jump to navigation

Even the unions are against “reforming” health care! September 28, 2009

Posted by vsap in Blogroll, Financial Crisis, US Politics, Uncategorized.
Tags:
5 comments

Two things: Let’s look at shrinking support for any health care reform plan and how local unions in Milwaukee are recoiling against it.

From Kent Hoover at Buffalo Business First, published September 25 (bold is mine):

“The patient is still in the operating room, and the prognosis is not good.

That’s where health care reform lies today, according to many business groups that hoped for a better outcome. Their view is shared by most Americans: 54 percent of U.S. adults don’t think Congress will pass health care reform this year, according to a survey conducted this month by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions.

This is a dramatic turnaround from earlier this year, when most experts inside the Beltway thought health care reform was inevitable, and the concept had overwhelming support among the general public.

Many lobbyists for small businesses and other employers blame Congress for overreaching. It should have focused on insurance market reforms aimed at lowering premiums and ending the ability of insurers to deny or price coverage because of health status.

Instead, Congress embarked on a complete overhaul of the health care system that would give the federal government too much power and cost hundreds of billions dollars more than was necessary, they contend.

“That’s why this whole thing is blowing up,” said James Gelfand, senior manager of health policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “They have to start over.”

“We’re kind of disappointed that Congress has wasted so much time with overblown bills that had no hope of enactment,” said Neil Trautwein, senior vice president and employee benefits counsel for the National Retail Federation.

“I think Congress blew it, basically,” said Karen Kerrigan, president/CEO of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council.

Political pressures may drive Congress to pass some modest reforms just to get something to President Barack Obama’s desk, but it’s not clear whether those reforms actually would reduce the cost of health insurance for employers, Kerrigan said.”

Then there’s this from Corinne Hess at the Business Journal of Milwaukee demonstrating how “health care reform” gets down to the local level and unions don’t like it:

“When the U.S. Senate Finance Committee gave the nation a glimpse at what health care reform could look like with the release of a proposed $856 billion, 10-year bill, it alienated a key segment of reform supporters: labor unions.

The bill would call for paying for reform in part by a tax on so-called “luxury” health insurance plans exceeding $21,000 for a family and $8,000 for individuals.

The average cost of a family health insurance plan in Wisconsin is $13,800. Unions, however, typically have richer benefits exceeding the cap set in the Finance Committee bill.

“Unions have been the backbone of the health reform movement,” said Robert Kraig, program director for Citizen Action of Wisconsin, an 89,000-member coalition from across the state. “They have said all along that everyone should have access to the quality, affordable care that they are fortunate to have. To turn around and tax them is a disservice.”

The Senate Finance Committee began debating the draft health care bill Sept. 22. Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Montana, released the bill Sept. 16, and almost immediately amended portions of it after criticism from his fellow Democrats that the measure didn’t do enough to assist moderate-income Americans.

Baucus still wants to impose a tax on high-cost health plans starting in 2013, but has increased the thresholds for plans covering retirees over the age of 55 and those covering people in certain high-risk occupations like law enforcement and construction.

The increase for such plans would be raised by $750 for individual coverage and $2,000 for family coverage.

The amendment does little to help other unions, such as the Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association (MTEA).

The 5,600 members of the union are offered health insurance worth $24,000 per year for family coverage and $10,800 for individual coverage. About 60 percent of members have family plans.

If those plans were taxed, younger, healthier teachers would likely not accept the district insurance and seek less expensive coverage, driving up rates even faster for the people remaining in the plan, said Joan Heithoff, assistant executive director of MTEA.

Teachers have long accepted pay raises well below the consumer price index in exchange for good benefits and should not be penalized now because of it, Heithoff said.

“Our benefits are pretty much in line with surrounding school districts,” she said. “We have to offer this in order to attract quality teachers and remain competitive.”

The luxury health plans targeted in the Senate Finance bill are the type of health insurance plans people in every other industrialized country have and what most Americans enjoyed before health care costs skyrocketed, said David Newby, president of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO, a federation of more than 1,000 local unions.

“The whole notion of taxing health insurance points out once again the problem of thinking in terms of reforming health insurance rather than the entire health care system,” Newby said.”

Continue to fight against anything other than health insurance reform focused on reducing premiums and keeping insurers from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

Krauthammer nails it (again) September 22, 2009

Posted by vsap in 2008 Presidential Election, Blogroll, Financial Crisis, US Politics, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , ,
1 comment so far

Dr. Charles Krauthammer is a Fox News contributor and syndicated columnist. He is an M.D. and a lawyer. He is paralyzed from the neck down.

A friend went to hear Charles Krauthammer. He said:

“Last Monday was a profound evening, Dr. Charles Krauthammer spoke to the Center for the American Experiment. He is a brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative, and has received a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post. The entire room was held spellbound during his talk.

I have summarized his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally. Even 2 Democrats at my table agreed with everything he said!

1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn’t show his emotions. It’s very hard to know what’s behind the mask. The taking down of the Clinton dynasty was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.

2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton . He has a way of making you think he’s on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!

3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can’t be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada .

4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn’t care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada . God forbid!

5. He (Obama) has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can’t work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist; rather he’s a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.

6. Obama doesn’t really see himself as President of the United States, but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America , as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!

7. He (Obama) is now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not come due until after he is reelected in 2012. He would like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Dr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.

8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. Republicans are pining for another Reagan, but there will never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and state’s rights.

9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don’t have. This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn’t work, nor will the stimulus package.These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama’s allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.

10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.

11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it’s under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it’s between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy.

I hope this gets you really thinking about what’s happening in Washington and Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we’re right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it’s far too late.”

No public health option is worth its price September 11, 2009

Posted by vsap in Blogroll, US Politics, Uncategorized.
Tags: ,
add a comment

The 21st Century has been a rough one for me and health care coverage. For the past three years, everything has been good. No more than the typical squabbles with insurance company customer service reps unable or unwilling to help, but all is resolved as of this moment.

Since 2000, however, I have been without health insurance a total of 2 years, exactly 24 months. I was unemployed for only 6 of those months, the rest, I didn’t have employer-provided health care (they couldn’t afford it) and, since I couldn’t afford it (taking a 20% cut in pay to get any job in the wake of 9/11), I did without. More correctly, me and my family did without.

That being the facts, you could believe I would come out swinging for a government-operated plan. You would believe wrong.

While I believe that government can and should do some things well (e.g., national defense, unemployment benefits, and some measure of social security), I do not believe this extends to “public” health care.

Case in point: my mother. Regrettably, my father wasn’t a saver so when he passed my mother didn’t have much to go on. When she could no longer care for herself at home, and neither I nor my sister had the means to buy private health care in a nursing home, she was thrown into “the public pool”. It took her less than three years to die from a combination of benign neglect and poor hygiene in a place that had a hard time caring for its paying customers much less those on the public roll. You could argue she would have died regardless of care. You may be right, but I don’t believe it.

This, and other encounters with public medicine in its present form, gives me genuine, heartfelt concern about our government’s ability to make health care better on any level.

Unfortunately, the president has decided to be “the last president” to handle this issue without any details of how he’d like to see this happen. He’s good at the rhetoric, hyperbole and pandering to his Democrat colleagues, and poor at giving answers and direction on he says is the primary issue of his presidency.

My belief is there are other paths to fixing (or beginning to fix) what is truly wrong with our health care system. The president has addressed a couple of minor points but nothing substantial.

So, what does a conservative plan look like? Here’s one from US Senator Michael Enzi (R-WY), stated on June 9, 2009:

“First, it would expand health insurance coverage so that every American has access to affordable, high-quality health insurance. Most Republicans and Democrats can agree on basic reforms that will help lower the costs of health insurance and allow patients with pre-existing conditions to be able to buy insurance. There is much data and testimony that tells us that greater affordability and increased access are not mutually exclusive. More than that, the more we learn about the costs driving up our system, the more we recognize that if done correctly, greater access can drive down costs.

Second, the bill would use private plans to deliver the benefit. I believe that most Republicans and Democrats can agree that a patient-focused health care system will provide the highest quality and lowest cost when patients are able to choose among competing private plans. When patients can vote with their feet, insurance companies will be forced to deliver better quality care.

We have heard much debate about a public plan option, and we have heard Democrats recently begin to back away from a government-run plan. I believe that many of my colleagues are beginning to see that increasing the size and scope of government’s role in health care and further squeezing a private marketplace will drive up costs and drive down quality every single time. As the public, the editorial boards, and reasonable people on both sides of the aisle continue to delve deeper into the practicality of a public option, I believe it will continue to recede further into the background.

Third, many Democrats and Republicans can agree to basic reforms that would foster an atmosphere of competition by demanding that insurers compete on price and value rather than providing the ability to pick lower-cost, lower-risk patients.

Fourth, a bipartisan bill would protect consumers by providing them with better information about quality, price, and the nature of coverage provided for in competing plans. One of the most common concerns I hear from people as I travel around my state of Wyoming is that they don’t know what they are getting for their money until after they’ve already purchased it. There is no other private marketplace that works like that, and our health care system shouldn’t either. Buying a car or a house sight and price unseen does not make any sense, so why should you be expected to pay for your health care that way?

Fifth, many Democrats and Republicans support an appropriate level of government oversight of the marketplace to protect individuals against abuses that sometimes occur in today’s market. Such a change would also have a great, positive impact on driving down costs.

Sixth, a bipartisan health reform bill would provide subsidies to low-income Americans to give them the extra help they need to purchase health insurance. Many working Americans need help to purchase health insurance, and we should give them more choices beyond simply expanding unsustainable entitlement programs like Medicaid. Otherwise, we will continue to face the cost burdens of the uninsured showing up for treatment in the emergency room when it is most risky to their health, most difficult to treat, and most costly to the system.

Finally, such a bill must be fully paid for so that we do not increase our national deficit. I have spoken at length in the Senate about America’s fiscal situation. It is my belief that our nation’s credit card has reached its limit. The federal government debt is now more than $11 trillion, and our nation’s deficit stands at $1.84 trillion. And the Obama Administration claims to be ushering in an era of responsibility.

We conservatives believe that the Obama budget has ushered in an era of taxing too much, borrowing too much, and spending too much. The President’s budget sets aside $630 billion over ten years, which, according to the Administration, is “not sufficient to fully fund” health care but is the “first crucial step.” For reform to go anywhere, it is imperative that this step be paid for in full.

So far, the Administration has floated the idea of reducing the amount of tax deduction allowable for charitable giving in the top marginal tax rate. This policy has been roundly criticized by Members on both sides of the aisle and by charities across the country as misguided, ill-timed, and simply a nonstarter. And others have talked about an idea that must clearly be taken off the table in order to reach a bipartisan agreement on health reform. That is, we will not pay for health reform by enacting an onerous cap-and-tax on energy costs for the American people.”

Now, let’s hear the presidential response. The silence will be deafening, I’m sure.