Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

10 Reasons to Support Health-Care Reform

I referenced it an earlier post, but this paper from Families USA outlining the 10 reasons to support health-care reform is a must-read. The public plan is one of the entries. But only one of them. And not the one that would help the most people.

By Ezra Klein  |  August 19, 2009; 11:01 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Barney Frank: Hero Congressman
Next: Visiting Planet Money

Comments

thank you for providing this link.

people have become so militant that they are willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.


Posted by: jkaren | August 19, 2009 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for the link. If we could get nine out of the ten things, without a mandate on eiither employers or individuals (i.e., much more coverage for low income people, regulated marketplace, cheaper policies to cut down on the uninsured and protect the insured) but not the public option, would it be enough? We could then campaign for broadening coverage through Medicare for More or some other mechanism in 2010 and 2012. Is that enough benefit for enough people to make it worth it?

Posted by: Mimikatz | August 19, 2009 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Shorter Ezra: I got my health insurance, too bad about you.

Posted by: kmblue | August 19, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I am glad they are so confident about those 10 points, since I for one have no idea what the final bill is going to look like and what is/isn't going to be in in. Neither does Ezra, Sebelius, or just about anyone else (possibly not anyone at all).

sPh

Posted by: sphealey | August 19, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"I got my health insurance, too bad about you."

kmblue

with all due respect, that is the kind of attitude that helps no-one.
i pay for my own health care policy each month, with a major health insurance company. it now costs me over eight hundred dollars a month, and i have no dental, drug or vision coverage.
and that doesnt count the medical expenses that i pay for each month, that are not covered on my bills.
i have two medical conditions that would preclude me from ever getting coverage again if anything happened to this plan.
i worry about my health and my health care coverage.
but i am grateful that i am still alive.
i am working for and hopeful for real progress with health care, but i understand that all of the things i hope for in my life, dont come to pass exactly as i wish they would.
i understand that sometimes we have to compromise on things that may be important to us, and that progress doesnt always come as quickly as we hope for.
there are a lot of forces at play here, and i am hoping that we are going to see some substantial health care reform.
i believe that we will.


Posted by: jkaren | August 19, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Complete pap. I see about five things on that list that will make my own insurance more expensive, and five other things that will make it less good.

Posted by: whoisjohngaltcom | August 19, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Maybe, but opponents of reform smell blood in the water. Given them a "win" on one of the ten, and do you really think they'll stop there?

Posted by: Janine1 | August 19, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

whoisjohngalt: I do not think you get the insurance market as it exists today. Give us the reasoning behind why you think five things will make your insurance more expensive and the five that will make it less good.

Posted by: scott1959 | August 19, 2009 12:46 PM | Report abuse

whoisjohngalt:decided not to wait.... anything that scoops previously uninsured individuals or costs into the system will reduce your costs. Right now, the uninsured or underinsured have their costs shifted onto those with adequate healthcare (ie, you and me). Estimates are this adds up to $1,000/mo to an average family plan (though this will be much higher in places with large uninsured populations (TX) and lower in others (MA)). As such, numbers 1,2,4, 6, 7, and 9 will help to lower the cost of your insurance policy. Anyone with knowledge of the industry would agree with this.

Number 10 refers to quality of care and is undoubtedly code for health IT and comparative effectiveness research. Every other industry I know of has effective IT and has keft the cottage industry world a long time ago. Likewise, every other industry I know looks to what best practices are and tries to implement them where they make sense. I do not know why healthcare should be different. In fact, each insurer is attempting this on their own, serving to only confuse providers and drown them in paper and alternatives. A coordinated approach would have a better chance of being effective.

Posted by: scott1959 | August 19, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

"anything that scoops previously uninsured individuals or costs into the system will reduce your costs."

And that is why the plan only costs a trillion dollars so far. Those are "cost reductions."

Posted by: whoisjohngaltcom | August 19, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse


47 Million people getting primary care/preventive care instead of getting their care in the ER (they haven't been bleeding to death in the streets) will save the system money on a non-CBO rated way. ER care is vastly more expensive than primary care.

Posted by: ThomasEN | August 19, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

whoisjohngalt...get by your emotions and lets try to have a rational discussion. I tried to address your post logically, why don't you do the same with mine? You said there were five things that would lower quality and five that would raise cost. Name them and provide your reasoning why.

(oh, and by the way, most people in the industry will tell you that while we are stuck with CBO scoring, it in no way reflects the real costs of the bill, which are likely to be far lower than suggested)

Posted by: scott1959 | August 19, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse

"while we are stuck with CBO scoring, it in no way reflects the real costs of the bill, which are likely to be far lower than suggested"

You actually believe that???

Posted by: whoisjohngaltcom | August 19, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

whoisjohngalt....one more time, please enlighten us with the five things that will raise your cost and why and the five things that will lower your quality and why.

Posted by: scott1959 | August 19, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

all due respect jkaren, I was referring to Ezra's attitude, not mine.
Ezra has health insurance, therefore he's a shill for Obama.
I too have massive insurance premiums every month, and pre-existing conditions.
We need the public option. Period.

Posted by: kmblue | August 19, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

The CBO is known for underestimating savings and overestimating costs (ie, it is a conservative institution). This has been the case since its inception.

The industry group AHIP has also said that they believe CBO is underestimating the impact of disease mgmt, prevention, etc.

Lastly, Doug Elmendorf himself said that his actuarial science is just weak enough given the "interlocking complexities of healthcare" that his (CBOs) numbers should not be taken as gospel

But, whoisjohngalt, don't go spinning off on me, I still want you to address the five items.....

Posted by: scott1959 | August 19, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

The Galtroid isn't here to explain himself. He's here to preach on behalf of his fringe cult. He belongs in the troll corner.

Posted by: pseudonymousinnc | August 19, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Here's a question for you, Scott. Everything of economic value is rationed. Everything. No exceptions.

The current rationing device for health insurance and non-urgent care is price.

Obamacare will not ration by price. We're told it won't ration with lines. Fine: What will be the rationing model of Obamacare??? How will it be rationed? What metric will tell the government when it has spent the perfect amount on healthcare? When the government realizes it's spending too much, how will it decide how much to cut back?

Everything of value is rationed. How will Obamacare be rationed?

Take your time.

Posted by: whoisjohngaltcom | August 19, 2009 8:35 PM | Report abuse

whoisjohngalt....you are correct in that everything of economic value is rationed somehow. "Obamacare" as you call it (love the term, meaningless as it is) would ration based on price the same way care is rationed today. I am not sure where you see that it won't. If seniors still have Medicare, the poor still have Medicaid, veterans still have VHA, Indians still have IHS, if the employed still have their employer sponsored care and individuals still have their individual insurance, nothing has changed for them. Can we agree on that?

So what does change is 47m individuals entering either the Medicaid program (since that eligibility will be expanded), an employer plan (assuming some employers begin offering coverage) or the individual market (where I suspect most will end up).

What about that do you not get? (I also presume you are just not going to answer my original question)

Posted by: scott1959 | August 19, 2009 8:46 PM | Report abuse

"What about that do you not get?"
Where is the rationing? Who goes without which services? You have not outlined any unmet wants, any compromises in quality, any cutbacks in quantity of care. You have not explained what mechanism allocates a finite amount of healthcare to meet infinite demand, how that care will be funded, what service levels it will deliver, or how it will determine whose needs are met when demand outpaces supply.

Since nobody will be denied based on their ability to pay, it's absurd to say the system will be rationed by price. Are you suggesting that people who pay will get better/more/faster care than people who do not?

And do I really have to explain how adding millions of non-paying insurees to the system compromises the quality of care received by those who are paying??? In short, I do not place much value on any of the "benefits" of the title piece -- but I do value the care and other resources that I will be compelled to surrender under the plan.

Posted by: whoisjohngaltcom | August 19, 2009 9:46 PM | Report abuse

The Galtroid still hasn't replied to this question:

"You said there were five things that would lower quality and five that would raise cost. Name them and provide your reasoning why."

I'm guessing he was just BSing. Off to the troll corner.

Posted by: pseudonymousinnc | August 19, 2009 10:05 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if the Ayn Rand types ever have solutions or if they just complain and say things won't work. Government bad and all that.

As pseudonymousinnc says, I think you have nothing to offer but BS.

So flip the question: what is your bright answer to the healthcare problem or are you one of the ones who has healthcare and to hell with those that don't? Worse, do you think the system is sustainable as it is?

Maybe you need to have a pre-existing condition and lose insurance to gain some perspective.

Posted by: scott1959 | August 19, 2009 11:49 PM | Report abuse

I believe George Washington described government as a "necessary evil." Does that mean he was Randian, or that I'm simply American?

If insurance is too expensive, then we should make it cheaper. That's vastly different from simply fixing the price.

Of all the things government has taken over because they were too expensive, because a "market" was "failing," which ones have ever gotten cheaper? Shouldn't that be the measure of success?

"Maybe you need to have a pre-existing condition and lose insurance to gain some perspective."

Why? Do you think "perspective" makes people stupid? Do you think if I was desperate that I would be less honest? Is that how it works with you?

Posted by: whoisjohngaltcom | August 20, 2009 2:18 AM | Report abuse

Once again, no solution, just rhetoric. "Make insurance cheaper". Industry has been working on that for fifty years. How would you do that?

And you still never answered the original question.

Posted by: scott1959 | August 20, 2009 8:17 AM | Report abuse

"Industry has been working on that for fifty years."

Meanwhile, government has been working against it. Not surprisingly, you side with government.

Posted by: whoisjohngaltcom | August 20, 2009 11:51 AM | Report abuse

And I really would appreciate it if one of you libs would step up to the plate and describe the rationing model behind this plan of yours. If we won't ration on price, and you say there won't be waiting lists, then how do you plan to determine which needs go unmet? You can't actually believe that there's going to be enough care to treat everybody down to the very last inflamed hangnail.

What's the criteria?

Posted by: whoisjohngaltcom | August 20, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company