Republicans for health-care reform
Funny how Republicans whose jobs or health coverage are in jeopardy favor health-insurance reform in Washington. I've talked to one such family in recent months. Here's another instance. John Hewko, who was a Bush appointee and had to leave government when the administration changed, faces either being uncovered when his COBRA option runs out or enormous premiums from CareFirst BlueCross Blueshield -- as much as $3,000 a month for his family. CareFirst rejected him for standard coverage, he says, because of two pre-existing conditions -- stiffness in his shoulder and hip "for which I take an occasional Advil," and mild high blood pressure.
I am a Republican who did not vote for President Obama, but I support his health-care initiative because I have just experienced first-hand our system's dysfunctional wrath -- and it isn't pretty.
Like a good Republican, he attacks the Democrats for not including tort reform in their bill. Tort reform needs to be done, but it's really a sideshow to fixing the health insurance system. The billions that would be saved through fixing the malpractice system are substantial but not the main game, as I've written.
At the very most, tort reform would deliver a one-time, 7-percent reduction in medical costs, estimates Gerard Anderson, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. That's how much costs are going up each and every year. The lack of tort reform is not a reason not to pass health-care reform. Hewko doesn't come out and say so, but I bet he agrees.
Comments
What does "health reform" mean? If the words appear in a dead fish wrapper one can assume it means increased government regulation, higher costs and higher taxes.
I'm all for health care reform too but to me reform would deregulate the industry and increase customer choice. How is it reform to make the health care delivery system even more convoluted? Makes no sense to me but admittedly I haven't spent sufficient time in the halls of congress to be properly indoctrinated.
Posted by: Dan | October 19, 2009 9:31 AM
% of Medical Costs
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX
| XXXX________xxxx____
Insurance.......Frivolous
Inefficiency.....Lawsuits
A conservative Republican is someone who looks at the chart above and shouts, "We gotta do something about those frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits!!!"
Posted by: John Frum | October 19, 2009 3:37 PM
"deregulate the (health) industry and increase consumer choice" Check your BGE bill, Dan. It didn't work for energy and there's no reason to think it would work for health care.
Posted by: MikeA | October 19, 2009 4:27 PM
If only Health Care could be as competitive as energy supply. According to my latest BGE bill natural gas is selling for 51 cents per therm, down 67% from its 2008 high and selling far below its price from 2 years ago. The rate I am paying for electricity is also lower than it has ever been in the past 24 months.
Most important of all, I have the freedom to choose how to set my thermostat to balance my desire for comfort with the cost of heating or cooling my house. By making some sacrifices my utility bill is half of what my neighbors pay.
Where is the incentive in "health care reform" for individuals to decrease their health care consumption? How are individuals rewarded for being judicious in their lifestyle choices?
What I would not give for a health care system where patients paid out of pocket for all incidental expenses and relied on insurance only for surgery, hospitalization and extensive treatments. Where is the health insurance option that allows one to assume greater liability in return for lower premiums? My home and auto insurance offer this option. Will ObamaCare? The fact that this is not even discussed indicates health care reform is just more of the same and worse.
Posted by: Dan | October 19, 2009 9:15 PM
I don't support Obamacare, which has been an evolving entity. I think that the public option is a transparent Trojan Horse for eventual government take over. The philosophy is not to strive for medical excellence, but to provide mediocrity for all. Tort reform is totally AWOL. For some physician candor, visit www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com
Posted by: Michael Kirsch, M.D | October 20, 2009 7:54 AM
Mr. Hewko now knows what it's like for so many others. It's unfortunate that it took personal experience to generate the outrage. He needs to really study the issue now.
Read reports from the Kaiser Family Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and briefs from Health Affairs Magazine. [I have put together a set of non-partisan, authoritative resources at http://www.dcoheninfo.com/infoscope/2009/2009_4_Autumn_INFOSCOPE.pdf ]
Also, read the report - from the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATIOIN "Competition in Health Insurance" http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/compstudy_52006.pdf which demonstrates why we need a public plan, or VERY heavy industry regulation - both principles that Republicans disavow - to stem the insurance oligopoly.
Mr. Hewko may find that many of the other beliefs he held while in his secure bubble are not grounded in everyday reality for the majority of Americans.
Posted by: Donna | October 20, 2009 1:56 PM
I am surprised that so many people are touting 'competition' and 'deregulation' as the solution to our health care problems. We already have competition, as you are free to buy any policy you can personally afford, and suffer the consequences if you can't afford any. And deregulation did such wonderful things for your electric bill, did it not? Sheesh. Free market zealots clearly accept no information from outside their own heads.
Posted by: CF | October 20, 2009 3:35 PM
What we really need is a US version of Britain's National Health Service. We would need a bit more than $900 billion per year to fully fund a US version of the British National Health Service (universal health care) - $900 billion per year in total, not $900 billion in addition to our current spending.
In 2007, the combined Federal, State, and local government expenditure on health care was $1035.7 billion. So, we can fully nationalize health care with the US National Health Service, and cut government health care spending by about $100 billion per year at the same time. No additional tax source is needed.
Additionally, adopting a US version of Britain's National Health Service will free up more than $1.2 trillion per year in private funds no longer needed to pay for - largely illusory - private health insurance.
Adopting a US version of Britain's National Health Service will also save the lives of nearly 6000 infants per year - infants currently being sacrificed on the black altar of amoral corporate greed.
The bottom line is that we are already paying for universal health care, we just aren't receiving it.
/Data from: the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, National Health Statistics Group; U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis; the U.S. Bureau of the Census; the U.K. National Health Service; and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.
Posted by: AC | October 20, 2009 5:20 PM
Tort reform is a must. If we are going to try to fix the system then why do it piecemeal? Let's get it all done so we can try to get this behind us.
Posted by: Queen Creek CPA | January 30, 2010 10:08 AM