Health care reform will prove politically popular
WASHINGTON — My mother has always been obsessive about making certain that her grown children have health insurance. Her Depression-era childhood in the rural, segregated South taught her the hazard and heartbreak that can engulf those without the financial resources to get medical care.
But she’s by no means the only parent to worry about health insurance for adult children. The labor-force-entry period right after college has frequently been a time of low earnings and no benefits for young workers, who are routinely kicked off their parents’ health insurance plans once they finish college (or before that, if they hit a defined age limit, usually 23). Parents of young adults have scrounged about for an affordable health insurance plan to cover them.
One of the many benefits which will likely be enshrined in health insurance reform is a provision which would allow an adult child to stay on a parent’s policy until his/her 27th birthday; that simple change would grant coverage through graduate school for students, as well as covering the period when many 20-somethings find themselves in a low-paying job with no health care coverage. Despite the constant drumbeat from Rush Limbaugh’s microphone about a U.S. health care system that’s “the best in the world,” ours is not. It is the most expensive in the world — a dysfunctional hodge-podge of fee-for-service care that de-emphasizes preventive medicine and encourages expensive procedures and pills.
You’d think that, with those facts on their side, President Obama and Congressional leaders would be able to construct a simple, compelling narrative to compete with Limbaugh’s line. But they’re Democrats. So they’re losing the rhetorical war over health care reform.
Yet, both the House and Senate versions contain measures that will improve the marketplace for health care consumers, including those who already have insurance. Both bills, for example, would curb the infuriating practice of denying coverage for “pre-existing conditions.” That’s a significant improvement.
Critics have rightly noted that some of the harsher measures in the legislation — such as penalties for small businesses that don’t provide insurance for their employees — would go into effect in the coming months, while the major benefits for consumers will be phased in through 2014. But Obama recently outlined benefits that he expects to become effective immediately, including tax credits for small business to purchase health insurance. The immediate provisions would also include curbs on the practice of using “pre-existing conditions” to deny coverage, he said.
Neither the House nor the Senate bill is perfect. The House bill was passed with an amendment whose sole purpose is to restrict women’s reproductive rights. The Senate bill has been criticized for the porkbarrel measures and special provisions with which it was larded — simply because 60 senators could not be persuaded to pass health insurance reform for its own sake. Nevertheless, at the core of both bills is a consensus about reforms that would improve health care for most Americans.
When my mother was young, she stayed several days in a small, rural hospital to help her own mother, hospitalized after surgery. While she was there, my mother heard the anguished screams of a man whose family couldn’t pay for the amputation he needed. He died of gangrene because emergency care wasn’t considered a basic right back then.
Today, we take emergency care for granted. We simply can’t conceive of a nation in which a man dies of gangrene because he can’t afford an amputation. I’m betting that getting rid of insurance-company-baloney such as “pre-existing conditions” will prove equally popular — an obvious improvement — when health insurance reform becomes law.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2010 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
90 comments Add your comment
quod erat demonstrandum
January 13th, 2010
7:50 am
I think I have seen and heard it all. Health care reform that was suppose to help the needy, ignores them and adds massive new taxes to the working folks. Now Cynthia Tucker says it will be politically popular. Cynthia, you are either stupid or ignorant and giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will say the later.
The reform will help only a precious few, those the administration has paid off.
Instead of helping, the reform will impose massive new taxes, rationing and huge overhead for the medical system.
Maybe Thomas Jefferson was right.
jt
January 13th, 2010
7:55 am
“The reform will help only a precious few, those the administration has paid off.”
Yep, the insurance companies.
Those seeking government help,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,duped again.
Turd Ferguson
January 13th, 2010
7:56 am
“I’m betting that getting rid of insurance-company-baloney such as “pre-existing conditions” will prove equally popular — an obvious improvement — when health insurance reform becomes law.”
Most 21 to 27 year olds dont need insurance as most are perfectly healthy.
Lack of the pre-existing clause will lead to adverse selection unless Obobo’s plan, and I think it does, forces EVERYONE of legal age to obtain healthcare insurance.
This OboboCare is a bad idea.
Tall
January 13th, 2010
8:01 am
“I’m betting that getting rid of insurance-company-baloney such as “pre-existing conditions” will prove equally popular — an obvious improvement — when health insurance reform becomes law.”
Ms. Tucker, you are absolutely clueless. Insurers have a fiduciary duty to their existing policy holders. When you relax the pre-existing conditions clauses there is no point in buying insurance until you get sick. New York used to have a competitive health insurance market until the state mandated that AIDS victims couldn’t be excluded under prexisting conditions clauses. Those insurers exited the state. Everyone wants the best healthcare they can get, as long as someone else pays. You are no different and you are going to get what you wish for. Wait until the tax increases start showing up and the standard of care begins to decline. It will be interesting to see who will be left for you to villanize.
Bob
January 13th, 2010
8:02 am
reform was supposed to clear the illegals out of the emergency rooms and bring down costs, this bill does neither. This is more social programming than reform.
quod erat demonstrandum
January 13th, 2010
8:03 am
Which would you prefer. A plan that is politically popular or one that helps the people. They are mutually exclusive.
Peadawg
January 13th, 2010
8:04 am
And then Cynthia woke up…..
quod erat demonstrandum
January 13th, 2010
8:11 am
New question. When the majority of insurance companies no longer exist, who will cover the government employees excluded from the government mandated plan?
Also, if this reform is so great, why is Congress not part of it?
Same questions, never any answers.
Richard
January 13th, 2010
8:18 am
Forcing people to buy insurance from a for-profit corporation that uses those profits to actively lobby against the interests of the people will never be politically popular. The only way I see for the current bill to become popular after passage is if Congress passes more legislation that prevents insurance companies from lobbying, and requires insurance companies to be non-profit, and increases the subsidies massively, and somehow accomplishes this while getting our national debt in check without massive tax increases. I just don’t see that as a possibility, so I don’t think this will be popular at all.
I also don’t think the subsidies can ever become popular as structured. Welfare isn’t popular, nor is Medicaid. Medicare is popular. They’re all just entitlements, so what’s the difference between the systems? Medicare is for everyone, so everyone plans on getting benefit from it. People oppose expensive programs that don’t benefit them. People are selfish. Planning such a lopsided subsidy program is foolish, and doomed to be politically unpopular.
Joey
January 13th, 2010
8:20 am
First: It is incorrect to label these Bills “reform”.
Second: At the point where every US Senator, every Representative, the President, their immediate families and their staff are covered by this or some other Health Care Bill; at that point I will begin to believe that it will be good for our country and its residents.
Cynthia, you need to have enough integrity to acknowledge this.
quod erat demonstrandum
January 13th, 2010
8:25 am
Joey,
Lefties have integrity???? I thought their god was “politically popular”.
TnGelding
January 13th, 2010
8:34 am
Only if done properly. Let’s just take the “consensus” and jettison the rest. No mandates. No fines. No special provisions to get votes. And let’s stop confusing health insurance with health care. Our current health insurance system actually prevents health care. We simply have to become better health care consumers and stop making ourselves sick with unhealthy lifestyles. (Sorry to be so repetitive.)
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 13th, 2010
8:40 am
And the really good news is that the additional costs and government constraints will guarantee that all of the health insurance companies will fail within five years. That’ll show those greedy insurance company executives.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 13th, 2010
8:43 am
I wonder if government restrictions on reimbursement rates will cause Mayo Clinic to quit taking medicare? That would make the bill even more politically popular.
quod erat demonstrandum
January 13th, 2010
8:45 am
TnGelding,
You’re right. States limit who can compete within their borders. I wish Georgia would open it up and let every insurance company in – real competition. Oh, and of course tort reform – but why confuse folks inside the perimeter with common sense items.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 13th, 2010
8:46 am
It is a great thing to live in a country where the politicians substitute their economic judgments for those of the corporate executives. If only the Congress had passed laws dictating safety and pollution standards for the automobile companies, perhaps they would not have gone bankrupt.
quod erat demonstrandum
January 13th, 2010
8:50 am
Question for the group – has any politician from Georgia actually earn the privilege to be re-elected?
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 13th, 2010
8:50 am
Maybe Congress ought to pass a law having the taxpayers subsidize the sale of home mortgages up to $700,000. That would stimulate the housing market, and ensure economic growth for decades to come. That would be politically popular.
Chris Broe
January 13th, 2010
8:51 am
Healthcare could become popular the way Young Frankenstein’s monster would have become popular. (It’s about his enormous schvanztooker).
Does anyone know if Rx Reform requires mandatory participation? Because I can’t afford it. I make my living by dispensing pepper from pepper mills for diners in soup kitchens, and tips are rare these days. Things are tight.
I cant read the legalese in the Rx bill because I only made it through middle school. (But I was quite popular).
Hairy Banana Reid
January 13th, 2010
8:52 am
This woman is delusional at best.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 13th, 2010
8:53 am
Dear QED @ 8:50, mostly no. Our republican senators are RINOs, and of course the democrats are even worse. I regard well a few of the congressmen – particularly Tom Price and John Linder, as each has proposed ideas that minimize the role of government in our lives.
samuel
January 13th, 2010
8:54 am
The basic premise of health care reform is this: At some point, we all become injured or sick, and we all die. Most people become injured or sick through no fault of their own and, of course, no matter what age you live to be, we all die, no matter how diligent you are in maintaining your health. You could die at 108 (my great-grandmother’s age), 71 (my maternal grandfather’s age), 66 (my father’s age), or 63 (my step-father’s age). It’s no one’s fault that they die, it’s just a simple fact. The sooner conservatives understand this, the more likely they are to support the law in the long run.
quod erat demonstrandum
January 13th, 2010
8:56 am
Ragnar
Don’t give the Wesley Mouch’s inside the beltway any ideas.
NRB2
January 13th, 2010
9:00 am
Cynthia, are these the same 21-27 year olds that can afford I-Phones, a $200 per month cell phone bill, $200 bar tabs every weekend, and plasma televisions?
THAT age group?
Yes I can see why it would “evil” to think that they should have to pay a few hundred a month for their own health insurance.
Save us, government! Save us!
quod erat demonstrandum
January 13th, 2010
9:02 am
samuel,
I have health insurance, I like it. Why should I have to pay more for the same coverage to support other deadbeats that are too lazy to get their own. Sorry, my mistake, they are young and don’t think it is important.
If this is to help the needy, why is Congress messing with everyones insurance.
kayaker 71
January 13th, 2010
9:19 am
Never in the history of this country has the federal governmnet mandated that the electorate must purchase a commodity. The Congress is making it’s own rules. If taken to the Supreme Court, this most certainly will not win.
Chris Broe
January 13th, 2010
9:20 am
Bipartisan fact: 90% of our healthcare dollars are spent in the last 3 months of a patient’s life. (New England Journal of Medicine).
Do you really want to extend your life in a coma? Besides, if you live past midnite, it’s no longer the Tonite Show, then is it?
Is your life the single greatest franchise in broadcast history and thus worth bankrupting America 4?
Born Again Flat-Earther Birther healthcare plan: Inherit the earth. All six feet of it.
Conservative_American
January 13th, 2010
9:22 am
“quod erat demonstrandum” is right> Ms. Tucker is either misinformed or an idiot for taking the position she has. The current Health Care bill being debated behind closed doors (whatever happened to Nobama’s pledge for government “transparency”?) is a disaster for the 50% of Americans who actually pay income taxes (the other 50% get a welfare check under the guise of EITC). What really bothers me, as it should every taxpaying citizen, is why the assault on us from every level of government in the form of tax increases. People are losing their job, their home (some through their own doings by taking out mortgages they had no right to encumber themselves with), losing their health insurance, and genuinely desperate for relief. No longer can a family of three live off a blue-collar worker’s salary as my parents were able to do through the 1960’s; a combination of extremely high NET income tax rates, price gouging by the oil and electric ultility companies and inflation have decimated a single-income household. The possible solutions are complex and too numerous to list, but suffice it to say high taxes are a leading cause of wealth destruction and need to be lowered…along with government spending…and intrusion into our lives.
Turd Ferguson
January 13th, 2010
9:24 am
kayaker…Many State attorneys general are preparing for that very thing, going to the Supreme Court over this obobocare debacle and/or reviewing possible legislation that will exclude said States from participating.
This ball game is far from over.
PS…will be interesting to see what happens if a REP wins in Mass.
Invisus Inauditus Impavidus
January 13th, 2010
9:26 am
Ms. Tucker:
There are several things like this that could have been tweaked without ruining the entire system.
However, you’re probably right that generations of “American Lemmings” who have been sucking the government tit will be pleased ………. at least for awhile until those lines get long.
By the way, the military has pretty good health coverage ………. I don’t see our brave men and women lining up by the droves for that ………. too much work/danger involved.
Citizen of the World
January 13th, 2010
9:28 am
Some of the provisions of the reform bill will help my immediate family — the no exclusions for pre-existing conditions and, very possibly, the prohibition against recision. These are good places to start for reform; however, I do think we’re going to need to eventually move to universal single-payer, where everybody buys into one non-profit insurance pool.
I certainly question how we can be required to buy insurance from a for-profit company that in turn uses our premium dollars to award lavish executive compensation packages, pay lobbyists to influence legislation with which we as individuals might disagree and, worst of all, contribute to the campaign coffers of politicians we don’t support.
StJ
January 13th, 2010
9:35 am
[Democrats are "losing the rhetorical war over health care reform". Wrong. We the people see what is going on and we don't like it...and we are letting our elected representatives know it, in no uncertain terms.
If this thing does pass, the lawsuits will fly, guaranteed. As Kayaker pointed out, the Congress has no constitutional authority to force people to buy something.
quod erat demonstrandum
January 13th, 2010
9:43 am
Citizen of the World,
Dear socialists – why do you think companies exist? To provide a product at a profit. Without profit there is no reason to exist. Even the not-for-profits pay large salaries and benefits. The FED just announced a massive profit from its investments. Freddie and Fannie pay lavish bonuses for failed businesses.
Why deionized the insurance industry where a profit margin of 5% is considered huge. Why are you so against someone getting a just compensation for the value they add. Just think, a poorly run business will not stay in business for long.
kayaker 71
January 13th, 2010
9:46 am
Many states have enacted laws against driving while talking or texting on your cell phone. Says that it prevents loss of life and helps to protect the general public. Apparently, many people get involved in activiites which put a cramp on their life expectancy on a regular basis. Wonder what the health care system would look like if it was mandated by the state that those who continued to smoke would be denied health care coverage. Smoking related illness extends to most every organ system and is the largest risk activity that contributes to early death and long term cardiovascular disease. Oh, that the general public would take a little interest in their own health. Think how much money that that would save the health care system. Add to that a 250K cap on puntitive damages, the ability of insurance companies to sell paper across state lines and the elimination of health care for illegals. And none of the above would cost the American taxpayer a thin dime.
Mr. Nobody
January 13th, 2010
9:53 am
Tucker, Stop thinking up your next controversial delusional topic for 2 seconds and defend your position…COWARD!
samuel
January 13th, 2010
9:55 am
Conservative American @9:22am, you may not remember this, but income tax rates were higher in the 1960’s than they are today. And the reason a family can’t survive on a single income, blue-collar worker’s salary goes back to the supply-side economic policies started by that conservative champion, Ronald Reagan. The outsourcing of manufacturing jobs started under his administration. So, people pay lower taxes today but families can’t survive on 1 income. How is that?
Mr Right
January 13th, 2010
10:04 am
Its so cold this morning i seen a democrat with his hands in his OWN pocket lol
Citizen of the World
January 13th, 2010
10:04 am
quod erat demonstrandum @9:43, I agree that companies exist to provide a product at a profit. And that’s the biggest problem with insurance “companies.” Their goal of making a profit takes precedence over the the provision of their “product,” which is paying our insurance claims. It’s not like I pay them X and they give me Y. I could give them X and they might possibly have to give the doctors and hospitals A through Z. They do everything possible to avoid this so they can maximize their profits. Consequently, people suffer and go without care even though they’ve paid their premiums. They go bankrupt even though they have insurance. They get cancelled after they’ve gotten sick. These are big problems that clearly show why the profit motive is incompatible with health care coverage.
TnGelding
January 13th, 2010
10:10 am
Chris Broe
January 13th, 2010
9:20 am
Death with dignity needs to be part of the “reform.” I hope I have the courage to lie down and die when it comes my time.
hoads
January 13th, 2010
10:11 am
Democrats are “losing the rhetorical war over healthcare reform” because the people aren’t stupid. They understand that the government cannot massively cut one entitlement to create another entitlement, create 56 new government bureaucracies in the process, subsidize the purchase of health insurance for a majority of households (those with incomes below $88,000), cut reimbursements to hospitals and doctors, outlaw cost sharing for preventive healthcare and prohibit underwriting of health insurance without lowering the quality of all healthcare services, making the upper middle class pay more for less healthcare and inserting government between patients and healthcare providers. And, on top of that, do so while almost 50% of the population pays no income tax while promising no tax increases for those making below $200,000. Not possible except in the deluded minds of wishful thinkers and government apparatchiks willing to sell their soul for the next political payback.
Russ
January 13th, 2010
10:11 am
It’s time as a nation that we provide basic health care to everyone, regardless of ability to pay. That is the right thing to do and something we can do. Health care should not be lost if a person loses their job or changes jobs, or is homeless or poor.
Our nation and all of us will be better when we take this step forward that all other modern nations have taken.
Time to act.
Roger
January 13th, 2010
10:11 am
Any legislation that has to meet in the middle of the night behind closed doors and by people who only know the Political Correct password, can not be up to any good. If this legislation was benefiting all Americans and had substance to it, only a small number would be opposed to it. This legislation can not stand the light of day because it has too many rotten things in it. Always look below the surface- – - as your mama told you “all that glitters is not gold.”
Turd Ferguson
January 13th, 2010
10:13 am
Citizen of the World
January 13th, 2010
10:04 am
UH NO. The insurance companys must adhere to the provisions of the policy and as is normal with contractual law “if there is any ambiguity in said contract then favor will be awarded the contractee”.
The issue is indivduals “think” they are covered and do zero investigation, reading of their policy, until AFTER a claim occurs. Only to find out they were NEVER covered for “said claim.” Then its of course the insurance companys fault. Ever think perhaps it was the fault of an independent agent or ones own fault?
Also if one feels they have been cheated there are thousands of available ambulance chaser/attorneys that are willing to take up the cause of fighting the BIG BAD INSURANCE COMPANY.
Turd Ferguson
January 13th, 2010
10:15 am
Russ
January 13th, 2010
10:11 am
LOL…is that a cut-paste from the CNN.com website or your locally elected dummycrat representative?…LOL!
Jack
January 13th, 2010
10:21 am
Time is wasted when trying to explain to a liberal that productive people need not pay for bad planning by others.
Turd Ferguson
January 13th, 2010
10:23 am
Get a tax break…Match your FSA contribution to your HCare Deductible.
Real
January 13th, 2010
10:27 am
politically popular??? — only if you think the government is the answer to everything including your care and feeding; do not support individual responsibility for poor life decisions; support increasing the number of government dependents and thereby increasing your voter base; support punishing success and rewarding failure; do not support “living within your means”; etc….
George
January 13th, 2010
10:28 am
I assume by public CT means a CNN poll of hosts and staff and the few states that were bribed. I think everyone would appreciate some well thought out health care form. The Pres., staff, and Congress just can’t let themselves understand the issues. I love the blogs that start with my great aunt…. There was a wonderful poll that more than 70% of respondents said that the public would buy a biography about themself. CT is really good at presenting myopic, selfish views.
Chris Broe
January 13th, 2010
10:32 am
The healthcare problem starts with our fast food franchises. Our dietary habits are a pre-existing condition.
Billions of burgers served? An average American has eaten 1,847 Big Macs by the time he gets out of college. Then he gets married and is forced to endure his wife’s cooking. So he sneaks another 939 Big Macs by the time he gets the 7 year itch. If he scratches that itch, he’ll be single again, and go on the sauce till he ends up in a pickled coma attending by a seedy nurse with nice buns named Pattie and costing taxpayers 5 or 6 thousand in lettuce a day.
My beef is that we should tax fast food.
If not, we’re finished.
rdh
January 13th, 2010
10:42 am
It will prove politically popular… just like SS and Medicare are politically popular. Nonetheless, they will still bankrupt the country (at which time, these programs will not be so popular).
It would also be “politically popular” for the government to buy everyone a car, a house, a big screen TV and put steak and lobster on the table every night. Just because something might be politically popular does not mean that it is wise, affordable or sustainable. When “politically popular” leads to an unbearable debt burden, decreased opportunity, descreased freedom and a standard of living less than our parents and grandparents, then it is the wrong choice. I would rather die of gangrene than enslave my children with debt.
George
January 13th, 2010
10:49 am
Citizen of the World- absolutely not correct. The profit model is wholly compatible. To say otherwise would lead to dramatic reduction in innovation and motivation. The model that works is a for profit model couple with appropriate gov’t/ for the people- again for the people- regulation. There is absolutely no reason to take a hammer to the system. Congress cannot even tell us how many folks are uninsured and categorize as to why. They can’t even define the problem.
Please educate yourself that the government, corporations- for profit and not for profit- are all institutions. You may want to call Aetna or Grady Hospital and ask for “Ms.Aetna” or “Mr. Grady” to provide clarity. Also educate yourself on “profit motive”- are you suggesting the best way to run a system is a “loss motive”.
Have a goal to cut 5% of costs a year- start with weaning people off of insurance based “blue pills” and docs pushing pain pills and anti depressants like they are candy.
Russ
January 13th, 2010
10:49 am
Turd Ferguson – Anyone with a name like yours does not deserve a serious response.
Dunwoody Mike
January 13th, 2010
10:55 am
Here is the question I ask any and all:
Do you consider access to quality AFFORDABLE health care a human right?
If yes, then you should support single payer, not the malarkey the Congress is proposing.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 13th, 2010
11:09 am
Dear DM @ 10:55, No.
Joan
January 13th, 2010
11:10 am
Clueless. Where on earth were you educated? At some point all this is going to come to a head. Either the people paying the freight for all these give aways will revolt, or if they don’t and continue to take the increased taxes on the chin, then the economy will be so messed up, even the entitlement people won’t get everything they are told they are due, and they will revolt. Either way, this country is in for a bumpy ride.
Jess
January 13th, 2010
11:12 am
With the bold statement that health care reform will prove popular, I assumed you would come up with something better to back it up than the two examples given. Eliminating pre-existing conditions will certainly be popular for those who have these conditions, But the rest of us know who will pay for this provision. This will drive up the cost for all who now have insurance. Forcing small businesses to offer insurance or pay a fine of up to 8% of payroll may sound nice to some, but not to a small business person.
Since Obama took office, this small business person has seen his/her cost rise dangerously. Increased minimum wages. Elimination of the Bush tax cuts, popular with the wealth envy group, until you realize that 70% of those affected are small businesses, not fat cats. Health care reform not only brings the promise of increased cost from insuring employees, or fines for not doing so, but another soak the rich tax increase. In this case 90% of the increases will affect small businesses.
So Obama responds with a tax credit….Way too little, way too late.
Oh, and by the way. His band of academics and public servants wonder why jobs are not being created in the private sector.
Dunwoody Mike
January 13th, 2010
11:13 am
Ragnar,
So, by your standards, it is ethically OK to have people that have access to better quality health care than others. It is OK for there to be a health care “aristocracy” that gets premium care no matter what, while others can’t afford to go to the doctor for any reason whatsoever. Really shoots that “equality” idea the US was founded on in the foot, doesn’t it?
George
January 13th, 2010
11:46 am
Dunwoody Mike- you are in your glass house throwing stones. It sounds like you want a post office model of health care. As I have donated thousands to homelessness I suppose I could say to you it is ethically OK to have people living on the streets. As I have donated thousands to the disabled I could say to it is ethically OK to have 70% unemployment for the disabled. Should I continue- spare the patronizing and the preaching.
Dunwoody Mike
January 13th, 2010
11:50 am
I was asking a question, not conducting an ad hominem attack, George. And I also see those things that you mention as other problems that need to be eradicated. And I also have donated money and time those issues, among others.
hoads
January 13th, 2010
12:04 pm
DM–already the private sector has stepped up to offer innovative ideas to provide affordable healthcare to a free market. Walmart, Target and others have a long list of prescription drugs for $4 for a 30 day supply. CVS, Walgreens and others offer walk-in clinics for common ailments and chronic disease maintenance at affordable rates. For $195, you can have a CT scan of your heart and abdomen from Lifescan. AnyLab provides walk-in lab tests at much reduced rates than at a hospital or doctor’s office.
Healthcare is expensive because of government interference. Reverting to free market principles in healthcare will drastically reduce the costs while providing better access for all. Imagine if health insurers had to compete for individual customers rather than employers just like car, home and life insurance. Of course, some government regulation and oversight is needed, but what we have now is not free market healthcare. It is a fascist system where government and insurance companies are in bed together both hoping to profit from limiting access to expensive medical treatments and making everyone prepay for healthcare versus individuals shopping for healthcare in an open market. Allowing individuals to control their own healthcare dollars is the only way to reduce healthcare costs, but that is unimaginable to you and others who cannot see the forest for the trees.
hoads
January 13th, 2010
12:10 pm
And yes, a vibrant free market healthcare system will allow for a wide variety of medical care options and when the government is not subsidizing, defining and controlling medical care, healthcare providers free to practice in healthcare will begin to offer affordable, quality healthcare for all– just like Walmart satisfies its customers as much as Nordstrom’s does..
Betsy
January 13th, 2010
12:27 pm
One can only assume that Cynthia is a socialist. And that she hopes America becomes socialist. At which point her job and her freedom to spout the crap she does will go away.
Dunwoody Mike
January 13th, 2010
12:32 pm
Hoads,
I agree that government and big business being in bed together is a major source of our ills, health care included.
So how will the free market cure these ills you mention? I know that you will mention increased competetion, but what happens when insurance companies consolidate, as the telecom industry has? For-profit monopolies and cartels usually do nothing but shaft the consumer (as Comcast, Charter, etc seem to do).
I am thinking you will also will mention tort reform. I know Texas and Georgia have instituted some tort reform, but the savings have not been passed onto the consumer; they have been kept by the companies as profit.
Jess
January 13th, 2010
12:36 pm
Dunwoody,
Yes it is okay for some to have access to better health care than others. In fact, that is going to happen regardless of what we do. Rural residents, who buy the most expensive insurance, do not get the same care as someone with the same coverage in a city with a large medical complex. This obsession with equality is insane.
Food is a basic need. Should those on food stamps get lobster an filet just because someone else somewhere can afford it. Should everyone get the same housing arrangement. After all this is America, and equality is the only thing which is important. This is purely insane.
And by the way, America was not founded on the idea of equality. It was founded on freedom and independance. Everyone has a chance to secceed. What they do with this chance is up to them.
Dunwoody Mike
January 13th, 2010
12:46 pm
Jess,
Those rural residents should have the same high quality health care that suburban and urban residents have access to. Many doctors will not work in rural areas because they can not make enough money to cover their insanely high med school loan payments (among other things). We can not get doctors there, so quality declines.
Food as a human right is something I agree with. I am not arguing that everyone gets filet mignon. We waste nearly 50 percent of the food harvested in the US. That can feed a LOT of people.
Ever heard of a phrase called “All men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence? If there are inequalities in socio-economic groups, then that group isn’t as free and independent as others, are they?
Richard
January 13th, 2010
12:55 pm
I wonder how popular even the subsidies will be when someone gets a raise at work that bumps them into the next income tier and the subsidy shrinks immensely. It will be interesting to see how low income wage earners react when they are getting a smaller percentage of net income from a raise than millionaires get.
I wonder how popular this reform will be when young adults find themselves being forced to buy comprehensive insurance that will cost over ten times what a simple catastrophic policy would cost them today in most states.
I wonder how popular this reform will be when a couple get married, and find the subsidy they receive for insurance has suddenly dropped by thousands of dollars a year.
I wonder how popular this reform will be when state taxes increase significantly, and every state politician tells you it is because of the unfunded Medicaid expansion introduced by this reform.
Obviously this reform will prove politically popular… because a small minority of people you probably don’t know will be helped out.
hoads
January 13th, 2010
1:49 pm
Not sure what happened to my comment I posted about 20 minutes ago.
El Jefe
January 13th, 2010
1:57 pm
Dunwoody Mike,
Food is not a human right, it is a commodity and required for human existence – but not a right.
We all believe those that can’t provide for themselves should get some assistance, but those that are too lazy or lacking in drive – it is their choice.
George
January 13th, 2010
2:37 pm
El Jefe- agreed. It is very common for people to say “free high quality health care for all”- it makes one feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I have found most who going around saying such dribble are the least responsible in their time and donations- note Al Gore and Pres. Obama in their charitable contributions-. Some even confuse the right to bear arms with the right to health care- simply missing the point that it is the right to BUY arms and therefore bear arms. I have no idea what is meant by “high quality health care for all” other than socialized medicine which means low quality/ “crowded” access. I challenge all that “hate” corporation to go a week without item or service provided by a corporation.
Dunwoody Mike
January 13th, 2010
2:52 pm
El Jefe,
Tell that to the millions of people that work their rumps off for years, only to lose their jobs because someone wanted to sqeeze out a little more profit by moving jobs offshore.
Tell that to the millions of people who want to improve their lives, but can not, as they can not afford to go to school or learn a trade.
Personally, I believe that anything that is needed for human existence-food, housing, a job, etc.-is a human right. To deny someone these items, or the ability to acheive these items, is repugnant.
Dunwoody Mike
January 13th, 2010
3:01 pm
George,
Would you like the overwhelming evidence that the European health care systems have a higher cost effectiveness, and have helped to contribute to longer life spans?
Richard
January 13th, 2010
3:12 pm
Dunwoody, socialized health care systems are much more cost effective because they ration care. America spends massive amounts to be #1 in responsiveness to patient demands, and absurd amounts to research and develop the absolute newest technologies and techniques. If we dropped every operation that cost over $100,000, every drug that cost over $100/day, and were willing to wait 6 months to see a specialist instead of a week or two, we could likely have lower costs (as % of GDP) than any other nation. The entire world would be worse off if the United States were no longer the early adopter of new health care techniques as there would be significantly less profit incentive to develop new technologies.
Now just think about how crazy America got about being told there is little benefit to justify the cost of regular mammograms 10 years earlier than the rest of the world provides them. Do you really think America wants rationed care? The alternative to rationed care is higher costs, which people also seem to dislike.
George
January 13th, 2010
3:13 pm
No- as usual a very insecure and leading way to ask a question. The US system in its basic form is more cost effective and higher quality. The US system becomes extremely flawed and ineffective with an inordinate number of “patients” on unnecessary prescriptions (viagra, pain pills, anti depressants,etc) and expecting the healthcare system to over come all of their problems. As to longer life spans, again too easy- do some research on stress, obesity, auto accidents, and get back to us.
You are obviously a ‘business is bad, government is good person”- bless you and good luck. I am done here- I tend to read the Economist and Financial Times v. this dribble.
Dunwoody Mike
January 13th, 2010
3:25 pm
George,
Business is bad, and so is government when it only exists to serve business.
Richard,
Health care in the US is already rationed. Look at the insurance companies and their pre-approval panels.
Alan
January 13th, 2010
3:38 pm
Peadawg, I look forward to your comments about CT’s blather everyday, Keep up the good work.
Richard
January 13th, 2010
3:46 pm
Dunwoody,
Health care is a limited supply product, so it is always rationed. I meant socialized systems that provide “cheaper” care ration care further than America’s system does. Our system is far from perfect, but the care received by the 85% of Americans who have insurance is far superior to most socialized systems. It is the fact that we permit 15% to fall through the cracks, and do not encourage healthy lifestyles, that makes us look so much worse in health care.
Why not just expand Medicaid to those who cannot afford insurance, and outlaw rescissions (but don’t require accepting pre-existing conditions)? That would fix most of the problems without all of the stupid things this bill will introduce, and would be much cheaper to boot.
George
January 13th, 2010
4:06 pm
Dunwoody Mike- exciting news- do tell how you made your computer to enter this blog using only Mother Earth-
Karen Kroczek
January 13th, 2010
4:45 pm
Health care is a right in this wealthy economy that provides education, fire protection and bail outs to bankers who have snookered the public via derivatives and a real estate market that was intended for suckers! How can you conservatives deny the social utility of a well-educated, healthy work force, even if you have no compassion or sense of concern for others in your society? Sick, stupid people who haven’t the skills, stamina or schema to produce efficiently have little to lose and they will make prey of us at the point where imprisonment seems less horrible then their current status. Those who truly annoy me clothe themselves in holy statements about moral character determining one’s right to survive. Had you heard that Rockefeller pursued the origins of southern doldrums and found the hook work at the root (and underwrote improved sanitation to end this)? Come up with some good alternatives that ensure universal health care at reasonable costs and I’ll consider your criticisms. At present, I perceive you to be wildly self-centered and short sighted. Under Bush our economy reached the brink of destruction — change is necessary and it must not be dog-eat-dog, pandering to the corporate elite who are sucking the life from the middle class.
George
January 13th, 2010
4:57 pm
Thanks for clearing that up for us Karen- must be fun to be so simpled minded where you can label everyone- the far right has a lot in common with the far left in that regard. No need to discuss- just judge and ridicule I suppose.
Raymond Grey
January 13th, 2010
5:00 pm
There is no moral difference between denying access to medical care to millions of Americans and herding the Jews of Warsaw into a ghetto. Walling people off from essential resources is a crime against their humanity.
George
January 13th, 2010
7:58 pm
That is an interesting analogy if it applied- non profit hospitals can’t deny coverage
Roy
January 13th, 2010
8:21 pm
Give me a reason why should I pay for someone else health care who smokes, drinks alcohol and is probably feeding junk food to the family? I watch what I eat, I know smoking is not good for my health and also know that alcohol can lead to health problems in long term.
Also why would I pay for some one who is below the income threshold because they made stupid choice growing up like watching too much football and drinking beer while some one else was working hard?
I agree that some people genuinely need healthcare like kids, elderly and people who have some medical condition that require resources that normal person can’t muster.
There got to be some way to filter out the true needy from the hoodlum liberal crowd. Taking money from the working people and putting in a pool for needy (lazy liberal) without any accountability is not a health care.
Title | Low Cost Health Insurance Coverage
January 13th, 2010
9:19 pm
[...] Health care reform will prove politically popular | Cynthia Tucker – But she’s by no means the only parent to worry about health insurance for adult children. The labor-force-entry period right after college has frequently been a time of low earnings and no benefits for young workers, who are routinely ….. Add to that a 250K cap on puntitive damages, the ability of insurance companies to sell paper across state lines and the elimination of health care for illegals. And none of the above would cost the American taxpayer a thin dime. … [...]
Low Cost Health Insurance Latest News | Low Cost Health Insurance Coverage
January 13th, 2010
9:28 pm
[...] Health care reform will prove politically popular | Cynthia Tucker – But she’s by no means the only parent to worry about health insurance for adult children. The labor-force-entry period right after college has frequently been a time of low earnings and no benefits for young workers, who are routinely ….. Add to that a 250K cap on puntitive damages, the ability of insurance companies to sell paper across state lines and the elimination of health care for illegals. And none of the above would cost the American taxpayer a thin dime. … [...]
Covington
January 15th, 2010
2:24 pm
Cynthia, you must have blinders on when it comes to what the polls say about the health care legislation. If the majority of people are against it, how can it be politcally popular?
Stuart
January 15th, 2010
10:18 pm
Bankrupt the country – are you kidding. What about the military? They are a socialist institution (government run) that we are forced to support. Does the military provide service based on what an individual is able to purchase or the size of the business they work fo? If you are afraid of terrorism maybe you should buy a protection plan from a private group. Terror is not having the ability to provide a life saving service or product for your self even when educated and working. So would the terrorist be the ones who support this type of system. How many Americans died because of lack of insurance versus those killed by terrorist. These are all American deaths.
If you do not support a system that is government run and protects the people of the United States because it is anti-capitalist, part of a nannie state or is an unfair burden on your lifestyle, etc, etc, re-examine your support of our troops, police, roads, national parks. I hope you do not consider “We the people” a liberal/socialist opinion too.
nationalobserver
January 15th, 2010
11:15 pm
No doubt Cynthia belongs to that very small minority of Americans who are still happy that they voted for Obama.
Obama is in bed with the insurance companies, which is why the goal of this health “reform” bill is to to FORCE Americans to buy an insurance product.
IF this bill becomes law, it will be found UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and the Dems will be kicked out on their butts.
Charles
January 16th, 2010
3:39 am
THIS STAND YOU HAVE ON TODAY’S TOPIC DOES NOT , AND IS NOT WORTHY OF ANY COMMENT……….~~~““““““““~~~~~~~~~~~~~!!!!!!!!!!
Mel
January 18th, 2010
3:01 pm
Obama is right were he should be after he’s first year. Look what he started with and he did tell American recovery will take time. Remember it was the biggest crisis in how long.
And Heath Care Reform is supported by both parties…finally the republicans realize they can not stand in the way of progress, they support it but of course want to make changes. If they have better ideas…great!! Tell us. Maybe they did and I missed it.
One thing the new administration clearly did not anticipate was that Republicans in Congress would be so consistently and unanimously obstructionist — or that Democrats would have to be introduced to the alien concept of party discipline. It took the White House too long to realize that bipartisanship does not exist.
If our President succeeds so does America. I wish George Bush had been Successful. Unfortunately for everyone in this country, Bush left us with banks in collapse, two costly wars, one drowned city, skyrocketing healthcare, a doubled national deficit, and on and on.
I think it’s a shame President Bush didn’t leave office with our country in a state of prosperity. I think it’s unfortunate the new President has such a Herculean task to overcome. But I hope he succeeds. Regardless of political affiliation, to hope for anything else truly is unAmerican
.
Turds Everywhere
January 19th, 2010
12:22 pm
Ms. Tucker,
Once again, you prove your ignorance. For those that say health care is blind to color, you prove once again this is false. I’ll never understand you or peeps like you. Our country was built on capitalism and freedom. This bill ignores both…and raises the costs to those who already pay to much. True health care reform begins with tort reform, which will never happen with Obobo the Clown in office.