Tag Archives: health care reform

The reckoning

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse nails it during this weekend’s health care debate.

When it turns out there are no death panels, when there is no bureaucrat between you and your doctor, when the ways your health care changes seem like a good deal to you, and a pretty smart idea, when the American public sees the discrepancy between what really is, and what they were told by the Republicans, there will be a reckoning. There will come a day of judgment about who was telling the truth.

Via TPM:

Whitehouse began his monologue by quoting 1950s intellectual Richard Hofstadter, warning that a right-wing minority could create “a political environment in which the rational pursuit of our well-being and safety would become impossible.”

BCBSNC Blowback

A sizable number of legislators are asking for a probe of Blue Cross Blue Shield’s efforts against the public option.

As a corporation that claims to deliver innovative health care products and services to its members, BlueCross BlueShield appears to be engaging in a blatant political campaign utilizing the premiums paid by their customers. Even if there is no apparent violation of existing statutes, we think this is bad public policy that deserves further scrutiny.

In addition to mailings and robo calls, you may remember this WaPo story on a planned TV campaign.
Talking Points Memo gets confirmation of an inquiry.

But the probe the lawmakers are calling for appears to be underway already. “We received an inquiry from the AG’s office a couple weeks ago,” about whether the campaign violated laws, Lew Borman, a spokesman for BCBS of North Carolina, told TPMmuckraker. “We don’t believe we broke any laws,” Borman added.

Facing South has a wrap up and some backstory.

Text of the letter after the jump Continue reading

The Long Struggle

Via the White House:

. . . The American people are the most insurance-minded people in the world. They will not be frightened off from health insurance because some people have misnamed it “socialized medicine”.
I repeat–what I am recommending is not socialized medicine.
Socialized medicine means that all doctors work as employees of government. The American people want no such system. No such system is here proposed.
Under the plan I suggest, our people would continue to get medical and hospital services just as they do now–on the basis of their own voluntary decisions and choices. Our doctors and hospitals would continue to deal with disease with the same professional freedom as now. There would, however, be this all-important difference: whether or not patients get the services they need would not depend on how much they can afford to pay at the time.
I am in favor of the broadest possible coverage for this insurance system. I believe that all persons who work for a living and their dependents should be covered under such an insurance plan. This would include wage and salary earners, those in business for themselves, professional persons, farmers, agricultural labor, domestic employees, government employees and employees of non-profit institutions and their families.
In addition, needy persons and other groups should be covered through appropriate premiums paid for them by public agencies. Increased Federal funds should also be made available by the Congress under the public assistance programs to reimburse the States for part of such premiums, as well as for direct expenditures made by the States in paying for medical services provided by doctors, hospitals and other agencies to needy persons.
Premiums for present social insurance benefits are calculated on the first $3,000 of earnings in a year. It might be well to have all such premiums, including those for health, calculated on a somewhat higher amount such as $3,600.
A broad program of prepayment for medical care would need total amounts approximately equal to 4% of such earnings. The people of the United States have been spending, on the average, nearly this percentage of their incomes for sickness care. How much of the total fund should come from the insurance premiums and how much from general revenues is a matter for the Congress to decide.
The plan which I have suggested would be sufficient to pay most doctors more than the best they have received in peacetime years. The payments of the doctors’ bills would be guaranteed, and the doctors would be spared the annoyance and uncertainty of collecting fees from individual patients. The same assurance would apply to hospitals, dentists and nurses for the services they render.
Federal aid in the construction of hospitals will be futile unless there is current purchasing power so that people can use these hospitals. Doctors cannot be drawn to sections which need them without some assurance that they can make a living. Only a nation-wide spreading of sickness costs can supply such sections with sure and sufficient purchasing power to maintain enough physicians and hospitals.
We are a rich nation and can afford many things. But ill-health which can be prevented or cured is one thing we cannot afford.

Harry S. Truman, Special Message to Congress Recommending a Comprehensive Health Program, Nov. 19, 1945

Money changes everything

Pretty detailed and serious analysis by Nate Silver on Health Care Pac contributions and its influence on Senators such as our dear friend Kay Hagan, who is now waffling on the public option in the health care reform package.
The cover story for Hagan and others is that they are trying to build bipartisan support. So out with the public option and in with “coops.” Well that’s not working either now is it?
Hagan needs to either come out and show some support for the public option or explain why she doesn’t. Because right now it sure looks like she is standing with drug companies and insurance companies in a country that is being eaten alive by health care costs.
The American People voted for Change, not the status quo wrapped in a neat new package. Remember?