, whether you are young or old, whether you have diabetes or you have never been sick a day in your life. All they care about is the cheapest plan they can provide you and remain legal. You, the consumer have virtually no say-so in whether the plan offered meets your needs.
If Krogers were to increase their prices 10% above the other competitors, stop bagging your groceries, holler at you every time you have 11 items in the 10 item line and repeatedly sell you rotten meat, I suspect you would not stand for it and you would start shopping elsewhere. When enough others start doing the same Krogers would have to stand up and take notice and make some drastic changes. When Wal-Mart came up with the brilliant plan to sell $4 generics, it did not take the other pharmacies long to realize they would have to make changes in order to compete. The changes benefited the consumer. If every time you filed a claim with your Auto Insurance company they refused to pay, how long would it take you to figure out you need to change companies?
If you held your Anthem policy rather than your employer and your doctor no longer accepted Anthem, would you look for another plan which your doctor does take? I suspect you would.
So many of the problems would go away if we relieved employers from the burden of providing our health insurance. THAT is where I think we should start.
And as far as Norton no longer taking Anthem....they may as well p### in a bucket. United Health Care just posted one of their best quarters ever....profits up 7%...a testament to the reality that neither doctors nor hospitals in this market who collectively quit accepting UHC made any difference to this behemoth.
Post a Comment
<< Home