Health Care For America Now

NEWS

Medicare drug plan spending drops $6B in 2008 - USA Today

In a rare bit of good news for taxpayers, the cost of the Medicare prescription drug program fell $6 billion this year — savings driven by the widespread use of low-cost generic drugs.

Voters and Health Reform in the 2008 Presidential Election - New England Journal of Medicine

The 2008 presidential election season has been unique in a number of ways. What insights about future health policy will the election give us? This is the second in a series of reports published in the Journal that examines this question.

Health Policy and the Economic Crisis - Center for American Progress

CAPAF's Jeanne Lambrew testifies before the House Committee on Ways and Means. Read the full testimony (CAPAF)

Nobel winner Krugman sees universal health care becoming accepted feature of American life - Associated Press

In an interview with the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, the Princeton University professor says the U.S. has retirement and social security systems that are "in some ways more comprehensive" than many European countries.

The Health Care Delivery System: A Blueprint for Reform - Center for American Progress

Concern about the state of the American health care system has reached a slow boil. Health care consistently ranks among the top three issues that the American public wants policymakers to address, and it is increasingly intertwined with growing worries about economic insecurity. High costs, gap-ridden coverage, and sporadic quality are the health care problems that most concern Americans. Yet most of the policy discussion is focused on the issue of coverage.

Families USA: 16% of state's kids uninsured - Business Journal

The number of children without health insurance in Arizona has risen to 278,000 — amounting to 16 percent of the state’s young residents.

Boston Globe uncritically reported McCain falsehood on Obama's health care proposal - Media Matters

Summary: The Boston Globe uncritically reported Sen. John McCain's false claim that Sen. Barack Obama proposes to "fine" small businesses that do not provide employee health insurance. While Obama has proposed requiring large businesses that do not provide employer-sponsored health coverage to pay a percentage of their payroll into a National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans purchase private health insurance, small businesses would be exempt.

There are a lot of reasons the free market doesn't really work when it comes to health care. Here's a biggie:

Striking new evidence has emerged of a widespread gap in the cost of health insurance, as women pay much more than men of the same age for individual insurance policies providing identical coverage, according to new data from insurance companies and online brokers.

Some insurance executives expressed surprise at the size and prevalence of the disparities, which can make a woman’s insurance cost hundreds of dollars a year more than a man’s. Women’s advocacy groups have raised concerns about the differences, and members of Congress have begun to question the justification for them.

The new findings, which are not easily explained away, come amid anxiety about the declining economy. More and more people are shopping for individual health insurance policies because they have lost jobs that provided coverage. Politicians of both parties have offered proposals that would expand the role of the individual market, giving people tax credits or other assistance to buy coverage on their own.

“Women often fare worse than men in the individual insurance market,” said Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee.

Insurers say they have a sound reason for charging different premiums: Women ages 19 to 55 tend to cost more than men because they typically use more health care, especially in the childbearing years.

But women still pay more than men for insurance that does not cover maternity care. In the individual market, maternity coverage may be offered as an optional benefit, or rider, for a hefty additional premium.

From a free market perspective, this makes sense, right? Women use more health care, so they get charged more for insurance. Supply and demand. Except that it's profoundly unequal and un-American.

America is great because we do believe in the free market as a force for good in society. By and large, we allow our businesses and our citizens to make their own economic decisions. But we also believe that people shouldn't be punished for the so-called accidents of their birth. Just because someone is born poor, a minority, or a woman doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same opportunities as privileged white males in our society. That's what equality in America is all about.

And so, we rightly recognize that sometimes, the free market works to promote inequality instead of right it, and in those cases, we recognize that limits and controls on the free market are necessary to preserve the greater good of equality. So, in American, we put human rights over profit making.

Or at least we should. Women should not have to pay more for health insurance simply because they are women. Equality demands that men and women pay similar amounts to preserve their health. And the same goes for low income folks and minorities.

Given that the economy is (rightly) the #1 issue for voters, that's where the focus of our politicians should be, right? And to a certain extent, it is. But a look at the advertising numbers tells a slightly different story. DDay picks up on the trend:

Obama has put a significant amount of money into talking about health care, with a whopping 68% of his TV ads devoted at least in part to the issue, including 86% in October. That shows you that the potential is there to make reform an urgent priority. Our health care crisis is tied to the economic woes of the country - US companies are less competitive than their counterparts abroad because they have to also be a giant HMO, skyrocketing costs are putting a giant hole in the federal budget, and treating the uninsured costs everyone in increased premiums.

As DDay explains, we shouldn't be surprised that Obama is spending his money and possibly winning this election because of health care. At its heart, health care is about healthy people, and healthy people are the engine of our economy.

Ken Jacobs, the chair of the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, had a great op-ed in the Sacramento Bee this weekend elaborating on this point:

…as unemployment increases, so does the number of people with no health insurance. The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured found that a one-percentage-point rise in unemployment nationally results in 1.1 million more uninsured and 1 million more enrollees in Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The U.S. unemployment rate is already up 1.2 percentage points since January.

Declining job-based coverage is shifting costs onto state and local governments at the same time they face budget shortfalls due to the economic downturn. As more people lose their health insurance, they turn to government programs for assistance with their health care, which places increased demand on these governments that are already in the red. Additionally, if people go to emergency rooms because they haven't been able to afford to treat less- severe health conditions that then worsened, the burden of that more-expensive emergency care will be born by cities and states.

There is evidence that rising under- and un-insurance is directly contributing to the current financial crisis. A study recently published in a Case Western Reserve University journal of health law documented that medical crises contributed to a surprising half of all home foreclosures. It surveyed homeowners in California, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey who were on the brink of foreclosure, had defaulted on their home loans or whose lenders had initiated legal foreclosure proceedings. The researchers found that "if these patterns hold nationwide, medical causes may put as many as 1.5 million Americans in jeopardy of losing their homes each year."

Stabilizing or bringing down health care costs is a win for the economy. Keeping people healthy, productive and in the work force is a win for the economy. Giving people greater freedom to choose between jobs or to leave a job and start their own businesses is a win for the economy. Keeping people from losing their homes because of their medical bills is a win for the economy.

The fact that the economy is reeling from financial turmoil is not a reason to avoid doing health care reform; it's a reason to make health care reform a top priority.

The line that I emphasized is key. Fix health care and we fix our economy. Fail to fix health care and rising unemployment, falling wages, and skyrocketing health care costs make the economy worse.

Of course, there's another reason Obama is spending a lot to talk about health care. In the words of Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake, John McCain's health care plan is "full of shit." Here's John McCain' explaining his health care plan in his own words:

Another admission from the McCain campaign that their health care plan is nothing more than a bunch of right-wing platitudes thrown together without any real serious thought as to how to solve the health care crisis. From CNN:

Changing the tax treatment wouldn't hurt the employer-sponsored system and would allow more of the uninsured to buy their own coverage, [the McCain campaign says]. Also, his advisers say a McCain administration would keep an eye on the credit to make sure it didn't lag behind the cost of coverage, while also working to lower the rate of medical inflation.

Younger, healthier workers likely wouldn't abandon their company-sponsored plans, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's senior economic policy adviser.

"Why would they leave?" said Holtz-Eakin. "What they are getting from their employer is way better than what they could get with the credit."

Got that?

The entire premise of McCain's health care plan is that people can do better on the free market. That's why you get a tax credit. That's why you would be able to buy insurance across state lines. The market supposedly makes health insurance cheaper, makes your health insurance company offer better coverage, and makes buying the insurance you need easier. And things like tying health insurance to employment are anti-free market, which is why the McCain plan taxes employer health benefits to encourage people to get insurance on the individual, free-er market.

Of course, tying health care to employment is the way we've done things in America for generations, and it turns out it's also pretty popular. (Not to mention that insurance companies have to cover you through an employer health care plan, while they can deny you for pre-existing conditions on the individual market.) And so, in the face of political pressure, you have Douglas Holtz-Eakin admitting the truth.

Faced with the fact that destroying our employer-based health care system isn't exactly a priority for most Americans, he argues that the McCain plan wouldn't actually destroy the employer-based system. Why? Because the tax credit McCain is offering wouldn't buy a decent health care plan, even for the young and healthy!

Let's unpack this a little bit more. According to Holtz-Eakin, John McCain doesn't actually want to dismantle the employer-based health care system. But, McCain's plan would tax any health benefits you'd get through work. So, if Holtz-Eakin is right in saying you'd get better coverage through work than you'd get with the tax credit on the individual market (and he probably is), and if he's right in saying most workers won't drop their employer-based insurance for the individual market because they're getting a better deal at work, then John McCain is simply proposing a tax on your current health care benefits without giving you anything in return. That's the worst kind of tax increase.

Shorter Douglas Holtz-Eakin: John McCain's health care plan won't destroy the employer-based insurance system because McCain's plan doesn't work.

Remember John McCain: Less jobs, more war? Well now it's John McCain: More tax, less benefits.

NEWS

Election: Your health insurance at stake - CNN

McCain and Obama have vastly different views on the future of employer-sponsored health insurance. Either one could bring big change.

FACT CHECK: McCain persists in exaggerations - Associated Press

A week from the presidential election, Republican John McCain is persisting in exaggerating and misrepresenting rival Barack Obama's tax and health-care plans.

Few Can Use State High-Risk Pool for Uninsured - Los Angeles Times

Dave Dunlap is a Kern County trucker with a failing liver. Like about 600,000 Californians, he is too sick to qualify for private insurance on the open market.

S. Florida Employers Struggle to Keep Healthcare Premiums in Check - Miami Herald

The news could be worse: With South Florida mired in a recession, many employers appear reluctant to pass too much of their rising healthcare costs along to their workers.

Senator John McCain's health care plan is so radical and so politically toxic that even some Republicans are turning away from it. First, there was Norm Coleman in Minnesota, who's campaign refused to answer is he supported McCain's plan. Here was the spokesperson's dodge:

Well Senator Coleman is aligned with Senator Coleman's plan and I think that's the point that I want to make here. I think that again, if you look at Senator Coleman's plan he has a plan that will make sure that everyone has affordable access to health insurance, that we promote more responsibility, that we enact medical liability reform… Again a series of steps, things that he's been working on throughout his time in the Senate. I think that again Al Franken is missing the point here. What Minnesotans should choose between here in the Senate race is the vision of the health care plans of both candidates.

And today we have John Cornyn in Texas (incidentally the worst state in the country when it comes to health care), backing away from McCain's plan to tax your health care benefits:

On Tuesday, though, he shied away from supporting a tax on workers' health benefits, which Mr. McCain would use to pay for the tax credits.

Mr. Cornyn also said tax breaks for providing health coverage to employees should be given to sole proprietors and small-business owners, not just large companies.

But Mr. Cornyn, a freshman Republican seeking a second term on Nov. 4, declined to say how he'd pay for the tax breaks, after voting early at the Travis County courthouse.

And Frank Wolf down in Virginia stood by and did nothing while his companions assaulted cameramen as they tried to ask Wolf about his support for McCain's plan. (Watch the video, it's brutal.)

Not that these folks should get a lot of credit; the plans they are supporting are still terrible, and especially in Cornyn's case, no mention is made about how this will be paid for. The point is, John McCain's plan to rip health insurance from employment, tax your benefits, and cut Medicare and Medicaid to pay for it all is such a ludicrous, ill-conceived idea that even Republicans can't support it.

Usually, when politicians propose radical ideas, they do so to take a stand for the people, picking an idea that has broad popular support but is opposed by interests in Washington. John McCain's plan does the opposite, proposing radical changes that do nothing but help insurance companies. With a country that's as fed up with politicians putting business interests first as this one, it's no surprise McCain's health care plan isn't getting traction with just about anyone.

NEWS

Insurance plan lets customers shop nationally; erosion of consumer protections predicted - Associated Press

John McCain's health plan would bring about a dramatic shift in how millions of people get health insurance coverage. He would let people shop around for plans offered by insurers in other states. New Yorkers could look to Alabama, for example, or any other state when shopping for coverage.

Businesses Wary of Details in Obama Health Plan - The New York Times

Dave Ratner, owner of Dave’s Soda and Pet City, is pretty sure he is about to get “whacked” by the new state law that requires employers to contribute to health care benefits for their workers or pay a $295-per-employee penalty. In order to avoid thousands of dollars in fines, Mr. Ratner is considering not adding part-time workers at his four pet supply stores in Western Massachusetts.

Hospitals ease ER crowding with ward beds in halls - Associated Press

There's no phone and no television. Only a screen offers privacy. But heart patient Edward Gray understands why the hospital put him in a cardiac unit hallway.

Pharmaceutical Industry Spends More Than $13M on Ads 'Thanking' Lawmakers Who Supported SCHIP Legislation - Kaiser Family Foundation

The pharmaceutical industry has paid $13.2 million for television advertisements that "thank" 28 federal lawmakers — 25 of whom are Democrats — who supported the 2007 SCHIP expansion legislation, the Wall Street Journal reports. The ad campaign is "an example of how interest groups are already adjusting to the prospect of stronger Democratic control of Congress in 2009," and of how "after years of donating overwhelmingly to Republicans, the pharmaceutical industry is now splitting campaign contributions between the political parties," according to the Journal.

In previous blog posts, we’ve called it the “Wild, Wild West” of health insurance. In the new report we released a few weeks ago, we described it as a “last resort” for coverage. There are just so many ways to describe the individual health insurance market and the problems that women and their families encounter there. The first of a 3-part series published in the LA Times earlier this week reports that individual market policies “often the only coverage available, are pricey and precarious.” The article describes how insurance companies denied coverage to a newborn with a minor joint problem (which corrected itself within months), cancelled the policy of a woman after she was diagnosed with lupus, and rejected an applicant because she was on a commonly-prescribed drug to manage acid reflux disease.

Read the rest of this post…

Via Chris Frates at the Politico:

Democrat Barack Obama has spent $113 million in health care television advertising so far this year, eight times that of Republican rival John McCain — an investment that polls show are paying big dividends as the election enters its closing weeks.

Obama has devoted 68 percent of his total TV advertising this year to ads that include health care themes, and McCain has devoted 13 percent. That includes both primary and general election spending, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group that tracks and analyzes campaign advertising and provided Politico with its tally through mid-October.

In October, McCain spent 1.5 percent of his TV ads on health care, while Obama upped the ante to 86 percent of his total budget.

…

Obama’s health care messaging dwarfs McCain’s. So far this year, Obama has aired almost 192,000 commercials that mention health care as a priority, while McCain has run 11,300.

Obama has made 117 different ads. McCain has released 10, four of which have run in October. Obama, by contrast, released 18 ads in October. Already this month, Obama has spent $48.5 million on health care ads, and McCain has spent $261,000.

…

The enormous spending done in House and Senate races has almost certainly amplified the presidential candidates’ health care messages. So far this year, these congressional contests have seen 975 ads and more than $275 million spent on health care ads, almost $80 million of it in October alone, according to Campaign Media Analysis Group.

And that doesn’t include the significant investment made by outside groups working to raise the issue’s profile and shape the public discussion in advance of next year’s expected health care reform debate in Congress. Consumer groups, insurance companies, doctors and all sorts of other health care organizations have invested heavily in advertising this year.

Still, no matter what each candidate proposes on the campaign trail, many insiders agree it won’t necessarily translate into a mandate for their plans come January.

“The notion of a sweeping political mandate is still very much up for grabs. How much wind is at the back of Democrats on Election Day will go a long way towards determining the pace and scope of health reform in the 111th Congress,” said Republican health care consultant Phil Blando. “Once we enter this policy phase after the elections, all stakeholders will have a fresh opportunity to make their case.”

I'd beg to differ with that last assertion.

The numbers are simply astounding. The fact that 86% of Obama's ad spending makes it unmistakeble: This election is about health care, and Barack Obama is behind real reform to the tune of $113 million.

We couldn't agree more. Sitting at the nexus of inequality, economic stability, job growth, and human rights is health care. It's an issue that touches every domestic priority. And, by highlighting it in the election, both on the air and in debates, Barack Obama is building himself a mandate for reform, should he win.

Not that any President will be able to do this alone. It will be our job to hold him accountable. I, for one, am looking forward to that task.

NEWS

Obama outspends in health care ads - Politico

Democrat Barack Obama has spent $113 million in health care television advertising so far this year, eight times that of Republican rival John McCain — an investment that polls show are paying big dividends as the election enters its closing weeks.

Kennedy secretly crafts health care plan - Washington Times

From his sickbed, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy has secretly been orchestrating meetings with lobbyists and lawmakers from both parties to craft legislation that would greet the new president with a plan to provide affordable medical coverage to all Americans, a measure he has called "the cause of my life."

Healthcare advocates invigorated by election - The Hill

The resurgence of health reform as a campaign issue in recent weeks has helped invigorate the advocacy efforts of a union-backed coalition and the seniors’ lobby AARP, activists said at a forum co-sponsored by The Hill Wednesday.

Employers Skeptical of Candidates’ Health Plans, Call for Real Reform Agenda in ‘09 - The Hill

The National Business Group on Health (NBGH) believes strongly that everyone should be required to have health insurance coverage for themselves and dependent children. NBGH represents more than 300 large employers – including 63 of the Fortune 100 – providing health benefits to more than 50 million Americans. Our members invest tremendous resources in their employees’ well-being and believe that reform should build on this model.

Health care battle a big issue for voting families - MSNBC

Even if the issue doesn't often get star billing on the campaign trail, health care remains a huge issue for voters. It seems like everyone's got a story to tell about their medical challenges and how they do — or don't — get insurance coverage.

Health Insurance Costs Outpace Wages - WebMD

Workers' health insurance premiums have shot up more than five times faster than their wages since 2000, adding to an increasingly tight squeeze on family budgets, according to a report released Thursday by a health care consumer group.