Kathleen Sebulius told CNN last night that President Obama plans to use the House and Senate health care bills as a starting point for negotiations at next week’s health care summit with Republicans. Republicans have insisted on starting from scratch.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services then went on to open up enormous possibilities for talks with Republicans by stating that the President’s proposal is unlikely to include a government plan. Further, she said, “Now that [we] don’t have a public option, I’m hoping they’re good to their word and come to the summit not just with their ideas but with a proposal.”
Folks, note the end of that quote; Sebulius, and therefore Obama, want Republicans to come with a proposal. If they want a proposal they may be intending to listen to, and even work with that proposal. (Yes, I know, they may also be setting the Republicans up to take a political hit but I doubt that).
Can Republicans work up their courage and their dedication to the principles of their offices to break away from their need to hand Obama another loss, and instead, work toward a health care bill? Can Obama really listen without lecturing? Can Democrats in Congress support Obama’s efforts to create bipartisan support even though it means denying the far left their socialized medicine?
Can Congress and the President approach the February 25 Health Care summit in a statesman-like manner, put aside their political agendas, their desire for reelection, their need to hand out favors and treasure to supporters, and deliver?
It is now time to demand that our legislators put their responsibility to the nation ahead of their personal agendas. Find them at Congress.org. Write them. Tell them your thoughts. Not big on writing? Send them a copy of this article or send them a copy of my proposal for health care reform from yesterday. Demand action for a quality bill that improves health care in an American way.
{ 16 comments }
If any one cares and wants to read about the Democrat starting point in negotiations on health care, here’s a good reference with concise writing …
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/
I read the article, and it has one basic flaw. It doesn’t account for how expensive it would be to care for people who take catastrophic-only plans but don’t get routine care. That’s one of the problems we have now–people who go to ERs because they don’t have insurance and can’t pay privately. That’s why governments require higher coverage, because ultimately with increased prevention and routine care, costs are contained. The catastrophic plans will get increasingly expensive, and coverage will be curtailed. These catastrophic plans are subject to denials and restrictions, too. The coverage may not be what you think once you need it.
Lynn,
Are you kidding?
That article in no way was designed to propose a new health care plan that covers those issues. All that article does is confirm our analysis of what the latest Democrat leadership bill is designed to do. I know because I am the author of that article. There are other posts on my web site that do cover alternative health care plan ideas.
If you want to see the proposed GOP plans for covering the issues you mentioned, go here http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare/resources
Just as easily I could say, your post has some major flaws, it doesn’t cover the prevention of diseases spread by bat guano in African caves, and no health care plan can be considered truly comprehensive till it does, so therefore your entire statement is disqualified. Eseentially, that is what your post is designed to do to my article.
As far as catastrophic high risk state backed plans as proposed by the GOP, they are designed to help people with pre-existing conditions so they they do not get denied. By the way, no one denies more claims in both raw numbers and percentage than medicare.
Chuck Norton
Editor, IUSBVision Weblog
Chuck
You wastin’ yo time explainin’ common sense workable solutions to 90% o’ the folks that post here.
Especially this very dim-bulb Lynn. Her and the others, Henri/Paul/Hesh, just know everything!! ‘It be truly amazin’!!
I am a poor under-educated Black woman from Detroit. I been tryin’ in vain to make headway with these cheap leftist dummies…But I gave up…
I posted your blog article, for all the nitwits to maybe read..But like I say, they knows everything…At least Lynn read it…Understand anything…another story…
Anyway, I’m out o’ patience with all of them..
Your blog is EXCELLENT!! Up there with BigJournalism, we read both and others daily, here in the ‘hood….
Your article criticizes the healthcare bills for eliminating the catastrophic plans that you find so affordable. I simply stated my take on the reason for that. If bat guano becomes a major public health issue, then we should cover prevention–that will help control costs. I’m not sure how you could equate bat guano with vaccinations, prenatal care and controlling high blood pressure and diabates–maybe it’s a big problem where you live. I don’t believe catastrophic plans will accept people who are already ill at this point–we’d have to take some action for that to be true–I’m not holding my breath even for that.
Lynn
I think Chuck was being facetious about the bat guano, but I still say to you, Lynn…..the glittering jewel of colossal ignorance, “you wouldn’t know a good cost control measure if it bit you on your fat ass.
@Juno: Since I’m so stupid, enlighten me. Tell me how I’m wrong. The size of my behind is quite irrelevant.
Both sides need to sit down with the cameras off and acknowledge that there is a problem that won’t go away but will in fact get worse. Then they need to agree on priorities, and hear from neutral sources on the measures that will help. All this was supposed to have happened already, but we were too busy making the debate a circus. In the upcoming 2010 election, I will vote for candidates who make me believe that they are more interested in listening to people who know what they’re talking about to make sound policy than the ones who shout the loudest or give the most money, and who want to address this issue in a practical way without offering the old sound bites and scare tactics. Failing that (and I assume that won’t happen) I’ll probably be voting against any Republican, since they seem to be the worst offenders in terms of putting politics over governing. Maybe someone will surprise me.
Lynn, you make an excellent point: we have a problem, and giving up on attempts to solve it won’t make it go away. Here is some information on the seriousness of the problem.
Conservatives like to say we have the best health care system in the world, but the truth is the only thing we are “best” at is spending money.
As the New England Journal of Medicine reported last month, America ranks 1st in the world when it comes to spending on health care, but 39th in the world in terms of infant mortality, 43rd in adult female mortality and 42nd in adult male mortality.
The fact that literally dozens of other countries spend less than we do but achieve better outcomes should silence once and for all those ignoramuses who insist that our system is “best.”
According to the World Health Organization, in terms of overall life expectancy America ranks just ahead of Cuba, a small, poor nation that spends a fraction of the amount we spend per capita on health care.
Our privatized system has resulted in enormous spending, but the enormous spending has NOT resulted in excellent health outcomes – only in excellent insurance company profits. If we want this situation to continue, let’s just leave things as they are.
I have seen are some postings from leftists screaming that the WHO Report ranks the United States number 37 in care world wide, therefore we must suck.
If said leftists had taken the time to actually read the report they would see that the WHO ranks the United States number one in patient responsiveness and care, but putting the United States as number one offends the WHO’s socialist sensabilities, so they had to find a way to lower America’s ranking. They were at least nice enough in the report to admit what they were doing and how they did it.
The WHO figures into the ranking weather or not the country in question has socialized health care, that means that if health care dollars come from the private sector, charities or the consumer the WHO lowers the ranking. WHO also skews the mortality rates by including people who die from crime and more importantly WAR.
When you look at the breakdown the United States, according to WHO, is number ONE in patient responsiveness and care. http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_systems.html
The WHO divides the report into sections – Here is the section on patient responsiveness and level of care – the United States is ranked number one http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex06_en.pdf
The WHO ranks the United States overall as 37 because we don’t have socialized health care; meaning that doesn’t meet socialists standard of “fairness”.
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf – look here and do a search for the words “fairness in contributions” to see for yourself.
This means that the ranking of 37 has little to do with the quality of care people recieve and it has everything to do with ideology and politics
Does WHO go out to people who never go to the doctor to see how they feel about their healthcare? Isn’t the point that people with no access to healthcare don’t have very good “responsiveness and care?” The results would be skewed toward good ratings if you don’t survey people with no access.
I looked at the WHO report linked here. Two things.
First, I do not see any “leftist postings” stating that the US is 37th in terms of health care on this blog. I did see one that states the US is far down the list when it comes to specific health outcomes such as life expectancy. Only people who don’t understand English would have a problem understanding the difference.
Second, the WHO report cited is from 1999, more than 10 years ago. Is this discussion about what was happening during the Clinton years, or what is happening now?
http://www.who.int/whr/2008/whr08_en.pdf
Don’t have time to read it fully. I’m sure many on this disucssion board won’t be able to get past the fact that WHO would even consider health inequity to be a valid concept. Each year’s report has a theme, and the last one was on primary care. Switching to catastrophic coverage would make use of primary care more expensive, although increased use of primary care helps contain costs and maintain quality. Also, a look at the major causes of death shows how preventable they are–heart disease, other cardiovascualr problems, all good targets for prevention.
Robert, nice site, let me know if I can add you to my blogroll.
Today’s Times has a good Op-Ed by former GOP Sen. Bill Frist (also a heart surgeon) on what should be done about health care.
Frist claims the best approach is to change the way providers are paid from fee-for-service to fees based on results. This is supposed to make providers compete on the basis of outcomes rather than on the basis of who can provide the most expensive tests and treatments.
Great idea. The only problem is, if the Democrats had put that in their bills it would be opposed by many providers, including many physicians and hospitals.
The House Democrats’ bill has been endorsed by the AMA. If the bill had contained Frist’s idea that would not have happened. The problem with creating competition among providers is that in a competition there are winners and also losers. Providers who would face major cuts in income or who fear they would not win a competition based on outcomes are not going to support changes that put them in that position. Frist’s idea is good in theory, in reality it is unlikely to happen.
A problem with that idea is that it could cause doctors to refuse to take the most at-risk patients if they don’t trust the calculations of outcome. So if you have trouble quitting smoking, your cariologist might fire you, or if you have diabetes, you might not be able to get a cardiologist to take you in the first place. There are efforts to incorporate quality and outcomes into the healthcare equation though, most notably the P2 Collaborative.