Health Care: A Better Way

So why not?
_
because it does nothing to control costs, and is in actuality a welfare program for the insurance company parasites.

Here's a clue, Joe. Wyden does not include any kind of "public option". His "health insurances exchanges" include ONLY plans from the parasitical insurance industry -- rather than an economically efficient "single payer" system, or at least a "public option" that is about providing health care (and not finding ways to deny treatment because paying for treatment is bad for the bottom line.)

Wyden has already pocketed over a QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS from the insurance industry and "health care" lobbyist for a 2010 election for which he has no serious opposition. Wyden sold out to AHIP, because AHIP is the big winner in his plan, and employers (and consumers) are the big losers.

Th' real question be, "Why not single-payer?"

Bu', we all be knowin' th' answer t' tha' already!

YARR!

...but I didn't read anything about protecting us against ins. cos. rejecting pre-existing conditions and claims (is this making treatment decisions - proxy for practicing medicine, without license?). If these aren't stopped, what's the point of having these "choices"? (my last serious point today? back to sleep....)

Me most recent, an' likely final letter t' me representatives:

Dear Senator Murray, Senator Cantwell, and Representative Larsen,

As the various health care reform bills continue to be shaped, I am becoming more and more concerned that the interests of the health care industry are being attended to with much more diligence than the interests of the American People. This overt bias in favor of the health care industry is nowhere more evident than in Congress' refusal to engage in a fair discussion of a single-payer system.

A single-payer system would remove the burden of providing health care coverage from businesses, large and small. It would provide coverage to ALL Americans. It would provide the bargaining power needed to negotiate fairer prices for physicians, hospitals, and prescription drugs. It would save money on administrative costs. It would solve most, if not all, of the problems Americans currently experience in the health care “market.” A single-payer system would be the simplest, clearest, most efficient, and easiest to understand and administer of all the options.

And, yet, the Congress refuses to even consider it.

I would be happy to pay the equivalent of my current premiums, co-pays, and out-of-pocket expenses in the form of a tax to support a single-payer system. I would even be open to paying slightly more than those costs in taxes to support a single-payer system. Businesses could also pay a reasonable tax to support the system. The rate could be less than what they currently pay to cover employees. Combined with other cost-saving measures like tort reform, shifting to a wellness model, and working to eliminate unnecessary tests, procedures, and prescriptions, a single-payer system appears to be the most reasonable option for providing access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

I believe if the Congress has the will to consider single-payer fairly, it will prove to be the best option for Americans. I also believe if Congress has the will to help the American People understand what a single-payer system is and is not, the inaccurate and irrational “government-run health care” fears can be overcome. It is time to do what is right for Americans, not what's in the best financial interest of health care corporations.

It is extremely important to me as a constituent that my representatives work actively to achieve health care reform that will really work in the best interests of the American people. I believe the only real option for reform depends on moving to a single-payer system. I strongly urge you to publicly, openly and fairly engage in consideration of this option. I assure you all that I will remember your efforts in the upcoming election cycle.

Thank you,

(me non-piratical name 'ere)

It be no' in pirate-speak, bu' I be havin' t' be sure they be understandin' exact' wha' th' demands o' me parlay be!

If anyone wants t' be cuttin' an' pastin' 'r sendin' yer own - go fer it, mateys!

Arrgh!

With all due respect, Joe, what is your authority or qualification to declare any kind of plan "the best way to reform the health care system"? I would ask the same question of Ezra Klein. Neither of you Kleins are qualified to weigh in on health care policy. Reading briefs fashioned by political strategists doesn't confer expertise on health care issues.

Neither of you, nor Mr. Wyden, I'd wager, has any clue whatsoever about the realities of health care delivery. You have in the past made profoundly ignorant (as in, not having any real knowledge of) statements about exactly who is presently uninsured and why they are uninsured. Nor do you have a clue what it would take to enroll currently uninsured people into a health care program.

Start with this, Klein. We are not even talking about reforming the Health Care System. The dialogue has been shifted until we are talking about Health Insurance Reform. Big difference. Your ignorance shows when you confuse the two. "Reforming" the Health Care System is not even on the table. Thanks to the profoundly ignorant (as in, you don't have a grasp of the problem) privileged class (the currently insured who are happy with their coverage and not in danger of losing it) who dominates the debate, this current effort for "reform" I predict will amount to nothing, if not worse than nothing.

Sorry Joe. This proposal sucks.

The healthy workers will opt out of comprehensive coverage, leaving the less healthy workers behind. This will raise the premium for the employer, who will then opt out of the system.

This is not necessarily a BAD outcome, since in my view employer-sponsored health plans should be replaced by an expansion of the Medicare payroll tax to fund health insurance for everyone.

Six key Senate Centrists--Ben Nelson (D-NE), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Ron Wyden (D-OR)--are asking Democratic and Republican leaders to slow down the pace of health care reform efforts.

"[I]n the view of [CBO Director Doug Elmendorf's] statement, there is much heavy lifting ahead," reads a letter the group signed today. "We look forward to working with you to develop legislation that is vital to the well-being of the American people and urge you to resist timelines which prevent us from achieving the best results."

Joe, Joe, Joe, Wyden does not change the fundamentals. That's why he still collects lobbying money from insurance companies.

Truth is, we need Wyden, PLUS a public plan.

Bottom line, there are two problems. 1) health care doesn't work, as it is too expensive and it doesn't provide good results. Why? Private Insurance model doesn't work. No choice and 30% admin costs, with no real cost controls other than kicking people out of the system.
2) The cost of health care is loaded on employers, which makes US businesses non-competitive in global competition. This is HUGELY important and must stop. Remember when times were good? Even then, car factories were 100% utilized in Canada, 80% utilized in US, just because the Canadian workers had no employer-paid health care costs.

Best Solution: Medicare for everyone: great system, 2% overhead means instant 25% cost savings. Payroll tax to pay for it.

Second best: Wyden exchanges PLUS Medicare-like public plan. People get their own money to spend, then some will choose cheaper public plan. Insureres will have to adapt to survive. No more billion dollar stock option packages for CEOs. Benefits flow directly to people, and to US business competitiveness.

Third best: Public plan plus smaller exchanges, the Senate HELP plan.

There is no fourth best, Joe, Giving people freedom to choose between overpriced, inefficient private insurers whose sole business motivation is to deny coverage means we all lose - and the economy keeps tanking.

We don't have time to take the easy way, Joe. Be strong and fight for real change. Only real change will work.

Seems to me that removing the “firewall” between the employed-and-insured and the public option achieves all of Klein's musts: cost competition, reforming the system, and an alternative choice for the already insured. No need to make it more complicated than it already needs to be.

Furthermore, this is not where real cost savings is to be found. We need policies that will help us get healthier (related to nutrition, wellness, more active lifestyle, etc.) not just more efficient delivery of disease-model health care.

A corporate shill/journalist's endorsement of a health care plan is hardly a selling point IMO, but tell me....where are all the columns decrying the price tag on military spending? You guys are sooooooo very concerned about the cost of health care reform and since we've been spending about a trillion a year in military spending since 2003, you must be equally concerned no? Joe?

"And a reimbursement model that favors primary care."

I think that's why focusing on reducing Medicare reimbursement for cost savings is a mistake, unless primary care providers are mostly exempted. They are the key to keeping people from getting catastrophically ill in the first place and we need a lot more talented docs who are willing to choose primary/family medicine as a specialty.

Without a strong public option all this is just so much BS.

What's the good of an exchange that lets you choose between one sucky plan or another? What you get will still suck, and will just line the pockets of the insurance industry. What incentive is there to actually deliver better CARE, and to lower costs?

So in other words we should support a plan that no one really understands how a principle component of its cost containment is supposed to work except that it relies on young people not being too cheap to stay in the program or being too lazy to opt out.

Give me a break, please tell me how without a public option with the expressed goal to produce cost effective, quality health care outcomes we will ever be able to reduce the cost of health care, increase the quality of care, and rid ourselves of health care disparities?

You don't really think an insurance industry using a tricks and traps profit model will ever be able to reduce consumer costs without new and innovative ways to screw someone else?

Agreed, the jig is up. Everyone will know who the Congress works for if there's no strong public plan and it ain't us.

Relative to the Kleins' support of the Wyden plan, some commentors see it as a bait-and-switch for the insurance industry and some people see it as something we could do with the public plan:

"We keep hearing the mantra of "if you like what you have, you can keep it." Wyden's reform preserves that. But it also opens up the health insurance exchange to everyone, and forces both insurers and the public option into real competition. The public option would not be walled off simply to those who don't have insurance from their employer or certain small businesses. It would have the opportunity to get market share to compete with private insurers."