Are You Confused about Health Care Reform
Tony Perkins, Washington Update: There are very good reasons to be confused about what kind of health care reform Congress is debating right now. The health reform plans keep changing. Even in the committees of jurisdiction, only part of each bill is being considered because the rest of the bill has not been drafted. And when it gets drafted, it has to be scored (its cost to the taxpayer determined) by the Congressional Budget Office. The scores have been so high, ranging from $1.6 trillion to $2.4 trillion in the U.S. Senate and $3 trillion in the U.S. House, that the crippling price tags are causing further changes.Until the Democrats decide whether or not to have a government health plan option, the delays and confusion will continue. On one hand, three of the most influential House Democratic caucuses have demanded a public/government plan option. On the other, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Medical Association and the Association of Health Insurance Plans have all come out four-square against a government plan. When the leaders of the employer, doctor and insurance communities unite to oppose a specific legislative item, it becomes very difficult to pass. Moreover, President Obama has said that there is "no line in the sand" on a government plan, but House Speaker Pelosi says she cannot pass health reform in the House without a government plan.
If you are confused about what is happening on health care reform, don't worry, so are members of Congress. I will keep you posted on the changes through the Washington Update and the weekly Perkins on Point video. This week I zero in on the President's statement and two votes in the Senate this week which signal that a government health care plan will lead to vulnerable people being denied certain treatments and procedures. Check it out by going on FRC Action's new online health care resource, www.clearconsciencehealthcare.org and be sure to pass it on to your friends.
Tags: Barack Obama, Family Research Council, FRC, health care, Impeach Nancy Pelosi, nationalized health care, Tony Perkins To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 10:00 PM - Post Link
1 Comments:
I advise on several health insurance boards such as http://www.benefitsmanager.net , http://www.bcbstx.info , and http://www.healthinsurancesource.net. I often quote the Switzerland health care system as an example of tough questions that we as a nation will have to answer someday, if we go down the path of nationalized government health care plan. We’ll have to at some point draw the line in the sand and refuse further care for patients receiving critical illness treatments, intensive care unit, trauma care, acute management services, disease management, neonatal intensive-care unit for newborns and seniors in extended care treatment nearing hospice stage . Did you know that premature babies are not resuscitated upon birth if they cannot draw breath in Switzerland? Did you also know that holds true with “senior care” experiencing system failure or multiple organ failures requiring support? Another example, they don't extend the life of a senior via medical equipment such as intubation or respiration for multiple organ failures. Not to be morbid….they are unplugged and allowed to pass. Anyone in the business of paying claims knows that the single most expensive bill in what carriers call “shock loss” is within NICU for newborns and seniors in acute / intensive care / hospital in the last three months of life.
The Swiss apparently made decisions made based upon cost vs. quality outcome. Are we as a nation prepared to make that type of decision or to define when to incubate, resuscitate a newborn or a senior? Are we ready to define the conditions and rules of medical procedures with organ failure? With a litigious society I think not. This is why we need TORT REFORM. Without TORT REFORM medical provider costs will never drop. Liability costs with medical providers are nearly half of operating expenses. Humana health plans state that their costs of medical liability and defensive medicine accounts for nearly 10 cents out of every premium dollar collected. Compare that to Humana’s reported pharmaceutical claims of 15 cents out of every premium dollar collected. Or better yet, 21 cents out of every premium dollar collected is paid back to physicians for physician treatments. The cost of litigation is only obvious with Humana health plans. I sit on the board with several other health insurance carriers. Their books all show similar costs. They basically insure a shrinking populace that is mostly made up of people that only buy insurance because they need it. So is mandatory participation such a bad idea?
I don't think we are hearing about TORT REFORM because most of the house and senate on the federal level are lawyers and have practicing law firm interest’s. In the healthcare system there is no total innocence. We hear about insurance executives with bonuses, doctors overbilling, hospitals overbilling because the street gang thug got dropped at their ER door with no insurance. The lawyers are there to stir the pot and promise lavish fortune at the end of the PERCEIVED misery chain. Am I saying we don’t need them? No, but I am saying there is clear and documented abuse of the legal system that awards outlandish claims in the millions for a questionable mistake. Are ambulance chasers not sociably recognized as being the most abusive? What about those that educate their clients on defraud and then use the legal system to pirate insurers?
I sure wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of these serious decisions that we will have to make. My senator claims that the government would be held blameless but what about the medical provider that has to make the call? What about the insurance payer that has to deny continued care for an infant that will not survive? Without serious TORT REFORM we aren’t going to get costs down or have good people make headway.
Post a Comment
<< Home