There he goes again.
Today’s Detroit Free Press has made 9th Congressional District candidate Paul Welday the official poster-boy for the right-wing health care reform propoganda machine. Now, before anyone accuses me of socialism or communism, let me say that all I really care about is taking the words “for profit” out of health care. I want an honest, reasonable discussion about reform, and if you just don’t trust the government to run it, I understand. I feel the same way about the fewer than half a dozen private insurance companies that make their millions by denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and refusing to pay for certain drugs and medical treatments.
I also care that politicians do not prey on us with lies, misdirection and fear. And Mr. Welday is employing all three of those tactics.
As the Detroit Free Press reported today, he posted a collection of statements about health care reform that range from a bit misleading to absolutely false. What’s exceptionally egregious about this particular list is that it isn’t even original – it’s copied almost word-for-word from a collection of lies, half-truths and scare tactics now quite popular in the blog-o-sphere and via e-mail. (If you doubt this, copy any sentence from the flier and paste it, inside quotation marks, into a search engine.)
The points have been clarified and refuted by a number of sources, including The St. Petersburg Times’ award-winning Politifact, USA Today and the AARP, just to name a few. But some of the statements are just plain silly, especially coming from the “family values” coalition. My favorite is this one:
Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
So if my private insurance carrier covers marriage and family therapy, does Mr. Welday think the insurance company’s board of directors and millionaire CEO are intervening in my marriage? Well, no. As I am sure he’d tell you, that’s just my interpretation.
Mr. Welday told the Freep reporter that everything on his flier is only an interpretation as well. And I would believe that, except the headline reads:
PAUL WELDAY
WANTS YOU TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT’S IN THE OBAMA- PELOSI EXPERIMENT WITH OUR
HEALTH CARE
Not, “Paul Welday is afraid this will happen if the current plan for health care reform makes it through Congress.”
Or “Paul Welday believes House Bill 3200 will bring about these horrifying changes to our health care system.”
He’s telling his supporters, “This is what’s coming.” And he’s making plenty of references to ACORN, SEIU and other unions, illegal immigrants and other wedge issues to make them afraid of it. It’s the same tactic being used by many, many others, from conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to fomer Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and even prominent Congressional leaders, who really should know better.
In other words, Mr. Welday has no original ideas for health care reform, as he had no original ideas for state government reform when he ran his largely negative campaign against Vicki Barnett. And I’m betting this one is just as successful.
–JH-G
Joni,
You complain about the “big for profit” insurance companies and they way they refuse treatments and various drugs. Do you expect that the government won’t do the very same thing? Or do you expect the taxpayers to have bottomless pockets (the O’Bama way)?
Most health care workers that I know (I’m in the industry) are looking forward to being “government workers” and not have to worry about making a bottom line (despite all the government regulations……like you can’t refuse care to anybody even if they can’t pay for it). Maybe we can get into the same pension plans as other government employees (notice I said employees, not workers……..government worker being an oxymoron.)
I agree with you Joni. As long as people distort, there will be no real debate on health care reform. I have concerns on both sides of the issues, as someone who purchases healthcare insurance and a provider of healthcare services. But distortions, or outright lies will not help people make intelligent, informed decisions. And if that is the case, then the millions without access to affordable healthcare will continue to increase. Let’s have intelligent debate, but this appears impossible for some people.
Terry, if you’re in the industry, you’ve helped create the mess we’re in. Thanks bunches for that, and I think it puts your comments in an interesting light. If you’re making money off health insurance, then I’m sure you’re opposed to government having any role in health care. You have a vested interest in seeing everything stays just the way it is.
We know that good health care is expensive, because we’re already paying for it. By some estimates, if we do nothing, health care costs will double in the next 10 years. So we’re all going to pay, no matter what. If I’ve got a choice, I would much rather send those health care dollars to the government, which has proven its ability to provide health care with low overhead (3-5 percent, as opposed to the health care industry’s 20-30 percent). See, I believe our government will actually use the money FOR health care, rather than paying CEOs millions of dollars and turning over profits to shareholders. I’m not saying it’ll be perfect, but if it isn’t, we will have recourse – through our elected officials. This will be OUR health care system, not one that belongs to a few for-profit corporations.
If you can’t take the time to read all the content of every bill up for consideration – which, believe me, I understand – at least find some reliable sources for an informed argument. All you’ve said is “government is bad,” “government employees don’t work” and “I hate Obama”. It’s all noise, Terry. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Joni,
I work for a major hospital system, who gets paid by the major insurance companies, who subsidize the government programs (which would bankrupt the hospitals). The same insurance companies that really end up paying for all the uninsured patients that the government requires hospitals to treat.
Apparently you did not read what I wrote. At work my life would be much easier if we were not private struggling under all the government regulations. Make the whole health care system government run and my work life would be much less stressful. However, I’m aware of two things……One) my health care would be of substantially poorer quality than I receive now and….Two) the ultimate cost would be higher to those people who actually work for a living.
Being just across from Canada, we see many private pay patients from Canada, who can tell you that government run health care does not work (and Canada has one of the better national health care systems). They find that it provides a broad range of mediocre care to the masses. Those that can afford it come across the river for better health care.
I think you would end up with health care that would look like your public school systems. Our public schools provide poor education to the masses, those that want a real education end up paying for private schools. Please note that the private schools provide better education at a lower, per student cost than the government run public schools (that’s just simple fact). If you want to pretend that the public school systems in the United States are not falling behind their counterparts worldwide…….then I would suggest you get your communicator fixed, as you are not in contact with this world.
Please tell me anything that the government is involved in with an overhead of 2-3% that you mention in your reply. With the national debt where it is, the overhead on the government overhead is about 10%. The largest portion of overhead in hospitals today involves the the reporting about and conforming to government regulations. The health care must be the single most government regulated industry in the whole country……….that’s where all the costs are.
Terry, I apologize, I did not carefully read your post with regard to your employment. My mind was on health insurance, and when you said you were in the industry, I made a faulty assumption. But so did you.
You say your work would be easier if you were a government employee. The thing is, unless you work for a government-owned hospital, you wouldn’t be a government employee under any of the proposals currently being considered, and certainly not under the one I mentioned. I’m not going to address any of your points about government-run health care, because that’s not on the table.
Anti-government folks in this debate like yourself continue to try throwing us off course. The bill at issue is about health insurance. It would provide for subsidies to purchase private health insurance, it would limit the amount of money you’d have to pay for private health insurance, it would require private health insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions. If you can find anything in the legislation that makes this government-run health care, let me know. Those who have tried have failed, and thus been reduced to lies and deliberate misinterpretation.
But if we’re talking about reducing the quality of care, private health insurers routinely deny treatment coverage – even when it’s ordered by a physician. So who’s really reducing the quality of health care?
I don’t know why you’re bringing up Canada’s health care system, as that is nationalized health care, and that’s off the table here. We’re talking about legislation that affects America’s private health insurance system. (Since you brought it up, at least when Canada’s national health care system cuts costs, you know their goal is to reduce the burden on taxpayers. When American private insurers reduce costs, it helps provide their CEOs with multimillion dollar salaries. Lower taxes… higher wages for CEOs… quite the dilemma.)
Medicare/Medicaid is handled by the American government with an overhead of about 2-3 percent. Your drawing the entirety of government into this creates a specious argument. And your comparison to public schools is also completely off the wall, I don’t see a reason to respond to it any more than that.
I’m sure government paperwork is onerous for hospitals and adds costs. So does the paperwork required by private insurers, which you’ve failed to mention. Whether you put government in charge or keep things the way they are, you only reduce paperwork by half. That’s kind of a wash.
But here’s the thing you’re not getting. Under the bill I mentioned, if you have insurance through an employer, nothing changes for you.
Except that if you – G-d forbid – are treated for a serious illness and end up having to get a new job, every potential employer wouldn’t have to look at you as a risk to his or her insurance pool. And after being treated, you wouldn’t have to declare bankruptcy. And you’d be able to get health insurance at a rate that wouldn’t force you to choose between feeding your family and paying your premiums.
Now… if all you’re going to do is post a response that’s another rant about how poorly government performs, I’m done responding. Because that’s just your opinion, Terry. And honestly, I knew what that would be before I read it.
I’ve been astonished at the level of vitriol associated with this latest debate about health care. Up until Mr. Obama said he was determined to overhaul it, I heard virtually no one singing the praises of their health insurance company. Skyrocketing premiums, selective benefits, incessant fights with insurers about what would be paid for, and even dirty tricks by these same companies in order to justify denying even what they said they’d cover. My own insurance for my family has risen over 70% over the last 3 years. At this rate, I’ll be paying almost 30% of my income for just this in no time at all.
But now, lo and behold! An epiphany! When faced with seriously considering anything that that Pariah of the Right has suggested… the insurance companies have now become WONDERFUL!!! God preserve us the status quo! It’s the BEST. Very interesting indeed.
And now, in the “discussion” over this issue, we have the repetition of outright lies and accusations, like some preprogrammed single-minded auto-bots. When did we become a nation of shallow, mindless, intellectually lazy slogan shouters? How does that make us a better country?
When you refuse to do your homework, when you fail to investigate even the most outlandish claim, when you spout manufactured “facts” without verifying them, when instead you choose to parrot simplistic chants and shouts, what does that say about you?
I’ll tell you what it says – you know you’re wrong. Your greatest fear is that you’ll be forced to defend your beliefs rationally, with facts. Faced with the possibility of being proved wrong, your intellect’s inner-child surfaces, and the dialogue becomes more suited to a middle-school playground, only with death threats. (!?)
Yes, government can be horrendous sometimes, and they waste far more money than is acceptable. But remember… the “government” is US. It’s just humans (contrary to popular belief) who’ve decided to follow a path of public service. And just like in the private sector, and really in all of our communities, there are some bad actors. We don’t condemn an entire community because we’ve found some cretins in it – and with our government it should be the same.
We have a military second to none, we have (or at least used to not so long ago) an impressive infrastructure: roads and bridges, parks and dams, we have organizations like the CDC, the FDA (when they’re not politicized) and the like, things that benefit the whole of society, funded by a pooling of our hard earned money. (I must be careful here…somebody’s gonna accuse me of being a Dreaded SOCIALIST. Ye gad.) My point is that all this trashing of everything “government” is counter-productive, and incorrect. It’s just a ploy by the right to shove more and more of our collective welfare into the hands of profiteers. They still want to spend our dollars, and they’ll continue to spend more and more, but they’d much rather concentrate it in the pockets of the privileged few than to put it towards re-investing in their country. It’s much neater that way.
Back to the subject of “dialogue”, the next time you’re inclined to engage in blanket trash talk, or disparage another human being simply because of where they work, try this: Take a deeeep breath. Think. Think again. Maybe think even a third time. And, if you’re still in the mood to verbally slash and burn your fellow citizen in an effort to prove you’re right and they’re wrong…… Shut The Hell Up.
Joni,
Medicare/Medicaid doesn’t really cover the total cost of the care that hospitals are forced to provide through these government programs AND a lot of the overhead that the government doesn’t have is due to the fact that the hospitals are forced to do much of the paperwork (thus the overhead) internally. Private pay insurances are in fact subsidizing these government programs by being charged more to make up the difference. You are starting to see more and more health care providers not accepting these government programs because they really only cover a part of the costs. (You also ignore that any program that is run with government dollars has an automatic 10% overhead cost as those dollars are all subject to the interest costs of the government debt……is it any surprise that we fell into this recent recession when you and the government have no idea of the cost of spending dollars that you don’t have????
If you lose your job in the that covered a particular medical condition, that insurance, not one provided by your new job is required to cover the rest of your care (even if you were to be unemployed) for that condition. Losing a job only protects the insurance company against paying for new conditions after your premiums are no longer being paid. For existing conditions they are required to continue to pay for your medical bills despite the fact they are no longer receiving premium payments. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
Bob M is partly blaming the wrong people for the skyrocketing cost of health care. Government regulations require that any person who shows up in the ER be treated (insured or not, able to pay or not). A downtown Detroit hospital’s ER is the primary care facilty for all the homeless (check in with any complaint and get a room with a flatscreen TV and three meals a day), the drug addicts, and just plain poor. And should there be a medical error made because that addict had such a stew of pharacopia in their bloodstream…..they will probably “Call Sam” and sue.
I did some volunteer work in the Child Life Center in our hospital. It was not unusual for parents with no health care to bring their child to the ER on a Friday complaining of asthema symptoms and insist the child get checked into the hospital. They would come back on Monday or Tuesday and check the child out………..after spending the weekend out of town and using the hospital as a free child care. Not much the hospital could do about it as if one child in ten actually developed a serious problem, they couldn’t afford the lawsuits that might arise if they has sent the child home.
What Bob and you ignore by separating the health care provider from the insurance company is that the costs that the insurance company must pay are based on the cost of running the hospitals. I sometime think that the actual cost of health care is very small compared to all the money spent on lawsuits and government regulations. The department I work for (about 50 employees) is 100% devoted to fulfilling government regulations and have nothing to do with direct patient care.
I actually liked the basic premis of Dillons health care bill. Let the government pool the resources of government employees (like teachers and legislators) and run a health care program. If they can show some success for that group, they could then possibly require the employees of companies that are bailed out with taxpayer money like GM and Chrysler. I’d like the government to show me some success on a smaller scale with their own employees before they talk about a national plan.
There’s a number of startlingly inaccurate statements in Terry’s post, mostly ones characterizing poor insurance companies as victims of “government regulations”.
But let’s give credit where due: despite supporting Welday in last fall’s election, Terry does not attempt to defend Welday’s knowing falsehoods or sheer ignorance. He simply doesn’t acknowledge them.
Probably the most egregious of Terry’s inaccuracies is the one that seems to say (it’s garbled there) that when you lose your job you keep your insurance coverage for all conditions except new conditions arising after you stop paying premiums. “For existing conditions, they [the insurance companies] are required to continue to pay for your medical bills despite the fact they are no longer receiving premium payments.” False. You stop paying premiums, you lose all coverage. You have no coverage, nothing. Under the COBRA law, you have the right only to continue your health insurance for a limited period by paying premiums equal to 102% of the cost of your coverage (that is, 102% of what you and your employer paid together for your prior coverage). But hey, even at group rates, it’s still so expensive in the U.S and you just lost your job, so very few can afford it’ so generally only those with severe medical conditions even try to pay for such continued temporary coverage. But that’s beside the point; if your premiums stop, your coverage stops. All of your coverage. The insurance company is responsible for nothing.
Incidentally, there is no Dillon health care “bill” whose premise you can like or dislike. Perhaps he’ll have one shortly, perhaps not. But to the extent he has presented the germ of an idea, it does not envision a government run health care program. At its core, it would essentially place these workers in one, huge pool to for one or a group of private insurance companies to bid on (presumably at lower rates) and for one or a group of private carriers or TPA’s to administer. The State Government would not perform either function.
Now, Terry is right that one of America’s values is that we will provide health care to those who do not have insurance. We as a nation — not all of us apparently, but nearly all — believe that we should not leave these people to die in the streets, even though it costs the rest of us to provide some measure of care. (Most of these uninsured people work/worked and are not homeless, but that’s another problem and another discussion.) And because they are uninsured, they must use the hospital’s emergency room for everything, which is extremely costly. Back in the 60′s, such “uncompensated care” wasn’t considered such a major problem — hospitals were almost exclusively non-profit institutions, often charitable, often religious, whose mission prominently included caring for the poor. But when for-profit hospitals and other facilities later came to dominate health care, such care was viewed as a huge drain on their bottom lines. So yes, hospitals try to shift these costs by raising prices. But no, Teri, hospitals are not charging “private pay insurers” more; they’re charging us. Private insurers, in fact, are skating through this problem easily, simply covering less and less of such cost and shifting more of the cost of care to patients (us!). In fact, annual profits of the top 10 insurance companies skyrocketed from $2-1/2 billion in 2001 to $12 billion in 2008 — and that’s after paying their CEO’s compensation averaging in excess of $11 million per year.
And that’s the problem. The best current estimates of the cost of uncompensated care to insured Americans is 20-30% of the cost of insurance. But if we give the uninsured access to insurance, they can actually see primary physicians (much cheaper than the ER) and treat conditions before they develop into huge, costly problems (again, much cheaper. More humane and, for those who don’t really care about that, much cheaper! So absolutely, let’s expand insurance coverage, subsidize it, let health care cooperatives, nonprofit insurers, private carriers and the government insure it. It will save for-profit hospitals a lot of money, take a big chunk of unnecessary cost out of my health care premium and, very important to most of us, provide better, higher quality health care for the uninsured and underinsured.
Marcus,
Sorry, you are incorrect when you say that the insurance does not cover medical conditions that you started care for before you lost the coverage. You are correct that once you stop paying premiums you lose your coverage…….however any course of treatment already started must be paid for by the insurance company.
Most hospital billing and insurance payments are by DRG, that is, there is a predefined number of days or course of treatment for that diagnosis. That is what the insurance pays for. If the hospital discharges you in less time, they make money, if not they lose money. But of course you know that because you know all about how medical billing works.
Joni’s contention that it is unfair that medical insurance won’t cover pre-existing conditions is like saying it is unfair that you can’t purchase life insurance for somebody who is already dead.
I’m not even going to bother arguing whether Dillion’s idea for a bill is a “bill” or a “germ of an idea”, despite the fact you seem to have a very clear idea of what the full blown final product will be. I’m just suggesting that any movement towards government run (or organized) health care should start on a small scale with the government’s own employees.
You confuse me with your distinction between charging private pay insurers vs. charging those of us who pay for private pay insurance. I’m not so ignorant as to believe that when the cost of steel rises that GM does not pass that on to the consumer. I fail to see this an a problem or issue. It is more a fact of economics.
The original premis is that government run programs like Medicaid/Medicare and regulations, like requiring hospitals to accept any patient who shows up at their ER, have a cost and that cost is picked up by the private pay insurers and ultimately by those who buy their products. Medical insurance is a competitive market……if you don’t like what the CEO of one company makes, get your health care elsewhere. (Please reference your source for the profit numbers and CEO’s salaries that you quote.)
The charity hospitals of the 60′s were killed off by government regulations and an inability to keep up with the high cost of changing medical care. When was last time you priced a MRI machine?
In your last paragraph you seem to be suggesting that by shifting the cost of health care from costs that my private pay insurer pays to government programs (run with my tax dollars) you are going to save me money. That is, by charging me more in taxes and less in direct health care, I somehow come out ahead??
Health care is often Darwin at his best. Charity hospitals that cannot compete for quality and innovation and still pay their bills disappear. Better, cheaper health insurance will have the public beat a path to it’s door. It’s easy to talk about non-profit insurance or health care cooperatives (isn’t that what Dillions “germ of an idea”/not a bill is about?), but if in practice they work, then they will flourish. Talk about spending government dollars to subsidize anything is foolish given the govenments track record of controling expenses and paying interest on interest as they spend dollars they don’t have.
I apoligize for the previous garbled text (and any future ones), as I was preforming brain surgery on a patient, while typing that reply on my Blackberry.
Interesting article at the link below. Seems to fly in the face of those like Terry who argue against a single-payer, universal coverage plan.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health-care-abroad-canada/?hp
And, by the way, I’m not sure what company you work for Terry, but I want that insurance. Twice in the past 8 years I’ve had my insurance coverage change hands – new job, or same job with new insurance. Both times, I was in the middle of treatment for serious health issues. Both times, repeat, both times the former company abruptly stopped paying for my treatment, and I was billed directly by the provider. I’ve heard from friends and neighbors of similar experiences. So… if you’d kindly give me the name of the insurance company(s) of which you speak, I’d like to talk to them.
Hello Bob M and Terry
“And, by the way, I’m not sure what company you work for Terry, but I want that insurance.”
Based on both your comments above and after reviewing HIPAA, it appears that Bob M’s rights under HIPPA may have been violated. Meaning Bob already has “that” insurance.
We all agree that heath Insurance in America has its problems and the rules can be confusing, that is why we are looking to make it better.
If Bob’s company plan covered him for 18 months and the change in plan had less then 63 days between polices he should have “creditable coverage” and thus have no preexisting condition exclusion.
If one of the changes or change in jobs had more than 63 day between polices Bob may have needed to have purchased COBRA or an individual policy to eliminate the preexisting condition exclusion period. Not the best but if you have something that needs to be covered it’s good to know.
We don’t know all the faqs of Bob’ M. but we need to make sure we know how our health insurance works today with out all the confusion. May I suggest again that anyone with a question regarding preexisting conditions check out the link under Health Care FAQ.
I thought this example may help from the Department of Labor website would be helpful. Hope this help you Bob.
Can I reduce or eliminate the maximum preexisting condition exclusion period?
Yes, if you can show “creditable coverage.” Most health coverage can be used as creditable coverage, including participation in a group health plan, COBRA continuation coverage, Medicare and Medicaid, as well as coverage through an individual health insurance policy. However, you should try to avoid a significant break in coverage (63 days) if you want to be able to count your previous coverage. If you have a break shorter than 63 days, coverage you had before that break is creditable coverage and can be used to offset a preexisting condition exclusion period. Days spent in a waiting period for coverage cannot be used as credit. But, they also are not counted toward the significant break (63 days) you are trying to avoid.
Guest Post Submited Enterprise Staff
The first time, there was more than a 63 day period between policies (by 3 days), so I did have to consider COBRA at that time, but having just lost my job, the cost was prohibitive, to say the least. I then was subject to the pre-existing condition waitng period, during which I was extremely hesitant to seek any type of non-emergency medical care. The second time, however, is something I may have to revisit (although I’m not sure what redress there might be) as it was only a matter of a few weeks between jobs. I’ll investigate. Thanks for the link.
Bob M.
The key phrase in they article you offered was “and provide fewer very expensive equipment and services”.
You can already wait more than a week to get an MRI on this side of the river, I can’t imagine waiting a month or longer and not having access to all the latest medical technology. If your idea of cutting edge medical service is “take two asperin and call me in the morning” then the Canadian health care system is the one for you.
In Canada they pay medical professional so much less that there is a sever shortage of nurses (even more so than in this country). Most Detroit area hospitals have substantial numbers of Canadian nurses, who perfer to make at least as much as your average auto worker. Many Canadian patients resort to coming to Detroit for medical care that they are unable to get in a timely manner or not at all on their side of the river.
Terry,
The phrase you single out needs to be examined more closely. “Fewer very expensive equipment and services”. Isn’t that part of the problem in this country? Many for-profit hospitals seem to race each other to see who can buy the latest, shiniest, most Star Trekkiest machines they can, ostensibly to enhance quality of care, but for the most part to enhance their marketing push. While some of these may actually improve the patient’s experience, there is an abundance of capacity in many areas, while not producing much in the way of competitive pricing.
You use an MRI as an example. I’ve had 4 in the last 3 years. Not once did I have to wait more than 2 days.. and for the one time it was considered urgent – I went the very same day I visited my doctor and he ordered it. It’s the same in Canada. If treatment isn’t of an urgent nature, yes you may have to wait a week or three. But if your physician determines otherwise, you’re moved to the head of the line. I know a number of Canadians, some who now reside in the US, some not. While they don’t all sing it’s praises, they all agree that the overall experience in Canada is better than here. No exorbitant premiums (no PREMIUMS, period!), no stress as to how one’s financial situation is going to handle the expense of getting sick. Canada’s annual death rate per capita is far lower than that in the US as well, all things being considered. Their life expectancy data also shows they live longer. Can’t be all bad.
First, let me thank the staff of the Enterprise for their continued attention to our effort to provide further analysis and evaluation the Obama-Pelosi health care legislation. I understand and agree that there should be an open and honest debate on this most important of issues. Every point of view on this issue should be considered so that people can draw their own conclusions about the ramifications of this sweeping change in the relationship between the federal government and the citizens of the United States.
And while I’m sure it furthers the goal of open and candid dialouge to refer to my position as that of a “poster boy for right wing health care propoganda machine,” I can only assume that refering to those of us – myself included – who oppose this legislation as purveyors of “lies, misdirection and fear” are those who can claim a monopoly on wisdom and understanding of this complex issue. What a great way to advance the debate by calling our position “sheer ignorance!” How wonderful it is to know that the Enterprise and some of its reader have cornered the market on clarity and civility.
Nevertheless, in what I’m sure is a mere oversight from the highly objective staff of the Enterprise, let me assist this dedicated bunch with a brief overview of my position on the issue of health care.
America provides the best health care in the world, but yet is still in need of reform, particularly in those areas where the problems are most acute: access due to problems with the individual health insurance market and overall cost containment. Unfortunately, the Obama-Pelosi plan does neither and at best throws the baby out with the bathwater.
Rather than turn the system upside down and federalize health care, major improvements in the system can be accomplished with five significant reforms:
1) Unlike the Obama-Pelosi fantasy, truly allow those who like their current health insurance plan to keep it. Since the passage of ERISA decades ago, the government has been subsiding employer-based health plans by allowing health insurance to be provided as a benefit to employees with pre-tax dollars. However, for those who are not covered by their employer’s plan and are forced into the individual market the same advantage does not exist. Therefore, the first order of business would be to provide refundable tax credits to everyone for the purchase of health care. In so doing we would put individuals on a level playing field and provide individuals with the resources necessary to shop for the product that best suits the needs of themselves and their families. This would also enhance competition by giving individuals the ability to opt-out of their employee plan if they so choose and shop for insurance that best meets their needs. Obviously, the same would be true for those in the individual market and would provide market-based downward pressure on cost. It would also give those who are unable to purchase health care due to cost the resources to enter the market, while at the same time saving considerable taxpayer dollars compared to the tremendous costs associated with the Obama-Pelosi plan.
2) Expand choices for consumers by eliminating the prohibition on out-of-state health insurance purchases. By allowing the people of Michigan to shop nationally for the plan that best meets their needs they will have significantly more choices that will allow them to fulfill their personal objectives for a health plan. Lifting this provision will also have a positive effect on cost as market-based competition will take effect.
3) Incentivize and remove the shackles on Health Savings Accounts (HSA’s). These high-deductible plans which are greatly appreciated by those who utilize them now allow for tax incentives for privately funded health insurance programs that allow individuals to carry-over unspent funds with tax advantages for so doing. Again, private spending creates market based competition that will do more to hold down cost that relying on a bureaucrat in Washington to abstractly dictate cost structures.
4) Provide real tort reform. Until there is a meaningful balance between the legitimate claims of the plantiff’s bar and the malpractice burden placed on all health care providers we will be subjected to far more testing and defensive medicine than we really need.
5) And because it is clear that health insurance companies are not blameless for the challenges in the system and because we must eliminate the practice of cherry-picking the healthy, we must create state-by-state high risk insurance pools that will be mandated to accept all regardless of pre-existing condition. Those with high risks who fall outside the standard underwriting guidelines would be eligible to covered by this program. This high risk pool would be funded by assessing a significant fee to all insurance companies who do businesss in a particular state and through the funds available to the participant through their refundable tax credit. No one would be denied health insurance coverage.
So for the high-minded staff of the Enterprise, I’m sorry if these ideas are not original enough for your liking. And while I recall the Enterprise making a reference or two to a “couple good ideas” suggested by our team during the contest for state representative last year, I understand that was a long time ago and it is much easier to dispatch any notion of insightful conservative thinking than accept there might be a reasonable idea offered. Clearly calling everything we do “negative” fits the simplistic mold that the Enterprise favors, but it is unfortunate that when those of a similiar political philosophy use questionable tactics they are never called into question. But I’m sure that is because those who share your view could’nt possibly ever engage in anything other than fair play.
While time doesn’t permit me to repeat my critique of the Obama-Pelosi plan, regarding the point raised in original post, let me simply say that upon further review I have yet to find anything in the Constitution regarding the federal role in marriage counseling. It is possible that I don’t see this as quite the “living document” as some, but I’m satisfied in my conclusion that this issue is best addressed outside the purview of the federal bureaucracy.
Again, I appreciate the interest in our view of the latest health care proposal. Furthering a meaningful discussion is our mutual objective. On that we agree. Unfortunately, the individual who will speak for us on this issue, Congressman Gary Peters, is no where to be found and is apparently satisified to dispatch his staff to meet with constituents one-on-one rather that personally offer the chance to meet with Oakland County residents in a genuine Town Hall meeting. But I’m sure we can justify this this lack of interest in meeting with the good folks of our area because someone might raise their voice. We certainly can’t have that! And as for the political analysis offered by the Enterprise, all I can say is stay tuned. You just never know how the winds of political sentiment might swing.
Finally, I would suggest that anyone interested in learning more about my position on this and other important issues turn to our website: http://www.WeldayforCongress.com
We welcome all.
I don’t trust anything Paul Welday says ever since he smeared my friend Bridges from Farmington Hills City Council by stuffing mailboxes with propaganda the night before the election. I often thought I should send him a box of bagels to go with his many Scmears!