And the people say:
- Socialism is UnAmerican!
- Terrorists Won't Destroy America, Congress Will!
- The American Dream R.I.P
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About The Community Chat
- The Community Chat
- Singapore
- We are a group of Knowledge Management students working on a project on CoP (Communities of Practice) and would like to encourage the use of online facilities to do sharing and networking.
44 comments:
I tend to side the Republicans on where the money is going to come from since the World is now in dire economic conddtion but at the same time, one cant help but wonder where did the money which was used to save AIG and the likes really came from.
Now, the question boils down to leadership and democracy: Do we trust our elected Leaders to take charge of the policies and planning (in this light, that of healthcare), since President Obama himself and his administration has unanimously pledged to donwsize the debt by a 'substantial' amount.
I always view these kind of videos with a pinch of salt. Don't you think how weird it is, when someone passes a new bill and legislation, that some other people would make boo-woos and hoo-haas about it?
Isnt it ironic that we see such thoughtless and immature behaviours coming from the very people who voted for the system?
Perhaps, as what Mr K.K Lee said, we should just trust the leaders to do their job and for that matter, a job well done -- lest someone better can be found to do the job.
For all those readers who are not sure of the details to the Healthcare reforms, here's an extract as follows:
Story Highlights (From CNN)
President Obama says health care reform is a priority; other stakeholders on board
U.S. spends 52 percent more per person than the next most costly nation
Obama wants government-sponsored health insurance program
Republicans think plan is costly, will make health insurance more expensive
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/18/ep.health.reform.basics/
Why is health care reform such a hot issue right now?
Fewer and fewer Americans have health insurance, and therefore cannot afford good medical care. Nearly 46 million Americans have no insurance, and 25 million more are underinsured. One major reason for this crisis is that many employers have stopped offering insurance to employees because of the high cost. In the United States, total health care spending was $2.4 trillion in 2007 -- or $7,900 per person -- according to an analysis published in the journal Health Affairs. The United States spends 52 percent more per person than the next most costly nation, Norway, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. There's little debate that health care reform is necessary -- President Obama, Republican and Democratic members of Congress, the American Medical Association and America's Health Insurance Plans, which represents the insurance industry, all have agreed the system needs to be changed, although they disagree on how to do it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/18/ep.health.reform.basics/
How does the president plan to pay for this?
Obama said he's already identified "hundreds of billions of dollars" worth of savings in the federal budget that could help finance health care reform, such as rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid. He's also proposed reducing tax deductions for high-income Americans.
Since they don't like Obama's ideas, how would Republicans like to reform health care?
Republicans think Obama's plan is costly and will make health insurance more expensive, not less. In a plan outlined this week, House Republicans proposed individual tax breaks for buying health insurance and "pools" of states and small business to get lower-cost health care plans. They also proposed increasing incentives for people to build health savings accounts, allowing dependent children to stay on parents' policies until age 25 and encouraging employers to reward employees for improved health.
How do health care costs in the U.S. compare with costs in other countries?
In the United States, every person spends on average $6,714 for health care. That's significantly higher than in the United Kingdom, where $2,760 per person is spent; or in France, where the cost is $3,449 per person; or in Canada, where medical costs are $3,678 per person, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. While some would argue that medical care is better in the United States than in these other countries, others would say the opposite is true. For example, the United States ranks 50th in life expectancy, and 180th infant mortality (meaning 179 countries have higher infant mortality rates such as Angola and Turkey and 43 countries have lower infant mortality rates such as France and Sweden) according to the CIA World Factbook.
Thanks so much for Mr Lee's sharing of the information. It sure helps to add to my existing knowledge.
And to top that up, here's a Wiki defination for Health Care Reform:
Healthcare reform is a general rubric used for discussing major health policy creation or changes—for the most part, governmental policy that affects healthcare delivery in a given place. Healthcare reform typically attempts to:
Broaden the population that receives health care coverage through either public sector insurance programs or private sector insurance companies
Expand the array of health care providers consumers may choose among
Improve the access to health care specialists
The quality of health care
Decrease the cost of health care
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_reform
Vicente Navarro, M.D., Ph.D., professor of Health Policy at The Johns Hopkins University and editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Health Services sieves out, in his opinion, four errors of the healthcare reform system by President Obama:
Error number One
One of the two major objectives for health care reform, as emphasized by Obama, is the need to reduce medical care costs. The notion that “the economy cannot afford a medical care system so costly, with the annual increases of medical care running wild” has been repeated over and over – only the tone varies, depending on the audience. An element of this argument is Obama’s emphasis on eliminating the federal deficit. He stresses that most of the government deficit is due to the outrageous growth in costs in federal health programs. Thus, a crucial part of the message he is transmitting is the health care reform objective of reducing costs.
This message, as it reaches the average citizen, seems like a threat to achieve cost reductions by cutting existing benefits. This perception is particularly accentuated among elderly people – which is not unreasonable, given that the president indicates that the funds needed to provide health benefits coverage to the 48 million currently uncovered will come partially from existing programs, such as Medicare, with savings supposedly achieved by increasing efficiency. To the average citizen (who has developed an enormous skepticism about the political process), this call for savings by increasing efficiency sounds like a code for cutting benefits. Not surprisingly, then, one sector of the population most skeptical about health care reform is seniors – the beneficiaries of Medicare. The comment that “government should keep its hands off my Medicare,” as heard at some of the town hall meetings, is not as paradoxical or ridiculous as the liberal media paint it. It makes a lot of sense. An increasing number of elderly people feel that the uninsured are going to be insured at the expense of seniors’ benefits.
Error Number Two
The second major objective of health care reform as presented by Obama is to provide health benefits coverage for the uncovered: the 48 million people who don’t have any form of health benefits coverage. This is an important and urgently needed intervention. The U.S. cannot claim to be a civilized nation and a defender of human rights around the world unless this major human and moral problem at home is resolved once and for all. But, however important, this is not the largest problem we have in the health care sector. The most widespread problem is not being uninsured but underinsured: the majority of people in the U.S. – 168 million, to be precise – are underinsured. And many (32 per cent) are not even aware of this until they need their health insurance coverage. This undercoverage is an enormous human, social, and economic problem. Among people who are terminally ill, 42 per cent worry about how they or their family will pay for medical care. And most of these people are insured – but their insurance does not cover all of their conditions and necessary interventions. Co-payments, deductibles, and other extra expenses – besides the insurance premiums – can amount to 10 per cent or even higher proportion of disposable income.
During the presidential campaign, both Obama and Hillary Clinton, in discussing the need for health care reform, made frequent reference to heart-breaking stories – cases in which families and individuals suffer under our current system of medical care. But none of the proposals that the Obama administration is ready to support would address most of these cases. It will be an embarrassing and uncomfortable moment during the 2012 presidential campaign if someone asks candidate Obama about what has happened to some of the people whose stories he told in the 2008 campaign.
Error Number Three
Obama plans to cover the uninsured by increasing taxes on the rich (a very popular measure, as shown in all polls) and by transferring funds saved through increased efficiencies in existing programs, including Medicare (an unpopular measure, for the reasons I’ve mentioned). We see here the same problems we’ve seen with other programs targeted to specific, small sectors of the population, such as the poor. Programs that are not universal (i.e., do not benefit everyone) are intrinsically unpopular. This is why antipoverty programs are unpopular. People feel that they are paying, through taxation, for programs that do not benefit them. Compassion is not, and never has been, a successful motivation for public policy. Solidarity is. You support others with the understanding that they will support you when you need it most. The long history of social policy, in the U.S. and elsewhere, shows that universality is a better way to get popular support for a program than means-testing for programs targeted to specific vulnerable groups. The limited popularity of the welfare state in the U.S. is precisely due to the fact that most programs are not universal but means-tested. The history of social policy shows that the best way to resolve poverty is not by developing antipoverty programs, but by developing universal programs to which all people are entitled – for example, job and incomes programs. In the same way, the problem of noncoverage by health insurance will not be resolved without resolving the problem of undercoverage, because both result from the same failing: the absence of government power to ensure universal rights. There is no health care system in the world (including the fashionable Swiss model) that provides universal health benefits coverage without the government intervening, using its muscle to control prices and practices. The various proposals being put forward by the Obama administration are simply tinkering with, not resolving, the problem. You can call this government role “single-payer” or whatever, but our experience in the U.S. has already shown (what other countries have known and practiced for decades) that without government intervention, all the measures now being proposed by this administration will be handsome bailouts for the medical-insurance-pharmaceutical complex.
Error Number Four
I can understand that Obama does not want to advocate single-payer. But he has made a huge tactical mistake in excluding it as an option for study and consideration. He needs single-payer to be among the options under discussion. And he needs single-payer to make his own proposal “respectable.” (Keep in mind how Martin Luther King became the civil rights figure promoted by the establishment because, in the background, there was a Malcolm X threatening the establishment.) This was a major mistake made by Bill Clinton in 1993. When Clinton gave up on single-payer, his own proposal became the “left” proposal (unbelievable as that may seem) and was dead on arrival in Congress. The historical function of the left in this country has been to make the center “respectable.” If there is no left alternative, the Obama proposals will become the “left” proposal, and this will severely limit whatever reform he will finally be able to get.
But there’s another reason that Obama has erred in excluding single-payer. He has antagonized the left of his own party that supports single-payer, without which he cannot be reelected in 2012. He cannot win only with the left, of course, but he certainly cannot win without the mobilization of the left. His victory in 2008 is evidence of this. And today, the left is angry at him. It is a surprise to me, but Obama is going to pay the same price Clinton paid in 1994. Clinton antagonized the left by putting deficit reduction (under pressure from Wall Street) at the top of his policies and supporting NAFTA against the wishes of the AFL-CIO and the majority of Democrats. The Gingrich Republican Revolution of 1994 was due to a demobilization of the left. The Republicans got the same (I repeat the same) number of votes in the 1994 congressional election that they got in 1990 (the previous non-presidential election year). Large sectors of the grassroots of the Democratic Party that voted Democratic in 1990 stayed home in 1994. Something similar could happen in 2010 and in 2012. We could see a strong mobilization of the right and a very demoralized left. We are already seeing this. Why aren’t those on the left out in force at the town hall meetings on health care reform? Because the option they want – single-payer – has already been excluded from the debate by a president they fought to get elected.
This is my concern. The alternative to Obama is Sarah Palin or someone like her. Palin has a lot of support among the people who mobilized to support John McCain. And the ridicule heaped on her by the liberal media (which is despised by large sectors of the working class of this country) helps her, or her like, enormously. I am afraid we may have, in the near future, friendly fascism. And I do not use the term lightly. I grew up under fascism, in Franco’s Spain, and if nothing else, I recognize fascism when I see it. And we are seeing a growing fascism with a working-class base in the U.S. This is why we cannot afford to see Obama fail. But his staff and advisors are doing a remarkable job to achieve this. Ideologues such as chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel (who, when a congressman, was the most highly funded by Wall Street) and his brother, Ezekiel Emanuel (who did indeed write that old people should have a lower priority for health care spending) are leading the country along a wrong path.
I don’t doubt that President Obama, a decent man, wants to provide universal health care to all citizens of this country. But his judgment in developing his strategy to reach that goal is profoundly flawed, and, as mentioned above, it may cost him the presidency – an outcome that would be extremely negative for the country. He should have called for a major mobilization against the medical-industrial complex, to ensure that everyone has the same benefits that their representatives in Congress have, broadening and improving Medicare for all. The emphasis of his strategy should have been on improving health benefits coverage for everyone, including those who are currently uncovered. And to achieve this goal – which the majority of the population supports – he should have stressed the need for government to ensure that this extension of benefits to everyone will occur.
That he has not chosen this strategy touches on the essence of U.S. democracy. The enormous power of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries corrupts the nature of our democracy and shapes the frontiers of what is possible in the U.S. Given this reality, it seems to me that the role of the left is to initiate a program of social political agitation and rebellion (I applaud the health professionals who disrupted the meetings of the Senate Finance Committee), following the tactics of the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements of the 1960s and 1970s. It is wrong to expect and hope that the Obama administration will change. Without pressure and agitation, not much will be done.
http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro09072009.html
In view of the 4 errors above, anyone agrees or disagrees with the point raised up and why so?
To use the word "Tension" is an understatement, here's a report on President Obama addressing the US on his healthcare reforms:
U.S. President Barack Obama went before Congress and the nation Wednesday night to urge action on his top domestic priority: health care reform. His nationally broadcast address followed a month a setbacks for the reform effort.
The president said the time for action on health care is now.
"The time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action," the president said. "Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do."
He said America's inability to deal with the rising costs of health care has led the nation to the breaking point. And he urged lawmakers to put politics aside and act for the common good.
"Everybody in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing," Mr. Obama said. "Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close."
But critics say the reform effort is moving too quickly. And they fear the result could be a complete government take-over of the health care system.
At a series of community meetings during the August congressional break, passions ran high.
There was anger and shouting at this town hall in Pennsylvania:
"And he's going to judge you and the rest of your damn cronies up on the Hill!" one person said.
The president said some opponents are spreading lies. He made clear, he wants a fair fight.
"If you misrepresent what is in this plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now," President Obama said.
President Obama said he wants to incorporate ideas from all points on the political spectrum. He spoke of consumer protections for Americans who get their health care insurance from private companies, and government action to make sure health coverage is available to all.
"I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice," the president said.
Congressman Charles Boustany of Lousisiana delivered the formal Republican response to the president's address. He said the Democrats should scrap their existing health care proposals and start fresh.
"It's clear that many Americans want health care reform, but they want their elected leaders to get it right," the congressman said.
Boustany, who is one of several physicians in Congress, said Republicans agree reform is needed.
But during the president's address there was a dramatic reminder of just how deep the divide on health care has become.
"The reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally," President Obama said.
"You lie!" a congressman from the audience shouted.
"It is the truth," President Obama responded.
The unusual outburst in the House chamber came from Republican Joe Wilson of South Carolina.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-09-09-voa61.cfm
Thanks for the key points...!! I am sometimes confused with the US reforms...
Just to share some Questions and Answers from the BBC perspective on issues pertaining to the US Healthcare Reform:
US President Barack Obama made reform of the American healthcare system his top priority when he entered the White House.
He has pledged to get a reform bill passed this year.
But lawmakers in Congress are finding it difficult to agree on a bill to implement reform.
How is the US healthcare system currently structured?
Unlike other developed countries, the US does not have a universal system of healthcare coverage.
It is up to individuals to obtain health insurance. Most Americans obtain coverage through their employers, but others sign up for private insurance schemes.
Under the terms of most coverage plans, members pay regular premiums, but they are sometimes also required to pay part of the cost of their treatment (known in the US as a deductible) before the insurer covers the expense. The amount they pay varies according to their plan.
Does the US government provide health coverage for anyone?
Yes. Americans aged 65 or over can sign up for the government-run Medicare scheme, and low-income parents, children, pregnant women and people with certain disabilities are eligible for the government-administered Medicaid programme.
The US government also runs the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-Chip), which provides coverage to children whose parents are on modest incomes, but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.
Military veterans are also provided healthcare by a government-run scheme.
So what are the problems with the US system?
Healthcare costs for individuals are rising dramatically.
Premiums for employer-provided schemes have risen four times faster than wages, and are now double their cost nine years ago.
The percentage of employees with an annual deductible greater than $1,000 increased from 1% to 18% between 2000 and 2008.
As a nation, the US spent some $2.2tn (£1.34tn) on healthcare in 2007. That amounts to 16.2% of GDP, nearly twice the average of other OECD countries.
What are the effects of rising health costs?
The rising individual costs mean that more and more people in America are unable to afford health insurance. Tens of millions of Americans do not have insurance, and millions more are deemed "under-insured" - their coverage is inadequate for their needs.
When someone without insurance (or with inadequate cover) falls ill, they are obliged to pay their medical costs out of their own pocket.
Half of all personal bankruptcies in the US are at least partially the result of medical expenses.
Rising costs also mean the government is spending more and more on Medicare and Medicaid.
US government spending on the two schemes is expected to rise from 4% of GDP in 2007 to 19% of GDP in 2082, making rising healthcare costs one of the biggest contributing factors to the spiralling US budget deficit.
How many people in America do not have health insurance?
The US census bureau estimates that 46.3 million people in America, out of a population of 300 million, were uninsured in 2008.
Supporters of healthcare reform often use this figure as evidence that the system is failing too many Americans and needs to change.
Some opponents, however, say the figure is misleading as it includes illegal immigrants, Americans who earn over $50,000 a year and Americans who are eligible for Medicaid or S-Chip who could get coverage if they wanted to. It also includes people who may have been temporarily in between jobs, and therefore only briefly without coverage.
The census bureau confirms that the 46.3 million figure includes 9.2 million non-citizens, and 18 million people who earn over $50,000 a year.
But backers of reform insist that - aside from illegal immigrants, who would not be covered under any of the plans for reform proposed by congress or the White House - many of the 46.3 million uninsured people would indeed benefit from an overhaul, and that it is therefore a meaningful figure to cite.
What is President Obama proposing?
After initially choosing to leave the specifics of reform to Congress, on 9 September President Obama laid out more detailed proposals in an address to both chambers of Congress.
Mr Obama wants to provide more security and stability to Americans who have health insurance, provide insurance to those who do not and slow the growth of healthcare costs.
He supports tougher regulations for the insurance industry, ensuring that people with pre-existing conditions cannot be refused cover, and preventing insurers from dropping people's coverage when they get ill.
For those whose employers do not provide coverage, Mr Obama wants to create Health Insurance Exchanges - one-stop shops for people to compare different options. The president supports a proposal to set up a government-run scheme that would be offered to people who are eligible for the Exchanges, but he has indicated that he would still support a bill that did not include this so-called "public option".
Under Mr Obama's plan, every American would be required to get insurance, or face a fine (this is called an "individual mandate"). Less well-off Americans would be offered subsidies to help them pay for their coverage.
The president would pay for his $900bn plan by cutting waste from the existing Medicare programme, and levying fees on insurance companies who offer "gold-plated" insurance plans.
What about Congress?
A number of congressional committees have been working on healthcare reform bills.
The broad outlines of all of the competing bills are pretty similar, and are compatible with Mr Obama's vision for healthcare reform.
All the bills:
favour tougher regulations for insurers
establish an individual mandate
set up insurance exchanges for those who do not have employer-provided coverage
offer subsidies for the less well-off (although the exact size of the subsidies varies from committee to committee)
pay for most of the reforms by cutting waste in the Medicare programme.
The major points of disagreement are on the "public option" and on how to pay for the remainder of reform.
The House of Representatives bills propose to pay for reform by levying a surtax of up to 5.4% on families earning over $350,000 a year.
In the Senate, the Health committee also backed the idea of a public option, but does not have the power to rule on financial matters.
These issues come under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee, which has yet to produce a final bill.
The Finance Committee's chairman, Max Baucus, has gathered together an informal, bipartisan group of senators - known as the "Gang of Six" - in an attempt to hammer out a compromise that will attract support from both parties.
What happens if the House and Senate pass bills that are at odds with one another?
A conference committee will be established, made up of members from both chambers, to reconcile the two versions of the bill.
If - as seems likely - the House passes a bill that includes a public option, and the Senate passes one that does not, the conference committee will decide whether or not to include a public option in its reconciled bill.
Then, both chambers will vote on the final version of the bill. If both vote in favour, the bill will go to the president for his approval.
Will healthcare reform pass this year?
With so much of his political capital now resting on passage of a bill, Mr Obama and his team will be lobbying hard to get a bill passed this year, and may be prepared to make some compromises along the way.
Whether or not the final bill pleases healthcare reform advocates, therefore, remains to be seen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8160058.stm
Thanks Mr Lee and Raphael for sharing! That was indeed insightful!
Thanks!
There is nothing better than to hear from the Horses' mouth, the impact of the healthcare reform in the US, the followling has been taken from the weblink as below:
http://www.healthreform.gov/forums/whatpeoplearesaying.html#20090815
There are four main ways the reform we’re proposing will provide more stability and security to every American.
First, if you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family — coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job.
Second, reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses and our government. We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits. Third, by making Medicare more efficient, we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors instead of enriching insurance companies. This will not only help provide today’s seniors with the benefits they’ve been promised; it will also ensure the long-term health of Medicare for tomorrow’s seniors. And our reforms will also reduce the amount our seniors pay for their prescription drugs.
Lastly, reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable. A 2007 national survey actually shows that insurance companies discriminated against more than 12 million Americans in the previous three years because they had a pre-existing illness or condition. The companies either refused to cover the person, refused to cover a specific illness or condition or charged a higher premium.
Lori Hitchcock of New Hampshire
The New York Times, 8/15/09
We can't afford not to. Medical costs account for one-sixth of domestic spending and are headed upward. They are handcuffing families and workers, and strangling federal and state governments. Plans being considered by Congress present daunting up-front costs. But reform, done the right way, will mean savings for families and businesses — money that can be pumped into the economy. Unfortunately, some Republicans seem content to stymie any Democratic plan on health care without putting forth any measures of their own.
“Why start diverting attention from this really bad piece of work (the Democrats’ plan)?” U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri asked last week, when suggesting GOP House members may not propose a health care bill. Sorry, but Republicans don’t get off that easily. The default plan is the status quo, which, as Obama noted last week, is “guaranteed to double your premiums, cause more Americans to lose their coverage and create larger budget deficits over the next 10 years.”
Republican politicians must stop promoting the greatest myth of all: That somehow we will stumble into a system in which all Americans can have all the services they want, and no one will have to pay for it.
U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri
Kaiser Family Foundation , 7/26/09
Today, we have by far the most expensive health system in the world. We spend 50 percent more per person on health care than the average developed country, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. We spend more on health care than housing or food, the McKinsey Global Institute reported.
Nationwide, health care costs consume 18 percent of our gross domestic product. If we continue on our current path, health care costs will consume 34 percent of our GDP by 2040, and the number of uninsured Americans will rise to 72 million, according to the Council of Economic Advisers.
Even though we spend more than any other nation on health care, we aren't healthier. Only three developed countries have higher infant mortality rates. Our nation ranks 24th in life expectancy among developed countries. More than one-third of Americans are obese.
These statistics are the signs of a system that is both unacceptable and unsustainable. They also show us the high cost of doing nothing. If we choose the status quo, more Americans will be uninsured, costs will continue to rise, and every American's health care will be at risk.
CNN, 7/15/09
Health insurance is supposed to offer protection — both medically and financially. But as it turns out, an estimated three-quarters of people who are pushed into personal bankruptcy by medical problems actually had insurance when they got sick or were injured.
Too many other people already have coverage so meager that a medical crisis means financial calamity.
One of them is Lawrence Yurdin, a 64-year-old computer security specialist. Although the brochure on his Aetna policy seemed to indicate it covered up to $150,000 a year in hospital care, the fine print excluded nearly all of the treatment he received at an Austin, Tex., hospital.
He and his wife, Claire, filed for bankruptcy last December, as his unpaid medical bills approached $200,000.
New York Times, 7/1/09
Citing data that health insurance premiums in Iowa have increased 88 percent since 2000 and 10 percent of Iowans are uninsured, Sebelius said it's time to make reform a reality.
"These are more than numbers and facts, more than statistics on a page," she said about data the federal agency released showing that health insurance premiums in Iowa have increased 88 percent since 2000 and 10 percent of Iowans are uninsured.
"What we know is that every day in America, families are being crushed by the high cost of health care that threatens their financial stability, leaves them exposed to higher premiums and deductibles and puts them at risk for the possible loss of health insurance as employers struggle to provide adequate health coverage," Sebelius said in a conference call with reporters.
Quad City Times, 6/26/2009
She says about 783,000 people in Maine get their health insurance through their employer at an average family premium of more than $14,000 a year. In the past nine years, she says, average family premiums in Maine have jumped 105 percent.
Moreover, she says the quality of care in Maine is rated as average, due in part to a lack of preventive care. She says 13 percent of Maine children are obese, 15 percent of Maine women over age 50 haven't received a mammogram in the past two years, and 27 percent of men over age 50 have never had a colorectal cancer screening.
Maine Public Broadcasting Network, 6/26/2009
“At Safeway we believe that well-designed health-care reform, utilizing market-based solutions, can ultimately reduce our nation's health-care bill by 40%. The key to achieving these savings is health-care plans that reward healthy behavior. As a self-insured employer, Safeway designed just such a plan in 2005 and has made continuous improvements each year. The results have been remarkable. During this four-year period, we have kept our per capita health-care costs flat (that includes both the employee and the employer portion), while most American companies' costs have increased 38% over the same four years.”
“Safeway's plan capitalizes on two key insights gained in 2005. The first is that 70% of all health-care costs are the direct result of behavior. The second insight, which is well understood by the providers of health care, is that 74% of all costs are confined to four chronic conditions (cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity). Furthermore, 80% of cardiovascular disease and diabetes is preventable, 60% of cancers are preventable, and more than 90% of obesity is preventable.”
“At Safeway, we are building a culture of health and fitness. The numbers speak for themselves. Our obesity and smoking rates are roughly 70% of the national average and our health-care costs for four years have been held constant. When surveyed, 78% of our employees rated our plan good, very good or excellent. In addition, 76% asked for more financial incentives to reward healthy behaviors. We have heard from dozens of employees who lost weight, lowered their blood-pressure and cholesterol levels, and are enjoying better health because of this program. Many discovered for the first time that they have high blood pressure, and others have been told by their doctor that they have added years to their life.”
Wall Street Journal, 6/12/09
"Black women in the District suffer from obesity, diabetes, heart disease and generally poor health in alarmingly high numbers, and white women do not. That is the finding of a study released early today by the Kaiser Family Foundation. The study said there is a large disparity in the incidence of certain chronic diseases between black and white women. Kaiser's study was based on data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the federal Current Population Survey from 2004 to 2006. The study reflected health statistics in the states and the District.”
“…According to the study, 36 percent of black women were overweight or obese, compared with about 10 percent of Hispanic and Asian women in the city. More than 7 percent of black women suffered from diabetes, compared with 2 percent of Hispanic women and 3 percent of Asian women. Fewer than 1 percent of white women suffered from diabetes, and 7 percent were overweight or obese.”
Washington Post, 6/10/09
President Barack Obama Tuesday urged lawmakers not to delay overhauling the U.S. health-care system, calling the window before the Senate's August recess a "make-or-break" period for legislation. "We can't afford to put this off," Mr. Obama said at the start of a meeting with 24 Senate Democrats.
Earlier Tuesday, the White House released a report outlining the expected benefits to the economy of containing health costs… "Health-care reform is not a luxury; it's not something I want to do because of campaign promises or politics," Mr. Obama said. "This is a necessity."
The report out Tuesday, compiled by the Council of Economic Advisers, estimates that a 1.5-percentage-point cut in the annual growth rate of health-care costs would raise real gross domestic product by more than 2% in 2020 and by almost 8% in 2030. That kind of growth would add $2,600 to a typical family of four's income in 2020, according to the White House.
Wall Street Journal, 6/3/09
We have the greatest doctors and medical innovations in the world, but more and more Americans are on the outside looking in to a world of progress and discovery that is denied to them because they cannot afford quality healthcare. That's wrong - and it's about to change.”
“President Obama knows it's time to act and he's providing impressive leadership. And I am thrilled to be working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help bring forward the legislation that will build on what's already working and fix what's broken.”
“To achieve these changes, all must share the responsibility and the costs - businesses, government, healthcare providers, and individuals alike. Health reform will benefit all our citizens, reduce the financial burdens on our nation's businesses, and put the healthcare industry itself on a sustainable basis.”
“Change is never easy, but the status quo is no longer acceptable to any except those who profit from the current broken healthcare system. We cannot afford to wait - or to fail. And we will do neither. And when successful reform takes hold, the American people will wonder what has taken us so long.”
Boston Globe, 5/28/09
“As we take up the challenge to revive our economy, one thing is very clear: We can't get our economy back on track without fixing the health-care system. As a registered nurse, cancer survivor, family and professional caregiver by turns, I know how important it is to have health insurance that covers treatments and prescriptions.”
“I was fortunate to have most of my care covered — others are not.
Surveys show that health care is Americans' top personal economic concern. The cost of health-care coverage for the average worker has doubled and health insurance premiums have tripled over the past decade, but wages haven't kept pace. According to a new report released by the New America Foundation, by 2016 Arizona residents will have to spend more than $25,000 or nearly 46 percent of the median household income to buy health insurance for themselves and their families — an 85 percent increase over 2008 levels.”
“The good news is that the work to improve the health-care system has already begun. The White House budget proposal… lays down a significant marker for major action on health-care reform this year.”
“With the foundation of real reform taking shape, now is the time to move forward. Despite our world-class hospitals and cutting-edge research and technology, we have a health-care system that costs too much, delivers too little and is a looming threat to our financial future.”
“We must fix America's health-care system now, not in spite of our economic crisis, but because of it. Creating a health-care system that emphasizes access and quality while reining in costs is essential to the future of our economy. Together, we can find a way to solve our health-care crisis and put working families and our economy first. America cannot afford to wait.”
Arizona Daily Star, Thursday, May 21, 2009
“Despite two wars and an economic crisis, President Obama is poised to tackle health care now.
Yesterday, Obama declared "the stars are aligned" to pass his health-care agenda this year. No legislation has been introduced, but Obama has already won some key concessions in reforming health care.
On Monday, six industry groups including hospitals, doctors, drugmakers, and medical equipment manufacturers pledged to wring $2 trillion from their costs over the next decade. Those savings could help cover the nation's 45 million uninsured.
Last week, insurers upped their commitment to health reform by agreeing to end surcharges for women's medical coverage.
Earlier, the then-president-elect secured a key conditional agreement on access to health care when insurers agreed to accept all customers, regardless of past illness or disability.
So in just a few months, Obama has put in place some key building blocks needed to cut costs and expand access to health care.”
Philadelphia Inquirer, Thursday, May 14, 2009
Hey, Mr Lee, thanks for the sharing the various views from credible sources like the Washington Post, CNN and BBC, I've attached below, a video of President Obama on one of the speeches he made on Healthcare reforms.
Enjoy!
A Comparison of the Korean's Healthcare Vs the US Healthcare Reforms:
September 22, 2009
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2910332
The debate over health care reform in the United States is continuing with Republican leaders trying to increase the public’s fear over the government interfering in the health care system.
The most controversial issue in President Obama’s health care overhaul is the plan to create a government-funded universal health care system. While the president has been emphasizing the necessity of creating universal health care since his presidential campaign, the amount of skepticism among the Republicans, even some Democrats and the public has been on the rise.
Most of the opponents feel that the United States is not ready for a dramatic change in the health care system yet, and such a change will reduce the competitiveness in the health insurance market economy.
The health care system in the United States is very different from the one in Korea. In fact, it is different from many other countries such as Canada, France and more.
The most prominent difference is that most of the health insurance plans in the United States are run by private companies.
I believe that although Korea’s health insurance system has some problems of its own, compared to the one in the United States it is much more ideal and an overhaul of the U.S. health care system is needed.
It is true that a huge proportion of the Korean government’s money is spent on its health care program. In fact, it is becoming one of the major elements burdening our economy.
Therefore, to increase the efficiency and get lazy people who depend on the public health care program off from the government’s back there has been an attempt to privatize the health care system.
However the major problem of the privatization of the health care system is that private insurance companies’ main goal is to earn as much profit as they can. Therefore they will try hard not to offer the medical treatments they promised to offer and put limits on people who are eligible for insurance. Some companies even hire people and pay high salaries to come up with excuses for rejecting medical operations and health insurance.
As a result, 45.7 million Americans, which is 15.3 percent of the population, are uninsured and the majority of people who have health insurance are not satisfied with the service they receive. They cannot receive the health care they deserve due to financial reasons.
Cont':
I believe that unless the government takes action, private insurance companies will continuously see their clients as nothing more than sources of profit. That is directly related to violating one of the basic human rights, the right to live. Therefore universal health care should be implemented not at a later time in the United States but now.
There are actually some economic benefits to health care reform. The government, people and most of the small companies can save a great amount of money once the health care system is changed.
What the President Obama needs to do to earn the public’s support and get the bill passed in the end is not only to emphasize the benefits and necessity of health care reform but also to tell specifically how citizens can benefit from it.
As health care reform is not only an issue in the U.S., Korea can learn an important lesson from the U.S. debate. There are some benefits as well as weak point in both countries’ health care systems. It is the government’s job to make needed changes for both the public welfare and the economy.
Lee Ji-Hyun, Seoul Foreign Language High School
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2910332
Thanks Ruth for the comparison, in light of the comparison, I thought it would be good for us to get another's perspective on the comparison against that of Singapore.
I gather a comparison from Ryan Swift, founder of SwiftEconomics.com, he is an entrepreneur from Oregon.
Ryan operates the website from home and various café’s with the intent of living a mobile lifestyle. (Ref: http://www.swifteconomics.com/ryan/):
Oh my God…the sky is falling! This will likely cause serious injuries and unfortunately, our healthcare system is a complete mess and a bunch of sociopaths, who obviously get a kick out of it when people die, are trying to stop healthcare reform! These baby seal clubbers want to stop what’s being called “the public option.” In other words, the government will also provide insurance to those unable to get it in the private market. Keith Olbermann had some choice words for these sociopathic, baby seal clubbing, misanthropes. While not debating anyone who might disagree with him, Olbermann went over a long list of Republicans and “blue dog” Democrats who oppose the public option, (none of whom he had on his show to debate him), describing how much money they took from the medical industry. His point wasn’t a bad one; unfortunately, in the midst of his monologue, sandwiched between several conversations with people who agree with him on everything, he forgot to mention that just about every politician is owned by someone. Republicans are bought and paid for by a lot of corporations and religious groups. Democrats are bought and paid for by some other corporations (such as GE, the parent company of MSNBC, the network that hosts Olbermann) as well as trial lawyers, labor unions and activist groups. Both parties loathe small business, but that is beside the point (and deserves another article entirely).
Regardless of who supports the public option (which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will cost $100 billion annually and only cover an additional 16 million of the 47 million uninsured) (1), we should look at what the legislation will likely accomplish, what the real problem is with our medical industry and what alternatives are available.
The first question to ask is how did the medical industry get such a foothold on the government in the first place? Well the reality is much of government’s increased role over the years has been at the behest of corporations, not against their will. For example, Medicare Part D was lobbied for by the insurance industry. Congressman Ron Paul explained this phenomenon very well:
“We have been enduring managed care over these last 35 to 40 years. And what has developed from this is corporate medicine. The individuals who were best able to gather up the money that was passed out or mandated by the government became the chief lobbyists; so the drug companies lined up, the health insurance companies lined up, the health management companies lined up. And it turned out that they started running it… and made it less efficient… Too much money was going to these corporations that were the middleman. And the patients have suffered and the doctors [have] become unhappy.” (2)
And just how inefficient has this made things? Well, look at what has happened since the 1950s: First there was Medicare and Medicaid in the ‘60s, then HMOs in the ‘70s and then Medicare Part D in 2003. And the prices just skyrocketed!
Our current system is obviously a train wreck. So should we go with the public option? Well, Massachusetts tried something very similar and costs have gone up 28% since 2006! Thus, in my humble opinion, the current proposal is an embarrassingly bad idea. In that case, maybe we should just get it over with and go with a single-payer system. Admittedly, it would probably be better than what we have now, but a single-payer system means that medicine would have to be rationed: expect much longer wait times. Furthermore, eliminating the profit motive would eliminate the competition-induced incentive to produce new drugs and medical procedures. The United States is still responsible for a disproportionately large share of medical innovations, which under a single-payer system would almost certainly no longer be the case.
Removing government entirely from the equation is never discussed, but I think it’s a worthy proposal. If that were the case, medical prices would probably fall significantly like they have in other technology-dominated industries left untouched by the government, such as computers and cell phones.
Right now, our system charges everything off to a third party. This gives doctors, who are deathly afraid of malpractice lawsuits, the incentive to run every test and do every procedure imaginable (or at least every safe procedure). These third parties, namely HMOs and insurance companies, then have every incentive to try to nickel and dime these bills, so as to stick the patient with as much of it as possible.
The major problem here is that we have forgotten what “insurance” actually means. We insure our homes against fires, floods and hurricanes. We do not insure our houses against the neighbor’s kid throwing a baseball through the window, or paint peeling off in the hot sun. Insurance is for the big things, not the little ones. Yet in medicine, insurance will pay for even routine checkups. This creates mini-monopolies (mini, of course, being a relative term). Once you’re with an insurance company and they pay for everything, minus the deductible, both the insurance company and the hospital know the patient won’t go price shopping. Once a customer has signed up, there is little reason for firms to compete on price or even quality. The predictable outcome is that prices skyrocket.
Should we kick government out of the healthcare industry all together? I say no, despite the fact that supporting government intervention makes me nauseous. I’d prefer a system with health savings accounts, allowing people to save money, tax free, for medical expenses. This would bring back the competition. Unfortunately, insurance companies would still have an incentive to skimp on the big things. And while medical prices would fall, it could leave a significant part of the population in dire straights if they got sick. Is there a country out there that leaves the market be, but addresses these problems? In fact, one does, (as the title of this article might suggest).
We should not be looking to Europe for insights into how to build our economy; they’ve been stagnant for decades. Instead, we should look to the Asian tigers. Everyone knows Asia is where it’s at these days. And the small nation of Singapore has a fantastic healthcare system that everyone should consider emulating.
How could the citizens of Singapore spend approximately 1/5th of what Americans spend, have fewer caregivers, yet live longer and have only 1/3rd the infant mortality rate? Before I answer, let’s build up some more anticipation. Singapore does just as well with much less than those countries with universal healthcare, too.
The key is that, unlike the United States, Singapore allows the market to work; Almost 70% of the medical expenditures are private. Singapore encourages their citizens to price shop and thereby push the price of healthcare down. Singapore’s Health Ministry explained it as follows: “Patients are expected to co-pay part of their medical expenses and to pay more when they demand a higher level of service. At the same time, government subsidies help to keep basic healthcare affordable.” (3)
The government side has four primary components. The first is Medisave, which pays a portion for hospital expenses and some outpatient care. It does not replace private insurance, merely supplements it. The second is Medishield, which covers the costs of extremely serious health problems (the main purpose for insurance). The third is Medifund which provides a subsidy for the poorest of the poor. And the final is Eldershield, which provides a subsidy for the elderly. (4)
Aside from the ridiculously cheesy names they’ve given these programs, Singapore has set up a system that uses “the public option,” mainly in the case of an emergency. Otherwise, it simply supplements private insurance, instead of replacing it (like Medicare), or setting up a third party to manage it (like HMOs). They have created a system that incentivizes saving, price shopping and competition. These things push prices down and force hospitals, insurance companies and drug companies to be lean and innovative. Singapore has successfully created a system that marginalizes both the corporations (listening Republicans?) and the government (listening Democrats?). And it works marvels!
Journalist Rowan Callick, who wrote a great piece on Singapore’s system, put it best: “The reason the system works so well is that it puts decisions in the hands of patients and doctors rather than of government bureaucrats and insurers.” (5) Amen to that. Hopefully someone in the United States government is listening… I kinda doubt it though.
http://www.swifteconomics.com/2009/08/07/healthcare-reform-the-public-option-or-the-singapore-model/
Thanks Raphael and Ruth for sharing the comparison, it gave light to the fact that the Singapore's healthcare system is that of a highly-esteemed one.
The Singapore government has come a long way to getting her citizens prepare for old age and it is no wonder our healthcare system has been studied with praises from scholars and academics worldwide.
Seems like the US healthcare reform isn't received with much positive feedback, here's why:
Skepticism Over Health Care Reform
Many Americans believe that health care reform is not necessary, as USA already has the best health care system in the world.
While, reform means to improve or make better by removing faults, it can also mean form again'.
So, if one prefers the first definition, then definitely the cost of health care should be reduced, so that everybody can afford it. However, health care reform should not be equated with making it available to everybody at lower costs.
Economists do not seem to have done any research on cost increase, they have not asked why when inflation was going up 1 - 3% a year, health care went up 10 to 12%.
While, a $500-billion reduction in Medicare payments is being proposed by the government, there will have to be a reduction of care available to senior citizens, considering the large number of baby boomers that will soon be entering the Medicare system.
Many medical centre CEOS are also saying the system needs adjustments, but it does not need to be overhauled. All were in favour of the employer-subsidized insurance method, rather than a broader government-funded system.
Reform being a complex issue, the policies written in Washington will soon be put to the test.
http://visitbulgaria.info/11260-skepticism-over-health-care-reform
Post a Comment