A Couple of Questions about Obama's Playbook

The WSJ reports that Obama has a new playbook for pushing Obamacare:

Mr. Obama, who has previously focused on cutting overall health spending, will now emphasize how the legislation would fix three specific problems, according to the White House official. An overhaul would end the practice of denying insurance coverage to people with a pre-existing illness; keep people from losing their coverage if they get sick; and protect Americans who face high out-of-pocket medical costs, the official said Mr. Obama would say.

All highly commendable goals. But two questions: (1) If that's what you want to do, why do you need 1000+ page bill? Conversely, if you need all those pages to do something, what else are you trying to do?

(2) None of those three items "bends the curve." So how are you going to constrain costs, if at all?

Comments

[DAve]

All it would take would be one (1) person asking Obama at these meetings whether his plan covers illegal aliens to bust this thing apart. The fact that this never happens REALLY makes it seem like the fix is in.

[PTL]

Obama is smarter than Stalin. Stalin just shot
the doctors.

[pogo]

"An overhaul would end the practice of denying insurance coverage to people with a pre-existing illness..."

OK, here is my question. If insurance companies are barred from denying coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition, why would anyone get health insurance when they were well? Why pay premiums month after month when I'm healthy? I'll just wait until I'm sick and need to incur heavy costs - *then* I'll sign up for insurance. "You can't turn me down!"

[JohnL]

You ask "Conversely, if you need all those pages to do something, what else are you trying to do?"

My PDF copy of the proposed legislation has on the very first page the plain answer to your question. Beneath "H.R. 3200" is the following sentence, the last phrase of which is your answer:

"To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes."

The more I read this piece of proposed legislation, the more I hear the words of Gollum in my head, "No. Not very nice at all."

[newscaper]

One of the alleged cost-savings measures - cutting out supposedly "unnecessary tests" - is utterly wrongheaded in two ways.

1) There is nothing here addressing the malpractice CYA aspect courtesy of tort lawyers run amok, and 2)what we actually need are more *better* diagnostic tests -- more accurate and later cheaper/faster -- so docs can know exactly what they are up against in coming up with a treatment plan.
Reversing course and sending the medical profession back to the educated guesswork based on anecdote and personal experience that is clinical diagnosis as the preferred method takes medicine *further* away from being a real science.

[Robert Arvanitis]

Insurance does not pay claims; it only levels risk.

Premiums pay claims.

Therefore the issue is how best to collect them: general tax dollars? so-called "community rating," which is actuarially unsound and thus a closet tax? Or fair premiums, which put the cost of risk where it belongs?

If the last, then we cannot "pool" a person already ill, with a healthy young person.

If on the other hand we choose the explicit or closet tax approach to raising the money, then forget about ever slowing down health care inflation, much less the fantasy of "bending the curve." Non-actuarial funding will always drive vast over-consumption and exacerbate risky behaviors.

And that in turn will be the excuse for ever-increasing government intrusions.

[algie]

Well you must remember that Chicago is the home of the 16" "mush ball" slow pitch softball.

You really must not push too hard
Or you just might find yourself barred
It you get him pissed
You might get on a list
And meet Rham's Praetorian Guard

....nnnn..'o.o'..uu!u....algie
Illegitimi nOn carborundum

algie, outraging the "LDLs" since 1989

[RM3 Frisker FTN]

Congress Exempt From Health Care Reform?

Starting on pg 113, line 22 of SENATE version of the Health Care Reform Bill (http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf) ... The term ‘qualified individual’ means an individual who is NOT eligible for coverage under the Federal employees health benefits program under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code. NOW, you surf over to US Code Title 5 Chapter 89, describing federal employee "Health Insurance" ... http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/usc_sup_01_5_10_III_20_G_30_89.html

The way I read this convoluted legislation, is that Congress & Federal Employees will be exempted from health care reform. Congress gets something different from what the rest of America gets.

This doesn't seem fair. Just sayin.

P.S. Wish those critiquing health care reform would quote chapter & verse from the bill. Otherwise, we risk RIDICULOUS CLAIMS being fed into the hopper, these will be debunked, and used against those undercutting the ridicule this legislation and its legislators deserve.

[HoosierDaddy]

Health insurance is a misnomer. In fact, health 'insurance companies' are expected to operate entirely outside of the realm of how insurance works and that is to evaluate risk. Imagine filing a claim with your auto or homeowners insurance for every oil change, tire rotation or when you need a new furnace or water heater. The problem is too many people only want to spend a $10 or $20 copay for everything from an office visit to a liver transplant and then wonder why insurance costs so much. On another blog a commenter complained his insurance only covers so many syringes for his diabetes. Well gee whiz how much does a box of syringes cost? $20-25 for a box of 100 yet the expectation is that 'insurance' pay for that too.

If more people footed the bill for the basic health care and left insurance to pay for the real expensive stuff which is generally the catastrophic illness and accidents, you'd see a decrease in the cost.