Obama's Health Care Overhaul: Your Opinions

[MsDemeanor]

Other than cosmetic surgery, what is not "necessity stuff"?

[Jet]

Report: Health overhaul will increase nation's tab

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer – 23 mins ago


WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law will increase the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation.

A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls.
But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, however, since the report also warned that Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, forcing lawmakers to roll them back.

The mixed verdict for Obama's signature issue is the first comprehensive look by neutral experts. In particular, the warnings about Medicare could become a major political liability for Democratic lawmakers in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.

The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.

"During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.

Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama's 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation's health care system.
"A trillion dollars gets spent, and it's no surprise — health care costs are going to go up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he's concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine care for seniors.
In a statement, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to highlight some positive findings for seniors. For example, the report concluded that Medicare monthly premiums would be lower than otherwise expected, due to the spending reductions.

"The Affordable Care Act will improve the health care system for all Americans and we will continue our work to quickly and carefully implement the new law," the statement said. Passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, the law would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.

A separate Congressional Budget Office analysis, also released Thursday, estimated that 4 million households would be hit with tax penalties under the law for failing to get insurance.

The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren't clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any reforms. The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.

Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period, even if overall health care spending rises.

The report's most sober assessments concerned Medicare.
In addition to flagging the cuts to hospitals, nursing homes and other providers as potentially unsustainable, it projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular program. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent, as the plans reduce extra benefits that they currently offer. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.

In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency.

[Linus]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

Other than cosmetic surgery, what is not "necessity stuff"?

Varies from province to province. One of the specific ones is trans surgery/support. Right now, only Ontario and B.C. provide this as part of their health care. Some provinces include dental, some chiropratic, etc.



After reading the last news article that Jet posted, I wonder if anyone considered the aging baby boomers who will, in the near future, have the biggest affect on the health care system. With people living longer and the boomers being such a large segment of society now and many at or entering an age where additional medical services may be needed, health care becomes critical. Having it like this doesn't bode well in the long run.

[Miss Scarlett]

Both Houses of Congress are owned by big business. The fact that this got through at all is amazing to me. It's a start. Hopefully Congress won't screw it up too much in the future.

The arguments and backlash are reminiscent of the carrying on when the Civil Rights bills were being passed. Medicare too.

Hopefully when America realizes that this is not the apocalypse after all they will stop all the whining, wailing and gnashing...well, I can dream can't I?

[key]

At the very least "Medicare Advantage" should be required to change its name. It is a private insurance company, it is NOT Medicare. I have no problem with this private insurance company losing customers. And while we are at it AARP should be abolished too, as it is just a front group for private insurance. I want all private insurance companies to lose all of their customers and get everyone on a not for profit system.

The reform process is not over people. Check out Alan Grayson's proposal to allow anyone to buy into Medicare at cost. I would even be agreeable for anyone under 65 to buy into Medicare at cost plus 5% or something to help cover costs for others.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_492831.html

[Apocalipstic]

President Obama is actually a Baby Boomer, as are most members of Congress, I am sure some thought was given to the cost?

If we were not at war, we would have plenty of money for this.

If we were not so anti-immigration, we would have plenty of money to pay for this.

I think it is important to provide health care for all of us, The US is only as strong as the weakest among us, and right now, that is pretty darn weak.

Maybe I know more people without insurance? Performers, artists, musicians, food and beverage workers, stage managers, directors, av people.....on and on....I am fine with paying higher taxes if the money goes to helping this situation.

[Linus]

For those wondering, you can now figure out how many chickens you'll need on hand to pay for various health care procedures: http://lowdenplan.com/

I figure I might need 4,000 chickens but since I'm vegetarian/vegan I wonder if I can pay with Seitan Spicy Wings.

[casey35]

I may not have the right for this opinion but this is mine. I personally dont think that we the tax payers should have to pay for others insurance. If you dont have insurance which i dont then it should be your responsablity to get some.