More of the nation’s newspaper have expressed their editorial opinions on healthcare reform. The New York Times supports the bill that passed the House:
While the Senate continues to struggle over its approach to health care reform, House Democratic leaders have unveiled a bill that would go a long way toward solving the nation’s health insurance problems without driving up the deficit. It is already drawing fierce opposition from business groups and many Republicans. This is a bill worth fighting for.
The bill would require virtually all Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty. And it would require all but the smallest businesses to provide health insurance for their workers or pay a substantial fee. It would also expand Medicaid to cover many more poor people, and it would create new exchanges through which millions of middle-class Americans could buy health insurance with the help of government subsidies. The result would be near-universal coverage at a surprisingly manageable cost to the federal government.
The Los Angeles Times proposes what I think is a very reasonable counter-proposal:
The bill seeks to slow the increase in costs, but it doesn’t move as aggressively as it should to reduce the incentives for wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary procedures. It would promote primary care, preventive medicine and other ways to improve quality, but puts little pressure on providers to use best practices. And it would extend coverage to millions of the uninsured but would pay for that expansion in too narrow a way. Part would be covered by a hefty tax on employers that don’t provide insurance, a burden that would fall hardest on businesses with thin profits and low-wage workers. And part would be borne just by the wealthiest 2 million Americans, even though the benefits of the program would be spread broadly.
The high cost of covering the millions of Americans who can’t afford insurance — $1 trillion or more over 10 years — may be the biggest obstacle to comprehensive healthcare reform, especially when the federal budget deficit is at an all-time high. Yet if the healthcare system continues on its present course, its ever-rising cost will eventually drag down the economy. That’s why it’s worth making changes that slow the increase in spending down the road.
Ideally, lawmakers would finance those changes in ways that would increase consumers’ sensitivity to healthcare costs without eliminating jobs and slowing economic growth. The House bill fails that test for a couple of reasons: It suggests to most Americans that they’re getting a better healthcare system for free, and it makes one small group pay for improvements that benefit everyone. Taxes on the wealthy and businesses can help, but the middle class should contribute too, not only because it’s the right thing to do but also to make the funding less vulnerable to economic downturns.
As I have commented repeatedly here we need to deal with both the supply and demand sides of the equation. The bill that has come out of House committee does neither; it expands demand, reduces the capital supply available for investment in sectors of the economy that would be more likely to produce new jobs than the healthcare sector is, and doesn’t consider the supply of healthcare at all.
Healthcare reform, in its form today, is more about Socialist Democrat “Command and Control” than it is about helping the uninsured or under insured. The proof of that is Nancy Pelosi being able to brag that she already has the votes to pass a healthcare reform bill, yet those voters don’t know what the final version of the bill will be like.
Regards,
Bill
http://theconservativenation.com
The healthcare debate has been controlled by media sponsors and the advertising dollar. Is asking that healthcare premiums actually be spent on healthcare an oxymoron ?
Highmark Blue Cross/Blue Shield represents many people in western Pennsylvania. After a little research, it was not very difficult to discover hundreds of thousands of premium dollars Highmark spends on advertisements, sponsoring golf tournaments, Penguins tickets, Steelers tickets, and other giveaways. But, they graciously have agreed to turn off their large sign on Fifth Avenue place in Pittsburgh for 1 hour per week to save energy. Would it be naive to expect that this cost/energy savings measure would lead to lower premiums. More than likely, the savings will allow for the advertising department to erect another billboard or sponsor another golf tournament. Does demanding that healthcare premiums to be spent on healthcare and not “spin”, classify a person as a socialist (or perhaps a pinko commy)? Coverage for medical tests continue to be denied, and yet Highmark continues to spend money on non-healthcare promotions.
Healthcare providers consider themselves an industry. They are a tertiary industry at best. They manufacture nothing. They are supposed to provide a service. What percentage of the premiums paid to Blue Cross/Blue Shield actually is used to provide that service ? What percentage is used for lobbying, advertising, and giveaways ? Who is really controlling healthcare ?
I would hope you would show this E-mail and join me as an American in the following proposal.
President Obama: The Healthcare Bill could be passed easily if you have the Courage to do the following.
1. All members of the Senate and House must enroll in the Government Healthcare Program.
2. All Federal, Czar’s and Staffs along with all Federal, State, County and City employee must enroll in the Government Healthcare Program.
3. SEIU members and UAW members must enroll in the Government Healthcare Program.
This way you can stop the Debate and Lies from both sides by saying ‘IF IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR US”. This assures the Elderly that they will not have Healthcare and Medicine needed rationed. It would also prove that this is not a way to let the Elderly die to save on Social Security and Medicare Benefits.
It should also have the Provision that any of the above mentioned get additional insurance that they will be “TERMINATED WITHOUT INSURANCE OR LIFETIME PENSIONS”.
Thank you.. Barry Smith