Remember the House Republicans' alternative budget plan where the only numbers were the page numbers? Well, they've done it again!
House Republicans presented a four-page outline of their health care reform plan Wednesday but said they didn't know yet how much it would cost, how they would pay for it and how many of the nearly 50 million Americans without insurance would be covered by it.
the commonwealth fund has a new report out about the un/underinsured: (its a lot closer to 100 million than 10 million.)
most people in the u.s. fall into one of these categories and have personally experienced the shortcomings of our current system. even before the severe recession, an estimated 116 million working-age adults—two-thirds of all adults—reported they were uninsured or underinsured, had medical bill or debt problems, or experienced difficulties obtaining needed care. the beneficiaries of reforms that ensure affordable health insurance and access to high-quality care would include:
46 million who were uninsured at the start of the recession, and 55 million who were uninsured at some point during the past year;
25 million working-age adults who are underinsured;
72 million working-age adults who have difficulty paying medical bills;
49 million small business employees who now pay higher premiums than employees in larger businesses;
4 million adults under age 65 with individual coverage whose premiums go toward high overhead costs, leaving less room for benefits;
one-third of insured people who change plans frequently, often not by choice;
46 percent of workers with employer coverage who do not have a choice of plans;
medicaid beneficiaries, who would have expanded choices and better access to care if medicaid provider payments were increased;
women, who as a group carry greater financial burdens from health care expenses;
13 million young adults without coverage;
older adults and early retirees, who have few affordable insurance options;
2 million disabled individuals in the waiting period for medicare coverage;
any medicare beneficiary who now pays high hospital deductibles or high premiums for supplemental coverage; and
37 million adults and 10 million children who lack easy access to a regular source of care.
whether it's 50 million or 10 million, it's too many. and immigrants don't count? are they not people too?
i'm sick and tired of hearing that everyone can have health insurance if they cut back on their spending and "prioritized". give me a break.
pre-existing conditions make getting individual insurance IMPOSSIBLE. pregnant? sorry for your luck. COBRA is crap...it's nothing but a piece of paper. and many employers don't offer the people who work their butts off cleaning the toilets, cutting hair or waiting tables insurance.
but i forgot, everyone who doesn't have insurance just doesn't try hard enough, and wants a free ride on the government. just because a handful of people abuse the system doesn't make up for the millions of people who struggle daily with paying for medical care vs. rent and groceries. it's a shame how people in this country have SO MUCH and are willing to share NOTHING.
nothing gets me fired up quite like the health care crisis in this country.
However many million are uninsured ,whether or not they are wilfully uninsured or not and whether or not they are legal or illegal immigrants ,when the uninsured presents themselves at the ER , they are UNINSURED , we have to pick up the expensive tab , whether through raised private insurance premiums or extra funds to one of the present government healthcare systems .
It would be nice if the GOP would ,show us an actual plan that would ensure that no person in the USA , would not have healthcare insurance and did not face the real possibility that their first major ilness would lead to personal bankrupcy .
whether it's 50 million or 10 million, it's too many. and immigrants don't count? are they not people too?
Yep. Love how they just blithely dismiss the how-ever-many millions as not Americans and so, they don't count. There are many legal immigrants in this country who pay taxes as well, so they deserve access to affordable health care as much as Americans do.
STEELE: So if it's a cost problem, it's easy: Get the people in a room who have the most and the most direct impact on cost, and do the deal.
Do the deal. It's not that complicated.
If it's an access question, people don't have access to health care, then figure out who they are, and give them access!
Hello?!
Am I missing something here?
If my friend Trevor has access to health care, and I don't, why do I need to overhaul the entire system so I can get access he already has? why don't you just focus on me and get me access?
Chairman of the House Health Care Solutions Group Roy Blunt (R - MO) met with the editorial board of the Kansas City Star to discuss the GOP health care "plan," and it did not go very well for him.
...his presentation was marred by assertions that were more opinion than fact and by proposals that lacked enough detail to allow evaluation.
One of the Congressman's statements was a bold assertion that doctors find dealing with Medicare as difficult as dealing with insurance companies. I stated from first hand experience as a psychologist in private practice that this is not my opinion. To his credit, Mr. Blunt acknowledged that I may have more direct understanding of the Medicare and insurance company billing process than he does, and by extension that my opinion is my opinion.
I don't believe that either Mr. Blunt or I have a reliable survey of service providers in various specialties to claim to have a valid opinion on what doctors in general believe. All providers grumble about reimbursement rates, but that is true about Medicare and private insurance rates.
Mr. Blunt also offered the opinion that 80% of Americans are happy with their private insurance. As I recall, it was David Helling who said in the meeting that people seemed to be very satisfied with the government Medicare system as well.
I pointed out that the 80% statistic about satisfaction levels is meaningless. Surveys in Canada, Britain and France also show that over 80% of the people are satisfied with their systems. A more meaningful survey would be to ask people who have had a serious medical problem (cancer, heart disease, etc.) how satisfied they are with their insurance. Nobody worries about his/her insurance until it is needed for a problem. Then the fat gets thrown into the fire.
My guess (and it's just a guess because I don't have clear data either) is that people who have serious medical problems and get denied benefits or have to pay large deductibles or get befuddled trying to figure out the complicated blizzard of paperwork they accompanies illness would rate their insurance unfavorably.
I don't know with certainty how Americans with serious health concerns look at their insurance compared to Canadians with serious health problems. I do know that many bankruptcies in America occur in families who do, in fact, have health insurance and that this is not a major problem in Canada, Britain or France.
But it was Mr. Blunt's response to my criticism that was most revealing. He said, anecdotally, that he has had serious medical problems and that he was very satisfied with his health care.
The response revealed two major areas of confusion. First, a patient's satisfaction level with his/her health care is not the same as satisfaction with the health care payment system. The first could be great, the second awful.
More significantly, Mr. Blunt has the finest health care insurance money can buy, and he's a member of Congress. Does he really think the insurance company (or the health care provider) would do anything but treat him as a VIP?
Of course Mr. Blunt is likely to be satisfied with how he's treated.
But ask John Doe who does not have a vote in Congress how his insurance company treats him when he has an expensive illness. Mr. Blunt confuses (or conflates) his experience with what the average American gets.
Another careless statement by Mr. Blunt detracted from his presentation.
He commented that anyone could buy a Blue Cross/Blue Shield policy for $500 to $600 per month. (At least this is what I thought he said. There is a video of the meeting, and I would like to verify exactly what Mr. Blunt did say.)
In any event, I confronted Mr. Blunt with my experience.
First, no, many people can't get insurance at any price because of preexisting conditions. Second, there are high risk insurance pools in Missouri and Kansas, but these plans cost $1,500 per month, and they provide poor coverage.
Mr. Blunt said that his plan provided the opportunity for individuals to buy coverage in high risk pools, but I never understood how his proposal was different from the current system of high risk pools created by the states. It is possible that this is better explained in his written proposal, which I have not seen.
Another assertion Mr. Blunt made seems to be based on beliefs and not data. He said that people should make some co-payment for health care because people "value what they pay for." This statement struck me as a belief that could apply to some transactions but not necessarily health care. For example, do we believe that people who have intense pain and need a root canal "value" the pain relief more if they pay $100 for the procedure? I doubt it.
I believe Mr. Blunt was getting at something else. The position that people should make co-pays is often offered to argue that this would reduce over-utilization of services. But does anyone believe that people will go get an extra colonoscopy just because the co-pay is low? I doubt it. But this isn't really my point. I believe Mr. Blunt has the obligation to offer evidence that his beliefs and proposals based on those beliefs are supported by evidence. He didn't do it, at least in the meeting I attended.
Stephen Colbert skewers Faux News/conservative outrage over the ABC health care special, and the GOP "plan." The part about the GOP "plan" starts at about 2:37 in the clip. :roll
:chuckle That was entertaining. Let's watch it again, I'll bring the pop-corn!
HM2VikingRN, RN
4,700 Posts
the commonwealth fund has a new report out about the un/underinsured: (its a lot closer to 100 million than 10 million.)
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/content/publications/fund%20reports/2009/jun/front-and-center.aspxthe difference is that this is data driven work not based on suppositions.....