home

Obama Releases Some Details of Health Care Plan

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 08:40:13 AM EST
Tags: health care reform (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

President Obama has released some details of his proposed health care plan. While providing health insurance for all (with a hardship waiver for those that can't afford it, he's also proposing major cuts to Medicare and Medicaid:

[H]e'd like to squeeze an additional $200 billion to $300 billion over 10 years from the Medicare and Medicaid government insurance programs for the elderly, disabled and poor.

He said he'd do it through such measures as better managing chronic diseases and avoiding unnecessary tests and hospital readmissions. Savings from such measures are uncertain.

[More...]

Obama also said this week he's not closing the door on taxing health care benefits. The latest details are contained in a letter to Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairs of the two committees drafting health care bills.

[The letter]amounted to a road map to keep Congress aligned with his goals.

< French Inmates Saddle Up For Bike Tour | President Obama's Speech In Cairo >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Releases Some Details of Health Care Plan | 79 comments (79 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Taxing health benefits (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 09:00:52 AM EST
    and reductions to the budgets of Medicare and Medicaid. Somehow this seems to go against providing good quality, affordable health care to all.

    Can't see how either of these actions would be beneficial to people struggling to meet health care costs now and in the future or how it won't lose the Dems votes.

    Please explain how (none / 0) (#14)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:06:31 AM EST
    not taxing the health care benefits one receives will hurt when it comes to voting.

    Parent
    I believe that TAXING (none / 0) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:40:04 AM EST
    health care benefits would be unpopular and could result in the party in power losing votes in the next election over the issue. Dems get a lot of their support from unions. Unions and their members strongly oppose taxing health benefits.  

    Parent
    BTW, Evidently the Republicans are (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 09:09:49 AM EST
    still the party of ideas.

    IIRC the idea of taxing health benefits was what John McCain ran on during the 08 election. Isn't it just wonderful how many of Republican ideas are now Democratic policies since they gained control of the White House and Congress.

    John McCain (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 09:17:13 AM EST
    Here's Obama's ad slamming McCain for taxing healthcare benefits.

    Link

    Honestly, I think this is a poison pill to ensure they don't do anything about healthcare, as is the Medicare cuts.

    Parent

    I think I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 09:28:55 AM EST
    I don't think they are poison pills in the sense that they will prevent any action on health care. I think that they are poison pills in the sense that they are harmful and will really hurt health care and have a very good chance of being passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Democratic President.

    Parent
    Don't you think (none / 0) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 09:45:53 AM EST
    people will write their Congresspeople demanding that the tax be taken out....and Obama is insisting that either the plan is passed by August or it isn't passed....

    Yep, we'll have to agree to disagree ;-).

    Parent

    Simple Answer: NO (none / 0) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:05:18 AM EST
    I've tried to talk to friends and acquaintances about this and their response is that it will never fly. Period the end. To them no action is really necessary.

    Me, I plan to write my 3rd way Congresswoman (ran as a Dem) and my Democratic Representative and inform them that I will ACTIVELY work to defeat any politician regardless of party affiliation that votes for taxing health benefits and/or reducing Medicare and Medicaid. Many of my Democratic friends firmly believe that President Obama will fix health care regardless of what is being reported.

    Parent

    Memories ... (none / 0) (#78)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 09:18:34 AM EST
    'only Nixon can go to China'

    Parent
    I actually think (none / 0) (#37)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:22:49 AM EST
    Taxing benefits was also a part of most progressive proposals, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Edward's plan propose do something similar- I seem to remember this being the issue the Ezra Klein and Paul Krugman drilled Obama on- that benefits have to be taxed otherwise no public option is viable or something similar.

    Parent
    Here's another issue (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 09:13:10 AM EST
    directly from the letter:

    If we do end up with a system where people are responsible for their own insurance, we need to provide a hardship waiver to exempt Americans who cannot afford it

    How does one interpret that?  Is it that ou still have to go without health insurance if you're poor, but we won't penalize you for it?

    Link

    Also how do you interpret (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 09:23:50 AM EST
    a system where people are responsible for their own insurance

    Employers now provided their employees with insurance. Guess we can foresee that being eliminated too. Probably for everyone other than members of Congress who will continue to get insurance on the taxpayers dime.

    So far it looks like the score is
    Insurance Companies 100 - Citizens 0

    Parent

    "The little people" (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 09:44:23 AM EST
    have no one working in their favor anymore, but many people pretending to.  

    Parent
    "A system where people are responsible (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:39:51 AM EST
    for their own insurance" would look a lot like a system where people are responsible for funding their own retirement through the stock market. That's been working out well, hasn't it?

    /s

    Parent

    Oh, (none / 0) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:45:19 AM EST
    It worked extremely well.  Wealthy investors got filthy rich on workers 401K stock market investments.  Then the same people pulled out of the market leaving 401K investors high (or should I say, low) and dry.

    Parent
    The same old people (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 02:18:37 PM EST
    getting richer and purchasing anything they want whenever they want while the same old people get poorer and sicker and more have not.

    Parent
    When people - like Obama - talk about (none / 0) (#71)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 07:40:40 PM EST
    "most people get(ting) their insurance through their employers," they fail to note that while many employers offer a health and dental plan, not that many employers also pay the cost of the premiums.  The real benefit is thought to be that of being in a group, with presumably lower premiums; whether it really is that great a benefit is another question.

    The other thing people don't mention is how handcuffed to their employer these employer-provided plans make employees feel; how many people do you know who have said, "I'd really like to look for another job, but I can't afford to not have health insurance or go on COBRA, so I guess I'm stuck."

    At my firm, one can choose between two plans - one is an HMO and the other is a PPO - neither are very good; the firm will pay a portion of the premium for the employee, but if you want to cover a spouse and/or children, you pay 100% of that cost.  And even with the firm paying part of the employee's premium, the family and H & W coverage is still expensive - family is about $800/mo and H & W is about $600.  And it's crappy coverage, with people fighting all the time to get what they need.

    I have my own coverage through BC/BS, and while it isn't cheap, either, it's much better coverage, and I have it no matter whether I keep this job or go elsewhere.

    What if, like Medicare, we had a single-payer plan in which the premium was the same for everyone; employers could still offer to subsidize as a way of attracting employees, but would no longer have to devote human resources and benefits managers to the task of keeping up with all the questions and problems and running interference, etc.

    What if we had a plan you would have no matter where you worked or if you worked and the cost would be the same whether you lived in Alaska or Manhattan?  Is that possible?  With the entire population insured, why couldn't it be possible?

    The insurance companies have us all in a nice, tight box - Max Baucus is there, too, not even willing to hold a hearing with single payer advocates, admitting that maybe he should have considered single payer, but it's too late now (I mean, he couldn't give back all those health care-related campaign contributions, could he?) - and there is an unwillingness to think outside that box.

    The question we need to have answered is, why.  Why is there absolutely no creative thinking being applied to this issue?  Why is most of the Congress refusing to hear their constituents tell them that yes, they want single payer?  Why is Max Baucus stifling debate instead of encouraging it?

    I think we can all figure out the answer - it's the same one to all three of the questions I posed.

    Parent

    Plus, a lot of people have to leave school (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 08:55:53 PM EST
    when they turn 25 to get a job with insurance, or if older they have to go part-time for years to keep insurance for themselves and their families, as we see all the time at my urban commuter campus for the working class.  

    Insurance needs to be unlinked from employment for a lot of reasons -- including, yes, that employers keep cutting their contributions, anyway, as is happening at my workplace again.  We have lost ground in take-home pay for years because, even in the unusual years when we get raises, the workers just get hit with higher health insurance premiums.

    At the same time, we're in a field that has had floating pension funds for many decades now -- plans that we can take with us if we switch to other employers in our field.  And it's one of the best setups around, one that all workers ought to have.  So, yes, it can be done with health insurance, too -- if there is a will to do what is best for workers instead of what will bring in more big bucks from health insurance conglomerates (so from us, but we have no say) to pay the pols to stick with the status quo.

    Parent

    That part's taken (none / 0) (#39)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:24:32 AM EST
    almost directly from the Hillary plan- remember the debate on mandates- that's what they are- requirements that the poor have coverage- and whether there should be waiver on said requirement.  

    Parent
    IIRC Hillary's plan contained (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:41:24 AM EST
    mandates that everyone be covered. It also contained subsidies that provided assistance in paying for coverage for the poor.

    Parent
    Great question ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 09:19:37 AM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    You're absolutely right (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Sweet Sue on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 09:56:38 AM EST
     TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 09:44:23
    The little people" have no one working in their favor anymore, but many people pretending to.
    And that's why the "big people" had to shove Hillary Clinton out of the way.

    "People" say (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:00:36 AM EST
    that Hillary would have enacted the same policies.

    The big difference is that she'd be criticized for her bad strategies.  Instead we get fawning over bad strategies, and rubber stamping by Congress.

    It's as dangerous as Bush after 9/11.

    Parent

    I don't know what Hillary would have (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:06:17 AM EST
    done. But I do know that the way the Obama mob bosses insured Obama's nomination bought us this man who believes he can treat the little people this way. His "mass lovers" allowed him to be accountable to nothing in order to get to the pinnacle!  I place the entire failure of this President to address our most dire situation directly on their heads and they all know who they are.

    Parent
    Exactly. (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by shoephone on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:36:02 AM EST
    This is nothing but a sop to the insurance companies and will certainly make the situation worse for many people, including me. Forcing people to buy something they can't afford now is a freaking disaster in the making.

    And cutting money OUT of the Medicare program? IN what world is that a smart -- or humane -- idea? He may as well be introducing "Medicare Part E".

    Good job Obama! You are now the consummate politician. B.S. becomes you.

    Single payer is the only acceptable solution and with this kind of (cough) leadership we will never see it in our lifetimes. The Democrats control both houses of Congress and White House too, but it's the bad old days of republicanism all over again.

    Parent

    I have a stack of insurance papers (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:52:44 AM EST
    showing how many unnecessary tests, and a plethora of doctors I've never heard of before claiming to have treated my mother during her last stay in the hospital to agree that Medicare needs tighter controls and would realize a gigantic cost savings if they did so.

    The hospitals and doctors use the elderly as practice patients and bill medicare for all of it.

    If I knew then what I know now, I would have stopped the testing being done on my mother during her first hospital stay last year. Where Medicare is concerned, the elderly seem to be the disposable patients to the doctors while they run them through as many tests and procedures as they can knowing full well the only reason to do so is the practice and the billing they get from it.


    Parent

    That can happen at some hospitals (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:06:53 AM EST
    and with some doctors. It happens not only to patients on Medicare. It happens in cases when the patient is most vulnerable and the least likely to protest.  

    Being proactive in monitoring your health care and those of your loved ones is essential no matter what form of insurance you have.

    Parent

    Medicare Part E is yet to come (none / 0) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:45:14 AM EST
    Part E is where Medicare is removed from government control and becomes just another high priced insurance company product.

    Parent
    they say that, but it is nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:06:40 AM EST
    it is like when the Naderites defended defeating Gore because he would have been just like bush anyway.
    Secretary Clinton was very specific about what she would do and if you look at her actions over the life of her senate career she is quite a polulist and to the left of Obama on many things.
    Problem is that Obama supporters never got to know her, they just spouted the same old talking points dished out by the astro-turf bloggers.

    Parent
    This is hilarious (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:29:14 AM EST
    seriously, have you actually looked at each canidates voting record- Hillary was to the right of Obama on some FP issues, to the left on some economic issues, and to the right on some civil liberties issues (but to the left on others) taken as a whole though each canidate was largely centrist- while Obama was wrongly viewed as massively progressive by some (in large part because of the rhetoric labeling him a socialist) both he and Clinton were moderates- its not like either of them was a Feingold or a Kucinich and pretending otherwise is just delusional.

    Parent
    People say a lot of things that have no basis (none / 0) (#28)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:02:27 AM EST
    in fact.

    Let's just keep listening. Eventually Hillary will have a chance to speak on her beliefs...may have to come in the form of her justifying what we do in another country, but we will hear from her just like we did recently on women's rights to choose.


    Parent

    Um (none / 0) (#40)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:25:50 AM EST
    the "poor people" requirement thing that your criticizing actually represents a part of the plan that Obama is adopting from Hillary's proposal- mandates ring a any bell's at all?

    Parent
    Um, (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:36:52 AM EST
    Did you read the Obama letter?  He would exempt the poor from having to obtain insurance....

    But I believe if we are going to make people responsible for owning health insurance, we must make health care affordable. If we do end up with a system where people are responsible for their own insurance, we need to provide a hardship waiver to exempt Americans who cannot afford it.

    In other words, those who can't afford healthcare are still going to get stiffed, they just aren't going to be penalized too, on top of being stiffed.

    Link and see paragraph 7

    Parent

    He spoke strongly against mandates (none / 0) (#67)
    by sallywally on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 06:48:44 PM EST
    throughout the primaries, as being a lessening of our "freedoms."

    Clinton was mandates, to be sure all were covered, and subsidies for those who couldn't afford insurance. But through the primaries her stances were to the left of Obama on about everything, which is why I supported her.

    Edwards had the idea for the public program. I thought it was a great idea, because it would've ended up putting the insurance industry out of business, which is exactly what they and the Repubs are whining about openly now in their opposition to the public option. They know very well what the real best form of health care would be, and it ain't them.

    Parent

    Hardly a reassuring or energy inspiring read (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:00:48 AM EST
    More cuts to Medicare......where is that possible anymore in any dollar meaningful manner that isn't going to endanger lives?  My tax dollar will go toward creating a new healthcare insurance shopping mall of sorts where I can go and can compare different plans and prices..........yippeee, just like Progressive auto insurance does.  Isn't that special?  That will really help all the people who can't even effing afford auto insurance let alone health insurance.  The only bright spot for me, insurance companies wouldn't be allowed to exclude pre-existing conditions from coverage AND THAT AIN'T MUCH HONEY BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE ANYPLACE WHERE THEY COULDN'T CHARGE THE SICK MORE MONEY FOR BEING SICK.  I mean, there would be a basic affordability package of some kind....whatever that is.....is that like getting the Volkswagon instead of the Cadillac though, cuz the Volkswagon did tend to vapor lock.

    Heh (none / 0) (#15)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:10:15 AM EST
    you just pointed out the fallacy of Health care insurance.  Do you use your car insurance to get your oil changed, tire rotated and balanced and other routines maintenance?  Why should Health care insurance be used for routine physicals, and shots?

    Parent
    Because preventive care (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:20:07 AM EST
    reduces health care costs. Even insurance companies have accepted this and promote getting regular check ups and shots.

    Parent
    You give insurance companies too (none / 0) (#22)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:44:41 AM EST
    much credit for being on the side of their members. Most people only do maintenance over the bulk of their lives. If all the insurance companies could sell were the major medical policies, they sure wouldn't have this control over us.

    There is absolutely nothing about annual checkups that prevents anything except the high risk of people seeing how much money they spend annually for that $200 service.


    Parent

    I don't give the insurance companies (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:56:30 AM EST
    ANY credit for being on the side of their members. They are only on the side of profits. Period. The End

    Some annual tests do reduce costs by identifying risks before they develop into full blown illness. Also, catching diseases at the earliest possible moment can make them more treatable and  eliminates long term expensive care.

    Many insurance companies pay 100% for annual preventive care tests etc.

    Parent

    The patients do that for themselves (none / 0) (#33)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:07:49 AM EST
    Preventive checkups don't.

    There are a very few routine tests done in a checkup and only those few conditions are looked for. People are getting far smarter about signs and symptoms to watch for and finding ways to reverse their symptoms.

    Parent

    You're (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:10:19 AM EST
    just plain wrong about that.  

    What about cancer checkups? (cervical, colon, breast, etc.)

    What about bloodwork that detects high cholesterol before heart disease symptoms appear?

    Those are just two examples of many.

    Parent

    That is incorrect (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:03:13 AM EST
    I have Hashimoto's thyroiditis (an autoimmune disease).  Without regular (preventive) bloodwork, where the TSH test detected the disease, my doc would still be telling me, Oh, you're just aging...most people get a little foggy as they age....while my cholesterol climbs and my heart attack risk climbs, and my risk of peripheral neuropathy climbs.  Now, because of preventive care and early detection, I take a pill that prevents or at least severely slows these effects.

    In addition, regular checkups detect early cancers, early heart disease, other autoimmune disease, etc, etc while they haven't yet done the severe damage that would not only be life-threatening, but more costly than early treatments.

    It's possible that yearly checkups aren't AS valuable when you're 20, but when you hit 30+, they literally become the life and cost-saver.

    Parent

    SO why should (none / 0) (#52)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 12:29:06 PM EST
    insurance pay for it?  If someone is willing to pay for physicals and shots them selves and save money on insurance, then why not?

    Parent
    Because it is one of the most cost effective (none / 0) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 12:53:00 PM EST
    parts of health insurance coverage and most people want that coverage. Many people would not get physicals or shots if they were not covered by insurance.

    If you can get health insurance that does not coverage physicals and shots because you personally are willing and able to incur these costs yourself, be my guest. Just don't want that to become standard coverage for the rest of us. I think you would find that the costs for the care would exceed any savings you may realize on savings on premiums.

    Parent

    Because people typically (none / 0) (#62)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 03:14:37 PM EST
    won't get preventive care unless insurance pays for it.  Then everyone in the pool is saddled with their costs when the person has unusual costs for a condition that might have been much more minor if caught early.

    E.g. Stage IV versus Stage I breast cancer.

    Parent

    You are absolutely right Wile (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:25:00 AM EST
    And that's why it is time for Universal healthcare.

    Parent
    How about (none / 0) (#50)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 12:27:17 PM EST
    where the customer choose what kind of coverage they want.  A male under thirty doesn't not want insurance to pay for a physical, then a plan that doesn't.  A female who don't want testicular cancer coverage then not.  Better to have the gov't choose for us right?  Why should anyone have to make any sort of decisions in life?  

    Parent
    Insurance companies are already (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 12:52:50 PM EST
    choosing for you, unless you can afford to tell them to take a flying leap.

    I work with a woman whose sister needs a hysterectomy.  She has spent years battling endometriosis, and has a fibroid tumor approaching orange size.  Her doctors have told her she needs the surgery.

    Her insurance company - surprise! - will not authorize payment for the surgery unless and until she has - and I am not kidding here - a combination of 15 different tests/medications first, ranging from vaginal sonograms (at the top of the list) to a medication that costs $1,000 to an MRI (the last thing before they will give the go-ahead).

    Aside from the cost of having all the tests - costs that include co-pays that my friend's sister has to pay, plus the cost of what the insurance company will pay - there is the discomfort of jumping through all these hoops, the time she has to take off work, the paperwork that has to be done by various providers along the way - AND she is going to have to have the surgery in the end - she has gotten several opinions to that effect, but the insurance company is hoping, I think, that they can find some reason to deny her this treatment.  But they might not have to deny it, because my friend's sister is so overwhelmed with what they are forcing her to do that she's not doing anything.  Which is probably exactly what the insurance company wants, which should tell everyone just how little interest these companies have in actual HEALTH CARE.

    Does this make any sense to anyone?  Seriously, what does any of this have to do with quality health care?  

    So, you might want to consider how much rationing and denial of coverage is going on at the hands of private insurance companies before you start with the "ooh, the government will be choosing your doctors and rationing care and denying you services" baloney.  

    Parent

    Tricare is always choosing to tell (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    me to shove off, we lost that PAPERWORK again, we never received that request, that prescription isn't covered, that doctor isn't in our system, that condition isn't considered life threatening......only life demeaning therefore screw you.

    Parent
    If you know anything about Medicare (none / 0) (#72)
    by sallywally on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 07:40:41 PM EST
    you know there is the more freedom in that program than anywhere else.

    The govt isn't choosing your docs, like the insurance companies do, and the govt gives better coverage to everyone than the insurance companies do - because their costs are lower than those of the insurance companies who make giant profits and incur tons of administrative costs trying to deny care even for the benefits that are supposedly covered.

    The Medicare Modernization Act specifically denies to Medicare BY LAW the ability to negotiate lower drug prices with the drug companies - something, however, that the insurance companies are allowed to do, and do do.

    The reason the insurance companies are so loudly opposing the public option is that they know that in a little time everyone will choose it over them - they are even openly saying that now.

    That should tell us a great deal.

    Parent

    Lot's of accuracy in what you say, but (none / 0) (#76)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:38:40 PM EST
    many doctors will not take Medicare patients. I will say, though, that Medicare covers almost everything. For all the tests and doctors and two 12 day hospital stays in less than a year my mother had, they never denied anything. My parents do have supplemental, so it cost them $200 a month in insurance, and they paid less than $100 in uncovered expenses over the entire time. No co-pays, no deductible, no worries. For all the reasons we had to be concerned, getting the bill paid was not one of them.

    Parent
    dkdkd (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:43:51 AM EST
    That's an apples to oranges comparison.  Changing the oil doesn't prevent a car accident (typically).

    Preventive care, however, prevents expensive medical bills in many cases.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#51)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 12:27:56 PM EST
    love the (typically) and many use.  

    Parent
    I know Wile (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 02:31:16 PM EST
    We are all so messed up around here.  And the party that most of us supports around here ignored an emminent terrorist attack because we felt it was sort of a grayish matter, blew up Iraq, blew up everyone's retirement possibilities, and blew up the American economy and the global economy through finally getting the unilateral opportunity to be able to apply our black and white world view schtick in one terrific moment of blazing glory.  Please go sell crazy elsewhere

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#69)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 07:05:21 PM EST
    eminent or imminent crazy?

    Parent
    It is becoming clearer to me with every (5.00 / 10) (#24)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:52:32 AM EST
    passing day that Obama doesn't really understand the problems with health care or the solutions to people getting affordable access to all levels of care, to having insurance, getting insurance and paying for insurance.  What he does understand, what too many members of Congress understand, is that the territory currently occupied by the private insurance companies must be preserved, and if there is to be any outrage over that, it should be that he is willing to impose more taxes that you know and I know will find their way into the pockets of insurance companies that have done nothing to improve access to and delivery of health CARE.

    Does Obama even understand how much money could be saved if no matter what doctor, hospital, therapist, pharmacy you went to, there was one standard form for you or the provider to submit?  And that form went to the same place, or one of five regional offices?  Does Obama understand how many hours could be allocated to actual care if this massive overhead were to more or less disappear?

    Probably the most ridiculous thing he says in that letter is that we must exempt from any requirement to have insurance those people who cannot afford it.  Hello?!?  Doesn't this continue the cycle of people getting their care in the ER and passing the costs on to those who do have insurance?  Isn't the point of reforming the system to make sure that everyone is covered, that spreading the risk over such an inclusive pool lowers the cost to everyone?

    One of the things I have not heard Obama address has to do with requiring that no one can be denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions or high risk.  So what happens when Insurance Company A looks at its statistics and decides that it is having to insure a disproportionately large group of people with serious or chronic or care-intensive conditions?  How do they calculate rates?  Will they just keep raising rates on the sick people until they can no longer afford it?  And then what?

    Looking at where things are here, at the beginning of June, I cannot in my wildest dreams envision that there will be a real plan - meaning one that actually will work - that will be voted on and signed into law before the August recess.

    It is a travesty and an outrage that from the top on down to the staffer level, the Obama administration and our elected representatives have shut single payer advocates out of the room, and have refused to entertain a serious look at the advantages of a single-payer system.  I am not fooled, and neither should anyone else be, by the use of the term "public option;" as long as it's just one of many hundreds of plans, it's not single payer.

    And now that I see some of you have invoked Hillary's name, let me just say that while I also do not know exactly what she would be proposing, I do know that she was and is a complete wonk on health care, knew it frontwards, backwards and sideways, which gave her the ability to call BS on what obviously is BS, and Obama doesn't - and it shows.  

    I look for McCain to lead the task force on the taxation of health care benefits, and for there to be some sort of collective amnesia that Obama came out strongly against it during the campaign; but, what the heck, maybe this is just another of those things that, upon further reflection, he thinks the Republicans had the right idea about.

    Anne, do you read Black Agenda Report? (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 01:22:22 PM EST
    I just discovered it a few weeks ago - it's not linked by most progressive (cough) blogs. Long story short, Black Agenda Report is extraordinarily critical of Obama's non-Democratic, neo-Republican governance.

    BAR has a current column about the blind allegiance of many Obama supporters despite his reversals and lack of follow-through on campaign promises: Obamanity: The Religion of Complcity. I especially appreciate the wit of the first line:

    Change you can believe in or beliefs you can change? With each day that passes the second part of that question seems to grow stronger and stronger. I have never seen anything quite like the continued cultish fanfare surrounding the 44th President of the United States of America. [snip]

    Unfortunately most Obama supporters seem to have not taken notice of the lack of "change" that was promised to them during his Wall Street-orchestrated campaign. They apparently overlooked the fact that he was once opposed to things such as military tribunals and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - and now, presto, he is for them. He was billed as the anti-war candidate, but has spent more money on military than the intellectually challenged George W. Bush ever did. Through it all, Obama supporters remain faithful to their leader. [snip]

    I am quite sure that, had John McCain become president and proceeded to vastly expand the "Af-Pak" theater of war, today's Obama supporters would be outraged. A President McCain would [also] have faced universal Black condemnation for boycotting a United Nations conference on racism.

    But the first Black president's legions are caught up in religion: Obamanity. And as long as they are irrationally hooked on this particular opiate, no substantive change is possible.



    Parent
    So many blogs...so little time. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 02:15:35 PM EST
    I have not read BAR - heard of it, seen links to it - but that's usually as far as I get.

    I'll give it a look - thanks for the suggestion!

    Parent

    Black Agenda Report (none / 0) (#68)
    by otherlisa on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 07:00:38 PM EST
    IIRC, said Obama was Wall Street's stealth candidate from the get-go.

    Parent
    OL, do you have a link to that particular column? (none / 0) (#74)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:19:46 PM EST
    Or do you recall the context, or any other details that I could use to help locate it?

    In general, numerous Black Agenda Report articles have made the point that corporate America was sold on  Obama - even prior to his convention speech in '04.

    I get the impression that BAR doesn't have to hold back because its editorial staff has the moral authority, if you will, to just speak the unvarnished truth as they see it. For that reason, it's become my daily reality check. Lots of jaw-dropping stuff.

    Parent

    The problem with the insurance industry (none / 0) (#43)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:34:25 AM EST
    is that its such a large employer in so many states that even excluding its overt monetary corruption of the political process it is able to exert influence over much of congress (on both the left and the right) simply due to its size- I mean actually shifting to a public system would save ridiculous sums of money in admin costs but would also cost quite a few jobs (not that this should be an impediment- but think about how hard it would be to sell the loss of say 1-200,000 jobs right now- many would ideally be reabsorbed to adminster a public system- but there would undeniably be quite a few that would be eliminated- indeed that would be one of the primary cost savings of said system).

    Parent
    Less Medicare and Medicaid? (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Sweet Sue on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 01:43:49 PM EST
    Medicare now doesn't pay for dental work or eyeglasses, two of the most basic needs for all elderly people. What else are they going to cut out? Why is it always the poor and most vulnerable that are sacrificed on the altar of unrestrained capitalism?
    When are we going to smarten up?

    I wonder (none / 0) (#66)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 06:15:20 PM EST
    how we might have done with Clinton instead of Obama.

    Parent
    I thought (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:34:54 AM EST
    The letter was pretty good at face value.  If that's what we actually get.  I am a little more optimistic on this issue than some, mainly because I trust Ted Kennedy on this and I see it as his last big hurrah before he leaves the senate.  He is not gonna want to mess this up.  And he will have a lot of leverage getting other senators on board.

    They better not tax health benefits.  That would be beyond stupid - and counter-intuitive for a pol being a pol.  Talk about a vote loser.

    Kenndy is the one (none / 0) (#35)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:15:26 AM EST
    who shoved the medicare modernization act on us.  It is the privitization of medicare and it is a disaster. Why would you trust him?
    I not only do not trust him, I don't like him anymore.

    Parent
    Agree to disagree (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by CST on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:27:41 AM EST
    On Kennedy.

    I trust him because he has been a great senator for a long time and this is his "pet" issue.  He has done a ton for healthcare over the years, not everything perfect, but a whole lot of good.

    He also "shoved" the Child Care Act, the Ryan White AIDS Care Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and the Mental Health Parity Act on us, just to name a few.

    Parent

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#44)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:36:07 AM EST
    Kennedy's also almost definitely the strongest progessive healthcare advocate in congress and has been for decades, I mean I'd like to be able to point to another person who was less co-opted and industry friendly but frankly I can't think of one.

    Parent
    Bush shoved that on us (none / 0) (#70)
    by sallywally on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 07:07:12 PM EST
    it was going to fail and he and the Repubs kept the vote open for hours, and Bush came to the Senate in the middle of the night, I think, and there were threats against one of the Repub Senators who was against the plan that they would trash his son's political campaign if he, the father, didn't vote for it.

    I don't know what Kennedy's role was in it but I do know that with a Repub majority it was going to go down in the Senate until the Repubs did very reprehensible stuff literally in the middle of the night!

    Parent

    Why Not Tax Health Care Benefits? (none / 0) (#27)
    by SomewhatChunky on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:58:40 AM EST
    Health care benefits are compensation.  If not, what are they?  In general, the US taxes compensation.

    As a rational employee, I might evaluate a compensation package with a lower salary and great health care benefits as equivalent to one with no health care and a higher salary.

    If one is worried about affordability, you can deal with that.  Under the federal graduated tax system many people don't pay any federal taxes.

    Now, someone not working has to buy health care with after-tax dollars while many employees get it with pre-tax dollars.  That doesn't seem right.

    Just because something has always been doesn't mean it should always be.

    What are the rational arguments here?

    Because (none / 0) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:05:57 AM EST
    It's an extremely regressive tax.  Let me know if you don't understand why.  And it's because healthcare is already unaffordable.  Taxing healthcare would only make it more so.

    Parent
    And... (none / 0) (#38)
    by SomewhatChunky on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:23:43 AM EST
    The tax code is progressive and it appears it is likely to become more so in the near future.  What percentage of Americans will pay no income tax?  It seems like there are ways to deal with that issue.

    Lots of things are unaffordable or expensive.  Even necessities.  Food for one.  The affordability argument could be applied to many things.  What matters to you might not matter as much to me or others.

    I still don't understand the rationale why this particular area of compensation should be exempt from taxes other than it has always been so.

    Parent

    The tax code (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:42:51 AM EST
    is regressive, so you're arguing that it makes sense to add more regressive tax to it.

    Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, and do so based on your argument.  Living in this country is already unaffordable, so adding one more unaffordable thing to it makes no sense.  

    We'll bail out banks, but we'll tax people's right to be healthy.  It's yet another doohnibor.  We seem to have adopted many new doonibor strategies in the last 5 months.  If you like them, that's fine.  Have your candidates run on them, rather than lie about them and implement them once elected.

    For instance, candidate Obama slammed McCain for proposing taxing healthcare benefits.  See my You Tube link above.  Why is it okay now?

    Parent

    "regressive"??? (none / 0) (#75)
    by diogenes on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 10:20:58 PM EST
    The top 50% of earners pay 97% of all federal income taxes; the top 25% pay 86% of all federal income taxes.  If you made health insurance taxable the half of the people would pay no income tax on it though they would pay 7% social security tax.  Hardly back-breaking.

    Parent
    this seems more republican (none / 0) (#36)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 11:17:19 AM EST
    in nature than a move towards a more liberal healthcare system... just what I would expect from the candidate with more corporate support than alll the others.

    Yep, this plan looks (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 02:30:58 PM EST
    like it has been bought and paid for -- and so we will see another generation go by without the health care plan that this country needs, and not only for the health of its citizens but also for a healthier economy.

    How many more generations will go by?  It already has been three generations, sixty years, since a Dem president said it had to happen.  But so far, I see only one that made any real effort, and the effect of that has been far-reaching, as it led to the insanity that meant that he and his wife were demonized even by Dems.

    We will not see that sort of courage again, as this last campaign put an end to courageous Dems, once and for all.

    Parent

    Under what system are people not responsible (none / 0) (#63)
    by masslib on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 04:11:27 PM EST
    for their own health coverage?  I mean, even in a single payer system, people are responsible for paying taxes.  Just wondering what sort of system there is where people are irresponsible for their health care coverage.

    I posted about The Letter at Corrente, and Hippar- (none / 0) (#64)
    by jawbone on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 05:14:25 PM EST
    chia has some excellent comments which explicate some of the terminology. Of course, we're all just trying to piece together What Obama Really Means since he doesn't come out with much that can't be weaseled or spun or denied later when he talks about health insurance reform. Not health CARE.

    Just reading your summary (none / 0) (#65)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 06:14:10 PM EST
    above - it's seems as if we can forget about health care.
    Taxing health benefits? Did I read that correctly?

    If it has a public plan, I'm in favor (none / 0) (#77)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 12:59:15 AM EST
    If not, not.  Although I have to agree with the Republicans and private insurers, it would be a terrible tragedy if they were essentially driven out of business by Medicare ... ha ha ha.

    So far good enough ... not good enough to make me optimistic yet, but then I'm a tough sell.  

    Obama Releases Some Details of Health Care Plan | 79 comments (79 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment