Canadians Compare our Health Care to Theirs. They're Happy with Theirs

Canadian Doctors for Medicare hosted a celebration of Medicare in Canada. The speakers included Roy Romanow, former Saskatchewan Premiere and Commissioner on Health Care in Canada. They tell Americans that Canadian universal health care works and encourage Americans to implement a single payer universal health care systems.



Medicare for all would cost less in the long run and can be cost controlled much more easily than monitoring all the Insurance companies. Our health is not a commodity to be traded on the Market and it shouldn't be a for profit business to insure our health.

Obama's Op Ed in the NY Times - Must Read

WHY WE NEED HEALTH CARE REFORM

By BARACK OBAMA

Published: August 15, 2009

OUR nation is now engaged in a great debate about the future of health care in America. And over the past few weeks, much of the media attention has been focused on the loudest voices. What we haven’t heard are the voices of the millions upon millions of Americans who quietly struggle every day with a system that often works better for the health-insurance companies than it does for them.

These are people like Lori Hitchcock, whom I met in New Hampshire last week. Lori is currently self-employed and trying to start a business, but because she has hepatitis C, she cannot find an insurance company that will cover her. Another woman testified that an insurance company would not cover illnesses related to her internal organs because of an accident she had when she was 5 years old. A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn’t known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died.

I hear more and more stories like these every single day, and it is why we are acting so urgently to pass health-insurance reform this year. I don’t have to explain to the nearly 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance how important this is. But it’s just as important for Americans who do have health insurance.

There are four main ways the reform we’re proposing will provide more stability and security to every American.

First, if you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family — coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job.

Second, reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses and our government. We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits.

Third, by making Medicare more efficient, we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors instead of enriching insurance companies. This will not only help provide today’s seniors with the benefits they’ve been promised; it will also ensure the long-term health of Medicare for tomorrow’s seniors. And our reforms will also reduce the amount our seniors pay for their prescription drugs.

Lastly, reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable. A 2007 national survey actually shows that insurance companies discriminated against more than 12 million Americans in the previous three years because they had a pre-existing illness or condition. The companies either refused to cover the person, refused to cover a specific illness or condition or charged a higher premium.

We will put an end to these practices. Our reform will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of your medical history. Nor will they be allowed to drop your coverage if you get sick. They will not be able to water down your coverage when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. And we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. No one in America should go broke because they get sick.

Most important, we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups, preventive care and screening tests like mammograms and colonoscopies. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end. It makes sense, it saves lives and it can also save money.

This is what reform is about. If you don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. You will not be waiting in any lines. This is not about putting the government in charge of your health insurance. I don’t believe anyone should be in charge of your health care decisions but you and your doctor — not government bureaucrats, not insurance companies.

The long and vigorous debate about health care that’s been taking place over the past few months is a good thing. It’s what America’s all about.

But let’s make sure that we talk with one another, and not over one another. We are bound to disagree, but let’s disagree over issues that are real, and not wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that anyone has actually proposed. This is a complicated and critical issue, and it deserves a serious debate.

Despite what we’ve seen on television, I believe that serious debate is taking place at kitchen tables all across America. In the past few years, I’ve received countless letters and questions about health care. Some people are in favor of reform, and others have concerns. But almost everyone understands that something must be done. Almost everyone knows that we must start holding insurance companies accountable and give Americans a greater sense of stability and security when it comes to their health care.

I am confident that when all is said and done, we can forge the consensus we need to achieve this goal. We are already closer to achieving health-insurance reform than we have ever been. We have the American Nurses Association and the American Medical Association on board, because our nation’s nurses and doctors know firsthand how badly we need reform. We have broad agreement in Congress on about 80 percent of what we’re trying to do. And we have an agreement from the drug companies to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. The AARP supports this policy, and agrees with us that reform must happen this year.

But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing.In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain. If we maintain the status quo, we will continue to see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day. Premiums will continue to skyrocket. Our deficit will continue to grow. And insurance companies will continue to profit by discriminating against sick people.

That is not a future I want for my children, or for yours. And that is not a future I want for the United States of America.

In the end, this isn’t about politics. This is about people’s lives and livelihoods. This is about people’s businesses. This is about America’s future, and whether we will be able to look back years from now and say that this was the moment when we made the changes we needed, and gave our children a better life. I believe we can, and I believe we will.

Two Issues hurting Health Care Reform

The first Issue is that we don't know what we are fighting for. There is no actual bill and we really don't know if we will like the bill yet.

Robert Reich points this out:

Why are these meetings brimming with so much anger? Because Republican Astroturfers have joined the same old right-wing broadcast demagogues that have been spewing hate and fear for years, to create a tempest.

But why are they getting away with it? Why aren't progressives -- indeed, why aren't ordinary citizens -- taking the meetings back?

Mainly because there's still no healthcare plan. All we have are some initial markups from several congressional committees, which differ from one another in significant ways. The White House is waiting to see what emerges from the House and Senate before insisting on what it wants, maybe in conference committee.

But that's the problem: It's always easier to stir up fear and anger against something that's amorphous than to stir up enthusiasm for it.

The White House has just announced a web page designed to rebut some of the insane charges that the right is instigating. That won't be enough. The President has to be more specific about what he's for and what he's against. Without these specifics, the right can conjure up every demon in its arsenal while the middle and left can only shrug their shoulders.

snip

Now's the time for specifics. It's impossible to fight fearmongering lies about specifics with nothing but positive principles.

And the second Issue is what Seniors are hearing about reform.

Rick Ungar from the Policy page explains:

A CNN-Opinion Research Corp. poll published last week reveals that a majority of voters over 50 oppose the healthcare overhaul effort, while most voters under 50 support it.

No shock there. The reality of growing older is such that change becomes more difficult to assimilate- particularly when it involves the number one concern of the elderly, their health. As a result, they are highly unlikely to take a leap of faith without feeling comfortable that they understand what change means to them. Unfortunately, proponents of health care don’t seem particularly interested in telling them.

The White House has said that they are counting on about $500 billion in savings from Medicare and Medicaid to finance reform. The President claims this will be done by cutting waste out of these federal programs including getting rid of testing and treatments that don’t result in improving care.

What does a senior hear in all of this? They hear the word “cut” – and that means getting less.

Here is what seniors are not hearing because nobody is telling them. Hopefully, they will not suffer any reduction in available health care because we intend to succeed in more efficiently controlling these government programs. But, if we remain true to form and fail to better control the programs, the results may, in fact, lead to some lessening in health care benefits or cause seniors to pay just a bit more to effectively stay “even.” Not great news but a hell of a lot better than the alternative. Because if we don’t make changes in Medicare, it will run out of money and may very well do so during our current crop of seniors’ lifetime. It most certainly can happen to those over 50 who are not yet participants but are depending upon Medicare to get them through their sunset years.

Not only are we not explaining this to the elderly in a direct and honest fashion, we aren’t directing the conversation to them in any meaningful way whatsoever. Where are the Obama town meetings at a nursing home, or an assisted living center?

When there is a gaping void in the information flow, all our seniors can do is listen to the information that is being provided to them. And the opponents of reform have been all too happy to oblige. Do most of our 65 plus citizens believe that Congress and the President want to create death panels and euthanize people when we don’t want to pay for their care any longer? I doubt it. But when this is all they are hearing, they are highly likely to think that while it may not be death panels, there may very likely be things in the legislation that are not in their best interest.

If you think avoidance of the seniors is a political calculation, you would be wrong. The senior voting block is deeply significant and getting larger every day. They register and they vote!

This shows how much work is needed by Obama and the House and Senate. They must address these two issues if they want to pass a great Health Care Reform Bill. And at this point I don't find the need for it to be bi-partisan. It seems that the GOP doesn't want to reform health care at all. They are just giving lip service to what they see the nation wants.

The question is: Why don't we have Single Payer?

If Insurance Companies can do this, why are we allowing them to exist? Not to mention the billions of dollars they make from us.

From the Washington Post:

HHS: Insurance Companies Encourage Employees to "Revoke Sick People's Health Coverage"

By David S. Hilzenrath

You might have known that insurers can deny health coverage based on preexisting medical conditions, but here’s something else to worry about: They can take away the coverage you thought you had when actually need it, the government says.

The Department of Health and Human Services put a spotlight on that practice Tuesday in its continuing campaign to build support for an overhaul of health insurance.

“When a person is diagnosed with an expensive condition such as cancer, some insurance companies review his/her initial health status questionnaire,” the HHS said in a posting at HealthReform.Gov. In most states, insurance companies can retroactively cancel individuals' policies if any condition was not disclosed when the policy was obtained, "even if the medical condition is unrelated, and even if the person was not aware of the condition at the time.”

“Coverage can also be revoked for all members of a family, even if only one family member failed to disclose a medical condition,” HHS said.

The department cited recent research by the staff of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which found that three large insurers rescinded almost 20,000 policies over five years, saving $300 million in medical claims.

At least one insurer included such savings in an employee performance evaluation.

“Simply put, these insurance company employees are encouraged to revoke sick people’s health coverage," HHS said. more at the link

It's time to educate yourselves instead of believing what you hear or read. Research!

The Danger of the Health Care Protesterss

Rachel Maddow had Frank Schaeffer on her show to talk about these protesters and the people behind them.

Watch:

Denied Health Care by Insurance Companies?

Watch this and tell me if there is any morality left in the United States of America:



How do they sleep at night? It's easy when you are filled with greed and have no soul!

But answer me this, why do people keep voting against their best interest and how can they believe that these corporations, be it health care or financials or telecoms, will treat them fairly?

Please people, open your eyes, get answers, seek information so that you are not fooled by those who want to scam you. You are easy prey to them.

I was on Humana Advantage and dropped it

My Insurance kept going up every year. But they are making money hand over fist with the Medicare Advantage programs because the Government subsidies it but you still have to pay your share that goes up every year.

Humana Second Quarter profit jumps 34% as premiums rise

Health insurer Humana Inc. said Monday its second-quarter profit rose 34 percent on the strength its robust government business, led by Medicare Advantage offerings, easily offsetting a sluggish commercial segment hamstrung by the recession.

The results for the three months ended June 30 beat Wall Street estimates. The Louisville, Ky.-based company stuck with its previous projection of a full-year profit between $6.10 and $6.20 per share, while analysts expect $6.12 per share.

Its shares rose 91 cents, or 2.8 percent, to close at $33.76.

Humana posted net income of $281.8 million, or $1.67 per share, for the quarter, compared with earnings of $209.9 million, or $1.24 per share, a year ago.

Revenue jumped 8 percent to just under $7.9 billion from $7.35 billion.

Analysts polled by Thomson Reuters expected profit of $1.64 per share on $7.77 billion in revenue.

"Our second quarter results confirm our 2009 financial performance is on track despite pressures from the overall economy," Humana President and CEO Michael B. McCallister said in a statement. "We're making progress reducing costs and investing in improved health outcomes for our members while we closely monitor events in Washington."

Humana's pretax income from its vast government segment surged by 62 percent to $404.7 million in the second quarter. The company attributed the upswing to lower claim expenses in its Medicare drug plans, a 13 percent increase in average Medicare Advantage membership and the introduction of member premiums for most of the company's Medicare Advantage products.

Medicare Advantage plans are government-sponsored, privately run programs for seniors that offer comprehensive health coverage.

The company said its Medicare Advantage membership grew to nearly 1.5 million members as of June 30, up 12 percent from a year ago and a 4 percent increase since the end of 2008. The year-over-year increase included 54,200 members added through acquisitions completed during the second half of 2008.

Medicare Advantage premiums of $4.15 billion rose 19 percent in the quarter versus a year ago.

Wait til these people that have Humana have to use this insurance. The next year their insurance rate will go up and they will be turned down on needed tests and procedures.

Paul Krugman ...

"We don’t have a Medicare problem — we have a health care problem."

Medicare versus insurers

I notice from comments that a fair number of readers think that Medicare has had runaway costs. What you need to ask is, runaway compared to what?

Here’s the raw fact, from the National Health Expenditure data: since 1970 Medicare costs per beneficiary have risen at an annual rate of 8.8% — but insurance premiums have risen at an annual rate of 9.9%. The rise in Medicare costs is just part of the overall rise in health care spending. And in fact Medicare spending has lagged private spending: if insurance premiums had risen “only” as much as Medicare spending, they’d be 1/3 lower than they are.

Of course rates go up when expenses increase. The idea is to cut expenses and eliminate the cheats which are the providers who are double billing and charging more for test and proceedures.

I'm on Medicare and my rate has gone up each year since I've had it. The next to years my Social Security will remain the same, no cost of living increase but my monthly will be lower because Medicare will go up. Which means Medigap insurance which covers "some" of the 20% that medicare doesn't pay will also go up.

If Health Care is fixed, it will also help Medicare.

Rationing Health Care

Think Progress links to this great article on Health Care Rationing. This is one of the big discussions going on today in our illustrious media. Here's the article by GoozNews on Health:

Rationing of Health Care -- Will It Be Just 15 Minutes of Fame?

by GoozNews ~ 20 Jul 2009 11:09am

One can only hope that Princeton University bioethicist Peter Singer's article in the Sunday New York Times magazine will trigger a mature national discussion about rationing health care resources. When and how should we pay for wildly expensive medical technologies, needlessly complicated end-of-life care, heroic interventions in terminal diseases and the other drivers of ever rising health care costs?

It has already kicked off a healthy discussion on many blogs, including this excellent historical overview of the "R-word" from Bob Wachter on The Health Care Blog. I would be remiss if I also didn't remind readers that Henry Aaron and some of his colleagues at the Brookings Institution have been raising this issue publicly for many years, encapsulated in "Can We Say No?", which came out in 2005. It would have been nice if Singer had at least quoted some of the intellectual sources of his own work.

Since this blog has been a consistent voice for using comparative effectiveness research and applying cost-effectiveness analysis to medical technology as a way of properly rationing limited health care dollars, I will refrain from rethumping the tub. The reality is that rationing has always been with us in the U.S., as Singer points out in his article. We ration through price and through limiting access to care.

The question on the table now is whether it will continue that way. Or will rationing become rational by using the best medical science to ensure that limited resources are used to provide the greatest health for the greatest number. If we continue to ration through price, we will simply be allowing the growing split between rich and poor in the U.S., which is already reflected in the relative ill-health of the lower classes, to continue.

When I rail against price-driven mechanisms for lowering costs like high deductible insurance plans or taxing health benefits, it's because I believe greater reliance on rationing through price will create an environment where patients will increase their use of short-term economic considerations to decide what's best for their own health. Yet every study on that subject has shown that when faced with a price-driven choice, patients as often as not eliminate useful care that may not be cost-effective for the system as a whole. Indeed, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to make the wrong choice. So if health care reform legislation uses price mechanisms to control costs, the system will wind up with the worst of all possible worlds: even worse health outcomes than we already have, and more expensive health care down the road.

So, rationing? Yes. But rational rationing, not rationing borne of some ideological fascination with free market ideology inappropriately applied to health care. In the end, health care isn't a private good. It's a public good like public education, fighting fires, providing police protection or the common defense. And like any public good, relying on sovereign consumers wielding their own dollars to deliver the desired outcome will never work.

Here's another thing we have to watch for in these bills coming out of congress.

Health Care Firms drop money on Baucus

Baucus is making out like a bandit! With all this money coming in, will he have our best interests at the table for Health Care Reform?

From the Washington Post:

As liberal protesters marched outside, Sen. Max Baucus sat down inside a San Francisco mansion for a dinner of chicken cordon bleu and a discussion of landmark health-care legislation under consideration by his Senate Finance Committee.

At the table on May 26 were about 20 donors willing to fork over $10,000 or more to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, including executives of major insurance companies, hospitals and other health-care firms.

"Most people there had an agenda; they wanted the ear of a senator, and they got it," said Aaron Roland, a San Francisco health-care activist who paid half price to attend the gathering. "Money gets you in the door. The only thing the other side can do is march around and protest outside."

As his committee has taken center stage in the battle over health-care reform, Chairman Baucus (D-Mont.) has emerged as a leading recipient of Senate campaign contributions from the hospitals, insurers and other medical interest groups hoping to shape the legislation to their advantage. Health-related companies and their employees gave Baucus's political committees nearly $1.5 million in 2007 and 2008, when he began holding hearings and making preparations for this year's reform debate.

Top health executives and lobbyists have continued to flock to the senator's often extravagant fundraising events in recent months. During a Senate break in late June, for example, Baucus held his 10th annual fly-fishing and golfing weekend in Big Sky, Mont., for a minimum donation of $2,500. Later this month comes "Camp Baucus," a "trip for the whole family" that adds horseback riding and hiking to the list of activities.

To avoid any appearance of favoritism, his aides say, Baucus quietly began refusing contributions from health-care political action committees after June 1. But the policy does not apply to lobbyists or corporate executives, who continued to make donations, disclosure records show.

Sen. Baucus has some "splainin" to do! Does he really have the best interest for the American people or his pocket book?

Everyone is so worried about how to pay for this and many that I have talked to about healthcare would rather pay a tax than give money to an insurance company. And why don't they bring up more often that insurance companies do get in between you and your doctor and refuse necessary tests and operations often.

Obama's Odds

E.J. Dionne Jr has a great article in the Washington post today called Why Obama Likes His Odds.

It was not the soaring rhetoric that is Barack Obama's signature, but he recently offered the sound bite that may define his presidency: "Don't bet against us."

He explains that Obama wasn't around when the Democrats were beaten down during the Clinton years:

But Obama doesn't quite see things the way his more nervous Democratic allies do because he missed the years in Washington during which his party was beaten down. Many Democrats had their perceptions of political reality shaped by the failure of Bill Clinton's health proposal, the 1994 Republican revolution and the GOP's triumphalism during President Bush's first term.

And this has been a problem. The Democrats were beaten down so badly during those years they seem to have lost their spine. And as Dionne says "no one ever thought passing a health-care bill would be easy, and the effort hit some bumps last week over costs and how to cover them."

Since then the Budget Office has reworked the numbers and found that the Public Option will work within the parameters Obama wants, Pay Go, and will actually save money.

Dionne goes on to say:

The paradox is that Obama's limited experience under Republican sway makes him more comfortable than many of his allies are with wielding the power that comes from large Democratic majorities.

And it's real power. Nothing made that clearer than the trajectory of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination battle -- or non-battle.

Obama is doing a balancing act right now and the Democrats old way of thinking along with the constant beat down by the Republicans and the health insurers Obama has to fight all the way.

Dionne goes on to say:

But Obama must simultaneously convince Democrats that they are not living in the Republican congressional eras of 1995 or 2003 -- that if it's necessary, they have the strength on their own to win. This was the implicit message Obama conveyed to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to push him to conclude his frustratingly protracted health-care negotiations with Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee.

Getting Baucus to move this week is essential to maintaining momentum. If Obama seems likely to win, interest groups will be more forthcoming, his own party will be more likely to hold together and more Republicans will be inclined to cut a deal.

And that, finally, is why Obama wants to make sure his party bets with him, not against him. His core message to fellow Democrats is that the only things they have to fear are the fears and insecurities bred into them when they were a battered minority. Obama is free of those doubts because he never knew them.

So the fight is increasing and we have to stand behind Obama and keep sending those faxes, emails, phone calls and letters. This time we have to pass Health Care Reform or it may take another 100 years.

Medical Liability - The Debate

Medical Liability is constantly pushed by the GOP as a reason medical costs have skyrocketed. The cost of liability insurance is very expensive for Doctors and Hospitals. But if you are permanently disfigured or die because of a mistake a doctor or hospital made, what other alternative does the patient have or the patient's family?

I have long thought that doctors don't police themselves enough and hospitals, like the Catholic Church covered for their wayward priests, cover for their doctors.

The New York Times has an OP-ED today written by Tom Baker that delves into medical liability:

Liability = Responsibility

OUR medical liability system needs reform. But anyone who thinks that limiting liability would reduce health care costs is fooling himself. Preventable medical injuries, not patient compensation, are what ring up extra costs for additional treatment. This means taxpayers, employers and everyone else who buys health insurance — all of us — have a big stake in patient safety.

Eighty percent of malpractice claims involve significant disability or death, a 2006 analysis of medical malpractice claims conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health shows, and the amount of compensation patients receive strongly depends on the merits of their claims. Most people injured by medical malpractice do not bring legal claims, earlier studies by the same researchers have found.

On the other hand, medical liability has improved patient safety — by leading hospitals to hire risk managers, for example, and spurring anesthesiologists to improve their safety standards and practices. Even medical societies’ efforts to attack the liability system have helped, by inspiring the research that has documented the surprising extent of preventable injuries in hospitals. That research helped start the patient safety movement.

When it comes to rising medical costs, liability is a symptom, not the disease. Getting rid of liability might save money for hospitals and some high-risk specialists, but it would cost society more by taking away one of the few hard-wired patient safety incentives.

Besides, there’s a better answer for doctors worried about high malpractice insurance premiums.

He goes on to say:

The research shows, overwhelmingly, that the real problem is too much malpractice, not too many malpractice lawsuits.

And:

Evidence-based liability reform would give these institutions the incentive they need to cut back on the most wasteful aspect of American health care: preventable medical injuries.

This medical liability issue is a straw man issue by the GOP. Any excuse to avoid giving the American people good, afordable health care.

Good News on the Public Option

Blue Dog Loretta Sanchez changed her mind and now is for the Public Option

From Think Progress:

Fortunately, there is at least one “Blue Dog” member who understands this contradiction and is willing to break from her coalition to support a public plan. On MSNBC this afternoon, Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) said, “I am one of those people who believes that we should be required to have a public option because it will bring the costs of health care down."

And the Hill reports:

Band of House centrists offers support for ‘robust’ public health insurance plan
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 07/09/09 07:20 PM [ET]

A band of 22 New Democrat and Blue Dog lawmakers say they support a “robust” government-run health plan, boosting chances of moving healthcare reform with a public insurance plan through the House.

Democratic centrists remain the biggest obstacle to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) ability to pass a healthcare bill with a public plan, and many conservative Democrats oppose a public option as unfair to private insurers.

But the letter from the 22 New Dems and Blue Dogs indicates opposition from this group is far from universal.

“We have a broader coalition to pass this than what was assumed before,” said Rep. Lois Capps (Calif.), a New Democrat who circulated the letter supporting a public option with Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “While we may belong to a more moderate branch, we want it known that we support the public option.” More at link

Keep the pressure on!

CBO says Early Estimates show Public Option will sav Billions in Ten Years

From the New Republic:

A lot of conservative Democrats, not to mention Republicans, express two big concerns about health reform. They're worried that reform will cost too much. And they don't want a government-run insurance plan.

It's about to get a lot harder to make those two arguments simultaneously.

According to a pair of Capitol Hill sources, preliminary estimates from the Congressional Budget Office suggest that a strong public option--the kind that the House of Representatives is putting in its reform bill--should net somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 billion in savings over ten years.

The sources cautioned that these were only the preliminary estimates, based on previous discussions--that CBO had not yet issued final scoring on language in the actual bill. But the sources felt the final estimate would likely be close.

And TPMDC adds:

Keep in mind, though, that the public option creates savings by driving down prices, and it can't do that nearly as effectively if it's prevented from setting below-market pay rates. But that's exactly what conservative Democrats are trying to do. At the same time, those Democrats are demanding that health care legislation do a better job of lowering health care costs. And that's just one of the contradictions inherent to the position of those attempting to scale back reform efforts.

Keep on those Blue Dogs. Call them, email them, write them, sign petitions, hold vigils or protests outside their local office. Whatever it takes, because to pass this you have to do whatever it takes!

Blue Dogs delay Health Care bill

From USA Today:

Blue Dog Democrats hold up health overhaul bill in House

WASHINGTON (AP) — The drive to remake the nation's health care system suffered yet another setback in Congress on Thursday when a pivotal group of House Democrats demanded changes in legislation the leadership was drafting on a fast track.

The emerging bill "lacks a number of elements essential to preserving what works and fixing what is broken," 40 members of the Blue Dog Coalition of Democrats wrote party leaders. To win their support, they said, any legislation would need to be much more aggressive in reining in the growth of health care as well as in addressing a disparity in Medicare payments they said adversely affects rural providers.

A group of the Blue Dog members met into early evening with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and arranged to sit down with committee chairmen on Friday to go over proposed changes. Officials said the public release of the bill, originally set for Friday, would occur no earlier than Monday.

It was the second setback in three days for President Obama's top domestic priority, although it was unclear whether it would amount to anything more than a brief delay for a bill of enormous complexity and controversy.

And TPMDC reports:

After Pressure From Blue Dogs And Others, House Leaders Delay Unveiling Health Care Bill
By Brian Beutler - July 10, 2009, 9:06AM

Late last night, House leadership decided it would postpone the release of its completed draft of health care reform legislation, after Blue Dog Democrats--and a variety of other concerned members--raised a number of objections to aspects of the proposal.

The bill was originally supposed to be unveiled late last night, but will now be postponed until at least early next week.

Leadership characterizes this as part of the negotiating process--and that's fair enough. The House is still on a much clearer, more united course toward passing legislation than is the Senate. But after weeks of smooth sailing in the lower chamber, this is the first serious speedbump.

Read the House Blue Dogs' letter to Speaker Pelosi and Steny Hoyer which prompted the delay in publicly rolling out of the draft health care reform bill.

It has been suggest by other bloggers that maybe we should take Health Insurance and Pensions away from our Reps and Senators and let them experience what we do. Would they change their minds then?

Jane Hampsher on MSNBC today

Jane was on MSNBC today with David Schuster debating this witch from Townhall blog.
Watch it! You won't believe what happens.



It does show how soulless these right wing people are.

Surprise, Baucus doesn't change anything!

From TPMDC:

Good Cop, Bad Cop? Baucus Says All Options Still On The Table
By Brian Beutler - July 9, 2009, 9:49AM

After telling Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) to put a public option in his health care bill, and strip it of a financing provision that would tax employer-provided health care benefits, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to assure Republicans that he wasn't abandoning bipartisanship. Now, Baucus is saying much the same.

"Everything's on the table," was Baucus' mantra yesterday. "By far the better approach is a bipartisan approach to get this moving."

These are palliative words, but they don't seem to have changed momentum on the Hill. Most indications suggest two key provisions that were recently expected to be included in the Senate Finance Committee's health care bill--health care co-operatives and the benefits tax--are on life support. That pleases reformers, but also makes them nervous. They abhor the co-op model--preferring a public insurance plan instead--and though their feelings about taxing benefits are mixed, they see no reason to ignite controversy when there are plenty of other, more-popular ways to finance reform. But at the same time, Finance is now way, way behind schedule, and there are precious few days left for them to complete work on a bill, merge it with the HELP Committee's bill, debate the final product on the floor, and bring it to a vote.

It seems that Reid really can't control his Senators and Baucus is hard headed and won't listen to anyone. Not Reid, Obama, or his constituents. How can a Committee Chairman think he has more power to do what he wants over the President and the Senate Majority Leader and a majority of the Democratic Senators?

UPDATE:
Report: Reid Promises Bipartisanship To Senate GOP
The Hill reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) met with a group of Republican Senators yesterday, assuring them that he was still committed to a bipartisan process on health care reform despite the new Democratic supermajority. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) said that Reid "understands the enormity of this issue and the challenges it presents and that it's most important to be able to build a bipartisan consensus. If that requires more time, it requires more time."

The Health Care issue is heating up!

Huffington reporting that:

Sanders Takes On Emanuel, Warns Of Dem Opposition To Baucus Proposal

Two major progressive voices in the health care debate took White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to task on Tuesday for suggesting that a public option with triggers could be a potential compromise on reform.

One of those voices, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) went so far as to insist that some Senate Democrats would vote against any proposal that didn't include a strong government-run option. Even the bill being crafted by Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, Sanders noted, might not get the caucus' full support because it could stray too far away from an effective overhaul of the health care system.

"I think that it is fair to say that there are a number of us who would not be voting for anything resembling a Baucus-type plan as we understand it right now," the senator told the Huffington Post, referring to Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus' effort at constructing a reform bill.

In separate interviews, Sanders and his fellow Vermonter, former DNC Chair Howard Dean, both took umbrage with comments Emanuel made in an interview with the Wall Street Journal that was published Monday evening. The White House chief of staff did not deviate fully from the administration's line, suggesting that all prospects for reform remained on the table. But Emanuel added something that health care operatives said they hadn't heard from the White House to date: a statement of support for a health care insurance compromise based on a public option with triggers.

Bernie Sanders and Howard Dean are still fighting to get that Public option for our Health Care!

UPDATE: From Daily Kos - ROLLCALL NOW SAYS RAHM CONFRONTED BY REP WOOLSEY ON MEDICARE LIKE PUB OPT-RAHM APPARENTLY TOLD DEM REPS THAT OBAMA BACKS HAVING A STRONG PUB OPT. MORE BELOW.

Progressive Caucus Co-Chairwoman Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) warned Emanuel that he would lose the caucus’ votes if the White House compromised on the issue and included a "trigger" that could delay a public insurance plan indefinitely. The trigger idea is backed by conservative Democrats but is anathema to liberals.

"We have compromised enough, and we are not going to compromise on any kind of trigger game," Woolsey said she told Emanuel. "People clapped all over the place. We mean it, and not just progressives."

Reid making a bit of sense today

Harry Reid (D) Nevada, strongly urged Max Baucus (D) Montana, to drop a proposal to tax health benefits and stop chasing Republican votes on a massive health care reform bill per Roll Call.

Yes, you read right. Reid doesn't care about bi-partisanship for this Healthcare bill. He sent this message to Baucus after Consulting with Senate Dems after the Tuesday morning leadership meeting.

According to Democratic sources, Reid told Baucus that taxing health benefits and failing to include a strong government-run insurance option of some sort in his bill would cost 10 to 15 Democratic votes; Reid told Baucus that several in the Conference had serious concerns and that it wasn’t worth securing the support of Grassley and at best a few additional Republicans.

By Tuesday afternoon, the Finance Committee began looking at ways other than taxing health benefits to deliver a health care overhaul that costs less than $1 trillion and is deficit-neutral, as Baucus wants. Baucus’ office declined to comment, but Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a key member of Finance, confirmed as much late Tuesday.

“I would say there’s a search for alternatives,” Conrad told reporters. “There’s been feedback. There’s been additional questions in terms of getting the votes and public support.”

Maybe some of us are making inroads with some of the Senators letting them know what we expect of them. Maybe.

The article goes on to report:

The source added that the meeting then devolved into “a cacophony of voices against bipartisanship” because Senate leaders could not reconcile how they could attract Republicans without sacrificing too many Democrats.

Bingo! They would lose too many Democrats! And I would venture to say, Independents as well!

And then you have the centrists, better known as the Blue Dog Dems that said:

However, the Democratic source said the leadership’s decision could backfire by alienating other elements of the Democratic caucus, such as centrists.

“I’m concerned we’re going to be perceived as abandoning the Republicans,” the source said. “The demands Reid is putting on some Democrats is going to make it harder for other Democrats to support this. ... Going the partisan route doesn’t get this bill done any faster.”

So what the Blue Dogs are doing, in essence, is threatening to slow down the bill.

Here's the holdup:

Finance may not begin marking up its bill until next week or the week after that. Meanwhile, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is set to complete the markup of its health care reform legislation this week or next. One senior Democratic Senate aide warned Tuesday that further delays by the Finance Committee could result in the planned merger of the two panels’ bills being scrapped in favor of allowing each one to move to the floor on its own.

The HELP bill is unanimously supported by the panel’s Democrats, with all Republicans opposed. It was drafted with liberal reform goals in mind, including health care policies that many Democrats have sought for decades.

“The longer Baucus takes, the trickier it gets,” a senior Democratic Senate aide said.

And the issue doesn’t just rest on Baucus’ shoulders. For Reid, up for re-election in 2010 and to whom Obama is looking for delivery of a top priority, the stakes are incredibly high.

Complicating matters, the Majority Leader must contend with powerful committee chairmen who are not a part of his leadership team, including Baucus and HELP Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.), the No. 2 Democrat on HELP, has been managing the markup of that committee’s bill in the absence of Kennedy, who is battling brain cancer. Dodd has said he confers with Kennedy regularly.

There are more liberal Dems for the bill:

Reid also faces the challenge of reconciling two bills that have been developed with conflicting goals.

Particularly on whether to implement a government-run insurance option as a part of the overhaul, Reid must assuage a significant number of Democrats from conservative-leaning states who are either skeptical of or opposed to the proposal, while simultaneously keeping happy his liberals — whose numbers are greater.

Most Democrats, including Reid allies like Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Conference Vice Chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), are enthusiastic backers of the government-run insurance option. The HELP Committee’s bill includes a robust government-run option; Finance on Tuesday was still haggling over several policies, including an acceptable compromise to the public plan component.

Now all we can do is keep the heat on all these people and see what happens.

Clinics starting options to Insurance for Health Care

Here's an interesting concept for Health Care. It's flat-rate no-limit primary care.

From Reuters:

A Seattle clinic for people fed up with insurance, started by doctors fed up with insurance, has gotten $4 million in private venture capital money to expand, it announced on Monday.

Qliance says it has a profit-making solution to the problems of long waits, rushed doctors and cursory care that bother patients, at the same time that it eliminates the paperwork and pressure that plague primary care doctors.

"If you spent five minutes in my office you would notice there is nobody waiting. We don't have to stack them up like jets over Newark," said Garrison Bliss, a doctor and co-founder of the primary care clinic.

The new venture funding comes from Second Avenue Partners with participation by New Atlantic Ventures and Clear Fir Partners, bringing total capital raised to about $7.5 million.

Co-founder Norm Wu said per-patient revenue is triple that of insurance-based clinics. He said many costs are fixed so the firm, now losing money, will turn to profit as business grows.

More than 50 noninsurance clinics operate in 18 U.S. states, based on different business models, Wu noted.

The backers believe Qliance can grow very profitable, and the clinic uses stock options to attract new doctors. The next step is to open a suburban office.

And the charges to the patients:

Qliance customers pay $99 to join, then a flat monthly rate of $39 to $119, depending on age and level of service. Patients can quit without notice and no one is rejected for pre-existing conditions.

Patients must go to outside brokers and qualify medically to buy catastrophic care. One broker said a 30-year-old could expect to pay $133 per month for such care, and a 60-year-old nearly $400, plus substantial deductibles.

Qliance patients get unrestricted round-the-clock primary care access and 30-minute appointments.

And Dr. Garrison Bliss said this about insurance companies:

"Why would a doctor not want to see sick people? That doesn't make sense, unless you're an insurance company," Bliss said.

He rejected the idea that unrestricted access causes overuse, calling that "nonsense promoted by insurance companies .... There's nobody I've ever met who gets their pleasure by seeing doctors."

Bliss said dumping rigid, convoluted insurance requirements and paperwork saves large amounts of money.

This just goes to show you that the prices paid for healthcare are much higher because of insurance companies. Take out the middle man and you can still get good healthcare at more reasonable prices.

As a side note, I do think that doctors must start policing themselves. If they do that the amount of their liability insurance would go down. And it would root out the bad doctors.