Pushing Back Against Obamacare
10:59 AM
by Nick Stone of Drawnlines Politics.
On the "Nightline" edition of the health care forum, Gibson read the president a letter from Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee expressing concern about the creation of a government-run health care plan.
"At a time when major government programs like Medicare and Medicaid are already on a path to fiscal insolvency, creating a brand new government program will not only worsen our long-term financial outlook but also negatively impact American families who enjoy the private coverage of their choice," the senators wrote. "The end result would be a federal government takeover of our health care system, taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and placing them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy."
"They're wrong," the president said, arguing that in a Health Insurance Exchange the public plan would be "one option among multiple options."
The concern, Gibson articulated, is that such a plan wouldn't be offered on a level playing field.
The president rebuffed that, arguing that "we can set up a public option where they're collecting premiums just like any private insurer and doctors can collect rates," but because the public plan will have lower administrative costs "we can keep them [private insurance companies] honest."
Obama said he didn't understand those advocates of the free market who constantly say the private sector can do things better and are yet worried about this plan.
"If that's the case, no one will chose the public option," the president said. He also suggested, however, that the private sector might not necessarily be better, point out that users of Medicare and Veterans Administration hospitals constantly rate "pretty high satisfaction."
The Arizona Health Care Freedom Act aims to make certain that the Republican senators are wrong, and to put it in writing. Despite the president's pledge that a so-called public option will not trample over private insurance, Obama has stated many times on the campaign trail that he favors a universal, single-payer option. Obama's efforts to include a government-run option in the mix is viewed by many conservative skeptics as a foot-in-the door method of ultimately achieving a government monopoly.
On America's Newsroom with Bill Hemmer, Arizona State Representative Nancy Barto said the bill will "protect patients' health care decisions, giving them the option to opt out of whatever mandate comes out of Washington, and guarantee a patient's right to purchase health care and receive health care." Barto added that, "We see the signs and they all lead toward one conclusion: that government is heading in the direction of a huge takeover of your healthcare decisions." She described what is hapening in Washington as a "monumental takeover".
The point: "Whenever government...becomes a competitor, they change the rules to win. Government can't be a competitor and a regulator at the same time. It doesn't make sense. Sooner or later - and probably sooner - citizens won't have a choice. For one thing they will drive the private insurers out of business, and employers that currently carry their employee health insurance will drop it because of the lower-cost government options adding 119 million people onto the rolls almost immediately."
But it turns out it isn't just Republican legislators that are speaking out against Obama's health plan. The American Medical Association has railed loudly against the so-called public plan. Surely one could argue that group might know more about actual health care than any politician past or present. To lobby them, Obama delivered a grand speech to brow-beat them into line. It just might work, except that editorials are coming out on the dangers and myths of Obamacare. Just today, Forbes Magazine (not a partisan group, you might say) Editor Shikha Dalmia issued a scathing article titled Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies. She hits the president right between the eyes with a hardball.
According to Fox News,
In the abstract, 72% of Americans support the creation of a public health care plan according to the New York Times. However, according to the same study that found that statistic, 63% of respondents voiced concerns that the quality of their health care would get worse under a public plan and 68% worry that access to tests and care will be more limited than it is now.
Though there is overwhelming support both in the public and in the legislatures for health care reform in some fashion (especially reform which controls costs and covers the unintentionally uninsured), the devil may turn out to be in the details.
On the "Nightline" edition of the health care forum, Gibson read the president a letter from Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee expressing concern about the creation of a government-run health care plan.
"At a time when major government programs like Medicare and Medicaid are already on a path to fiscal insolvency, creating a brand new government program will not only worsen our long-term financial outlook but also negatively impact American families who enjoy the private coverage of their choice," the senators wrote. "The end result would be a federal government takeover of our health care system, taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and placing them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy."
"They're wrong," the president said, arguing that in a Health Insurance Exchange the public plan would be "one option among multiple options."
The concern, Gibson articulated, is that such a plan wouldn't be offered on a level playing field.
The president rebuffed that, arguing that "we can set up a public option where they're collecting premiums just like any private insurer and doctors can collect rates," but because the public plan will have lower administrative costs "we can keep them [private insurance companies] honest."
Obama said he didn't understand those advocates of the free market who constantly say the private sector can do things better and are yet worried about this plan.
"If that's the case, no one will chose the public option," the president said. He also suggested, however, that the private sector might not necessarily be better, point out that users of Medicare and Veterans Administration hospitals constantly rate "pretty high satisfaction."
The Arizona Health Care Freedom Act aims to make certain that the Republican senators are wrong, and to put it in writing. Despite the president's pledge that a so-called public option will not trample over private insurance, Obama has stated many times on the campaign trail that he favors a universal, single-payer option. Obama's efforts to include a government-run option in the mix is viewed by many conservative skeptics as a foot-in-the door method of ultimately achieving a government monopoly.
On America's Newsroom with Bill Hemmer, Arizona State Representative Nancy Barto said the bill will "protect patients' health care decisions, giving them the option to opt out of whatever mandate comes out of Washington, and guarantee a patient's right to purchase health care and receive health care." Barto added that, "We see the signs and they all lead toward one conclusion: that government is heading in the direction of a huge takeover of your healthcare decisions." She described what is hapening in Washington as a "monumental takeover".
The point: "Whenever government...becomes a competitor, they change the rules to win. Government can't be a competitor and a regulator at the same time. It doesn't make sense. Sooner or later - and probably sooner - citizens won't have a choice. For one thing they will drive the private insurers out of business, and employers that currently carry their employee health insurance will drop it because of the lower-cost government options adding 119 million people onto the rolls almost immediately."
But it turns out it isn't just Republican legislators that are speaking out against Obama's health plan. The American Medical Association has railed loudly against the so-called public plan. Surely one could argue that group might know more about actual health care than any politician past or present. To lobby them, Obama delivered a grand speech to brow-beat them into line. It just might work, except that editorials are coming out on the dangers and myths of Obamacare. Just today, Forbes Magazine (not a partisan group, you might say) Editor Shikha Dalmia issued a scathing article titled Obama's Top Five Health Care Lies. She hits the president right between the eyes with a hardball.
According to Fox News,
Some state lawmakers who oppose President Obama's efforts to implement a national health care plan say the inevitable result will be socialized medicine. "The public plan and national health insurance exchange will squeeze out private insurance and put us on the road to single-payer health care," warns Georgia state Sen. Judson Hill, a Republican.
"Having the public plan now will mean socialized medicine later," he said.
Hill and other state legislators expressed concerns that millions of people will drop their private coverage if there is political pressure to keep a public plan's premiums low and benefits high. And if private insurers leave the market, they say, consumers will essentially be left with no choice of plans and no control over how their health care dollars are spent.
"Protecting the rights of individuals to be in control of their health and health care must be a fundamental component of health care reform," says Dr. Erick Novack, chairman of Arizonans for Health Care Freedom, which promoted the state's ballot measure. "We are confident that the people of Arizona will vote to ensure their own rights."
With a constitutional challenge to health care reform problematic at best, that vote may turn out to be largely symbolic. But for now, that doesn't seem to be stopping other states from following Arizona's lead.
In the abstract, 72% of Americans support the creation of a public health care plan according to the New York Times. However, according to the same study that found that statistic, 63% of respondents voiced concerns that the quality of their health care would get worse under a public plan and 68% worry that access to tests and care will be more limited than it is now.
Though there is overwhelming support both in the public and in the legislatures for health care reform in some fashion (especially reform which controls costs and covers the unintentionally uninsured), the devil may turn out to be in the details.
Posted by Nick Stone
on 10:59 AM.
Filed under
.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0
Posts
Wasn't the majority of people in the same survey also satisfied with their current health care coverage?
I don't think the government owes us health insurance (in any form, including Medicaid and Medicare), and I absolutely don't think it should force us to participate in anything. Remember when we were free to live our own lives without government knocking on our door to complete its requirements? Me neither. That kind of government hasn't existed in a while and may never have. That's unfortunate and something that needs to be changed.
The piece on the Obama health care lies that you linked to is pretty good; however, I don't really agree with the third lie. It actually touches upon the fifth lie. The government can control rising health care costs better than can the private sector. And, that's the problem. It can control anything it wants to whenever it wants to, if we let it.
Let's ditch the farm subsidies that are giving us trash food at good prices. If we're going to subsidize anything, let it be healthy foods, instead of those foods that can be used to provide endless cheap fatty sweetness for packaged food manufacturers.
Yes it's true that in surveys a majority of Americans are satisfied with their current care though they agree that reforms need to be made.
The problem with that answer is that it only relates to the status quo. The question doesn't account for how much more expensive that same care will be in 5 years, 10 years, etc. It also doesn't account for the inevitable rationing of care, increased wait times, increase in bureaucracy that is imminent to receive care, or the impending doctor shortage.
So, in short the problem is trajectory and the doom on the horizon if we do nothing. The question is over what that 'something' must be.
A bigger, hungrier federal government? Methinks not.