Nonpartisan Report on Senate Health Bill Causes Political Earthquake
Dec 11th, 2009 by David Anderson
In still more bad news, the report starkly warned that a new long-term care insurance plan included in the legislation could “face a significant risk of failure” because it would attract people in poor health, leading to higher and higher premiums, and eventually triggering an “insurance death spiral.” Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., brushed that aside, pointing to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office that found the program would be solvent for 75 years.
The House Bill did not fare any better.
In the mean time a report released this past week from the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) noted that the House health care reform bill will slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending — one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama’s proposed overhaul of the nation’s health-care system — would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others.
For example, the bill reduces Medicare payments to hospitals and nursing homes over time based on productivity targets. If such hospitals cannot meet the productivity targets, many of the hospitals would withdraw from Medicare.
According to the Washington Post, the report found that “Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.”
I guess what they mean by reform is a little different than what I mean by reform. I thought reform made things better and deform made things worse. Maybe we should call it health care deform. I would like to ask my fellow contributors to make a style decision to call the bills what they are Deform not Reform.
OK, so how do those people in poor health get treated today? It seems to me that it is a decision of either:
a) treat them and try to collect the debt from them. When that fails, bankrupt them and charge everyone else enough to make up the difference.
b) let them die.
Am I missing a third option here?
Yes, you are missing many options. Do a search for the Singapore health plan on this site.
I would rather go bankrupt than die. On that note, I have to knock Castle, Biden, and Carper who made it more difficult for sick people to get relief under bankruptcy laws.
Your solution is to give poorer care and bankrupt all of us.
OK, how do you plan to not pay for it? You are simply moving the deck chairs around here. Even with bankruptcy protections for consumers, hospitals eat the costs for people that can’t pay. And I love how your quote jumps between Medicare and Medicaid, conflating the two.
I sure that Singapore is heaven. A small city-state on an island that is very much a closed system.
The healthcare system can never be completely ‘reformed,’ because as new technologies emerge, costs escalate. A couple who, together over a period of forty years, made maybe $1 million in their entire lives might well ‘consume’ $1 million (hip replacement, cardiac surgery, medication, etc.) in medical care over the last fifteen years of their lives. Along with extended lifespans, the situation may never be satisfactorily resolved, at least not inexpensively.