Last year, Candidate Obama promised a "transparent" Administration that would seek bi-partisan Congressional action after pending legislation was posted on-line for at least 72 hours, you are right. So was he. The Senate bill, has been on the Senate website for 8 days. All Versions! The one containing the Sanders Amendment and the many without. The issue isn’t the Amendments that have been attached, but the core bill that is being written and how fast bills move through the houses of congress. Of the bills that this congress has passed, most have been online available to read for an average of a week and a half.
Candidate Obama also promised bi-partisanship and bring all parties to the table on these types of important legislation. Two Points here: (1) He did bring democrats, independents and republicans to the table. Parts of the current bill are riddled with goodies inserted by the GOP, for the health insurance companies. (2) The Majority of GOP members of the Senate have been the Party of “NO”. They seek to keep the healthcare system in this country exactly as it is, keeping millions of Americans from obtaining the basic human right of healthcare.
Hard as it may be to accept, health insurance companies are never going to change. Denying coverage to those that pose “high risk”, so in the end they end up losing everything so that they can stay alive. Last year, according to the non-partisan organization Factcheck.org, 45,000 Americans died from lack of health insurance. Out of that, 82% were in the middle class tax bracket, but because they were higher risk, the insurance companies decided to do what is called “price them out”. A sales tactic that we use in my industry to avoid having to sell a certain customer. Last year (Not included in the 45,000) 2600 military veterans died from lack of health insurance. No, this isn’t because the V.A. isn’t doing their job. It’s because the previous administration shortened the benefits based on age. Really? So when our neighbors who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan age, they will no longer be eligible for V.A. healthcare, even though they risked life and limb for this nation?
If there is any doubt about where the majority of insurance premiums are going, let me spell it out.
Below is a listing of the annual compensation for just 7 insurance companies CEO’s. This is their take home Pay. And if you are interested, My Source for this is the Security and Exchange Commission sec.gov
• Aetna Ronald A. Williams: $23,045,834
• Cigna H. Edward Hanway: $25,839,777
• Coventry Dale B. Wolf : $14,869,823
• Health Net Jay M. Gellert: $3,686,230
• Humana Michael McCallister: $10,312,557
• U.Health Grp Stephen J. Hemsley: $13,164,529
• WellPoint Angela Braly (2007): $9,094,271
L. Glasscock (2008): $23,886,169
Now, I am not opposed to Executives earning great salaries. But for these companies to increase the premiums on the backs of middle class and poor Americans whom can’t afford it, so that they may pay their CEO’s big compensation packages, is mind-blowing. And the fact that the GOP agrees with this type of Rape is even more disgusting.
As to the “Late Night” c-span televised votes, this isn’t a rarity it seems. On July 25 2003, the Senate Republicans waited until the wee hours of the morning to pass the Head Start bill, that doesn’t work, because it funds only lower income families and is seriously underfunded. Or the late night vote that took place on October 19 2003, where the Republicans forced a late night vote Energy Bill that extended carbon emissions to companies, giving them nearly a 38% increase in allowable emissions. It also had cuts in the EPA’s budget.
I think that you have it right Mr. Raymond, there is a rush to get this legislation passed. Too many Americans die each day, because they don’t have the same access to health care as you, as those who have been given the "privilege" of having health insurance. It is unbelievable to think that there are people out there that care so much about themselves, that they don’t want something better for all Americans if it means something bad for them.
Higher taxes, yes. But the flipside is something that should be looked at. And so let’s do that. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has determined that the bill before the Senate would provide coverage to more than 94 percent of non-elderly Americans and to an even larger percentage of total Americans. It would also save money, reducing the deficit by $130 billion over the next ten years. You can access the CBO's analysis by going to it's webpage.
The insurance industry would be reformed. The bill would change the way that health insurance companies do business in order to protect consumers from harmful (and unfortunately common) insurance industry practices.
• Insurance companies would not be allowed to stop paying for coverage after a certain lifetime or annual limit.
• Insurance companies would not be allowed to charge co-pays for preventative services, such as checkups, immunizations, or recommended mammograms.
• Young adults under 27 would be able to stay on their parents' plan.
• Beginning in 2014, insurance companies would be barred from discriminating against applicants based on pre-existing conditions, health status, or gender. Before 2014, uninsured Americans with a pre-existing condition would have access to an immediate insurance program, which would help them maintain affordable coverage.
More people would have access to coverage.
• The bill would create "exchanges" for people who do not have access to affordable coverage through an employer and for small employers who have trouble paying to insure their employees.
• In these exchanges, people would have access to a variety of insurance options, including, in some states, a public insurance option that would compete with insurance companies.
• Low- and middle-income people who purchased insurance through the exchanges would be eligible for government subsidies to help them afford insurance.
The Medicaid program would be expanded.
• The bill would expand the Medicaid program so that it covered all non-elderly Americans with income below 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level.
• Procedures for Medicaid enrollment would be streamlined so that more eligible people are able to take advantage of the program.
The Medicare program would be protected and strengthened.
• Without action, the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund is expected to go broke in just over seven years. The bill would make Medicare a stronger, more sustainable program by streamlining Medicare payment procedures.
• The bill would crack down on waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare, as well as in Medicaid, CHIP and private insurance, thereby strengthening Medicare's solvency.
• Medicare currently reimburses health care providers on the basis of the volume of care they provide rather than the value of the care they provide to the patient. For example, for each procedure, test, or scan that a doctor performs, Medicare reimburses the doctor for a particular dollar amount, thus rewarding doctors who do more, even if they are ordering unnecessary care. The bill contains a number of proposals that would change the way that Medicare pays doctors, moving away from a system that rewards unnecessary tests and towards a system that rewards quality care.
The bill promotes preventative care, which saves money and lives by keeping people from getting sick in the first place.
• The bill would invest in a national prevention and public health strategy and improves education on disease prevention and public health.
• It would authorize enough funding to establish a Federally Qualified Community Health Center in every underserved community in America.
• It would address shortages in primary care and other areas of practice by funding the National Health Service Corps, a scholarship and loan repayment program for students entering the health care workforce. It would also reward those professionals who choose to become primary care practitioners and those providers who choose to practice in underserved areas with higher reimbursement rates.
Other good changes:
• Under the transparency portions of the bill, consumers would have access to crucial information about care providers, including to information about physician ownership of hospitals and high tech medical equipment.
• The bill would expand the scope of an existing drug discount program, so that patients at children's hospitals, cancer hospitals, rural hospitals and in other underserved communities have access to medicines at lower cost.
• The bill would make long-term support and services more affordable for millions of Americans by providing a lifetime cash benefit that would help people with severe disabilities remain in their homes and communities.
The Bad News
• The bill is huge (over 2,000 pages) and enormously complicated.
• Implementation of the plan would take too long. The insurance exchanges, the affordability credits, and increased Medicaid eligibility wouldn't occur until 2014. There is simply no reason that the American people should wait another five years for reform.
In this country, that we love so dear, that we put on a pedestal for a model for other countries to follow, we have one of the worst healthcare systems bar none. We leave our weak to fend for themselves, our middleclass to fight for themselves and the few that are privileged to reap the benefits off the backs of hard working Americans who can afford most insurances because they are included in their compensation packages.
While our leaders claim to be trying to do what is right, lobbyists use big money to prevent the growth of America, instead worrying about their bottom line and executive compensation. Where do we draw the line? At what point do we say enough is enough and stop the bleeding of the average American’s dreams and hopes of a better life? It isn’t hard to imagine our nation better, we just need to have the courage to do it.
You are on the wrong side of history here. I am sorry that you have chosen a path of stalemate and status quo instead of having the courage to progress.
P.J. Weber
Sources - Factcheck.org, CBO.gov, Senate.gov, npr.org, Wall Street Journal online
No comments:
Post a Comment