Universal Health Care for America

[Guest Bishop James Vann Johnston]

A basic principle for health care reform is that it must not include policies that deliberately attack human life from conception to natural death. This means that health care reform measures must not include provisions for taxpayer-funded abortion or euthanasia.

[Guest Leticia Velasquez]

It should be clear to all Catholics that while the Church supports some type of health care reform, that the current plan is NOT acceptable since it infringes on the most basic of human rights; life.

[Luke_Wilbur]

I am afraid of this Health Care bill.

 

I consider myself an independant thinker.

 

I believe in God.

 

I honor my family and friends.

 

I love being a citizen of this country.

 

I am a patron of Liberty.

 

My faith is Catholic.

 

Freedom of choice is my belief.

 

I was taught that God gives us free choice.

 

 

 

I was taught that the Lord died for our mistakes.

 

Health care is a mistake of humanity vs. community. We the Individual vs. We the People.

 

The Government is tipping the scales of ethics and justice to take money from our pockets.

 

I see the way the District and Maryland Governments are treating the disabled and ederly.

 

If you are alone and walking the streets, because someone shipped you accross the state district line. Brother you are out of luck. The District of Columbia is not going to help you. But, they make sure to rob you.

 

Joe is a disabled friend of mine and many others. Recently Joe's parents died. Montgomery County was going to let him slip through the cracks and place him in a shelter. They told me after a few months he may possibly be put in a group home. He would have a social worker that would check up on him every month or two. I told Joe his would be living in my home.

 

I am now Joe's Guardian. His health and welfare is my responsibility.

 

I am also fighting for Joe's rights to get his medication. His medicare and medicaid has been taken from him.

 

Joe can no longer get medicine. I was advised that the District of Columbia Disability Services would take care of him.

 

What a joke. This process has taken five months and nothing has been done. The District of Columbia Disability services has every record of Joe. They tell me that they have to review whether he is disabled.

 

I personally do understand how they can live with themselves. They obviously do. Maybe they just wander the halls talking ideals that they are helping people. But, the times are changing. I am keeping track of them.

 

So, at this moment I love the idea of Public Healthcare. But, even Obama admitted that it cannot be changed in a day.

 

This has become a battle of lobby groups missusing the Power of the People.

 

I am still waiting to see tranparency of what went wrong.

 

Until I do see it. This will be like Logan's Run. Watch the video.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WUUnc1M0TA

[Guest HUMAN]

You were too nice with D.C. Social Services. You didn't go after them on radio, newspapers, Joe Knights Representative, the .orgs

 

You were really too nice with them. I would have NEVER been that nice with them. I really would do all of the above. You have to come at them from ALL sides or they just won't blink.

 

[Who knows? If Joe Knight was African American, or Latino he might have gotten help from D.C. Social Services. <---- Ironicly this is how it all started with me on illegal immigration 8 years back with a fellow in a similar situtation.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am afraid of this Health Care bill.

 

I consider myself an independant thinker.

 

I believe in God.

 

I honor my family and friends.

 

I love being a citizen of this country.

 

I am a patron of Liberty.

 

My faith is Catholic.

 

Freedom of choice is my belief.

 

I was taught that God gives us free choice.

 

 

 

I was taught that the Lord died for our mistakes.

 

Health care is a mistake of humanity vs. community. We the Individual vs. We the People.

 

The Government is tipping the scales of ethics and justice to take money from our pockets.

 

I see the way the District and Maryland Governments are treating the disabled and ederly.

 

If you are alone and walking the streets, because someone shipped you accross the state district line. Brother you are out of luck. The District of Columbia is not going to help you. But, they make sure to rob you.

 

Joe is a disabled friend of mine and many others. Recently Joe's parents died. Montgomery County was going to let him slip through the cracks and place him in a shelter. They told me after a few months he may possibly be put in a group home. He would have a social worker that would check up on him every month or two. I told Joe his would be living in my home.

 

I am now Joe's Guardian. His health and welfare is my responsibility.

 

I am also fighting for Joe's rights to get his medication. His medicare and medicaid has been taken from him.

 

Joe can no longer get medicine. I was advised that the District of Columbia Disability Services would take care of him.

 

What a joke. This process has taken five months and nothing has been done. The District of Columbia Disability services has every record of Joe. They tell me that they have to review whether he is disabled.

 

I personally do understand how they can live with themselves. They obviously do. Maybe they just wander the halls talking ideals that they are helping people. But, the times are changing. I am keeping track of them.

 

So, at this moment I love the idea of Public Healthcare. But, even Obama admitted that it cannot be changed in a day.

 

This has become a battle of lobby groups missusing the Power of the People.

 

I am still waiting to see tranparency of what went wrong.

 

Until I do see it. This will be like Logan's Run. Watch the video.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WUUnc1M0TA

[Guest Human]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/04/AR2009100403185.html?hpid=topnews

[Luke_Wilbur]

Medicare for the poor, a health-care safety net for all people with an annual income below $14,404. I personally like the idea.

[Guest Human]

It's about time that a greater understanding of SEIU's agenda be really looked at in ALL aspects.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/seiu-senate-finance-committee-vote-is-historic.php

 

Service Employees International Union issued a press release this afternoon following the Senate Finance Committee's 14-9 vote to pass health insurance reform legislation out of committee. Here's the full text:

 

"Today, we stand on the brink of making history and giving every American the promise of health insurance reform that no longer leaves families at the mercy of an insurance industry driven by profits and greed," said Andy Stern, President of Service Employees International Union. "And, as we stand at this pivotal moment, we must ask: Will our Senators live up to the promise of reform they made to the American people or will they stand with an industry that has turned their backs on meaningful reform?

 

"With the Senate Finance Committee's historic vote on health insurance reform today, Congress has made clear that the status quo is not an option. It comes as no surprise however that Senator Olympia Snowe is the lone Republican to recognize what every family across this country knows, we can and we must do better.

 

"Now, Majority Leader Reid must bring a bill to the Senate floor that helps Americans like Roberta Howard. Roberta lost her health insurance after losing her job and was diagnosed with cancer just seven days later. Unfortunately, the Senate Finance bill does not go far enough to protect Roberta and other Americans from the crippling cost of healthcare."

 

The American people deserve a healthcare system that they can count on, one that guarantees:

 

* Every American can afford to pay for their coverage,

 

* Everyone shares responsibility, including business,

 

* Reform is paid for but not at the expense of working middle-class families, and

 

* People have the choice of a public option so insurance companies can no longer run roughshod over our families.

 

SEIU's 2.1 million nurses, doctors, security guards, and janitors will keep working to make sure any health insurance reform legislation is worthy of their support and truly makes healthcare affordable for all Americans.

 

"At this point, the only people who can stop meaningful reform from being delivered are the sixty Democratic members of the United State Senate who were elected by the American people on a promise that they would stand for change, stand up to the special interests and stand proudly for an American healthcare system that works," said Stern.

[Guest DC Government Worker]

Approximately 65 million Americans live in communities with shortages of primary care providers and nearly 50 million of those Americans live in rural areas. Health information technology, and specifically Electronic Health Records (EHR), can improve care for patients and assist in clinical decision making and the use of evidence-based guidelines. Electronic health records can also decrease administrative hassle, increasing workplace satisfaction and productivity.

 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act encourages greater use of health information technology through significant and new investments. Through incentive payments to providers and hospitals, funding from the Recovery Act will accelerate the adoption of health information technology and the creation of an interoperable, nationwide network. Health insurance reform will build on this investment by simplifying and streamlining administrative procedures, investing in telehealth and improving the quality of health care.

[Guest Erin Shields]

FINANCE COMMITTEE APPROVES BAUCUS’ AMERICA’S HEALTHY FUTURE ACT

 

Landmark Health Care Reform Legislation to Reduce Costs

Provide Quality, Affordable Coverage Approved by Vote of 14 to 9

Now Heads to Senate Floor

 

Washington, DC – The Senate Finance Committee today approved Chairman Max Baucus’ (D‐Mont.) landmark health reform bill, the America’s Healthy Future Act. The legislation would lower costs and provide quality, affordable health care coverage. It would make it easier for families and small businesses to buy health insurance, ensure Americans can choose to keep the health care coverage they have if they like it and slow the growth of health care costs over time.

 

The America’s Healthy Future Act would bar insurance companies from discriminating against people based on health status, denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions or imposing annual caps or lifetime limits on coverage. And it would improve the way the health care system delivers care by improving efficiency, quality, and coordination.

 

The Congressional Budget Office has said the bill is fully paid for, estimated to cost $829 billion dollars and will reduce the federal deficit by $81 billion within first ten years.

 

"The bill we passed today puts patients and doctors – not insurance companies – in the driver’s seat," said Baucus. “It includes strong provisions to end insurance company practices that discriminate against those who are sick or have pre‐existing conditions. It modernizes our health care system to reduce waste and inefficiency and slows health care costs that stretch families, businesses and our economy to a breaking point. This balanced, common‐sense bill begins to shave the federal deficits. The American people deserve a health care system that works for them and this vote is a critical step toward that goal."

[Guest Jill Gerber]

Sen. Grassley delivered part of this statement, then submitted the rest into the committee record.

 

Markup of the America’s Healthy Future Act

Senate Finance Committee

Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

 

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend you for bringing this markup to where it is today. It seems like a long time since we started on September 22nd. We’ve been able to

air our differences and have the votes. I wish I felt better about the substance of the bill.

 

The chairman’s mark has undergone many changes during this process and they are not

to the good. I’ll highlight a few of the changes I find most disturbing. As I highlight

these issues, it will be clear that this bill is already sliding rapidly down the slippery slope

to more and more government control of health care.

 

It has the biggest expansion of Medicaid since it was created in 1965.

 

It imposes an unprecedented federal mandate for coverage backed by the enforcement authority of the Internal Revenue Service.

 

It increases the size of the government by at least $1.8 trillion when fully implemented.

 

It gives the secretary of Health and Human Services the power to define benefits for every private plan in America and to redefine those benefits annually. That’s a lot of power over people’s lives.

 

It will cause health care premiums for millions to go up, not down.

 

It tightens further the new federal rating bands for insurance rates. That means that millions who are expecting lower costs as a result of health reform will end up paying more in the form of higher premiums. The new rating reforms alone will raise premiums by as much as 50 percent on millions.

 

It imposes new fees and taxes. These new fees and taxes will total about a half trillion

dollars over the next few years. On the front end, these fees and taxes will cause premium

increases as early as 2010 even before most of the reforms take effect.

 

Then after forcing health premiums to go up, this bill makes it mandatory to buy it.

 

On several occasions, Republicans tried to take the chairman’s mark in a different direction. We tried to ensure that the President’s pledge to not tax middle-income families, seniors, or veterans was carried out. We were rebuffed every step of the way.

 

And Republican efforts to provide consumers with a lower cost benefit option were consistently defeated – this means that despite the promises, a lot of people aren’t actually going to be able to "keep what they have."

 

It imposes higher premiums for prescription drug coverage on seniors and the disabled.

And it creates a new Medicare commission with broad authority to make further cuts in

Medicare and it makes that commission permanent.

 

In our group of six negotiations, I resisted making the commission permanent. And I

certainly wasn't going to agree to target prescription drug premiums.

 

But this bill now requires the Medicare commission to continue making cuts to Medicare

forever. The damage this group of unelected people could do to Medicare is unknown.

 

What's more alarming is that so many providers got exempted from the cuts this

commission would make that it forces the cuts to fall directly on seniors and the disabled.

 

The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that the commission structure requires it

to focus its budget axe on the premiums seniors pay for Part D prescription drug coverage

and for Medicare Advantage.

 

Sooner or later, it has to be acknowledged that, by making the commission permanent, those savings are coming from more and more cuts to Medicare.

 

Finally, I can’t help but note the incredible cynicism in an amendment that took benefits

away from children. That amendment was offered and passed because the chairman’s mark had the audacity to let children get covered through private insurance.

 

In 41 states, children would have received access to the EPSDT benefit.

 

EPSDT benefits cover vitally needed services for children such as rehabilitation services,

physical, occupational and speech therapy particularly for children with developmental

disabilities.

 

But those benefits were deleted by Rockefeller Amendment C21. Now children in 41 states won’t have access to health care and they’ll be left in a grossly underfunded public program. And they lost these important benefits.

 

What this mark up has shown is that there is a clear and significant philosophical difference between the two sides.

 

Throughout the markup, we have focused on trying to reduce the overall cost of the bill.

We were told ‘no’.

 

We focused on trying to reduce the pervasive role of government in the chairman’s mark. We were told ‘no’.

 

We tried to make it harder to for illegal immigrants to get benefits. We were told ‘no’.

 

We tried to guarantee that federal funding for abortions wouldn’t be allowed under this

bill. We were told ‘no’.

 

We tried to allow alternatives to the individual mandate and harsh penalties. We were

told 'no'.

 

We tried to reward states with extra Medicaid dollars if they passed medical malpractice

reform. We were told not just ‘no’ but shockingly we were told Medicaid isn’t even in

the committee’s jurisdiction.

 

We have watched while the other side has expanded public coverage.

 

We saw Democrat amendments move millions from private coverage into public coverage.

 

We saw Democrat amendments create new government programs that cover families making close to 90 thousand dollars.

 

And at the end of the day, after raising billions in new taxes, cutting hundreds of billions

from Medicare, and imposing stiff new penalties for people who don’t buy insurance, and

increasing costs for those that do … 25 million people will still not even have health insurance.

 

 

I don’t think this is what the American people had in mind when we promised to fix the health care system.

 

As I said when this process started, the chairman’s mark that was released 27 days ago was an incomplete, but comprehensive, good faith attempt to reach a bipartisan agreement.

 

But then the modification pulled that attempt at bipartisan compromise very far toward a partisan approach on several key issues.

 

With this markup nearing its conclusion we can now see clearly that the bill continues its

march leftward.

 

The broad bipartisan character of the reform proposal has changed. This partisan change is precisely what Republicans feared would occur at later stages in the legislative process.

 

Today we see that those fears were legitimate and justified.

 

Nevertheless, I still hold out hope that at some point the doorway to bipartisanship will be

opened once again.

 

I hope that at some point the White House and leadership will want to correct the mistake

they made by ending our collaborative bipartisan work.

 

I hope at some point they will want to let that bipartisan work begin again. And then, they need to back that effort and give it the time needed to get it right. But it is clear that today is not the day when that is going to happen.

[Guest 88.5 Loyal Listener]

Insurance reforms alone will substantially increase claims costs in the individual market. The individual market "risk pool" will be less healthy than today and will drive higher insurance premiums.

[Guest Conko]

Then we need to address the our inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness."

 

Thomas Jefferson's modification of George Mason's draft Declaration says it best — what was "life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety" became "life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness." To value property over life, and to deny Americans the healthcare that is their right is the greatest injustice of all.

 

We do not consider other necessities, like food and housing, as things to which all Americans have a right, in part because establishing a right to something implies that others have an

obligation to supply it.

[Guest Celeste]

You were too nice with D.C. Social Services. You didn't go after them on radio, newspapers, Joe Knights Representative, the .orgs

 

You were really too nice with them. I would have NEVER been that nice with them. I really would do all of the above. You have to come at them from ALL sides or they just won't blink.

 

[Who knows? If Joe Knight was African American, or Latino he might have gotten help from D.C. Social Services. <---- Ironicly this is how it all started with me on illegal immigration 8 years back with a fellow in a similar situtation.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

There will be too many administrative hurdles for the disadvantaged to enroll and get the proper treatment. I wonder how many people die in the District due to their failure to respond.

[Guest ALWAYS RED]

If Congress would allow all insurance companies to compete across state lines. The competition would be fierce and our insurance premiums would be reduced. This would allow the government to focus on helping disadvantaged citizens like Joe in our country. But, the Democrats will not do this, because it is a Republican idea. Thousands of Joe's will fall through the cracks and not get the care they need.

[Guest A Fixed Game]

Finally Democrats are seeing the light of Tort Reform...

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

TWO DAYS AFTER HEALTH INSURANCE LOBBY TRIED TO SUCKER-PUNCH HEALTH CARE REFORM EFFORT ... SCHUMER: REVOKE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY'S ANTITRUST EXEMPTION AS PART OF HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL

 

Under 1945 Law, Insurance Industry Among Only Handful Of Industries—Like Major League Baseball and Railroads—To Be Exempt From Federal Antitrust Laws

 

Schumer Says Industry's Special Status Should End In Order To Bring Greater Competition To Marketplace; Calls For Floor Amendment To Health Care Reform Bill

 

Amendment Should Be Based On Senator Leahy's Bill That Is Focus of Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Today

 

WASHINGTON, DC—Days after the health insurance industry openly declared it will use the emerging health care reform overhaul as an excuse to raise premiums on millions of Americans, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) urged Wednesday that the legislation should include a new provision to revoke the industry’s anti-trust exemption.

 

By virtue of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, passed by Congress in 1945, the insurance industry is one of only a handful of select industries in the United States, such as Major League Baseball and railroads, to be exempted from federal antitrust laws. Schumer, a co-sponsor of a bill authored by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to repeal the exemption, said the health insurance industry should lose its special status as part of the landmark health care bill scheduled to reach President Obama’s desk later this year.

 

"The health insurance’s antitrust exemption is one of the worst accidents of American history. It deserves a lot of the blame for the huge rise in premiums that has made health insurance so unaffordable. It is time to end this special status and bring true competition to the health insurance industry," Schumer said.

 

Schumer called for attaching a floor amendment to the health care bill that Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to bring to the floor later this month. Schumer said the amendment should be based on Leahy’s legislation.

 

Schumer made this declaration a day after the Senate Finance Committee approved a milestone health care bill by a bipartisan vote of 14-9. On the eve of that vote, the health insurance industry launched an eleventh-hour broadside against the reform effort in an effort to sink its chances. On Monday, the health insurers’ trade association, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) issued a flawed report that attempted to show that the emerging bill would force health insurers to raise premiums on their customers much more than they otherwise would. Soon after the report’s issuance, the company that developed it on behalf of AHIP acknowledged that it did not include the bill’s many cost-saving measures in its analysis.

 

Throughout the debate on health care reform, Schumer has been a lead proponent of a public option that would lower health care costs by competing alongside private insurers. The public option would put patients ahead of profits; unlike private insurers, it would have no profit motive whatsoever and would have greatly reduced marketing costs. Private health insurers have scorned the prospect of just such a new competitor.

 

While the fight for a public option continues, Schumer said Wednesday that the health care reform bill should also seek to impose competition on other ways, like repealing their antitrust exemption. The McCarran-Ferguson Act was enacted in 1945 to protect the insurance industry after the Supreme Court ruled that it was subject to federal regulation under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The legislation ceded oversight over the insurance industry to states by exempting the so-called “business of insurance” from federal laws. A repeal of McCarran-Ferguson would have the effect of restoring the federal government’s power to curtail price-fixing, collusion and other anti-competitive practices that may exist within the health insurance industry.

[Guest Gov. Tim Pawlenty Office]

Minnesotans would be first in the nation to be able to purchase health insurance across state lines under an initiative proposed by Governor Tim Pawlenty today.

 

Governor Pawlenty outlined a package of health care reform initiatives to be considered during the 2010 legislative session. In addition to enhancing competition in the health care insurance marketplace, the Governor proposed applying successful cost-containment strategies to the state’s publicly-subsidized health care programs.

 

“Minnesota has one of the best health care systems in the world. We have world-class providers and the second highest rate of people with insurance,” Governor Pawlenty said. “In recent years, we’ve made significant progress toward making our health care system even more market-driven, patient-centered and quality-focused. While Congress debates federal health care reform, there are important additional steps that we can take in Minnesota to provide greater choice and competition while holding down explosive health care costs.”

 

Governor Pawlenty proposed three health care reform initiatives:

 

• Allow Minnesotans to Purchase Health Insurance from Other States

• Require MinnesotaCare & Medical Assistance to Price Health Care Services Based on Quality and Cost

• Include Consumer-Driven Incentives in MinnesotaCare

 

Minnesota continues to lead the nation in the performance of our health care system, as recognized most recently by the Commonwealth Fund’s state scorecard. In their 2009 scrutiny of access, quality, costs, healthy lives, and equity, Minnesota moved ahead of states such as Massachusetts, Maine, and Connecticut from 9th place to 4th place overall. We should continue to take action to keep Minnesota on the leading edge of health care policy innovation.

 

Allow Minnesotans to Purchase Health Insurance from Other States

 

Minnesotans are currently prohibited from buying health insurance products from other states. Minnesotan citizens and businesses would benefit from more choice in the marketplace and additional competition. Three health care plans in Minnesota dominate the marketplace, with a combined market share of more than 80 percent of fully insured Minnesotans.

 

Governor Pawlenty is proposing that Minnesota law be changed to allow consumers to purchase health insurance plans sold in other states. The following requirements would have to be met in order for the product to be sold in Minnesota:

 

• The state insurance regulator where the company is domiciled must be accredited by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

• The insurance company must have a certificate of authority in Minnesota.

• The insurance regulator in the state of domicile must review and approve policy forms.

• The insurance company must agree to abide by Minnesota’s claims practices and other consumer protection laws.

• The insurance company would be subject to standard Minnesota fees and taxes.

 

The Minnesota Commissioner of Commerce will determine the top 20 states that are most effective in terms of regulating health insurance policies and have the best health outcomes for their residents. Only policies approved in those states and meeting Minnesota’s new criteria could be sold to Minnesotans.

 

Ultimately, Governor Pawlenty proposes that Minnesota help establish an Interstate Health Insurance Compact that would allow states to join and share common regulatory standards to facilitate the purchase of health insurance across state lines. The Interstate Health Insurance Compact would be modeled after the successful Interstate Insurance Product Regulation Compact (IIPRC) that has made the purchase of life insurance easier. Minnesota played a leading role in establishing the IIPRC, which began in 2004 and became operational in 2006. Thirty-three states are members of the IIPRC.

 

Require MinnesotaCare & Medical Assistance to Price Health Care Services Based on Quality and Cost

 

The state employee health care program, Minnesota Advantage, has successfully used a tiered provider system to rein in costs. State employees in Minnesota can choose any clinic available to them in a private market system. However, individuals who use more costly and less efficient clinics are required to pay more out-of-pocket. Not surprisingly, informed health care consumers wisely vote with their feet and wallets. This has resulted in no increase in health care amounts paid by employees during three of the last five years and significantly reduced program costs for the state.

 

Governor Pawlenty is proposing that state-subsidized health care programs, MinnesotaCare and Medical Assistance, also be required to use a tiered provider system. Tiers would be established based on peer grouping results on quality and efficiency from the 2008 health care reform legislation. Based on that peer grouping, enrollees would be required to choose a primary care clinic and would be rewarded for choosing a higher-quality, lower-cost clinic.

 

Those financial incentives could be incorporated into EBT card technology and would provide additional benefits to enrollees beyond the standard benefit design, such as over-the-counter medications or reading glasses.

 

Develop a Modern MinnesotaCare Product

 

MinnesotaCare is a state-subsidized health insurance program for Minnesotans at or below 275% of the federal poverty guideline.

 

The Governor is proposing the state develop a modern MinnesotaCare product for parents between 133% and 275% (250% for single adults) of the federal poverty guideline that includes deductibles and co-payments that are commonly found in the private sector.

 

Modern MinnesotaCare would provide a higher-deductible insurance product coupled with a state contribution to an EBT card that would be used for out-of-pocket health expenses. Enrollees would be incentivized to choose higher-quality, lower-cost providers in order to maximize the value of the state contribution. Money left over on the card would remain with the enrollee to be used in the following year.

[Guest RushesInCircles]

I had no idea the insurance industry was exempt from anti-trust laws.

What a BS, sweetheart of a deal!!!

I'm going to raise hell if they don't repeal that law.

 

Rush

[Guest Christine Varney]

Insurance companies "are highly concentrated in many geographic regions," meaning there "is very little incentive to compete on price.

[Guest Wayne Parsons]

The insurance industry does nothing to address the 98,000 Americans who die each year do to avoidable medical errors. Big insurance doesn't want to talk about how their private health insurance plans routinely cut off medical care to sick people and put the money into huge executive bonuses and lavish partying on yachts. The doctors never talk about how to save some of those 98,000 lives each year. All the doctors want to talk about is money. Their money.

[Guest Jen O'Malley Dillon]

After fighting health reform with lies, deceit, and multi-million dollar ad campaigns, the health insurance lobby -- America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) -- recently released a report on the "effects of health reform." Surprise! It's full of flawed claims that reform would increase costs.

 

Many journalists and experts called the report "deceptive" and "implausible." Even the firm that wrote it now admits they only looked at parts of the health reform plan -- because that's what the insurance lobby paid them to do. It's exactly what we should expect from an industry that's been fighting tooth and nail to kill reform, and is now preparing an all-out assault.

 

This isn't the first time the health insurance lobby has lied, cheated, or used misleading reports. This false report is just the latest salvo in a multi-million dollar offensive that appears designed to frighten voters and bully Congress into opposing reform.

 

In fact, just days after releasing the report, the lobby announced they will spend a million dollars on a television ad filled with debunked claims of Medicare cuts that could scare seniors away from supporting health reform.

[Guest Beth]

In many states, individuals are sold so-called insurance where more than half the premium dollar goes to overhead and profits—and less than half goes to paying for health care.

[Guest Robert Zirkelbach]

AHIP Statement on Passage of Senate Finance Committee Legislation

 

Washington, D.C. – America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) President and CEO Karen Ignagni released the following statement today on passage of health care reform legislation in the Senate Finance Committee:

 

“We strongly support comprehensive, bipartisan health care reform that covers all Americans, improves quality, and puts the health care system on an affordable, sustainable path. Health plans have proposed guaranteed coverage, elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions, and no longer basing premiums on health status or gender. Experience in the states has shown that market reforms need to paired with universal coverage to make health care as affordable as possible.

 

“While we agree with the objective of the current proposal, we are concerned about its workability and cost. The bill imposes hundreds of billions of dollars in new health care taxes and provides an incentive for people to wait until they are sick to purchase coverage. A recent analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that these provisions will cause health care costs to increase far faster and higher than they would under the current system. We believe these issues can and should be addressed.

 

“Health plans will continue to work towards comprehensive, bipartisan health care reform that covers all Americans, improves quality, and makes coverage more affordable.”

 

Key findings from a recent report by PricewaterhouseCoopers: http://www.americanhealthsolution.org/assets/Reform-Resources/AHIP-Reform-Resources/PWC-Report-on-Costs-Final.pdf

 

The analysis shows that the cost of the average family policy is approximately $12,300 today and will rise to:

 

•$15,500 in 2013 under current law and to $17,200 if these provisions are implemented.

 

 

•$18,400 in 2016 under current law and to $21,300 if these provisions are implemented.

 

 

•$21,900 in 2019 under current law and to $25,900 if these provisions are implemented.

Between 2010 and 2019 the cumulative increases in the cost of a typical family policy under this reform proposal will be approximately $20,700 more than it would be under the current system

 

The AHIP Foundation is a non-profit 501©(3) organization headquartered in Washington, DC, seeks to build on the health insurance plan industry’s dedication to innovation and advances in care delivery.

 

America’s Health Insurance Plans is a national association representing nearly 1,300 members providing health benefits to more than 200 million Americans. AHIP and its predecessor organizations have advocated on behalf of health insurance plans for more than six decades.

 

AHIP's principal purpose is to represent the interests of the health insurance plan industry on legislative and regulatory issues at the federal and state levels, and with the media, consumers and employers.

 

America’s Health Insurance Plans

601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

South Building

Suite 500

Washington, DC 20004

(202) 778-3200

(202) 331-7487 fax

 

 

http://www.ahip.org

[Guest Luke]

According to the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP report average premiums for an individual that are estimated to be about $4,800 in 2010, will increase to approximately $8,200 in 2019 in the absence of reform and will increase to $9700 in 2019 if these reforms become law.

 

Premiums for a family purchasing insurance in the private market will increase from about

$13,000 in 2010 to approximately $22,000 in 2019 in the absence of reform and to approximately $26,000 in 2019 if these reforms become law.

[Guest Robert Parry]

The public option offers the only means for a reform to be quickly implemented and to demonstrate a beneficial effect for the people by 2010 and 2012. It has the potential for reducing costs, especially for small businesses and individuals who are now being soaked by private insurers or denied coverage.

 

After assessing the five pieces of legislation that have cleared different committees of Congress, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that the nation would get the most savings on health-care costs from a public option tied to Medicare rates. Such a version, which is included in two of the House bills, would save an estimated $110 billion over 10 years.

 

A more modest public option in another House bill, which de-links the rates from Medicare and would require negotiations with health-care providers, would save an estimated $25 billion, the CBO says. By contrast, the co-op idea in Sen. Max Baucus’s Finance Committee bill would cost $6 billion to set up and would garner few if any savings.

 

Since the co-op would offer minimal competition, the health-insurance industry doesn’t object to it but is dead set against the public option. The reason is obvious: many of those projected savings would come out of the industry’s bottom line.

 

What the industry does want is a bill that forces nearly 50 million uninsured Americans, including healthy young people, to buy private insurance, many with government subsidies, a potential bonanza. The industry also wants the federal government to act as the enforcer to coerce these people by hitting them with stiff fines if they don’t sign up.

 

The level of government coercion is important to the industry. This week, America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s lobbying arm, broke with the industry-friendly Baucus bill because of its relatively weak penalties of only a few hundred dollars a year assessed against people who don’t buy insurance.

 

AHIP feared that the fines wouldn’t be coercive enough to force young people to buy insurance. Therefore, the industry worries that many of the new sign-ups would be customers the industry doesn’t want, people who actually need medical attention.

 

So, industry lobbyists warned that if Congress didn’t raise the fines on the uninsured, the industry would jack up its premiums across the board.

[Guest LAW]

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus told reporters Monday afternoon that he isn’t sure the Senate can muster the votes needed to pass health care reform that contains a "pure public option."