Health Care Shakeup Will Make Things Worse
Published: July 12, 2009
Updated: August 21, 2009
The American health care model is about choice. At its core, it's about families having the ability to consult with their doctor and choose for themselves the quality health care that best meets their need. This is what dis tinguishes us and makes our system -- however imperfect -- stronger than those of nations such as Canada and Great Britain.
American families do not want their health decisions made by someone in the basement of the Health and Human Services building hundreds of miles away from their family member's bedside. They don't want to wait for weeks -- or even months -- on end to see a doctor of their choosing or to gain access to necessary treatments or cures.
Congress must not forget this as it engages in a spirited debate about the future shape of the American health care system. Only through a thoughtful process that seeks to protect and preserve choice and flexibility while expanding access, improving quality, and focusing on affordability can we hope to achieve a bipartisan solution.
To be very clear, Republicans agree that we need to take action to make health insurance more affordable for all Americans. We do not accept the status quo. But we disagree sharply with the administration and the Democrat majority that the government should be firmly in control of the U.S. health system. Such an abrupt turnabout threatens to unravel the elements of our system that work well for millions of Americans -- and the long-term risks and costs for taxpayers are great.
House Republicans have put forward several new ideas to make health care more affordable by sparking competition in the private sector. Unlike the House bill, our plans will not lead to higher taxes and fewer jobs.
Our plans focus on the following core principles:
- A commitment to all Americans who like what they have -- timely care, choice of doctor, and access to the treatments and cures prescribed by their physician -- that they can keep it.
- For those without coverage, access to an affordable, basic plan.
- A strengthened safety net for those who need it.
- A reinvigorated commitment to research and innovation that will yield the best treatments and cures.
Sadly, this is not the direction we appear to be headed. According to a recent Washington Post poll, 83 percent of Americans are satisfied with the quality of their health care. Yet the nonpartisan Lewin Group predicts that two out of three Americans who get their health care through their employer would lose it under the House Democrat plan.
For example, seniors who have signed up for a Medicare Advantage prescription drug plan would fall victim to draconian funding cuts proposed by Congress. Millions of Americans who own health savings accounts will be at the mercy of a government bureaucrat given the power to determine whether an HSA qualifies as "acceptable coverage." And new mandates for employers to provide insurance would unfairly harm small businesses without adequate help to meet the new costs.
The root of the problem is the House bill's imposition of the so-called "government option." President Obama argues that offering a government insurance plan would ostensibly spark "competition" with the private sector, bringing down costs for everyone and increasing the quality of care. Nothing could be further from the truth. This move toward making the government the "single payer" is fraught with risk. There has scarcely been a case in recent history where money has been saved and quality improved by handing over the reins of a massive industry to the government. Think Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's domination of the mortgage market, or more recently, the government's takeover of the U.S. auto industry.
The natural response from providers of health care -- who are already underpaid by existing government programs like Medicare -- is to decrease the quality of care or to exit the system altogether.
Ultimately, the patient will lose when the government is forced to choose between two painful options: ration the remaining supply of lower-quality care to a growing membership base; or raise taxes so it can afford to pay a higher price to health providers.
Americans may soon find out why more than 725,000 Canadians idle away on months-long waiting lists for surgery and other critical treatments. It's no coincidence that the survival rates for breast cancer and prostate cancer in Great Britain lag the United States by 14.2 and 40.8 percentage points, respectively.
But we need not go down that route.
Health care reform is too complex and important to the American people to be rushed through Congress. We must be thoughtful, deliberate, and act in a bipartisan fashion so that we get this right once and for all. But turning to government instead of empowering doctors and patients is not the way to accomplish our goals.
Eric Cantor, a Republican, represents Virginia's 7th District in the U.S. House of Representative, where he serves as the minority whip. Contact his office http://cantor.house.gov/ or call (804) 747-4073 or (800) 438-3793.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
We thought my father had good insurance and was in a great hospital ( as per their ads on billboards, commercials and infomercials ) His care was rationed. He died. Sadly in TN & VA profit care is more important than patient care. http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=62
The status quo could learn a few things on efficiency and concerned, compassionate health care from Remote Area Medical ( RAM ), a non profit health care system that works. http://www.ramusa.org They were in Wise County, Virginia this weekend helping families who can’t afford the luxury of seeing a doctor.
We must have health care reform now.
Guess this means boo-boo and I are not friends anymore. Boo-hoo-hoo.
thetruth(dubious) You still rant that this health care bill will save money. Many others including the CBO say NO. You can keep quoting all you want about how it is now but how will it be after it is passed, without anybody reading the whole bill) and prices continue to increase? What say you then?
Again the same old out of date facts with no actual reponse. Must be fun to only have one track and have such loyal boot kissing to Obama.
Boo-boo. Our health reform health care system that is now destined to be, will be initially helped financed by the rich folk who got big-time rich by their store-bought president. If we be bit short, tax um, and tax um we shall.
More from KcKinsey April 2009 (current) research: “How Health Care Cost Contribute To Income Disparity in the United States”….As part of a study of widening income gaps between U.S. households, the McKinsey Global Institute and McKinsey’s Social Sector Office found that recent trends in health care costs, health care coverage, and household income have resulted in growing disparities between different income groups in the United States.
The research finds that rising employer-paid health insurance premiums constitute a growing share of the combined income of lower-paid employees—a much larger share than for those who are higher paid. For those workers within the bottom-income group who are insured (22%), the ratio of employer-paid premiums to household income is 20%. That compares with 3.3% for the top-income group, in which nine out of ten workers are insured.
Rising health care costs, reflected by spiraling insurance premiums, are widening the discrepancies between income groups in both the levels of enrollment in employer-paid health schemes and insured workers’ ability to afford premiums and out-of-pocket health care costs. Employee contributions to insurance premiums have also been rising, discouraging some from taking up their employers’ insurance offers altogether. Such responses to rising premiums have resulted in stagnating or falling rates of enrollment in employer-paid schemes—a trend that has particularly affected middle-income employees. Put another way, employers are spending more on health care per employee but for fewer employees. In 2005, employer-paid health benefits covered 22% of households in the bottom-income group, contrasted with 56% of the lower-middle, 81% of the upper-middle, and 89% of the top-income group, the research finds.
Because incomes across the four groups of workers have been growing at such different rates in recent years, the average employer-paid premium for a worker in the top 10% was more than double the average for someone in the lowest 30% of income earners. Gaps in the extent of employer-paid health care services offered to employees at different income levels have thus widened. Employees benefiting from higher premiums receive a proportionately wider choice of health care goods and services.
http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/income_disparity/index.asp
So, boo-boo. You may not like our upcoming “fair and more balanced” health care system? Leave. Bye.
thetruth(dubious) Try these two out for size on your continual use of the GDP and other half truths. These both came out today about health care,
1. The Congressional Budget Office has determined that all plans currently under considertation WILL NOT save any money for the American people or for the the Budget. Any response that makes sense?
Aamerica will probably collapse in the next 3.5 years because it will be broke. How do you explain the doubling of the budget in less than 180 days. No fair using Bush again because it is the Democrats mess all by themselves. That boogieman has been put to rest.
2. Obama has sent a bill to Congress that would take the process of setting fees for Medicare and Medicaid away from Congress and place them under a special committee controlled by the President. All fee changes must be approved by Congress with in 30 days or they go into effecdt. Any Congressional action to change the fees can be over ridden by a veto. Again any sensible response to these take overs by Mr. Obama.
Both of these reported on the CNN web site today so they are current and not outr of date happenings like you so often accuse people of doing. Come on and see if you can make any sense this time.
“consider taxing health care benefits”?….Brigandage. Mighty fancy word, but deservedly so from a rich Virginia fancy pants, who did not share the full truth. Proposal is: Married couples with household income over $350,000 per annum = 1%; over $500,000 would rise to 2%; over $1,000,000 would rise to 3%. About 1% of all U.S. households have income over $350,000 per annum. Plundering the rich, such as a Virginia wantabe nobleman, earl, duke…a gentleman? As we see for years U.S. output per worker bees increasing, while disposable incomes of the workers stagnate, all with the “noble” rich have prospered with added riches, perhaps it is noble for wee bit of that “trickle down” economics originated by Will Rogers during Depression and promised by Reaganomics, but yet to be. Perhaps even Sarah Palin won’t “pity me” in her small contribution from her soon-to-come millions. Note April 2009 McKinsey Global Institute study:
“Research finds that rising employer-paid health insurance premiums constitute a growing share of the combined income of lower-paid employees—a much larger share than for those who are higher paid. For those workers within the bottom-income group who are insured (22%), the ratio of employer-paid premiums to household income is 20%. That compares with 3.3 percent for the top-income group, in which nine out of ten workers are insured. Because incomes across the four groups of workers have been growing at such different rates in recent years, the average employer-paid premium for a worker in the top 10 percent was more than double the average for someone in the lowest 30 percent of income earners. Gaps in the extent of employer-paid health care services offered to employees at different income levels have thus widened. Employees benefiting from higher premiums receive a proportionately wider choice of health care goods and services.
Sad someone brought up Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as it shows some who still pound that old busted drum never heard Junior Bush’s Oct 2002 speech about the “homeownership gap” and his initiatives to see an increase of 5.5 million new minority home owners by end of the decade (appears Junior’s goal won’t be reached by Dec 31, 2009). He was taking action with Fred & Fan to “dismantle barriers” in their leading money to mortgage bankers to help make loans to people with bad credit. So, he did, Fred & Fan made the $ available to lenders (nothing wrong with that), but what was wrong was Bush giving the lenders a green light to make bad loans, get rich by turning loans, and causing our economic collapse. For those late to the dinner table of knowledge: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW9viaJatpo; or search “YouTube+George Bush subprime mortgatges”.
The current effort within the House of Representatives to consider taxing health care benefits received as a part of one’s compensation is nothing short of brigandage by the Congress.
Prime Mortgage fiasco - prime example - Freddie Mac and Freddie Mae - Quasi Gov’t entities - Boom! They did not work and cost BIG $ - still costing us…......Driving VALUES DOWN. Wonderful that you brought.
Medicare. Covers people private insurers do not want to cover, like age 65+, those with prior illnesses, and under age 65 folks who are totally disabled.
Medicare administers a health care system for 40+ million people with only a 3% overhead. That is a bit lower than the 20% overhead of the private insurance industry, whose overhead = costs + profits for executives and stockholders that are primarily large unregulated hedge funds, like those who greedily helped cause our subprime mortgage crisis.
Private insurers in early 1990’s paid 95% of their incoming revenues toward your medical claims. Focus on enhancing shareholder profits helped them achieve by 2008 an 80% payout vs. revenue. The longer they push up premiums, deductibles (like $5,000/yr +), copays; deny more & more claims, treatments, meds prescribed, and purge small employers via too-high costs (266,000 employers from 2000-2005 dropped employee coverage), the more they will reduce the “medical cost ratio”, until eventually, our nation’s economy totally collapses. During meantime the rich executives, the rich players within large hedge funds will, as Bernie Madoff did, made bunch of money, not hooey, and retire to their estates around the world, while America collapses.
Perhaps American won’t collapse before we have a local Virginian serve as President, but collapse it will, and when it does, we won’t care much the cost we all paid for a Virginian being elected President, by lobbyists and buy the health care industry. Then, it will be….too late. That is the real truth.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement