Interesting article at Truthdig. Joshua Holland of AlterNet outlines ten benefits that health care reform should bring. Holland writes, “Understanding what’s actually contained in the legislation leads to an unavoidable conclusion about the anger we’ve seen in recent weeks: it’s doubtful that at anytime in the history of our nation have a group of people been so furiously opposed to something that would so obviously be an improvement over what they now have. It’s nothing less than a testament to the power of industry propaganda.”
Here is an abbreviated version of Holland’s Ten Reasons To Pass Health Reform:
- The First Thing That Will Happen Is Absolutely Nothing. At least that’s the case for a lot of people who now have quality health insurance. … Your current insurance company would have a harder time screwing you over if you get sick. That’s because, although your policy wouldn’t change, it would be governed by new public-interest regulations for the entire health insurance industry.
- New Protections for Consumers. New regulations would take effect in 2010 that would go a long way toward curtailing the insurance companies’ worst abuses. … The legislation (especially the Senate HELP bill) creates new tools for fighting insurance fraud and abuse.
- Medical Bankruptcies Would Plummet. One of the most significant of these regulations is in the House bill: a cap on out-of-pocket expenses. … In 2007, Harvard researchers studied thousands of bankruptcy filings and found that medical causes played a role in more than 6 in 10.
- People Who Could Never Get Decent Coverage Will Finally Be Able To. So far, one of the great victories for the anti-reform movement has been convincing many small-business owners that health reform will put them under. The reality is that small-business people, their employees, independent contractors, freelancers, entrepreneurs, part-timers and the “marginally employed” would be the biggest winners from the legislation if it passed as currently drafted. Small business owners and their employees—as well as those other groups—would, for the first time, be able to get decent coverage at a fair price, and if eligible, both employer and worker would be able to get extra help paying for it.
- (Almost) Everyone Gets Covered. That brings us to another “controversial”—but ultimately commonsense—piece of the puzzle, the “individual mandate.” It means that (almost) everyone would either have to buy health insurance or pay a modest penalty that would contribute to the system. In the House bill, the penalty would max out at 2.5 percent of income. Waivers would be available in the cases of economic hardship or for those who have religious objections.
- Those Who Can’t Afford the Premiums Will Get Help Paying. Ultimately, even if the public exchanges were to succeed in bringing the price of health insurance back to earth, a lot of people would still be priced out of the market. All of the Democratic plans come with subsidies to help those at the lower end of the economic ladder get access to decent health care. The most generous are in the House bill, and how extensive the subsidies will be in the final legislation will be a point of heated debate.
- No Free Lunch for Businesses. Currently, large employers that rely on low-skilled workforces usually offer little or no health coverage, and much of these workers’ health care is already subsidized by taxpayers in the form of Medicaid and Medicare payments, other public programs and unpaid bills for emergency-room visits. Under the proposals in Congress, medium and large firms would face a simple choice: Offer their employees decent coverage or pay something into the system to offset the burden their employees’ health needs impose on the American taxpayer.
- More Low-Income Workers Eligible for Medicaid. All of the plans being considered by Congress make more of the working poor eligible for Medicaid by lifting the income limits on eligibility.
- Some Things Will Change, But You’ll Never Notice. There are measures that would impact the way doctors are paid, allocate additional dollars for developing the health care workforce and bring new technologies online. …Ordinary people looking for health coverage are not going to notice anything different about their health care.
- Over Time, the System Will Become Healthier. Everything depends on what the final legislation entails. But if it were done right, those systemic changes—greater competition, tighter regulation, technological improvements, a greater emphasis on prevention, the buying power and efficiency of less-fragmented insurance pools and an end to treating the uninsured in emergency rooms—would gradually “bend the cost curve” of health coverage and offer insurance to tens of millions of people who today struggle with the health problems and stressful economic insecurity of living without insurance.
The individual mandate is not commonsense. In combination with the rules against discrimination in the bill it is a recipe for high rates.
The reason is that younger/healthier people will be worth something to insurance companies, while older/sicker people will be a drain on them because only younger/healthier people have to pay more than their risks.
So companies that end up with good low-cost pools will make sure their prices are up to the level of the nearest competitor because they don’t want to get more people flocking in to their pools who might be sick/old. So they keep their prices the same while using their lower expenses to advertise for young or healthy people in whatever way they can while thinking of as many ways as possible of deterring costly people from getting in their pools.
Since they have to keep their rates the same as their nearest competitor, all prices will be the same, and the ones with bad pools need not fear increasing their rates because the ones with good pools will follow.
And with a public option the goal of the insurance companies would be to try to get as many of the sickest/oldest people in the public option so that its rates have to go up so that they too can raise their rates.
One reason not to pass this version of health reform – Freedom.
Try this: Seven Ways to Make Health Care in America Better
http://hermancain.com/news/press-opinion-041309.asp
Sounds like Christmas only we are the Santa Claus I am one of the sick but this has to be paid for . I am someone who had a relative die where 2 million dollars was spent in medical care they lived through a lot but still died .
It is hard to lose family but it is hard to lose them after they lived through a 4 way bypass and a real bad leg infection in which they spent 6 months in a nursing home.
If that wasn’t bad enough my sister had 47 pounds enormous tumor removed and lived through that did I tell you she had sugar diabetus really bad . Her body never adjusted to the 100 pound wieght lose in one day due to the tumor being removed .She had had a toe removed that I didn’t even mention due to having to have a toe nail removed .
She wasn’t the same she needed medicine for depression she was very angry and needed help toward the end of her life do I want to live through all of this no way . Death is a natural thing I think we forget this we we sue doctors doctors cannot prevent death death still happens my sister died alone of a major heart attack 100% blockage .
Can we afford 2 million dollars a person to keep people alive each ????
RWE, folks on this site, with a couple of exceptions, don’t value freedom. What’s they saying? When you give up your freedom for security, you get neither.
It’s so sad that these people don’t realize the consequences of their beliefs. Once this health care monstrosity gets passed, that’s it. There is no going back. Even if it doesn’t contain all the pieces when passed, there is little doubt that each and every piece will be put in place via various spending bills in ensuing years.
That is why I am totally against this bill in its’ entirety. No compromise, no reconciliation, no nothing. Defeat this bill now!
Reasons (in brief) to not vote for this bill.
1) Freedom
2) Distribution of wealth in sense of misguided and illogical moral value
3) Freedom
4) Economically unsound
5) Freedom
6) Medicare, medicaid, SSI, post office and any other government entity loses money and is grossly inefficient. Dont keep adding programs they suck at.
7) freedom
8) I dont need a Nanny
9) Freedom
10) Freedom
I think that about covers it.
Well, I see that the Tea Party people have all weighed in.
Now for the current reality.
Is the U.S. health system the best in the world? No, based on all objective measures, we rank near the bottom of industrialized nations. Some third-world countries outdo us on certain measures.
Where do people pay half as much for good health care? France, Canada, Japan, and the other nations that have a single-payer system (what you McCarthy types want to call “socialized”).
Where does health care get rationed for the aged? In the USA, where my mother couldn’t even get her broken hip pinned, much less replaced, because she was over 80. In Canada, there were 1200 hip replacements for people of that age last year.
Where do you have to wait for non-elective surgery? I waited 2 months to get my torn meniscus repaired, during which time I could not walk normally. Others in the USA wait longer.
Where do you not get to choose your doctor? My insurance company provides me with a list of the ones they’ll support fully. Even if I stay within network, I have to pay thousands out-of-pocket if any family member needs something major.
Does our current health care system protect public health? No, uninsured people are less likely to seek care or to follow through–which is why we now have so many antibiotic-resistant strains of pathogens.
Will a single-payer system cost more? We already pay for the uninsured, who generally seek treatment in hospital emergency rooms (which are required by law to treat all comers–though a few unethical ones practice dumping, which just means a different ER). So those of us who buy insurance pay higher hospital bills to cover the uninsured–and the cost of their care is higher because an emergency room is far more expensive than a primary care physician visit.
Is single-payer fair? As it stands, the wealthiest Americans wind up getting better insurance. Morally, health care should not be a commodity.
Look, all I want is a health care plan similar to what John Boehner, Mike Turner, John Husted, and thousands of other federal and state Republican legislators have voted for themselves. If you had that choice, what would you take–health care from our government or from Big Insurance?
RWE, tort reform has been tried. It does not always lead to lower malpractice premiums (after all, we’re dealing with private insurers–say, do you all really think that private insurance will pass along savings?).
And look, do you really want to tell that person whose surgeon cut off the wrong leg that their damages ought to be limited to less than a million? What incentive will there be for doctors to learn the difference between left and right–or careful and reckless?
The same old proposals keep coming back even though, when tried, they failed.
Ah, Rick. More simplistic name-calling. Shallow of you.
I value freedom.
The difference is, you feel free when you live in a society where health care is not well managed, where it’s hideously expensive, where it burdens our corporations and puts hostile bureaucrats (corporate ones) in the way of speedy treatment when people need it most.
Your kind of freedom is tautological and abstract; it’s the freedom to die slowly from an easily treatable infection. My freedom is the freedom to go into a medical facility and know that I will see my needs met without making the doctor spend half-an-hour arguing with an anonymous nurse at an Anthem call center, followed by enough paperwork to make the US tax code look concise.
In short, I prefer tangible, real freedom to objectivist theories.
?truddick – Really. When has tort reform been tried in the health care industry? And yes, I do believe private insurers will pass along the savings through competition with other insurers.
Some punitive damage awards are open ended and the justice system has, in my view, overstepped common sense in determining damages. Governments’ role should be to protect both sides in disputes.
I don’t believe government should be in the health care business and deciding people’s medical futures. Just like they shouldn’t be in medicare, social security, the finance, housing and manufacturing sectors. Government has its place, but it definitely shouldn’t be involved in the business of business.
RWE:
I am not willing to educate you for free.
Google is your friend.
Several states have legislated tort reform. Sometimes the state sees lower costs, more often not. Since states don’t implement tort reform with solid scientific controls, we can’t say for sure if it works; some states that don’t implement tort reform also see a reduction in health care costs.
My own private insurance has seen no increase in cost this year. I attribute that to the threat of federal controls or a public option. If the insurance companies manage to weather this storm, I have no doubt that I’ll be punished with some serious increases in future years–along with reductions in coverage. That’s what happened in the 90s after the insurance companies managed to stave off the Clinton plan.
Current estimates by responsible economists are that what we spend for health care will double in ten years unless we do something drastic to derail those increases. Perhaps they’re wrong. Do you want to take that risk? Worse yet, do you want to impose that burden on American corporations? I don’t.
T.Ruddick – you are right, Google is my friend.
You might want to review this case study of how tort reform (including medical malpractice) affected consumers in various states:
http://www.atra.org/wrap/files.cgi/7964_howworks.html
Here are some highlights from the state of Texas:
“In 1995 the Texas Legislature passed a series of bills to reform the state’s civil justice system. These bills addressed: limits on punitive damages, joint and several liability, sanctions for filing frivolous suits, limits on venue shopping and out-of-state filings, modifications to deceptive trade practices and medical malpractice reform.
According to the study, The Impact of Judicial Reforms on Economic Activity in Texas, the total cost of the Texas tort system in 2000 was $15.482 billion. Without reforms, it is estimated that the total cost would have been $25.889 billion. Of the $10.407 billion in total direct savings, approximately $2.777 billion may be attributed to improvements at the national level while $7.630 billion in savings were from reforms in Texas. Of the total savings, $2.542 billion went directly to benefit consumers.
The Perryman Group. The Impact of Judicial Reforms on Economic Activity in Texas Overall Economic Impact on State’s Economy. (August 2000)
Facts to Consider: Benefits to Consumers
It is estimated that reforms enacted in 1995 resulted in savings of $2.542 billion that directly benefits consumers.
$1.796 billion in annual cost savings from reduced inflation ($216 per household)
$7.056 billion in annual total personal growth income ($862 per household)
The net result was a savings of $1,078 per year to the typical Texas household.”
Oh, and btw, I’m not looking for a free education. I believe one should work for what one gets in life and should be able to keep the fruits of ones’ labor.
Thank you.
Thank you, RWE, for your self-serving selective presentation of data. You first link to the data presented by the American Tort Reform Association, then give a similarly simplistic presentation of data from Texas only.
If you paid for your education, it failed to teach you about distrusting biased sources. Maybe you can sue your charter school for damages.
Try a few alternative viewpoints–ones that aren’t naive about how insurance companies manipulate premiums in order to reward or punish legislators:
http://www.slate.com/id/2145400/
“The best attempt to synthesize the academic literature on medical malpractice is Tom Baker’s The Medical Malpractice Myth, published last November. Baker, a law professor at the University of Connecticut who studies insurance, argues that the hype about medical malpractice suits is “urban legend mixed with the occasional true story, supported by selective references to academic studies.” After all, including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts, the cost of the suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending.”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/malpractice.html
“Proposals aimed at capping award payments place a ceiling on the amount a jury can award for noneconomic damages, but do not limit awards for economic damages (medical costs, continuing care, and lost wages). However, the Physician Insurers Association of America estimates that of all medical malpractice claims filed in the United States, only 5 percent go to trial and 80 percent have defense verdicts. A mere 0.9 percent end in a jury verdict for the plaintiff, and are thus subject to these caps. As a result, caps are likely to have a negligible and probably indirect effect on health care costs. In addition, some claim that caps only provide a “band-aid” fix and do nothing to promote patient safety.”
And finally:
http://www.pla.blogspot.com/2003_03_02_pla_archive.html
Tort Reform Quiz
How much do you know about the facts surrounding the issue of medical malpractice/tort reform? Take the following quiz and find out. All answers were taken from or calculated from information contained in USA Today report. Many thanks to the indispensable Bloviator for the link.
1) On average, Doctors spend approximately what percentage of their revenue on medical malpractice insurance?
(a) 50%
(b) 25%
(c) 10%
(d) 3%
2) Place in descending order the average costs to Doctors of the following:
(a) Rent
(b) Medical malpractice premiums
(c) Office equipment
(d) Office Personnel
3) According to data released by the government, medical malpractice premiums rose last year by an average approximately of:
(a) 42%
(b) 32%
(c) 22%
(d) 12%.
4) OB/GYNs in Miami, Florida are reportedly being charged a reported $200,000 a year for malpractice insurance. A cap on non-economic damages would reduce those premiums by:
(a) 30%
(b) 20%
(c) 10%
(d) 0%
5) According to a report in Medical Economics, OB/GNYs pay the higest percentage of their revenue for medical malpractice premiums. That percentage is approximately:
a) 37%
b) 27%
c) 17%
d) 7%
6) A report for the New Jersey Medical Society by Tillinghast-Towers Perrin estimated that a state cap of $250,000 for pain and suffering might result reduce malpractice premiums for New Jersey Doctors by what percentage?
a) 35-37%
b) 25-27%
c) 15-17%
d) 5-7%
7) If you are currently paying $300 per month for health insurance, a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice suits is expected to lower your health insurance premiums to:
a) $299
b) $249
c) $209
d) $159
8) A 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, found that the number of people who died in hospitals as a result of medical mistakes was:
a) less than 10,000
b) between 10,000 and 40,000
c) between 40,000 and 100,000
d) more than 100,000
Answers
1) D. According to USA Today, Doctors spend an average of 3.2% of revenue on malpractice premiums.
2) “A March 2002 government report by MedPAC, a congressional advisory commission, says doctors, on average, were expected to spend 3.2% of their revenue on malpractice insurance last year. That compares with 12.4% for staff salaries, 11.6% for office expenses and 1.9% for medical equipment.”
3) D. According to USA Today “Government data released Monday by a congressional advisory commission show the average increase last year was 11.3%.” (Note: an increase of 11.3% would force physicians to pay an average of 3.56% of their annual gross revenue on insurance. Yes, I did the math for you. You’re welcome)
4) D. 0%. Florida already has a cap on damages.
5) D. “Calculations based on two surveys published by Medical Economics magazine — widely read by physicians — last year show that OB-GYNs paid the most for malpractice insurance, as a percentage of their revenue, 6.7%, and cardiologists paid the least, 1.5%.”
6) D. “A report for the New Jersey Medical Society by Tillinghast-Towers Perrin estimated that a state cap of $250,000 for pain and suffering might result in 5% to 7% savings for physicians. According to a study by the Congressional Budget Office, states without a cap on jury awards would see significantly lower premiums for malpractice insurance if Congress instituted such a nationwide cap. On average, the study found, such a law would cut premiums in those states 25% to 30%. However, the Congressional Budget Office study said there would be no effect in about one-quarter of the states, which already have similar caps.
7) A. $299. “At the same time, the congressional study reported that caps on pain and suffering awards would translate into very small savings — 0.4% — on overall health insurance premiums for the general public.” A 0.4% reduction in a $300 per month premium results in a savings of $1.20 per month.
8) C. “A 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, blamed medical mistakes for the deaths of 44,000 to 98,000 hospitalized Americans each year.”