Want to understand BHO's effort with Healthcare? Read Steve Chapman!
I print Steve Chapmans entire column "Indulging Our Health Care Fantasies" from Sunday, June 14, 2009. It is truly an IMPORTANT read:
"It's been 15 years since President Clinton's health care reform plan went down to defeat, and the problems it was supposed to fix have only gotten worse. Costs have soared, the number of uninsured has risen and public dissatisfaction has mounted.
But now, at last, we are all ready to do what must be done. As President Obama puts it, "I really think that the stars may be aligned here."
Don't bet on it. The Clinton plan lost partly because Americans were not willing to accept that you can't have it all. From everything that has occurred since then, it's apparent they are still unwilling.
The Obama administration understands this crucial point, which is why it has undertaken to assure us that everything we like about the current health insurance system will stay the same, while everything we don't like will be replaced. And, we are led to believe, it won't cost you and me anything.
Estimates of the cost of Obama care start at $1.2 trillion over the next decade. The administration believes it can cover about half that amount through tax increases on the rich and greater efficiencies in Medicare and Medicaid. But it's hard to find anyone else who shares that touching faith. When I asked Robert Bixby, head of The Concord Coalition, a bipartisan fiscal watchdog group, he said, "I don't see any plausible way of getting the savings they need to add the expanded coverage in a deficit-neutral way."
There are only three ways to pay for this expansion of health insurance coverage: increased taxes, reduced benefits or shiny gold ingots falling out of the sky. Voters emphatically prefer the latter option, so that is the one most likely to be embraced by Congress and the administration.
If health insurance were such a vital asset, you would think Americans would be more than happy to make sacrifices to get it. After all, it assures timely and adequate treatment in times of sickness, peace of mind in times of health, the prospect of a longer and happier life, and protection against financial ruin. Health care reform is supposed to make those blessings available to all.
But when most people talk about reform, what they really mean is guaranteeing the same or better coverage than they now have, but at a lower price. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health poll found that 49 percent of Americans aren't willing to pay more in insurance premiums or taxes.
Of those who could accept higher taxes to finance a new system, most are thinking of higher taxes on someone else. As the researchers explained, "The only options with majority support were those likely to impact the fewest people, in particular smokers and the wealthy."
Even among the uninsured, the enthusiasm for insurance is muted.
When another Kaiser poll asked uninsured adults how much they would be willing to pay to get coverage, only 64 percent would fork out $100 a month and just 29 percent would pay $200. Given that most are not poor, why is it so important to provide the uninsured with something they don't value highly?
One way to bring down the cost of health insurance is to limit access to certain doctors, treatments and medicines. But the Kaiser/Harvard poll found most people are averse not only to paying more but also to anything that would "involve government limiting or dictating their choices."
Or anyone else, by the way. Most people have forgotten that in the 1980s, the private sector devised an ingenious way to reduce medical outlays. Known as managed care, it put modest restrictions on the freedom of patients to get care from specialists, limited hospital stays and gave doctors incentives to choose less costly therapies. It saved money, and it didn't appear to reduce the quality of care.
It was a perfect remedy, except for one thing: Patients and doctors hated it. Why? Because it kept them from behaving as though cost is no object.
So managed care is history. But the dilemmas it addressed are not.
One of these days, we'll have to address them, but not now. The administration would rather pretend we can get generous government-sponsored coverage for everyone without higher taxes, higher insurance premiums or rationing of health care. In short, it refuses to treat us like grownups. I wonder why."
Would like to hear comments on his opions. They seem right on to me!
"It's been 15 years since President Clinton's health care reform plan went down to defeat, and the problems it was supposed to fix have only gotten worse. Costs have soared, the number of uninsured has risen and public dissatisfaction has mounted.
But now, at last, we are all ready to do what must be done. As President Obama puts it, "I really think that the stars may be aligned here."
Don't bet on it. The Clinton plan lost partly because Americans were not willing to accept that you can't have it all. From everything that has occurred since then, it's apparent they are still unwilling.
The Obama administration understands this crucial point, which is why it has undertaken to assure us that everything we like about the current health insurance system will stay the same, while everything we don't like will be replaced. And, we are led to believe, it won't cost you and me anything.
Estimates of the cost of Obama care start at $1.2 trillion over the next decade. The administration believes it can cover about half that amount through tax increases on the rich and greater efficiencies in Medicare and Medicaid. But it's hard to find anyone else who shares that touching faith. When I asked Robert Bixby, head of The Concord Coalition, a bipartisan fiscal watchdog group, he said, "I don't see any plausible way of getting the savings they need to add the expanded coverage in a deficit-neutral way."
There are only three ways to pay for this expansion of health insurance coverage: increased taxes, reduced benefits or shiny gold ingots falling out of the sky. Voters emphatically prefer the latter option, so that is the one most likely to be embraced by Congress and the administration.
If health insurance were such a vital asset, you would think Americans would be more than happy to make sacrifices to get it. After all, it assures timely and adequate treatment in times of sickness, peace of mind in times of health, the prospect of a longer and happier life, and protection against financial ruin. Health care reform is supposed to make those blessings available to all.
But when most people talk about reform, what they really mean is guaranteeing the same or better coverage than they now have, but at a lower price. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health poll found that 49 percent of Americans aren't willing to pay more in insurance premiums or taxes.
Of those who could accept higher taxes to finance a new system, most are thinking of higher taxes on someone else. As the researchers explained, "The only options with majority support were those likely to impact the fewest people, in particular smokers and the wealthy."
Even among the uninsured, the enthusiasm for insurance is muted.
When another Kaiser poll asked uninsured adults how much they would be willing to pay to get coverage, only 64 percent would fork out $100 a month and just 29 percent would pay $200. Given that most are not poor, why is it so important to provide the uninsured with something they don't value highly?
One way to bring down the cost of health insurance is to limit access to certain doctors, treatments and medicines. But the Kaiser/Harvard poll found most people are averse not only to paying more but also to anything that would "involve government limiting or dictating their choices."
Or anyone else, by the way. Most people have forgotten that in the 1980s, the private sector devised an ingenious way to reduce medical outlays. Known as managed care, it put modest restrictions on the freedom of patients to get care from specialists, limited hospital stays and gave doctors incentives to choose less costly therapies. It saved money, and it didn't appear to reduce the quality of care.
It was a perfect remedy, except for one thing: Patients and doctors hated it. Why? Because it kept them from behaving as though cost is no object.
So managed care is history. But the dilemmas it addressed are not.
One of these days, we'll have to address them, but not now. The administration would rather pretend we can get generous government-sponsored coverage for everyone without higher taxes, higher insurance premiums or rationing of health care. In short, it refuses to treat us like grownups. I wonder why."
Would like to hear comments on his opions. They seem right on to me!
Labels: Healthcare
posted by Jim | 1:05 PM
4 Comments:
I have to also agree with most of his points. While I don't think our current health care situation is all that great for many people, it is hard to see how we get to anything better without hard trade-offs that no one wants to make. (I'm not always sure people want to be treated like "grown-ups"!)
Personally I lean toward a system with more catastrophic health insurance plans, at a fairly low cost, and thus have much more health care paid by people directly (thus putting people in a more active role in their own health - ie. acting as grownups who understand they may need medical attention at some times). I know this is not popular!
Current health insurance is expensive at least in part because it covers so much, so particularly if you are healthy it looks like a raw deal (i.e. Chapman's point that "the enthusiasm for insurance is muted".)
Most statistics seem to claim that we already spend more of our GDP on health care than most other countries, it makes sense that no one wants to pay even more. We can either get fewer choices at lower cost, or get more choices at higher costs. It will take a bit of magic to get more choices at lower costs!
I agree with all your comments. To expand a little:
the problem is the word "insurance" - back to semantics again - and its misuse by politicians - and businesses - due to the government involvement in the medical industry. This is what I mean:
I insure my home. This insurance is "catastrophic" insurance. Ditto car insurance. That is what insurance is supposed to be. Not MAINTENANCE!
But in my opinion for the sake of political/business pandering health insurance has become a total care package which allows people to pay nothing - or close to it! This is why our costs are skyrocketing (I won't mention litigation at this time, which is the other big problem).
What do you think would happen to my home insurance if they covered all maintenance: broken windows, mowing the lawn, etc. I can guarantee you my lawn would be mown twice a week to keep the look up instead of once a month when I get the ambition to mow it!
We have to get back to teaching people what "insurance" is, and lower their expectations, putting responsibility back on them. My greatest fear with BHO's health plan is it will do the opposite, and the population will expect "single payer" in the not too distant future.
I fully agree that the mis-use of the word 'insurance' to mean 'maintenance' is a problem. I'm just not sure how to push things back so that insurance really means insurance!
I don't believe things can be pushed back. Our government has destroyed the meaning of the word! It is a business term, not a government program term.
I think you and I should agree to refer to it as "HEALTHFARE" - a combination of Healthcare and Welfare. I kind of like the sound of the word - HEALTHFARE!
This is really what Medicare and Medicaid are, and where all healthcare will creep if BHO's public option (I agree with Hugh Hewitt and it should be called the Government Option) is established.
The real motivation behind HEALTHFARE is a hook to get all the population totally dependent on the Government - and this is not a kookie conspiratorial theory - it is simply how the Dem's solidify our dependence on Government - I actually believe it is not a concious goal of the left, but it is what they would like. (By the way, I think there are Republicans - professional politicians on all sides - who unconciously want the same thing). Term limits, anyone?
I may have told this story before, but while in England purchasing a cigar one day I noticed the price of cigarettes - $10.00 U.S. per pack of 20, and this was 4 years ago! - and asked the proprietor how people could/would pay that price?
His response: "Sir, do you realize that if you walk out that door and have a heart attack you will be picked up and taken care of at absolutely no cost to you! We don't mind those taxes on cigarettes at all!"
I knew then why we do not want SINGLE PAYER. It will justify anything the Government wants to do with OUR money in the future and the masses will get used to it and justify the massive Government.
The difference between us and England is they had us to pay for their security for the last 60 years, and we have nobody to pay for our security. I believe this allowed England to survive their high taxation - which did not have to go very high, though much higher than ours - but our taxation rates will have to go to unacceptable levels since we cannot stop paying for security (this is a whole other discussion, but I have to reference it to make my point).
As always - a very complex situation. But I really do like:
HEALTHFARE
Post a Comment
<< Home