Obama Explains Health Care One More Time

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:49:47 AM EST
Tags: health care reform (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In his weekly Address this morning, President Obama sought to reassure Americans about the health care bill. He said (in part):

First, no matter what you’ve heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it. If you don’t have insurance, you’ll finally be able to afford insurance. And everyone will have the security and stability that’s missing today.

Insurance companies will be prohibited from denying you coverage because of your medical history, dropping your coverage if you get sick, or watering down your coverage when it counts – because there’s no point in having health insurance if it’s not there when you need it.

[More...]

Insurance companies will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or lifetime, and we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses – because no one in America should go broke just because they get sick.

Finally, we’ll require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be saving lives and dollars by catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end.

That’s what reform means. For all the chatter and the noise out there, what every American needs to know is this: If you don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you do have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need. And we will deliver this in a fiscally responsible way.

I don't think Obama is addressing the fears many have: That the cost of the plan will end up coming from reductions to benefits to seniors. He's not specific enough about where the reductions will come from. He says:

If you’re worried about rationed care, higher costs, denied coverage, or bureaucrats getting between you and your doctor, then you should know that’s what’s happening right now.

He's lumping too many things together. Many who have health insurance and Medicare now appreciate the benefits and are worried that the plan will lead to insurance companies revising plans in a way that results in "rationed care," either by reducing payments to doctors so that there are fewer doctors willing to treat seniors or by refusing to cover treatment their doctor recommends based on some schedule that says after age X, a particular diagnostic treatment or surgery won't be covered.

With the huge number of baby boomers in this country on the precipe of Medicare age, he needs to be more specific about how the bill will ensure "that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need."

While a large part of the opposition to the plan is politically driven, I think there are many who are simply not supporting the bill because of Obama's vagueness on cost-savings, which generates fear and speculation as to how those savings will come about.

My health insurance agent this week sent out a mass e-mail to his clients with the 1,000 page bill as an attachment for us to read for ourselves. Of course, it's Greek to most of us.

Most of us know how powerful insurance companies are. Here's what I think would be helpful. Every year when my policy renewal arrives, there's a page at the beginning that explains the changes made. I'd like for Anthem (my insurance company) to prepare and send me now a copy of the revised policy I will be getting once the bill passes, so I can see the changes in coverage and premiums that will be made to the policy because of the bill.

If all insurance companies did this, those with insurance would be better informed and (hopefully) less fearful because they could see the changes in black and white.

< To Ignite Obama's Movement, Make Health Care Reform About Obama | Saturday Afternoon Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Explains Health Care One More Time | 112 comments (112 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:52:32 AM EST

in the sense that "cost savings" is involved in the opposition.

I think you are projecting your personal concerns onto the opposition on that one.

The opposition is Republicans. 46% of the country voted for Mccain/Palin.

My point is that (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:00:35 PM EST

many have concerns unrelated to those of the Republican and right-wing opposition, that are preventing them from whole-heartedly supporting the plan. If the plan fails, it will be because of both right-wing opposition and uncertainty of others. I think moving the "uncertain" into supporters could be helpful in getting the bill passed.

I don't look at this politically. Health care is personal to many and many are not supporting the bill because they don't understand how it will impact them personally.


I agree completely (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:23:44 PM EST

and also don't look at this politically.

I'm looking at this as one who has spent many years uninsured, and now that I have a good policy, can't afford to use it. Thank goodness I've always been healthy and haven't been injured.

My concern is the tight lock being given to the private insurance industry as the provider. I wince every time I hear him say we can keep what we've got. That creates a sense of chaos to me.

And, affordable has a different meaning for people who aren't living paycheck to paycheck. The people designing this plan have little concept for people who really can't afford to pay a premium of any size.

As someone who wants a system that resembles the European and Commonwealth nation's plans, I have very real, non-political concerns about what is being designed for us.

The massive private insurance companies should have shown more compassionate concern for providing quality plans for every income bracket all along...I don't care how much suffering they do now. I've worked for BC, it's cold industry.


Yes (5.00 / 4) (#19)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:28:53 PM EST

Affordable definitely has different connotations to the power elite:

From Michael Brenner:

Some small subsidies for the working poor. These last are minimal. Someone earning $20,000 a year will get no subsidy unless insurance premiums reach $2,400 -- according to the Finance Committee bill. Good luck all you folks who work for $10 an hour -- you'll need it.

If they consider this "affordable" they're sorely mistaken.


I think it is naive to expect private (none / 0) (#17)
by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:28:37 PM EST

insurance companies to show compassion. Legislate and regulate.


Not sure I would use the word (none / 0) (#25)
by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:36:23 PM EST

naive, but certainly some dream-like word would describe my thinking there's actually a huge payoff for being fair and compassionate.


Perhaps the Andrew Carnegie (none / 0) (#30)
by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:44:21 PM EST

Insurance Company. Although I've never heard he was charitable in his business dealings.


: Or, the Tony Robbins (none / 0) (#52)
by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:32:18 PM EST

Firewalking Path to Wealth and Health :)

Yes, if the wingers and rent-a-mobs (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by KeysDan on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:34:51 PM EST

could be teased out for a serious discussion, the key issue, to me, is the magnitude of the professional and political tasks taken on to, at once, provide the needed extension and reform of health care/insurance to those under the age of 65 and to effect those changes that may be needed to the existing health program for those over the age of 65 along with assurances that the program will not be undermined. Tall tasks, both. Together, both are jeopardized. Many of the refinements and reforms that may be needed to Medicare are already being considered or implemented, such as elimination of testing duplication (facilitated with computer-assistance), reimbursement alterations to providers, and pilot projects such as penalties for hospital-acquired sicknesses. Further work could be done as in the past with incremental legislative and regulatory changes. The instant need seems to be to provide assurance of insurance to those in the age category where none exists, where pre-existing conditions eliminate them, where they are not portable or are dependent upon keeping their present job, or being cancelled for becoming sick and making, God forbid, a claim. And, of course affordability (including expanded Medicaid).


Agree completely (5.00 / 2) (#80)
by otherlisa on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:57:19 PM EST

The right-wing opposition to the bill makes me marginally more sympathetic towards it than I otherwise would be. Because without that counter-push, I find what I know of the proposal troubling in many ways. I fear it is another Wall Street style bailout for insurance companies, disguised as reform. I'd rather see it not pass if that's the case, but I'd like for it to be defeated for the correct reasons, not because of loony accusations of "socialism!" and "death panels."


: The GOP (5.00 / 2) (#96)
by Spamlet on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:41:44 PM EST

wants to defeat health care reform by any means necessary. They think that's their ticket to a GOP rout in the off-year elections, so it doesn't matter to them what is ultimately in the bill that Obama signs. Meanwhile, the Obama and the Dems appear to be giving away the store just to appease the GOP (and the Blue Dogs). That's what worries me.

"I don't look at this politically" (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:03:12 PM EST

Most do.

And indeed, to make it happen, the President has to.


"Most do" (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:11:25 PM EST

The media does. Bloggers do. Insurance companies do. Of the 200+ million adult Americans in the country, how many of them do? I don't know if you can say "most do." You could be right, but I don't think so. A few thousand activists on either side (or even a few tens of thousands) seems like a drop in the bucket to me.


: Exactly. Most workaday (5.00 / 2) (#90)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:23:24 PM EST

folks don't look at the politics. They look at how the policy affects them, personally, in their own homes, every day. They look at how they feel, how much money is left in their bank accounts every month, their personal worries, and other concrete things in their world. Most people don't have time for the politics. That's why right track/wrong track numbers are so important to politicians.
Most people don't care in the least about anything as abstract as politics on a daily basis. Some would call that "not paying attention". I call it "paying attention to pragmatics, and not paying attention to abstract matters like politics."
At the end of the day, the politics only matter to politicians and wonks. People only care about getting politicians re-elected if those politicians have helped them.
IMHO.

: How many? (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:13:34 PM EST

Most of the people who actually pay attention imo.

: I think a lot do in this sense (none / 0) (#85)
by ruffian on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:14:28 PM EST

I have learned over many years of experience that a plan the Republicans oppose so vehemently probably has at least a chance of helping the regular guy.
So in that way I look at it politically. I don't have to know a thing about health care reform to know that if the Republicans were strongly supporting it I would know I was going to get screwed.

I wasn't quite sure I agreed at first (none / 0) (#58)
by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:38:38 PM EST

But I do think you are right.

If you consider tax policy, it's one thing to give a speech itemizing in general terms what will or won't happen.

And the tendency for people who have the time to look at political strategy as just that tend to forget there are a lot of us out there who will ask a question like this:

"I make 130k per year. What will my taxes be in 2010?"

(Of course the answer there was more clear to people: Exactly what you are paying now. If Obama is true to his words on that issue. No new taxes on anyone making less than 200k.)

Of course, if you like to think you have answers about political strategy, then it stands to reason that you think changing these strategies will make all the difference in the world.

And it does make a difference.

But. Let's put it this way. The old adage of course is you can't put lipstick on a pig which basically supports the point being made here. Some things (from recent history: the Iraq war, response to Katrina, the economy) are so bad political strategy is rendered impotent to change people's mind about them.

Those are extreme examples. Used just to make the point.


If you look at past polls (5.00 / 4) (#13)
by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:18:43 PM EST

that indicate something like 72% would support a government run plan, IIRC there were a fair amount of Republican voters who agreed.

I think making cutting the budget of Medicare part of the package was a strategic mistake. Obama and the Dems would have been much better off sticking with raising the taxes of the rich.

If there is waste and fraud in the Medicare system, allocate the resources to go after it and eliminate it but make that initiative separate and apart from this reform package. If successful, the Dems can campaign on the true savings that were realized.


I think the point being made (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by The Last Whimzy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:53:16 PM EST

above though is that while you have 72% of the people on supporting a government run plan, a lot of those people aren't sure if Obama's plan is the government run plan they want.


: Yes that was one of the points (none / 0) (#66)
by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:59:40 PM EST

This was the other one that got lost in the debate about terminology.
I think making cutting the budget of Medicare part of the package was a strategic mistake. Obama and the Dems would have been much better off sticking with raising the taxes of the rich.
If there is waste and fraud in the Medicare system, allocate the resources to go after it and eliminate it but make that initiative separate and apart from this reform package. If successful, the Dems can campaign on the true savings that were realized.

Good points. The funding for investigative (none / 0) (#15)
by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:25:30 PM EST

positions re Medicare is quite inadequate. Also, I've read, I think in Wiki Medicare article, the Medicare supplemental plans costs are unnecessarily high in some places as these are negotiated by area, not nationally and there is some overpayment due to politics, not lack of investigative resources.


My parents (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:33:01 PM EST

have supplement plans at $203/month each. My mom, who recently passed, was receiving very expensive treatments ($1400 shots for anemia every other week, $1200 fluid taps every week, MRI's and many other big tests). Medicare paid first, then the supplemental. Not once in all those 10 months did her supplemental insurance pay out more than $80 total as their portion.

It's quite the racket.


Agree about the supplemental (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:42:01 PM EST

(with respect to my mom.) It pays out next to nothing, particularly if you are in a nursing home. Even without regular treatments for a specific condition, she has medical bills totaling over $10k (unrelated to being being in a nursing home) for the past 3 years that neither Medicare or her secondary insurance are paying. The nursing home keeps re-submitting the claims and everyone month a statement comes showing the amount is still owed -- it also says "do not pay, your insurance is being billed." Some of these are for expenses in 2006. I have no doubt when all is said and done, a statement will arrive saying "Pay now."


I suppose it varies from state to state (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:14:42 PM EST

but, here the provider needs to accept the negotiated payment as payment in full. So, as long as Medicare pays their share of a bill, the supplemental ins pays the patient's share of the negotiated allowable, the rest of the bill is written off by the physician/facility.

It's when Medicare declines the service that the patient has to take 100% of the responsibility (if Medicare declines the procedure, so does the supplemental ins), and there are no negotiated rates for those uncovered services...the patients pay 100% of the billed amount.

Mom did have to pay one bill of $37 that wasn't covered by medicare....had a nurse done the procedure, it would have been covered, but not if the doctor did it :)


: supplemental costs (none / 0) (#107)
by Molly Pitcher on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:46:39 PM EST

My widow's supplemental insurance from the state costs $324 a month--horrible, except that the state's 'basic' supplemental costs around $300 per month plus copays and deductibles. I also make copays, but only for meds. Net result is my total medical costs for the year are the monthly insurance payments, the bit deducted from my SS each month, and those copays.
I could look around and find supplemental that sounds cheaper--but I've read too much about unsuspecting folks who pay up and still never collect much from these companies. When my husband lived in a nursing home after his stroke, I really appreciated knowing that none of his medical bills would come to me. (I had also signed up for long-term care.)
I personally at this time do NOT receive $324 plus worth of med care a month, but my husband's stroke taught me that it could happen. Some of my $324 goes to cover someone else's expenses--but if I did need that much or more, then the pooled money would work to my benefit. I like it--but I am luckier than most.

I get periodic statements from a third-party (none / 0) (#40)
by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:03:15 PM EST

contractor for Medicare with the information I may be billed. But the only actual bills I've gotten for the first year were for outside labs--total under $50. Waiting for the axe to fall.


you ever wonder.... (none / 0) (#34)
by Dadler on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:55:27 PM EST

...how a few shots can run $1400 dollars? are they shooting platinum into our veins? or $1200 fluid taps? when you realize that premiums have gone up almost 100% on average in the last ten years and profits almost 500%, you start to understand that there is a very inhumane financial model operating in the health insurance industry. The model is repuslive greed that rises to the level of hatred of one's fellow citizens.


It's a fairly common shot (5.00 / 2) (#61)
by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:49:07 PM EST

as I have mentioned it to several people and I'm the only one who can never remember what it's called.

My mother had cirrosis of the liver. Her alcohol habit was a small glass of wine at Thanksgiving every year. The liver damage was from prescription and OTC medications. Cirrosis causes ascites, which needs to be drained when the fluid buildup becomes so much that breathing is difficult. She carried some 14 liters of fluid most of the time, but they could only drain 2 liters at a time or risk kidney failure.

She was never going to get better, and the doctors knew it....so they did plenty of cross-selling of services pretending they were still trying to find the source of her ascites. It was an incredible learning experience for me. I've taken my dad completely away from that medical group and hospital for his care. He's at the very earliest stage of alzheimer's/dimensia (a little of both afflictions).


Was she ever evaluated for liver transplant? (none / 0) (#65)
by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:58:17 PM EST

: Never and I've asked myself why not on more (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:25:22 PM EST

than one occasion. They didn't even suggest the shunt in the liver that could have reversed the ascites before it got out of control and allowed the liver to begin healing itself...not until it was way too late and the liver was too far gone, that is.
She had been 2 weeks in the hospital with a blood clot a year ago...on her second day in there she contracted C-diff and they pumped some really powerful antibiotics into her for days to follow. She went home with ascites. To get the most out of her, and to limit their liability, they pretended they didn't know what she had. A talkative wound specialist at the hospital bellowed, "oh, I see you had C-diff last Sept" when mom was in for a small wound 6 months later.

Depends on the anemia (none / 0) (#49)
by Fabian on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:21:18 PM EST

Anemia can be caused by many things - including blood cancers. An iron supplement isn't going to cost $1400. I'm not sure what Epo costs, but I doubt it is cheap. Synthetic hormones rarely are.


$1,400 for a shot is nothing to compared (none / 0) (#74)
by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:35:40 PM EST

to some of the shots given in connection with chemotherapy treatments. I had one shot that was over $3,000 per shot. Some new chemotherapy treatments run over $10,000 per treatment.


I have United Health Care ... AARP (none / 0) (#50)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:22:54 PM EST

$336.00 for me and my spouse. They have paid their portion of the bill 100% with zero problems over the past 5 years.

I suggest you investigate getting a new supplemental insurance company.


Why? (none / 0) (#56)
by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:37:36 PM EST

My parents haven't had to pay anything. The supplemental pays their share without question and that satisfies the billings at 100% of allowable.


I read your comment (none / 0) (#59)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:43:24 PM EST

as them not paying their part.


That's how I read it (none / 0) (#62)
by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:52:11 PM EST

Inspector Gadget wrote:

Not once in all those 10 months did her supplemental insurance pay out more than $80 total as their portion. It's quite the racket.

I figured (none / 0) (#64)
by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:54:09 PM EST

But, my point was that the supplemental insurance only had to pay out less than half of what they took in from my mom's premiums despite how great her medical costs were. I could have worded that better :) sorry.

My dad is more often claiming 0 procedures a month, so they keep all of his payment. He's a disabled WWII Veteran, so he gets his prescriptions and OTC drugs for free. He could drop his supplemental completely, but the VA facilities aren't convenient enough to him.


: Mine is straight forward... it pays what Medicare (none / 0) (#69)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:07:08 PM EST

part A and B doesn't. Rx (Part D)is separate.

Is that $336 per person or (none / 0) (#75)
by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:38:28 PM EST

for joint coverage? Medigap coverage or an Advantage Plan? I'm interested because I am trying to decide on what coverage to get when I go on Medicare.


: Dual coverage of me and spouse (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:44:05 PM EST

supplemental to Medicare Parts A and B.

Was it called (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:28:55 PM EST

"a government run plan?" No, it was called Medicare for all.

Let's debate this accurately please.


There are other surveys ... (none / 0) (#21)
by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:31:55 PM EST

that word it that way and the results are similar.


This is how it ... (none / 0) (#23)
by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:35:06 PM EST

was worded in an AP-Yahoo Poll from December 2007:

65% - The United States should adopt a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers

"Like Medicare" (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:36:06 PM EST

BTW, any recent polls?


This is the most recent one ... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:43:44 PM EST

I've seen. From July 29, 2009 via Time Magazine:

Would you favor or oppose a program that creates a national single-payer plan similar to Medicare for all, in which the government would provide healthcare insurance to all Americans?
Favor 49%, Oppose 46%, NA/DK 5%

Even with virtually all the political establishment against it, it still leads.

I believe, and will always argue, that the public isn't the problem on Single Payer.


And of course, if it were ever actually (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by andgarden on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:54:25 PM EST

implemented, support would go to 75%. But I agree, the problem is not with the people.


Yup, and that 75% ... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:56:22 PM EST

would probably last for generations.


I have a theory (none / 0) (#38)
by andgarden on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:59:36 PM EST

that a couple of sneaky members of Congress (one in the House and one in the Senate) could pass such a program in stealth. The floor of the chambers is not always being watched so closely by the other side. You'd just hide it in innocuous-looking unanimous consent requests.

It could only ever work once.


Have an idea of ... (none / 0) (#39)
by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:02:24 PM EST

who might be clever and sneaky enough to do such a thing?


I Think Al Franken would go for it (none / 0) (#41)
by andgarden on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:08:42 PM EST

On the House side, who knows. I think Henry Waxman would enjoy the challenge. (He's the king of "how the f*¢k did that get in the bill?" provisions).


: Nice having a ... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:15:21 PM EST

card carrying comedian in the Senate, isn't it?

Like Medicare (none / 0) (#45)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:12:09 PM EST

This is an argument for "Medicare for All" as a pitch.


The poll I was referring to (none / 0) (#26)
by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:36:50 PM EST

did not call it Medicare for all from the articles I read.

The poll, administered June 12-16, found that 72 percent of respondents favored the creation of a government health-insurance plan that would compete with private insurers. CBS

Think my statement was accurate.


Link broken (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:39:21 PM EST

and does not quote the question but rather characterizes the finding.

"Government run health care" is ineffective poltiically and is not accurate either.

Medicare, as you so often point out to me, is government run health INSURANCE.


Call it what you like ... (none / 0) (#31)
by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:49:28 PM EST

I still don't think that the public is the problem.


No (none / 0) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:11:29 PM EST

Call it what the public likes to call it.

That is politics my friend.


: Polls have it worded ... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:19:43 PM EST

a bunch of different ways and it still wins.
The public isn't the problem.
The wording is for the public. They don't care about the wording. They're already convinced.
Pols are more concerned about industry opposition than public opinion on this. End of.

Here is another link (none / 0) (#47)
by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:17:09 PM EST

from an article that more accurately states the question asked. It looks like neither your statement or mine was completely accurate.

The national telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16, found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan -- something like Medicare for those under 65 -- that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed.
NYT

Medicare is a government run program. A public option would also be a government run program. IMO the question was framed to leave the door open for something other than Medicare for all (i.e. a public option).

Whether or not the terms government run program or government administered are ineffective politically does negate the fact that they can be used generically to encompass either Medicare or a public option.


Kip Sullivan posted about the Senate HELP plan-- (none / 0) (#71)
by jawbone on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:22:02 PM EST

at PNHP.org. The bill has not been published yet, but he was able to get a copy of the chairman's marked up version.

Get ready for mandatory HMO's as the public plan if this passes. Numerous "community health insurance options" Community sized...possibly. Run by private insurance companies, the Blues and other Big Insurance Parasites. They would be competing with themselves!

This comment thread breaks Sullivan's article down a bit.

However, Obama, according to the NYTimes, is working behind the scenes very closely with Baucus and the Finance committee (well, those on it which Baucus includes--more than half the Dems left out, iirc); plus, Obama hired Baucus's staffer, Messina. Nice and cozy close. Which means the HELP plan may be worth bupkis.

I'm not sure who worked with Obama on the Big Pharma backroom Oval Office deal....


HMOs decide which doctors and hospitals (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:55:08 PM EST

you can use.

The Republicans will have a field day with this. Obama is saying you can keep your doctor and the Senate bill says you can only keep your doctor as long as they remain on the HMOs approved provider list.


The approved providers list (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:25:22 PM EST

changes constantly. Those on the list are there because they have asked to be, and have accepted the amount the insurance company has said they will pay for services.


Yes and sometimes doctors chose not (5.00 / 2) (#93)
by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:31:09 PM EST

to remain on the list. Had this happen to me on a HMO. At the time, I didn't really care as I was healthy and had no real attachment to that particular doctor.

Now my situation has changed and I would be extremely upset if I had to change my doctor or the center that I use.


: Understood completely (5.00 / 1) (#104)
by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:27:36 PM EST

Sadly, the real drivers to this are the insurance companies. They only care about how much they have to pay a particular provider and not a squat for how many of their subscribers are regular patients of the physician or clinic.

Completely agree with you BTD (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:08:58 PM EST

We have all sorts of money to completely give away to Goldman Sachs. And their CEOs are once again receiving giant bonuses this year. But everyone is sooooooo worried about what healthcare might end up costing us? Really?


: Seems to me if Bush admin. could fund (none / 0) (#44)
by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:12:06 PM EST

the Iraq war mostly "off the books" Congress should be able to do the same re health care.

Politically ... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:58:17 AM EST

making a defensive argument is never wise. And this is essentially a defensive argument.

Health care could presented in an aspirational fashion.

That would strengthen his argument.

: Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by andgarden on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:58:44 AM EST

: Yup (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by ChiTownMike on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:08:07 PM EST

As I said in anothre thread Obama is being REACTIVE instead of Proactive. By doing that his support for health Cre reform is going to shrink.
And then this line:

If you're worried about rationed care, higher costs, denied coverage, or bureaucrats getting between you and your doctor, then you should know that's what's happening right now.
What a terrible line! He meant to say insurance executive but instead referred back to bureaucrats which most people think of as government. So in essence many people are go to hear that as "bureaucrats" (government) is already getting between you and your doctor.
What a disaster this guy is when it comes to communicating as a President. Not only is he to soft in what he says that is right but he flubs lines like the one above. Bush II. George flubbed lines too but at least when he was selling he was strong and passionate. Obama not so much.

Somethings not being addressed (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:05:55 PM EST

First, no matter what you've heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it.

If your employer provides you with junk insurance, even if you pay part of the premium, you have to keep it. None of the proposals under consideration allows you to do otherwise.

"Rationing" already happens (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Manuel on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:28:50 PM EST

after age X, a particular diagnostic treatment or surgery won't be covered

This is true for example for transplants. Obama needs to explain clearly that health care reforms will not address the difficult decisions regarding procedures with low probability of success.

Is this true? (none / 0) (#32)
by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:54:21 PM EST

"health care reforms will not address the difficult decisions regarding procedures with low probability of success."

And is it also true that passage of health care reform won't result in decisions by health insurance companies to revise coverage for "procedures with low probability of success"?

These are some of the topics that aren't clear to me.


Insurance Companies (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by andgarden on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:55:41 PM EST

already do this, virtually without restriction. It would be hard to make the situation worse.


In order to receive a (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:06:18 PM EST

transplant, there are definite guidelines that have to be meet. This is due to the scarcity of available organs. There are only so many organs available and guidelines would exist IMO even if the procedures were done cost free.


"Precious resource" is the (none / 0) (#78)
by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:53:07 PM EST

term uttered by members of transplant teams.


In the case of transplants, (5.00 / 1) (#81)
by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:58:58 PM EST

there is some justification for that term. To me, a transplant is different than denying care for no other reason than the insurance company does not want to pick up the tab.


: Agree. Although some of the liver (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:02:20 PM EST

transplant programs have been shut down due to favoritism choosing to whom to give the liver. St. Vincent's, for example. Poor poor poor.

Obama can (5.00 / 3) (#51)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:23:04 PM EST

talk and talk but until he can say to someone like me that you are now paying ten grand and under my plan you will pay the same and get better coverage or you will pay x less or you will pay x more he's wasting his breath.

Frankly, he justs sounds like he's trying to sprinkle fairy dust on everybody and it just doesnt jibe with what a lot of people have experienced with healthcare.

That be true (2.00 / 0) (#57)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:38:36 PM EST

His problem is that he doesn't want to admit that taxes for everyone will go up if he does a SP plan, but their overall cost may go down.

If he doesn't do that I can't imagine what we have now being discussed passing.


Well (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:02:34 PM EST

Obama's not proposing a single payer plan so it's really kind of moot isnt it?


: That be true (5.00 / 2) (#76)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 02:41:27 PM EST

And you know, I think a single payer plan, well defined on what it does/does not do and what it will cost will fly.

No, not necessarily true (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by jbindc on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:35:32 PM EST

First, no matter what you've heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it. If you don't have insurance, you'll finally be able to afford insurance. And everyone will have the security and stability that's missing today.

Not if your employer decides to pay the 8% fine because it will be cheaper. Then you WON'T have a choice to keep your health plan, even if you like it. Which also means, you may not be able to keept your doctor.

Duh.

I suspect (5.00 / 2) (#84)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:08:59 PM EST

that if the employer already offered medical insurance before medical insurance "reform" takes place, they offer it for a reason like competing for quality workers in a job market, and Obama's plan wouldn't change that.

However, you still don't have options if your employers switches to a junk insurance plan because they can't afford the premiums. As far as I can tell, premiums aren't being contained under Obama's plan.

The government can offer insurance premium "credits" all day, but I don't see anything about containing the premium increases in the first place. So that sucking sound is insurance companies sucking tax dollars away in the form of "credits," while your employer still gets reamed -- and potentially has to switch to junk insurance.

Me, if insurance reform is implemented prior to 2013, I might believe in the pixy dust and fairy wings Obama is selling. For now, they are "just words"


: What I fear is that mandates will mean people buy (5.00 / 2) (#95)
by jawbone on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:32:50 PM EST

junk insurance for some considerably lower rate with extremely high deductibles and co-pays, so that the person essentially is not covered except for major catastrophes. So we'll have much the same situation we have now: Some people will be subsidized, some will be just over the cusp and unable to afford insurance, some will buy something to meet the required mandate but it will not really offer care, some will be able to afford insurance with actual coverage, some will be covered by employers. But the Big Insurers, if they get to run the community HMO's, will gain more revenue.
Many people will put off preventive checkups, put off going to the doctor until they are very ill. Some will continue to die from lack of real coverage (currently 22,000 a year); others will continue to go into bankruptcy.
This is NOT what people were expecting when Obama told them he would reform health care.
So far, due to compromises with the Blue Dogs, Repubs, Big Pharma, BHIP*, and so forth, there is basically nothing which will contain costs. Except denial of care. Thus, Big Insurers will continue to control the rise in rates. There will be something called "reform," but it will not do what needs to be done.
Which is why some say, given this scenario, that nothing is better than what appears to be coming down.
It may well continue the Big Insurers' profitability for a while, but soon the parasites will begin killing their hosts again -- either literally more likely people won't be able to afford the increasing premium costs.
*BHIP--Big Health Industry Players
Medicare for All...with a Robust Private Option

: But in times like these (5.00 / 2) (#102)
by jbindc on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:16:36 PM EST

Employers don't have to necessarily keep excellent benefits to keep and attract good employees - it's supply and demand. They can pick and choose the employees they want, since so many people are out of work. Your statement may ring truer in times like the 90's when job-seekers were the ones who could hold out for the best salary and benefits package.

Or if the employer changes carriers to save (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by jawbone on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:18:00 PM EST

money people will not necessarily be able to keep their current doctors. I cringe every time Obama says that. I mean, it's not a long phrase to state people can keep their doctors as long as their employer has an insurance carrier with those doctors in it.

Most people know that; some think Obama is guaranteeing they keep their doctors no matter what. I don't believe he means that.

Now, if it were single payer Medicare for All, then people could indeed choose their doctors. With the caveat that if the doctor is not taking new patients then they won't get their choice right away.


My employer offered a choice of (none / 0) (#88)
by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:20:31 PM EST

plans. I chose an HMO. Every Fall the HMO would announce the particular physician group I chose would no longer be part of the HMO. Contract dispurte. So we would all write letters and eventually all would be resolved.


So, didn't your HMO (none / 0) (#92)
by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:27:47 PM EST

have their doctors on staff at their own clinics and hospitals?


: HMO's usually sign contracts with care providers. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by jawbone on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:48:48 PM EST

Early on, back in the late 70's into the 80's, the contracts would specify the doctors could not tell the patient of an alternative treatment if it were not allowed by the HMO. There were other gag rules, but I can't remember them right now.
Referrals are required to see specialists; some gatekeeper docs are better than others about permitting referrals. Some HMO's will drop doctors if they issue too many referrals.
For my parasite's HMO, if I go to their contracted lab I don't have a co-pay for blood work ups. When their lab didn't have a necessary test done (doc's people said it was on the prescription; lab said it wasn't); I had to have the test prior to another test, so it was done at he doctor's clinic and I had to pay the co-pay.
Initially, HMO's were more like the Mayo or Cleveland Clinics. All the doctors were paid a salary and the clinic or hospital received a monthly rate for each patient and a pre-determined lump sum for treatment of ailments, no matter how complex or difficult. Doctors ran into problems with that, and some tried to limit tests even when necessary, but that had it's own downsides.
My GP told me that every year my parasite pays him less per patient. He said he could not continue to treat my parasite's patients were it not for other insurance plans which paid more. So, in a way, my parasite feeds off my extremely high premiums and off my doctor.
My doctor said single payer is the only rational solution.

: Blue Shield. Huge umbrella. (none / 0) (#94)
by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:31:44 PM EST

Why would your employer (none / 0) (#97)
by Steve M on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:46:31 PM EST

drop their coverage because the 8% fine is cheaper... if they haven't already dropped coverage to pay the 0% fine under current law?


If costs are more than 8% of payroll, dropping (none / 0) (#99)
by jawbone on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:51:02 PM EST

insurance would cost less than the fine.

Obama hopes to keep cost increases over 10 years to only 50-70% of the 100% they are predicted to be in 10 years.


You missed my point (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by Steve M on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:34:50 PM EST

These employers have not dropped health coverage yet, even though there is no fine at all. So why would they suddenly drop coverage once an 8% fine goes into effect?


Because (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by jbindc on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:41:03 PM EST

Their employees will be able to get into the public option, so they won't be the "big bad employers" (even though most will probably be small businesses) who dropped insurance for their employees?

I worked part time in a small butcher shop - there were 6 of us, but only the owner and the other butcher had health insurance. To cover the 2 of them, plus their wives (who oddly enough, both worked in doctors' offices but had no medical insurance offered), and one minor child, cost my boss more than $22,000 a year to BCBS of Michigan. It's one of the reasons he went out of business after 30 years. Insurance costs were too high, along with a slowdown in business.


I don't really understand (none / 0) (#110)
by Steve M on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:41:40 PM EST

why we are fighting so hard for a public option, if we're going to consider it a disaster if people get put into it.


What kind of public option are (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by Anne on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:58:07 PM EST

you fighting for? The kind that would allow some 100 million people to enroll, or the kind with all kinds of rules and restrictions about who could and who couldn't such that maybe only 10 million might be able to enroll?

Because the public option as currently configured is the one behind Door #2, and considering we have some 47 million people uninsured, isn't going to be "robust" enough to help us out of this hole that is opening up under us. And, worse, is on the verge of being replaced by co-ops that could be even less helpful.

Steve, there's a lot of information out there abot the pros and cons of these various plans and proposals; if you availed yourself of it, you might not be so puzzled about the concerns many of us have about what is currently on the table.


: Perhaps if I phrased my points more bluntly (5.00 / 3) (#113)
by Steve M on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 10:08:04 PM EST

I would come across as rude, but at least wouldn't get accused of cluelessness.
Personally, I will take any public plan I can get, since the effort of creating it in the first place will be much harder than the subsequent steps of expanding it incrementally over time until everyone is covered. This much I know: once it exists, it will be politically impossible to take away from anyone, so it can only grow.
I have no problem with people fighting for the very best plan we can get, but I see an awful lot of pie in the sky being expressed around here, if you know what I mean. People want an awesome public plan but then they want assurances that their employer can never ever ever stick them in it.

: Well (none / 0) (#112)
by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 10:01:06 PM EST

Kennedy and Bill Clinton have argued that even a mediocre public option is a great thing, because once it is in place it can be expanded as needed by congress.
Isn't that what happened with Medicare?

Having read through the previous (5.00 / 4) (#89)
by Anne on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:22:12 PM EST

comments, what no one has addressed is the truth of this:

First, no matter what you've heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it. If you don't have insurance, you'll finally be able to afford insurance. And everyone will have the security and stability that's missing today.
Insurance companies will be prohibited from denying you coverage because of your medical history, dropping your coverage if you get sick, or watering down your coverage when it counts - because there's no point in having health insurance if it's not there when you need it.

What happens if someone likes their doctor and their plan and their employer drops the plan, changes the plan or the coverage? Has Obama not been made aware of the aggravating situation where an employer changes carriers and all of a sudden, the doctors that people really liked and had relationships with were no longer part of the plan, and people were forced to change? I mean, that happens all the time.

How does Obama know that insurance for the currently uninsured will be affordable to them? And how does he know that the affordability of the coverage will be accompanied by the sufficiency of the coverage?

Everyone will have security and stability? That seems like a real stretch when no one even knows what the end result, the final shape of any bill will be.

And he keeps saying that no one will be denied coverage, and no one's coverage will be dropped when illness or accident trigger actual usage of the coverage, but I don't hear him saying anyting about the premium structure for high-risk or high-usage individuals. The truth is that he can't because he won't be setting those - the insurance companies will.

And finally, he says nothing about when any reform will be implemented, and as things stand, implementation will not occur for over three years. Three years is a long time to keep your fingers crossed hoping against hope that you don't have a major illness or accident if you are currently uninsured. Three years is a long time when your COBRA is about to run out and you still don't have a job and no one will insure you in the individual market. Three years is a long time when your employer decides that it can no longer afford to offer an insurance plan and you are on your own.

He's saying what he thinks people need to hear in order to get on board, but what he's saying has very little nexus with the reality and meaning of all of the proposals curently on the table.

Health care is one of those concrete issues that most people have enough experience with that campaign-style speeches are not going to get it done, and this is, in large part, why Obama is not getting traction.

Also, (5.00 / 3) (#100)
by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:54:54 PM EST

What happens if someone likes their doctor and their plan and their employer drops the plan, changes the plan or the coverage?

As a self-employed person who is the employer and chooses the plan, I worry about what happens if the health insurance company drops or changes the plan and coverage.


: I'm self (5.00 / 1) (#103)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:24:11 PM EST

employed too and I feel the same way you do. Since I pay the premiums all by myself I have all the same questions that you do about what Obama's doing. They aren't being answered so far.

I seem to remember Obama or Gibbs (5.00 / 2) (#101)
by ruffian on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:58:38 PM EST

having to address the 'employer changes your coverage' question early on in the process, maybe at a presser. He had to clarify and say that WORM was that nothing the government was doing would make you have to change your doctor. What your employer did was up to the employer. I know I felt much better.

Your last point is worth repeating. This is not a semi-abstract issue where people can only imagine how they would be affected. They know this stuff. I really wish the education campaign had come first and the legislation later, maybe next year or after the midterms.


BCBC Non-profit (5.00 / 1) (#109)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:45:47 PM EST

Wikipedia has an okay article about BCBS as a non-profit and BTW, Anthem is a For Profit corp. The notion of non-profit is misleading. Non-profit simply means no profit to shareholders while still paying its executives exhorbitant salaries and bonuses for "cost savings". Saying "non-profit" implies charity. Not so in this case. Don't know why Obama mentioned it except to garner sympathy for poor insurance companies? (LOL). I hope it didn't work

They can't at this stage (none / 0) (#7)
by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:09:58 PM EST

I'd like for Anthem (my insurance company) to prepare and send me now a copy of the revised policy I will be getting once the bill passes, so I can see the changes in coverage and the premiums that will be made to the policy because of the bill.

The bill isn't finalized, so nothing is set in stone as yet. Private insurance companies write their policies in custom form. The Anthem BCBS coverage is not a one size fits all plan. Few employers who provide BCBS to their employees offer the same coverage. I expect it will take a long time for the insurance companies to translate the plan for the subscribers.

They have 15 plans or so (none / 0) (#10)
by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:14:30 PM EST

for employers, divided into a few categories. E.g., the HMO's, the Health Savings/High Deductible plans, the PPO's. They could easily do the changes with the bill (as proposed) for each category. Sure, it would be subject to revision depending on the final version passed but it would be a good starting point.


: This (none / 0) (#12)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:17:26 PM EST

is what has to happen before that can possibly happen:
Link to Seattle Times
There are currently 5 proposals.

: BC in Washington (none / 0) (#16)
by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:27:53 PM EST

does custom plans for each employer (particularly the large employers)...they can get very detailed in what is and is not covered. I'm surprised Anthem doesn't do that for their large company subscribers.

Yeah (none / 0) (#11)
by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:16:44 PM EST

I would love to see this too:

I'd like for Anthem (my insurance company) to prepare and send me now a copy of the revised policy I will be getting once the bill passes, so I can see the changes in coverage and premiums that will be made to the policy because of the bill.

lol

: Oh, you're so cynical (none / 0) (#87)
by ruffian on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 03:20:04 PM EST

Do you really think they would slant this estimate and tell Jeralyn her insurance will go up 200% if Obama's health care plan is passed? Never!!!

That's a really good idea! (none / 0) (#36)
by JoeCHI on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 12:56:00 PM EST

Just start a new private insurance company (none / 0) (#108)
by mla on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:44:38 PM EST

If the insurance companies really are holding us "hostage," why doesn't Obama just start a new, non-profit insurance company, run by people he trusts to act responsibly?

That gets him the competition he wants, there's no need for a thousand page bill, and surely neither side of the isle can object to it.

Health Insurance is a Fraud (none / 0) (#114)
by MrGreenJeans on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 07:03:22 PM EST

As Ralph Nader pointed out long ago, Obama is owned by Corporate America and will do nothing to upset those who donated so much to him.

There is one way only: Single Payer: everybody in, nobody out, period.

The insurance monopoly OWNS both Republicans AND Democrats, so we are not going to hear any truth or reason in this "argument".

Insurance is gambling - you are betting you'll get sick and your premiums will pay, while they are betting you won't - and they are WINNING, to the tune of 428% increased profits between 2000 and 2007. Wait, no - insurance is STEALING - from the suckers paying into it.

Health Care--YES! Illegal Immigration--NO! (none / 0) (#115)
by Brittanicus on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:18:11 PM EST

The Special Interest lobbyists are spending $millions, spilling their lies to the American people. So many lies that they have likely disrupted any chance of Universal health care. They have lied so much about the Canada system, and paid off so many people to give birth to their lies, that the gullible population believes them. The wealthy insurers want no change, so they can ring every dollar out of a system.wrought with fraud and corruption In the long run cost will explode and only the upper class will have the money to buy care. Lose your job and even those people will join the millions out of work unable to pay for medical care for their family.
The Status Quo are selling propaganda and downright lies, across the TV, radio bandwidths. LIES! Lies and more lies about both Health care and illegal immigration. The facts are that President Obama has an objective of introducing a Canadian and European type single payer system.
In truth it's like a nationwide--MEDICARE--like all senior citizens receive now. It's only difference their will be--NO CO-PAYS, DEDUCTIONS, NO PREMIUMS AND NO PRE -EXISTING CONDITIONS. The Special interest lobbyists, who work for the wealthy health care industry, are using every means possible to derail any kind of Universal health care. We must remember the British/English, French, German, Danish and other have been well accepted by their population for decades, with no worries about bankruptcy or Debt collectors calling. My health care in England, was first class when I lived in there, without financial worries and no distractions from profiteering insurance companies.As a child and a young man I choose my doctor and received eye and dentistry visits free of charges.
I NEVER HAD TO WAIT FOR A SURGERY FOR MONTHS, AS THE SPECIAL INTEREST LOBBY TRIES TO IMPLY? EMERGENCY PROCEDURES WERE DEALT WITH IMMEDIATELY. One should remember that there a large majority of nefarious special interest groups, who enjoy the status quo and will fight with propaganda and lies against their profiteering. Another place where I lived was Australia, where the health care system is equally as great as England. One year I was employed by Australian Main Roads as a junior surveyor and stepped into a fire ants nest, ending up in hospital. Once again my cost was--ZERO--because I paid into the system. There is something very calming, without the worry of billing statements pouring through the mailbox demanding money and threatening you with an attorney.
Since the inception of the European common market and the directive of open borders for cheap labor pouring into the industrialized nations, they have been overwhelmed by the impoverished needing health care. Such conditions didn't exist before the 1960's, as the their was no mass immigration and waiting periods. In America today and since the newest waves of legal and illegal immigration, costs to medicate these people have sky rocketed who have never paid one penny into the system. Each previous government never have restricted immigration, but allowed taxpayers to pay for their health care and welfare benefits. Each year approximately 1.5 million new immigrants are granted work visas and many become public charges.
Now Obama is insisting on yet another AMNESTY, which will be even costlier to the American taxpayers, so says the Heritage foundation. American taxpayers should not have to subsidize US businesses, which has been happening for years? A large majority of pariah corporate executives, do not want any restrictions on foreign national workers, that is why they have tried to kill a mandated E-Verify identity data base, to extract all illegal immigrants from the working environment.
That SANCTUARY STATES like California must rescind illegal immigrant refuge policies. That President Obama's health care renewal plan--WILL--attract millions more impoverished people from around the world. That they can join with the 20 plus million already here, to get free medical care under the Democrats law now passing through Congress.

Observe this PETITION to STOP any health care to illegal immigrants at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/nohealthcareforillegals