Questions for our elected officials in the health care debate
Published: September 22, 2009
Updated: September 22, 2009
To Sens. Warner and Webb, Congressman Cantor (and you also, Gov. Kaine, since you are the Democratic National Committee chairman): Would you please get the answers to these questions and post them on your Web site, because so far this debate has been sorely lacking in facts and substance.
On Friday, Michelle Obama said the president’s plan is a “pretty reasonable plan.” What exactly is the president’s plan? Is it the original HR 3200 bill, the new Baucus plan, or a plan that has not yet been revealed?
Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., in a debate on the House floor, said that if HR 3200 is passed, “Health savings accounts will be gone and those who utilize them will be forced to change their coverage. [T]his is actually less choice and less competition in the health care industry.”
Is that true?
Which is the actual goal of the president’s proposal for health care reform: lower costs for the citizens or increased government control of health care?
The Kaiser Foundation says premiums for employer-sponsored, family coverage health insurance are now $13,375 per year. How much will our health care premiums cost if the proposed health care reform becomes law?
The proposed reforms mandate that all people — even those who are addicted to alcohol, drugs or tobacco — must be covered. How will that affect the premiums of those with healthy lifestyles?
How are our nation’s overall health care costs going to be lower if everyone will be covered and getting better health care?
Since some of the new health care costs will be borne by us as premiums and some as increased taxes, what will be the combined change to our disposable income?
The Congressional Research Service says that HR 3200 “limits annual out-of-pocket expenses to $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family.” How much would it cost to simply buy a high deductible policy like that for the families that don’t have health insurance?
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cost of HR 3200 is $1 trillion. The government now owns 79.9 percent of AIG’s equity, and AIG owns some health insurance companies. Wouldn’t it be cheaper than $1 trillion to buy high deductible policies for those uninsured families through AIG?
Why are there no plans in the health care reforms for creating more doctors, nurses and physician’s assistants?
Since the pool of health care workers will not be increasing, who will decide which people in the increased pool of patients gets what health care and when they get it?
Since doctors report that at least 18% of the procedures and 13% of all hospitalizations they ordered are done purely for defensive reasons to avoid malpractice suits, why is there nothing about tort reform in the reform proposals?
Last month, 42 states increased their unemployment rate. What is the estimate of how the increased costs and mandates will affect unemployment?
The U.S. debt is nearly $12 trillion. How much is the debt estimated to increase if the current government-based proposals for health care reform are passed?
Sens. Warner and Webb, Congressman Cantor (and you also, Gov. Kaine), please post the answers to those questions. We really don’t need more rhetoric, we need facts. You will truly be performing a valuable public service if you give us those facts.
Sharman’s column appears Tuesdays on the editorial page.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
CT, Why does it always have to come down to left vs right, liberal vs conservative? That was not at all the point of my posts. I am not taking politically philosophical sides in this debate.
Perhaps another way to get my point across would be to ask questions.
Can anyone rationally discuss a point of view without complaining about the other side?
When was the last time the USPS broke even or turned a profit? All the employees I observe seem to be doing their job. So where is the problem?
When was the last time AMTRAK broke even or turned a profit? The few times I have ridden a train between D.C, to Philly, NYC or Boston, I found nothing to complain about with respect to service. So where is the problem?
Now, people want to pretend that Health Care will not cost money, but the track record of the Federal Government says otherwise. When both of the cited enterprises can break even for two years in a row without government assistance, maybe we could start easing our way into health care.
Just a thought.
In light of Rep. Cantor’s town hall yesterday, perhaps another question is in order: why does he feel it is appropriate to require those who are sick to beg for charity in order to receive treatment?
In his answer to a constituent question, Cantor references government programs the Republican Party has done everything in its power to gut or eliminate altogether, before telling her that there are “charitable organizations,“ ignoring the fact that these organizations are facing a need that far outstrips their supply due to our failed healthcare system or the fundamental indignity of being forced to beg for the money to live.
The video, and a response from the constituent in question, are available at: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/22/cantor-uninsured-option/ .
Brewer: your opinions on the Big Dig are relevant, in that they underscore the historic myopia of conservatives who think that government needs to step out of public life. The Big Dig was marked by a retraction of government oversight due to small-government conservatives who felt the private sector could do better. See, for instance, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200645.html
Of course, my opinion matters not. My original post was merely an attempt to point out the igmorant, elitist attitude of 534 members of our elected population.
I believe Veterans should receive proper and the best care available for injuries/illnesses etc received as a result of serving.
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are all “What’s in for me - I paid my share so I should get my share” welfare programs. I would gladly give up receiving social security when I am old enough, if they would just say - “Any one under 50 will never get social security, because we are going to phase it out”. That would guarantee that through natural attrition, my grandchildren would not be paying into it when they are 30. Family, and not the government, needs to take care of family.
As for Highways and education - both should be up to the states, not the Feds. Maybe some federal guidelines for highway construction, but stop taking money from people in the Midwest to build highways in NYC. New York can pay for their own highways - they have the population base to support that.
Any idea what “the big dig” in Boston cost tax payers? Had the state and or Boston been responsible for coughing up the dough, I can promise it would have been much, much cheaper.
So, in that case Brewer, you should also be against Veterans benefits and Social Security as well, correct? What about highways, think we should expect tax dollars to give us roadways? Education?
So, we should expect you not to use any government services? I know several people who thought that way, and for many years, but now don’t.
HR3200 is not worth discussing. It is dead. The problem is, President Obama has said, “Congress, build me a Beetle.“ And just as they listen to we the people what they heard him say is, “I want a Volkswagen.“
Congress decided it should be a Bugatti. They need to get their head out of the sand, clean their ears and start listening; to the people, and to the President.
By the way - I am against any government plans - including medicare and medicaid.
thanks CT for taking the time to do that. Hopefully Mr. Sharman will send you your public service award.
I’m none of the people listed, but I’ll step in and answer your questions
1) The President’s plan was outlined in his joint session of Congress. He’s deferring to Congress on the details, so that something can actually get through the legislature.
2) HSAs aren’t going away: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/FAQsaboutHR3200.pdf
3) This is an absurdly loaded question. Regardless, the goal is lower cost for the country and increased coverage for those who need it.
4) This depends on so many factors that your question would be better addressed to economists, who will each give you a different answer.
5) Many of these people have health insurance through their employers already, so it is unlikely that there would be a marked difference.
6) Preventative measures bend the curve and reduce costs for everyone. Also, by mandating health coverage for all, you capture healthy twenty-somethings that can afford coverage but think they don’t need it.
7) See #4.
8) This caps out-of-pocket expenses for everyone, not just those who are healthy enough to afford to use HDHP plans.
9) HDHP programs would do absolutely nothing to help most uninsured families, since the problem for many such people is that they cannot afford their own health care.
10) It would be nice if such things were in the plan, but then you’d lose the support of the AMA. In a reform with this many stakeholders, sometimes good policy has to give way to compromise.
11) The market will decide, as it has in the past - there will just be more participants.
12) See #1; if you had listened to the speech, you would have heard the President encouraging various pilot programs for dealing with medical malpractice suits. You should also consider that malpractice costs account for only a small part of healthcare spending in the U.S.
13) See #4. Also, consider that health care is the albatross around the neck of American businesses; one of Detroit’s liabilities compared to foreign automakers is that the individual domestic auto manufacturers have to pay for healthcare, unlike automakers located in countries with government subsidized healthcare.
14) The outside range is +$1 trillion, but the CBO scoring does not include potential costs savings from preventative care preventing costly future illnesses. Also, your estimate does not include the equity stake the U.S. acquired from the bank and auto bailouts.
Judy, the reason there’s not much outcry is because over 50% of the people who put Obama in office, wants him to do what he is doing on healthcare reforms.
And to help you understand, as a small business owner, this does not apply to you. You need to check out the size of business it applies to, before you let fear set in. In the HB3200, your annual payroll would have to be more than $250,000. And from that point on a scale would kick in. In the Senate Bill, your payroll would have to be over $500,000. So if you are truly a “small” business owner, you should not be worrying about closing your doors.
How this will all pan out, no one knows, but I do know that we are not given the spirit of fear from our heavenly Father. Find out the facts before you let fear from someone set in. Check out the emails that are circulating, many are false. Here’s a good site to confirm some of the rumors: http://factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/
The public option or coop would help small business owners, cause then your employees would be able to find affordable health care insurance on their own and would not be looking to you for that coverage.
Advertisement