Why Nana? Well, she reads more than anyone I know and has been Correct about
EVERYTHING from the war to the spin to Obama and his fierce opposition...
AND more importantly, she knows healthcare inside and out, working as an editor for a company that provides publications and information for boards of directors of hospitals.
It should be said that nearly 80% of doctors and nurses and people within healthcare are in agreement with health reform as presented in the House bills and the Senate HELP Committee bill -- these include a "public option."
The problem is and always has been making the truth easy to understand AND being heard over the incredibly loud lies and smokescreens out there. All the opposition has to do is misrepresent the statistics and throw in some industry words and lay people think, "well that sounds right." Even more so if they consider themselves conservative or are apprehensive about healthcare change. Note: in the case of health reform, probably more so than most issues, it's pretty easy to sound "reasonable" because most people don't know the ins and outs of healthcare. Knowing about this really requires homework and a broad exploration, digging deeply, of all ideas and proposals.
I really think Obama WANTS to do the right thing but had no idea when he started the process that there is in place a machine to foil his every effort. As noted above, it's pretty easy for the opposition to sound reasonable, and even though Obama and his team understand the issues, that doesn't mean the general public does, and it doesn't mean that he can easily interpret and present those issues to the general public. Of course, negative sound bites always trump reason and they always trump detailed explanations of policy positions.
The forthcoming Senate Finance Committee bill (and Obama's proposal as outlined Wednesday night), as it stands, has got big problems.
The #1 problem:
Without a CAP on insurance premiums (not mentioned anywhere in the Senate Finance Committee "bill" -- very similar at this point to Obama's speech), this whole thing means nothing. If insurance companies are asked to take people with pre-existing conditions and keep people who get ill, cover preventive care, etc, they will most definitely raise their premiums...AND without a public option for EVERYONE (which would mean many individuals COULD switch from their insurance to the lower priced public option if they wanted) then there is no competition that the president speaks of that would encourage companies to keep premium prices down. AND the "trigger" mentioned that would kick in when premiums got too high wouldn't actually kick in. As soon as a bill with a public option "trigger" is passed, the insurance lobby will pour money, money, money into "reworking" that portion of the bill. It won't happen. Take, for example, the "trigger" under the current Medicare Modernization Act (under Bush in 2003) -- there is a trigger for allowing people to purchase drugs from other countries. The trigger is when the Secretary of DHHS can pull the trigger when he/she decides "drugs from other countries are safe" -- hasn't happened yet. Have you noticed any Canadians falling over dead from "unsafe" drugs? Inside the Beltway, "trigger" is a euphemism for, "ain't nothing gonna happen here."
A public option for everyone (without a trigger) is very, very important to make health reform work. The idea is make sure competitive forces work in the insurance market, and the only way for that to happen is to have a strong plan (with many, many enrollees nationwide) with significantly lower prices than what the insurance companies currently are charging (let alone what they will be charging next year, the year after that, etc.). "Regulating the insurance industry" without either a public option
or significant rate fixing/price caps sounds good on paper, but won't accomplish anything. No one will be denied care for pre-existing conditions, but fewer companies will be able to afford premiums for their employees, who will then go into an insurance exchange (where, again, premiums will be high), and the government will have to pay an enormous, enormous amount to subsidize care -- that is, subsidizing the private insurance market (we used to call it corporate welfare). A huge influx of enrollees for private insurers? Yes -- they will be cheering, but they won't be lowering the cost of insurance premiums. They're not stupid. And they're not in business to be nice to people. Unless their premiums are controlled or unless they have to compete against a large, nationwide health plan (public plan), they will behave as they always have behaved. Any arguments about that?
So, everyone has to know and understand this so we can't be fooled twice. Once by assuming a public option isn't necessary, and TWICE by swallowing the b.s. the right is putting out there that they are so outraged by the insanely "left" bill. The Senate Finance "bill" (it actually isn't a bill yet; it has issued a "framework" and the components outlined in that framework are what are being discussed and presented for amendments within the committee) is pretty much what the right would have come up with themselves. Very little changes. They're lucky -- they won't have to take the heat for its failure to deliver on true health reform. The outrage is ridiculous and they know it.
And the funny part is that the only thing the republicans say outwardly that they like about the bill is the part about tort reform ...which has been in place in California for ever and makes very little difference at all in saving money. Tort reform has been enacted in California and several other states -- why has this moved from a state issue to a federal issue? For those on the right who recently have been yelling about states' rights, nullification, secession, etc., it's more than ironic. They are playing politics.
I hate politics.
Note: non-partisan policy analysts are predicting that reform as it currently is proposed won't be implemented for 7 to 10 years. We already know that Obama has recommended that insurance exchanges not be in place for four years, and that primarily is to save money, or truthfully, to lower that multi-billion dollar price tag. Interesting.
Let's face it. If this country wants to cover everyone equitably, it's going to cost a lot. A lot. A good reform plan would have many, many features in place that insist on lowering the cost of delivering care. The American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association have signed on to real reform. The roadblock is the for-profit insurance companies.
This whole thing is about politics and money -- not policy, and definitely not ideology.
It seems the only group of people doing their best to NOT play politics is the progressives in the house...despite claims by everyone to the contrary. They are being truthful and perhaps not
politically savvy when they refuse to support a bill that doesn't include a public option.
That's because it's like saying...WE WON'T SUPPORT A SAIL BOAT WITHOUT SAILS!
I'm wondering whether something really is better than nothing??? Or if it's just nothing.
