Seven disagreements in health bill

http://www.congress.org/news/2010/01/05/seven_disagreements_in_health_bill

What the House and the Senate need to reconcile before sending the bill to President Obama.

By Ambreen Ali

The debate over the health care overhaul has moved behind closed doors.

After difficult votes in both the House and the Senate, Democratic leaders are eager to avoid a bipartisan conference that would give Republicans further opportunities to try to delay or kill the legislation.

Democrats are now trying to “ping-pong” a compromise by informally shuttling the legislation back and forth.

It’s likely that the Senate version (HR 3590 ) will be amended with the final changes and put up for a final vote.

But compromise won’t be easy (…)

I’m the Guy Who Cut Your Health Benefits. Trust Me.

Thanks for the warning. Makes you think that the best solution is the public option and a new regulatory agency to keep the insurance companies in line. What I don’t understand is why the shortage of medical personnel isn’t being addressed. We need to educate more doctors and nurses. If medical personnel had to compete for jobs the way graphic designers and carpenters do, medical costs would drop considerably. The first thing the government should do to cut costs is to hand out grants to medical students so they don’t have to take on huge debts. Without the debt, graduating practitioners could afford to charge less and still live well right out of college.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Conservative Commentator David Brooks Prefers Single Payer to Current Plans

This past Sunday on ABC News This Week, respected, conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks made a remarkable comment: “Well, I wouldn’t mind a single payer,” he said. “Frankly I prefer a single payer [health care system] to what we have now, because that would actually control costs.”

As the expert blogger for the Physicians for a National Health Program, Don McCanne, MD, says: “Single payer helps get people the care they need while controlling costs.” McCanne’s “Quote-of-the-Day” blogs are an important source of information about single payer.

Don Schroeder, Co-Chair
California OneCare Campaign

Health Insurance Monopolies Are Illegal. There Is No Insurance Antitrust Exemption.

For OpEdNews: Jerry Policoff – Writer
One of the more under-reported aspects of the healthcare reform efforts currently making their way through the Senate and House of Representatives in Washington is the antitrust exemption conferred upon the insurance industry sixty-four years ago with the enactment of the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. The Act fostered the growth of giant health insurance monopolies whose Wall Street driven for-profit corporate culture has produced a dysfunctional American healthcare system where profit takes precedence over health care.

(more on the antitrust exemption)

Main Street and Wall Street: A Tale of Two Cities

What is next? How about an honest discussion? Why does no one mention the tie-in between curing the health care system and resolving the unemployment problem?

Has no one noticed the millions of baby-boomers who would love to retire if they didn’t have to worry about financing their health insurance and long term care needs as they age. There are millions who paid off mortgages, put kids through college, did not gamble in the markets, or re-finance their homes.

These millions of people would quit their jobs tomorrow if they did not have to worry about loosing their health insurance the minute they get sick. Think about it. When they retire they free up millions of jobs. If employers are nervous about the exit of their most experienced professionals, they can keep them on as part-time consultants to train their replacements.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Five Flaws accoding to Moveon

Five Critical Flaws in the Senate Health Care Bill

The Senate bill would:

#1—Deny Americans the choice of a public option. In contrast, the House bill contains a national public option, the key to real competition, greater choice, and lower costs.1

#2—Leave insurance unaffordable for some lower income and working people. Both bills require virtually all Americans to buy insurance. But even with the subsidies provided, some families could have to pay up to 20% of their income on health care expenses.2

#3—Impose dangerous restrictions on women’s reproductive health care. Unfortunately, both bills do this and the House provision is worse. Both versions would be a dangerous step and neither should be in the final bill.3

#4—Tax American workers’ health coverage to pay for reform. The Senate would pay for part of reform by taxing the hard-won benefits packages of some working Americans. The House, on the other hand, pays for reform with a small surcharge on only the wealthiest Americans—a far better approach.4

#5—Allow insurance companies to remain exempt from anti-trust laws. Under current law, insurance companies are actually exempt from laws designed to prevent monopolies and price-gouging. The House bill would fix this, but the Senate bill leaves it in place.5

Of course, these aren’t the only problems with the bill. Most glaringly, both the Senate and House bill would leave millions uninsured,6 a far cry from the vision of universal coverage so many of us have fought for. That remains a long-term goal.

But these five things need to be fixed immediately—and we need to spread the word to make sure House and Senate leadership and the White House get the message we’re counting on them to craft a final bill with these key fixes.

Can you spread the word? Forward this email, and click here to post on Facebook, or here to post on Twitter.

Thanks for all you do.

–Kat, Carrie, Michael, Joan, and the rest of the team

***

Sources:

1. “Comparing the House and the Senate Health Care Proposals: Public Plan,” The New York Times, December 19, 2009

“The House Bill and the Senate Bill,” The Now! Blog, December 21, 2009

“Why We Need a Public Health-Care Plan,” The Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124580516633344953.html

“Why a public health insurance option is key to saving costs,” Economic Policy Institute, June 25, 2009

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=85866&id=18404-3455978-ME41EBx&t=7

2. “Assessment of Affordability Provisions in the Exchange in House (H.R. 3962) and Senate (H.R. 3590) Health Reform Bills,” Health Care for America Now

http://hcfan.3cdn.net/46590729111c307ccc_lom6b3a6r.pdf

“Finishing Reform Right: Fixing affordability before the President signs a health care bill,” The Now! Blog, December 22, 2009

“Comparing the House and the Senate Health Care Proposals: Individual Mandate,” The New York Times, December 19, 2009

“The House Bill and the Senate Bill,” The Now! Blog, December 21, 2009

“Senate health bill is launch pad,” Jacob Hacker, December 22, 2009

3. “Comparing the House and the Senate Health Care Proposals: Abortion,” The New York Times, December 19, 2009

4. “Comparing the House and the Senate Health Care Proposals: Paying for the Proposals,” The New York Times, December 19, 2009

5. “Comparing the House and the Senate Health Care Proposals: Insurance Regulations,” The New York Times, December 19, 2009

6. “H.R. 3962, Affordable Health Care for America Act,” Congressional Budget Office, November 20, 2009

“Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” Congressional Budget Office, November 18, 2009

“REPORT: How the Senate Bill Compares to Other Reform Legislation,” Think Progress, November 19, 2009

A lot of time on your hands?

For anyone who has the time and wants a link to it. Try this one:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bill.xc?billnum=H.R.3590&congress=111

Seven quick fixes to health care

What would happen soon if the health-care overhaul passes.

By Ryan Teague Beckwith

To hear the rhetoric on both sides, you’d think the health-care overhaul in the Senate would change the U.S. system overnight.

In reality, most of the changes — such as the new health insurance exchanges and insurance mandates for individuals — would not take place until 2014 (or 2013 in the House version).

Still, a few provisions are set to begin next year, if the legislation passes.

Some of the most significant changes would extend existing programs and rules in order to immediately reduce the number of uninsured Americans. Others would end unpopular practices in the private insurance industry.

The measures are designed to build immediate support for the longer-term provisions in the bills, which could still be changed by future legislation. They will also provide President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats with talking points going into the 2010 elections.

If the bill passes, expect to hear a lot more about these provisions in the near future.

Below, a few of the immediate changes:

* Insuring high-risk citizens. Both bills would create a $5 billion fund for temporary insurance for citizens with pre-existing conditions who have not been insured for at least six months. The program would end once the insurance exchanges begin in 2013 or 2014.

* Extending insurance for adult children. The House bill would allow parents to keep unmarried adult children on their health insurance until their 27th birthday; the Senate bill, until their 26th birthday. This would reduce the number of uninsured young adults.

* Extending insurance for the recently unemployed. Under current law, laid-off workers are allowed to continue buying their existing insurance through the COBRA program for up to 18 months. The bills would extend that coverage until the insurance exchanges begin.

* Ending lifetime limits on benefits. Both bills would end the lifetime caps on insurance coverage which have sometimes been used to deny payments to consumers with particularly expensive treatments. Both bills would also restrict annual limits on health-care benefits.

* Ending rescission. Insurance companies often cancel policies for consumers who require expensive medical care because they made honest mistakes on their medical histories. Both bills would prohibit insurance plans from canceling coverage except in cases of fraud.

* Starting to close the doughnut hole. Both bills would begin closing the so-called “doughnut hole” in Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage by providing an additional $500 in coverage starting in 2010. Over several years, the gap would be reduced until it was closed entirely.

* Taxing plastic surgery. The Senate bill would include a new 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery. The tax is estimated to raise $5.8 billion over the next 10 years. It does not apply to cosmetic surgery to fix problems caused by accidents, disease or birth defects.

Ryan Teague Beckwith is deputy editor of Congress.org

Environmental Working Group

Some groups other than the government are also working on solving health problems. This one looks rather good. Lots of data on lots of environmental issues that effect human health. I’m listing them in the links. Here is a taste of what they cover.

Envirnomental Working Group

Opinions on the Health Care Bills

It is not my intention to impose my thoughts on others on the details of the health care bills. I am using this blog to gather information from various sources. As many details are constantly changing and others are updating their sites, I suggest you look at the latest data by following the links in the left column and on the Healthcare Reforms page. I repeat them here. The Kaiser information is fairly detailed, and the Washington Post is much simpler to understand.

Kaiser’s Side-b-ySide Comparison of Major Health Care Reform Proposals

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

Interactive Graphic from washingtonpost.com shows similarities and differences between the House and Senate bill. According to this graph, the House Bill covers fewer people and is less expensive. The Senate bill covers more people and is much more expensive.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/health/compare-health-plans-2009/?referrer=emaillink

© 2009 The Washington Post Company

Probublica’s latest article on the effects of the Proposed Health Care bills on Medicare.

Medicare Advantage has been a major flash point [5] in the health care reform debate, giving fodder to opponents of reform who say that Medicare would be cut to pay for the proposals. Our analysis of the impact of reforms on one very satisfied Medicare Advantage member finds the changes would be a loss for many seniors, but a win for taxpayers.

About Medicare Advantage: The elderly can participate either in traditional Medicare, which is administered by the government, or in Medicare Advantage, which subsidizes HMO plans administered by private insurance companies.

Read More