What health care legislation could mean for everyone in the US?

giovonni · 05-15-2009, 03:48 AM

McClatchy Washington Bureau

Posted on Wed, May. 13, 2009

What health care legislation could mean for everyone in the US;

David Goldstein | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: May 13, 2009 07:54:59 PM

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday that they expect to have a health care package before Congress by the end of July.

Their aim is to make medical coverage cheaper and more widely available, while reining in costs throughout the $2.5 trillion health care system.

The Senate could act even sooner. The insurance and pharmaceutical industries, which helped kill a similar effort championed by the Clinton administration 15 years ago, appear to be on board.

Based on discussions with White House aides, congressional sources and health policy experts, here are some of the basic questions about the effort:

Q: How much will it cost?

A: The current guess is somewhere around $1.2 trillion over 10 years.

Q: Where will Washington find the money?

A: A number of ways are under discussion. It could be a combination of tax increases — possibly on alcohol, soft drinks and tobacco — and spending cuts in programs like Medicare, where overcharges run into the billions of dollars.

A possible revenue target could be the tax-free status of employer-provided health plans. It's unlikely Congress would eliminate it, but lawmakers could cap the benefit or make other changes. Tax-free flexible spending accounts could be affected as well.

Cost savings could come from changes such as bill bundling, so that a patient gets a single bill for care instead of several — from the doctor, the hospital and other parties involved in treatment.

"We need to keep all of the options on the table," said Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and a key player in the debate.

Q: Will the effort ensure that everyone has coverage?

A: About 46 million people are without insurance, but possibly another 25 million are underinsured. That includes a third of all people who work for small businesses. They can't pay what's left of their medical bills after their own insurance kicks in. Universal coverage appears to have worked in Massachusetts, where only a small percentage of people remain uncovered after universal coverage passed in 2006.

Among the ideas are several alternatives for a public health insurance option that offers basic services, including primary, preventive, emergency, medical, surgical and maternity care.

Q. Won't a government-run option undercut the private insurance companies?

A. This is one of the thorniest issues in the debate. A public plan was a campaign promise of President Barack Obama. Most Democrats on Capitol Hill want to ensure that low-income people have an affordable insurance option. Some moderate Democrats are leery, however, as well as many Republicans and the insurance industry. They worry it could drive companies out of business. How the debate plays out could determine the outcome of the legislation, or at least whether it becomes a bipartisan effort.

Q: Will doctors, insurance companies or the government make health care decisions?

A: Supporters insist that doctors would. Opponents worry, however, that it could lead to more government control over private health care choices. Their concerns are grounded in a debate over the use of government-backed research into which kinds of treatments work and which don't, known as comparative effectiveness.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently told a House committee that comparative effectiveness can improve care.

"We want to highlight what we know works," she said.

Q: How will Medicare's looming financial problems affect health care?

It will likely be part of the solution.

"We can't solve Medicare in isolation from the broader problems of the health care system," Obama said earlier this year.

McClatchy Newspapers 2009

original article here;
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/68131.html

peaceandlove · 05-17-2009, 09:33 PM

Universal Healthcare, the Citizen, and Nomenklatura

By Jeffrey Braddock
Published 05/16/09

Among the many goals of President Obama is the pursuit of "universal healthcare." In the following, I shall show the concerned citizen the impracticality of universal healthcare coverage as proposed by Mr. Obama by highlighting its cost and quality inconsistencies. I shall then highlight an alternative approach. Let us begin with a definition. The definition of universal healthcare is "the government funding of complete expenditure coverage for all Americans, including medical, dental, and mental healthcare."

Let us now briefly examine the current system...

Continues: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=68

HEADLINE AT http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

Medicare and Social Security finances becoming worse that predicted. Both funds soon will be out of money.

Social Security and Medicare finances worsen

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer – Wed May 13, 12:12 am ET

WASHINGTON – Social Security and Medicare are fading even faster under the weight of the recession, heading for insolvency years sooner than previously expected, the government warned Tuesday. Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, a year sooner than projected last year, and the giant trust fund will be depleted by 2037, four years sooner, trustees reported.

Medicare is in even worse shape. The trustees said the program for hospital expenses will pay out more in benefits than it collects this year, just as it did for the first time in 2008. The trustees project that the Medicare fund will be depleted by 2017, two years earlier than the date projected in last year's report.

Continues: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_social_security

05-15-2009, 03:48 AM	#1
giovonni Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: within my heart Posts: 1,209	What health care legislation could mean for everyone in the US? McClatchy Washington Bureau Posted on Wed, May. 13, 2009 What health care legislation could mean for everyone in the US; David Goldstein \| McClatchy Newspapers last updated: May 13, 2009 07:54:59 PM WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday that they expect to have a health care package before Congress by the end of July. Their aim is to make medical coverage cheaper and more widely available, while reining in costs throughout the $2.5 trillion health care system. The Senate could act even sooner. The insurance and pharmaceutical industries, which helped kill a similar effort championed by the Clinton administration 15 years ago, appear to be on board. Based on discussions with White House aides, congressional sources and health policy experts, here are some of the basic questions about the effort: Q: How much will it cost? A: The current guess is somewhere around $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Q: Where will Washington find the money? A: A number of ways are under discussion. It could be a combination of tax increases — possibly on alcohol, soft drinks and tobacco — and spending cuts in programs like Medicare, where overcharges run into the billions of dollars. A possible revenue target could be the tax-free status of employer-provided health plans. It's unlikely Congress would eliminate it, but lawmakers could cap the benefit or make other changes. Tax-free flexible spending accounts could be affected as well. Cost savings could come from changes such as bill bundling, so that a patient gets a single bill for care instead of several — from the doctor, the hospital and other parties involved in treatment. "We need to keep all of the options on the table," said Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and a key player in the debate. Q: Will the effort ensure that everyone has coverage? A: About 46 million people are without insurance, but possibly another 25 million are underinsured. That includes a third of all people who work for small businesses. They can't pay what's left of their medical bills after their own insurance kicks in. Universal coverage appears to have worked in Massachusetts, where only a small percentage of people remain uncovered after universal coverage passed in 2006. Among the ideas are several alternatives for a public health insurance option that offers basic services, including primary, preventive, emergency, medical, surgical and maternity care. Q. Won't a government-run option undercut the private insurance companies? A. This is one of the thorniest issues in the debate. A public plan was a campaign promise of President Barack Obama. Most Democrats on Capitol Hill want to ensure that low-income people have an affordable insurance option. Some moderate Democrats are leery, however, as well as many Republicans and the insurance industry. They worry it could drive companies out of business. How the debate plays out could determine the outcome of the legislation, or at least whether it becomes a bipartisan effort. Q: Will doctors, insurance companies or the government make health care decisions? A: Supporters insist that doctors would. Opponents worry, however, that it could lead to more government control over private health care choices. Their concerns are grounded in a debate over the use of government-backed research into which kinds of treatments work and which don't, known as comparative effectiveness. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently told a House committee that comparative effectiveness can improve care. "We want to highlight what we know works," she said. Q: How will Medicare's looming financial problems affect health care? It will likely be part of the solution. "We can't solve Medicare in isolation from the broader problems of the health care system," Obama said earlier this year. McClatchy Newspapers 2009 original article here; http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/68131.html

05-17-2009, 09:33 PM	#2
peaceandlove Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Turtle Island Posts: 2,776	Universal Healthcare, the Citizen, and Nomenklatura Universal Healthcare, the Citizen, and Nomenklatura By Jeffrey Braddock Published 05/16/09 Among the many goals of President Obama is the pursuit of "universal healthcare." In the following, I shall show the concerned citizen the impracticality of universal healthcare coverage as proposed by Mr. Obama by highlighting its cost and quality inconsistencies. I shall then highlight an alternative approach. Let us begin with a definition. The definition of universal healthcare is "the government funding of complete expenditure coverage for all Americans, including medical, dental, and mental healthcare." Let us now briefly examine the current system... Continues: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=68 HEADLINE AT http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html Medicare and Social Security finances becoming worse that predicted. Both funds soon will be out of money. Social Security and Medicare finances worsen By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer – Wed May 13, 12:12 am ET WASHINGTON – Social Security and Medicare are fading even faster under the weight of the recession, heading for insolvency years sooner than previously expected, the government warned Tuesday. Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, a year sooner than projected last year, and the giant trust fund will be depleted by 2037, four years sooner, trustees reported. Medicare is in even worse shape. The trustees said the program for hospital expenses will pay out more in benefits than it collects this year, just as it did for the first time in 2008. The trustees project that the Medicare fund will be depleted by 2017, two years earlier than the date projected in last year's report. Continues: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_social_security