Health Care Reform

[WakeUp]

Originally Posted by Lonewarrior

God (yhvh/Jehovah ) will most likely bust Obama in the junk...the filthy leftist prays to Allah or Rev Wright's god when in need.

You're wrong, LW.

No matter how often you repeat a lie, it's still a lie.

[WakeUp]

Buffett sits in on Neb. health care reform meeting

Associated Press
By MARGERY A. GIBBS ,
08.19.09, 07:33 PM EDT

OMAHA, Neb. -- It's almost unthinkable that billionaire investor Warren Buffett would be turned away from an event, especially in his hometown of Omaha. But he wasn't taking any chances Wednesday.

Buffett says he called organizers of U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson's town hall meeting on health care reform to make sure he could get a seat.

He did - in the front row.

He offered no opinion on the meeting or proposed health care reform, but he did say he "learned a lot about what's on people's minds."

Buffett could have more than a passing interest in the debate.

His company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. ( BRK - news - people ), generates about half its revenue from insurance businesses, although most don't deal in health insurance. One subsidiary, Medical Protective Co., does sell medical malpractice insurance.

[WakeUp]

Centrists may hold key to health care overhaul

By MARGERY A. GIBBS (AP) – 4 hours ago

OMAHA, Neb. — With the national debate on health care reform growing more belligerent, many believe congressional centrists could hold the key to salvaging a plan.

But U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a Democrat and potential swing vote, took a careful approach as he held his first forum Wednesday on the subject.

And he offered only a lukewarm response to a proposal by another moderate Democrat, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, to create consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives.

Nelson answered carefully when asked if those toward the center would be able to wrest the health care debate from the fringes, although he has long prided himself on being able to bridge the partisan divide.

The goal is to "try to find a way to be friendly to the process to get something that makes sense," but not pass something ill-advised, Nelson said.

His remarks came as Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., announced that a bipartisan group of three Democrats and three Republicans is on track to craft comprehensive health care reform that can pass a divided Senate.

Conrad, who was holding his own town hall meeting Wednesday, said he believes any headway will come from the Senate Finance Committee.

"The truth is, the Democrats don't have 60 votes," he said. "If we're going to get 60 votes, we're going to need help."

Nelson, one of the more conservative Democrats, has not been an enthusiastic supporter of the Democratic-backed health care overhaul plan. His position as a potential swing vote has drawn national attention to Nebraska, with competing groups launching television ad campaigns in recent weeks. That led Nelson to air his own ad assuring residents that he will only support a plan that keeps spending under control, helps small businesses and "works for Nebraska."

So far, he has not found a proposal he is willing to back.

Nelson has expressed concern that a so-called public option, which would create a government-run insurance plan to compete with those offered by the health insurance industry, would eventually lead to a single-payer, federal health care system — a possibility he has called a "deal breaker."

He didn't write off entirely the idea of cooperatives, which would sell insurance in competition with private industry in a plan designed to replace the public option proposal. He noted that Blue Cross Blue Shield got its start as a co-op and acknowledged the success of some other health care cooperatives.

"I've talked to Senator Conrad about it," Nelson said. "I want to make sure it will work."

Nelson was an insurance lawyer and consultant before he entered politics and served as executive vice president of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. He was also a former Nebraska insurance commissioner.

Some groups say his insurance background and the campaign contributions he has received from that industry could skew his perspective. Nelson says his lengthy association with the insurance industry makes him more knowledgeable on the issue.

More than 1,000 people showed up for his meeting held in an Omaha lecture hall that could hold only 350.

Overflow crowds filed into adjourning rooms where they could hear audio of the meeting. Still others were forced to linger outside.

Such a meeting led by a Democrat in Nebraska — long considered a Republican bastion — would seem ripe for the same raucous shouting matches seen at other public meetings in recent weeks. But the most volume came from occasional applause from both sides of the debate and a brief clamor between two questioners toward the end of the meeting.

Nelson said he never expected problems. He does, however, have eight more meetings to go through September.

[WakeUp]

Healthcare reform can survive without a public plan

LA Times
August 19, 2009

The online poll accompanying my column today asks whether healthcare reform is still possible without a public plan. Last time I checked, more than three-quarters of the hundreds of respondents said no. I'm also getting swamped with e-mail from readers such as Russ, who says that "without a strong public option, there is no healthcare reform. None."

I respectfully disagree. I too believe that a public option would be best -- I've supported a Medicare-for-all approach for years. But is healthcare reform DOA without a public plan? No. It will just take a different form. Maybe not a preferable form, but hopefully something that can still address our core problems: the roughly 47 million who lack coverage, runaway medical costs and discriminatory pricing for people with health issues or a preexisting condition.

If we can't come up with a reform package that tackles those problems, then I'll agree that we've failed at what could be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to overhaul our healthcare system. But I remain hopeful that remedies can be found -- perhaps not comprehensive solutions, but at least some way of making our system more equitable and accessible.

A public plan would be great. But change is still possible without one.

[MrSteveman1]

Originally Posted by Lonewarrior

God (yhvh/Jehovah ) will most likely bust Obama in the junk...the filthy leftist prays to Allah or Rev Wright's god when in need.

God should have swung the election the other direction then, it would have been much easier.

Oh wait, is this 2009? God no longer swings elections, but nut-busting is still on the table. Gotcha.

[Lonewarrior]

Originally Posted by WakeUp

You're wrong, LW.

No matter how often you repeat a lie, it's still a lie.

Wrong again..you radical leftists destroy everything your ideology touches ...that is no lie and history can prove this.
This health care bill is an attempt to curtail freedom and anyone with any sense sees right through the lies...a huge reason you leftists are being seen by the American people for what you really are..along with that radical racist Obama.

[Lonewarrior]

Originally Posted by MrSteveman1

God should have swung the election the other direction then, it would have been much easier.

Oh wait, is this 2009? God no longer swings elections, but nut-busting is still on the table. Gotcha.

Wait until 2010...things will be swinging the other way.

[Cleo]

There definitely does need to be some kind of reform...but the health care bill in its current form isn't it.

[Lonewarrior]

Originally Posted by Cleo

There definitely does need to be some kind of reform...but the health care bill in its current form isn't it.

I could not agree more...
tax cuts would be a great start as well as lifting some of those regulations.

Here is a great piece which I just read about on Heritage.

Freedom of Choice

Most American businesses operate in something closely resembling a free market: Consumers are free to pick and choose goods and services. Thus, consumers have the ultimate say about what succeeds and what fails in sectors such as cars; fashion; music; restaurants; and financial services; as well as in other areas of insurance, such as auto, life, and homeowners insurance. Yet, this fundamental principle is absent from the health insurance market in the following ways:

Limited Choice. Free market forces, driven by consumer decision-making, do not operate in America's private health insurance system. Soon after World War II, Congress made changes to the tax code that tied a patient's access to health insurance to his or her employer. Under the current legal regime, the employer buys a worker's health plan, determining what it will cover and how much it will cost. The key decisions are made by employers, not patients.

No Portability of Coverage. In the current system, the worker pays for the health insurance policy (which is part of his compensation), but the employer owns it. Therefore, workers cannot take their policies with them if they change jobs. Even if it offers the same package of benefits, buying a health insurance policy outside of work can cost up to 50 percent more than getting it through an employer. The lack of a tax benefit puts the cost of individual health insurance out of reach for many people.

Problems of Conscience. Some patients have moral or religious objections to what is included in their health insurance packages. According to a 2003 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, for example, 46 percent of workers getting health insurance from their employer are also paying for abortions through their premiums. Workers who find this objectionable are powerless to change it because, in most cases, they have no choice about the health insurance they get at their place of work. They get what their employer gives them.

Federal Steps to Expand Choice

Congress should consider the following steps for expanding personal choice and portability in health care coverage:

Create a federal health care tax credit that offers the same tax benefit for buying health insurance on the individual market that is currently available only for buying through an employer.
Allow people to own their own health insurance, without a tax or regulatory penalty, which would allow them to keep it no matter where or whether they work. This would enable individuals and families to carry their coverage from job to job without changing their health care policy. This would mean true portability in coverage.
Remove statutory prohibitions and any tax or regulatory penalties that apply when individuals and families want to buy health insurance sold in another state.
State Steps to Expand Choice

States should consider the following options for expanding personal choice and portability of coverage within their borders. It should be noted that some states are already pursuing these goals.

Creating a Health Insurance Exchange. Unless and until Congress changes the tax treatment of health insurance at the federal level and creates direct and individual tax relief for individuals and families, real consumer choice will not drive the health insurance markets.

In the absence of this kind of federal tax reform, one promising idea being advanced by forward-looking state legislators is the creation of a "health insurance exchange." Basically, this would work like a "stock exchange" for health plans. Consumers would buy the health plans they want, and employers would make a defined contribution to the "exchange" to cover the cost of the chosen plan.

Under this approach, the "exchange" would be designated as the employer's plan under federal law; therefore, the employer's contribution and the value of the employee's chosen plan would be tax free under federal law. The key change is that the employee--not the employer--owns the health plan and can take it from job to job. Thus, a statewide health insurance exchange would make health plans both personal and portable.

Reviewing and Repealing State Mandates. State mandates are laws that require insurance policies to cover specific benefits or medical services. Nationwide, there are almost 2,000 state-legislated health insurance mandates. Some of them are ethically objectionable or controversial. In vitro fertilization, for instance, is mandated in 13 states; contraceptives, in 30. State officials should identify and repeal costly, outdated, unnecessary, or ethically objectionable or controversial benefit and provider mandates.

Endless Possibilities

Taken together, these federal and state reforms would expand personal ownership and control of health insurance. Needless to say, these changes would be opposed by many big institutions that profit under the status quo, especially firms that would be forced to change their way of doing business. Under such reforms, individuals and families would become the key decision-makers, and companies would have to compete for their business. But when companies compete, customers win.

Although big change would not happen overnight, such reforms would bring real freedom of choice to health care. The possibilities would be endless. For example, a faith-based fraternal organization might decide to sponsor a health insurance plan consonant with the ethical and moral values of that faith. Persons from all over the country could buy the health plans that they wanted. Large, national pooling arrangements would develop, and costs would come down.

How Individuals and Families Can Help

The first step toward changing the status quo is becoming informed. A citizen can learn about his or her health insurance situation in the following ways:

First, workers should ask their employers whether their plans require workers to pay for abortions or others services that they find morally objectionable.

Second, citizens should find out who in the state makes regulations that affect insurance and how those regulations affect patients and health plan premiums. In some states, citizens elect an insurance commissioner; in others, the governor appoints one. In some states, legislatures enact mandates; in others, the insurance commissioner simply imposes them.

Third, individuals and families should become familiar with their states' insurance mandates. These mandates force patients to pay for benefits or services that they do not want or find morally objectionable. If a state is considering a health insurance exchange, individuals, families, and policymakers have an opportunity to examine the entire insurance system. They can learn about objectionable mandates and ask their legislators to remove them.

Conclusion

The conservative alternative to "socialized medicine" is giving individuals and families the freedom to choose the health care that they trust. Policymakers at both the federal and the state level have many options for restoring freedom of choice to the private health insurance system. Citizens have a critical role to play by becoming informed and pressuring lawmakers to remove the regulations and policies that restrict personal choice.

Connie Marshner is a Visiting Fellow for Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm1739.cfm

[Cleo]

Originally Posted by Lonewarrior

I could not agree more...
tax cuts would be a great start as well as lifting some of those regulations.

Here is a great piece which I just read about on Heritage.

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm1739.cfm

The government can't run the government much less enter into a business...the insurance business. Medicaid and Medicare were started by the government...and need to be reworked. Social security was started by the government and it's damn near broke.

I don't need the government telling me how to take care of my health...the bill in its current form would like to cut my life short...I gotta whole lotta livin' left to do.

If you don't take the time to study the health care bill it looks ok. And I'm guessing the folks on the Hill didn't want us to read it. I'm guessing someone on the Hill just wanted everyone to say "ok fine...where do I sign."

With the pres wanting this bill signed so hastily...I understand better now when John Kerry said "I was for it before I was against it." He must have been confronted with something amounting to 2500 pages and his lunch hour to read it and sign off on it.