Oh, and Republicans still have no health care plan
Posted on January 29th, 2010 by Jason Rosenbaum in Congress Watch
 |
It's incumbent on Democrats to finish health reform and finish reform right, but it's also worth remembering that Republicans still have no health care plan.
In his State of the Union address, President Obama told lawmakers that if they had a health care plan that met his goals, they should speak up:
As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Here's what I ask of Congress, though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.
Predictably, House Republican minority leader John Boehner piped up and claimed that the Republican alternative health care bill his caucus offered last year when the House was passing their health care bill fit the requirements.
Of course, Boehner's wrong. The bill doesn't fit the requirements, not even close.
First, the plan, according to the CBO [pdf], doesn't nearly cover the uninsured:
By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 3 million relative to current law, leaving about 52 million nonelderly residents uninsured.
Unlike the House plan Democrats passed, it doesn't hold insurance companies accountable. It would still allow denials of care based on pre-existing conditions, and because these abuses aren't reigned in, premiums for the sickest Americans will skyrocket.
The Republican "alternative" also saves less money, because it fails to really tackle the health care crisis.
Democrats still must finish the job right, but judging by the ideas Republicans have offered thus far, they'll have to proceed on their own.
The CBO scoring of the Democrat's health care bill is misleading. New revenue generated by the bill will come in immediately but the spending doesn't start for four years after it is enacted. The CBO report therefore covers 10 years of taxation and 6 years of spending (in which the first few years of spending is rather mild). Also, cutting the deficit and cutting spending are NOT the same thing.
The assertion that whichever bill covers more people is better is also false. There are people that opt out of health insurance plans because they are either healthy and it would be a waste of their money or they simply can afford to pay for medical costs out of pocket. Even if either bill were to cover everyone that is not a guarantee of treatment actually being received.
This is a false analysis. The CBO also estimates that in the long term past the 10 year window, deficits will continue to decrease.
As for covering more folks, there is overwhelming evidence to point to that says most of the uninsured would love to be insured if they could afford it. That's the goal, to make it affordable.
Supporters keep quoting the "best case scenario" according to the CBO, but even they say their numbers past 10 years are very uncertain. If the inlays and outlays are off by a few billion, as if government estimates are ever wrong, then we could easily go into the red. Some of the savings attributed to the health care bill are not attached to the health care bill either, and the cuts have been postponed for years.
Reducing cost is all about reducing demand and/or increasing supply. Does forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance increase or decrease demand? You made them buy insurance so they're going to use it. Do new regulations on insurance companies and health care providers increase supply or efficiency? Health care and health insurance will be less profitable (that's what we wanted right?) so insurers and providers will be less likely to expand, and the market for health care will be less attractive.
This is a fundamental problem with the right wing on health care - they keep trying to treat it like a classic market. It's not.
For one, it's more expensive for people not to have health care, not less. In America, anyone who goes to the hospital gets treated. It's the most expensive kind of care you can get. So folks without insurance put off problems until they overwhelm them, and they end up in the emergency room on the taxpayer's dime. Estimates say it costs insured people at least $1000 per year each for that subsidy to the uninsured.
If you give everyone insurance they can afford, not only do they pay into the system (no free rides here, pay what you can afford), but chronic conditions get treated, illness prevented, and expensive emergency care reduced.
Thus, more health insurance actually saves money.
Emergency room visits account for about 3% of all health care spending. That's not causing prices to skyrocket. Even if it was mostly responsible then why is primary care getting more and more expensive at the same time? Only people with insurance [and those with the cash] visit clinics. The supply just isn't there. The reasons for adequate supply not being available is up for debate.
It was simply an example. The entire concept of folks delaying preventative and chronic care and having to pay more because they wait until the problem gets worse is a proven fact and takes up way more than 3% of spending.
Of course, that's not the only cost control that's necessary. Insurance overheads and CEO pay accounts for a bunch, especially for the sicker folks. Doctors not using proven therapies and opting for more expensive and unproven ones is another slice. Anti-trust issue with insurance companies, hospitals, and specialists are another.
There are a lot of aspects of cost control.
I just want to point out that if we decided to follow through with the "Robin Hood" method, our economy will be worse than ever. who is going to want to work for other people? who is going to want to pay taxes so that other people can sit on their butts and do nothing and STILL get the same thing that people who work for a living do? i sure wouldn't go to work with a good taste in my mouth if that's where i knew my money was going.
Huh? Last time I checked, it was good for people to have health care, so they didn't get sick, go bankrupt, and become a burden on society.
Can you help to get this vital invitation to President Obama? Even if you don't think you can get it to the President, perhaps you can post this on your networks and maybe someone else will see it and be able to help. Thank you for your time and consideration.
President Obama,
I am writing this invitation in response to the recent attacks against you by your political enemies regarding our economic crisis. I believe you are the best, pro-active president this country has ever seen. If I could show you how to put over $75.4 billion dollars directly into the hands of the tax payers of this country over the next year, (and every year thereafter) would you want to hear my strategy? What if this strategy would cost the government zero dollars to implement? Would you still be interested? What if at the same time we could put $200,000 into 100 different schools, police departments, and fire departments every week, in every state, without costing the government a dime? Would you want to know more? I believe this strategy will make you the most successful and popular President this country has ever known, but only if you contact me to learn more about it. I do not trust anyone else with this simple strategy. I want you as our President for the next seven years and perhaps another Democrat, or Independent with similar qualities and vision as yourself for the following eight years. You can change the face of politics, economics, and humanity forever. All you have to do is contact me to learn more. I realize that the first person to read this invitation is probably a staff member and not President Obama. I implore the first reader to not just delete this message. If you truly believe in the President and his agenda, then forward this to your supervisor. The strategy I have referred to in this invitation can help him and this country, but not if you throw it away.
With my deepest respect,
William A. Garrison