A Giant Leap For Universal Healthcare

The more I read about the president’s healthcare proposal, the more exciting it sounds. But don’t panic when you read the first part of this from Steve Benen:

The administration seems well aware of the fact that a $634 billion over 10 years would not cover literally everyone. Neera Tanden, a top Obama health adviser, acknowledged, “We know that this is not enough to achieve our overall goal of getting health care for every American, but it is a significant down payment.”

It is, indeed. And while the down payment may only be the first step, this isn’t incrementalism — it’s a significant step forward.

And he can do this. As Benen details, the president is making sure to include Congress in the development of the plan, something the Clintons didn’t do in 1994. And he’s already figured out how to pay for it.

This entry was posted in Healthcare and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • blueblood

    Yes but Medicare today costs $450 Billion every year, and covers 40 million citizens.Today they process 1.2 Billion claims a year.That’s 3 million a day.Annually, $70 Billion in fraud.There are 300 million citizens, do the math.Trillions, annually. Personally, I alreadyhave been paying $100 a month for medicarefor 20 years, and I’m not even covered. Ipay for my own insurance, which is about$250 a month.Seniors pay Medicare too. Somethings not quiteright here.Do you trust that government really cares aboutbeing profitable and efficient?

  • http://www.politicalpartypooper.wordpress.com/ politicalpartypooper

    Bob,Do you know where (or if) we can find some details on the actual plan? I read the article you linked to, but it doesn’t mention any details except a growing fund to pay for a plan. Are there any details available yet?

  • midad

    Good points BB.My husband is disabled and has been on Medicare since he was 55 and he also pays for a supplement. Because I have an FSA (flexible spending acct) through work we are able to save a little on his rxs. His meds run close to 15,000 per year. With the FSA and the Medicare donut hole, we are making it.That said, he does get excellent access to health care with Medicare. I pay 100.00 per month for health care through my job, with a high deductible and a copay for office visits and Rx. Because of the high deductible and copay amts, I do without wellness checks. I know I shouldn’t. With some kind of plan like Medicare in force for younger Americans, perhaps I wouldn’t have to. Haven’t had a mammogram in 6 years, even though my mother died from breast cancer.I don’t know what the answer is. When it comes to health care, I feel like our country is moving towards 3rd world status. Most people I know who are my age (55) have no intention of retiring at 65. Fact is I don’t really want to. We should not be penalized if we want to continue working. So it is not really like you will have all these baby boomers sittin around on the beach! We are going to be working, paying taxes.SOMETHING has to be done about Medicare fraud. That task force should be fully funded. Maybe if citizens filed their own claims, that would help. It’s just so easy to let someone else do it. And that is where the fraud comes in. I refuse to shop at Walgreens anymore since insurance fraud was reported to be rampant throughout their corporation.I have so much hope invested in this President, rightfully so I believe. We gotta change something.

  • ThinkFirst

    Why not try lowering the cost of medical education, which costs about $300,000?And reducing the cost of malpractice insurance?Obviously these costs are reflected in the price of medical help. Which is reflected in the price of medical insurance.

  • camel54

    Fraud is an issue that must be addressed seriously, but it cannot be a reason to not cover everyone. It’s frustrating to see people take advantage of my money to doctor shop. Still, I do not grudge the system (in this case specifically I’m referring to TennCare and now CoverTN) for what those people are doing. There are a lot of people who benefit from those programs. I am happy, downright thrilled to know that there are kids out there who are able to see a primary care physician on a regular basis on my dime.Not just kids, adults who actually need it. Even the ones who vote red and complain that Dems are socialists and are seeing doctors while I pick up a fraction of their tab. I don’t care. I would rather people have a chance to live a life they can enjoy instead of one rife with fear because of their health or a loved one’s health. So, yes, address the fraud viciously, but don’t use that as an excuse. People need help and we all benefit from the help they receive.

  • ElMystico

    >>>Do you trust that government really cares aboutbeing profitable and efficient?Well, I think the head of our government cares about being efficient, and I think he understands how being smart and thorough and using modern technology to its fullest extent can help us be more efficient, in providing medical help and reducing fraud.Do I think the government cares about being profitable…Well, that’s the thing. They don’t have to turn a dime on this one. And they shouldn’t. In fact, if there’s anything where the profit motive should be taken out of the equation, it’s healthcare. HMOs and insurance companies do their best not to provide service so that they can make a higher profit margin, and that’s not okay with me. Half the bankruptcies in this country are because of medical bills, which basically amounts to penalizing someone for saving their own life.So I guess my interest in the government ‘being profitable’ in this situation is pretty effing minimal.

  • SpendMore

    “So I guess my interest in the government ‘being profitable’ in this situation is pretty effing minimal”Typical fucked in the head liberal statement.This means the government has no incentive to keep costs under control, as evidenced in MediCare.Which means these costs get passed down to us.And we’ve seen they could care less about that.Sure, they talk about it, but do nothing butum, spend more.Have you seen the latest budget numbers?

  • ElMystico

    >>>This means the government has no incentive to keep costs under control, as evidenced in MediCare.Wow, I guess putting means in bold means it really means something!The governments interest in keeping cost down is the same as a corporations, just substitute ‘angry constituents’ for ‘shareholders.’ I want costs to be kept down as much as is possible, and for it to be the most efficient possible.This has nothing to do with profitability, but hey if you want a guy who gets paid more to deny claims than to pass them on weighing in on your medical decisions, then that’s awesome for you. Denying lots of claims probably cuts down on fraud too! Because that only costs private healthcare insurers 30 billion dollars a year, a cost which they’re all too happy to pass onto the other customers whose medical treatment they provide (provided it’s not too expensive).Speaking of passing costs down, medicare administrative costs amount to 2-3 cents on the healthcare dollar, where private and employer based health care pays 9-15 cents on the dollar to administration.>>>Have you seen the latest budget numbers?I was just starting to look through the President’s proposed budget. Is there anything in particular you’d like to direct me to in there, or just like…the ‘numbers?’

  • MZ

    Well, blueblood/SpendMore, if government delivery of health care is so inefficient and costly, why does the US spend more per capita on health care than any other country – way more (over 50% more than Switzerland, which is #2). What’s the difference? Do other countries not have any corrupt people? Do people in other countries not get sick?Seems to me that universal health care SAVES money.

  • http://www.weeklypoint.com Dan D

    If the $634 Billion is any indication of Obama’s health care plan, Obama is planning a radical change in the health care system. The plan has not yet been laid out and already Obama is earmarking more than half a trillion for it and explaining that it will just be the beginning of what will be necessary.One of the reasons that health care seems to be so expensive (among many others) is the cost of research and development in order to procure new treatments and drugs.At the moment the health care industry has a significant incentive to pour money into research and development because of the possibility of making money. What will happen when this incentive is marginalized when the government has taken over the health care system? Will our advancements slow down or even cease?http://www.weeklypoint.com/2009/02/26/obama-budget-plans-634-billion-down-payment-for-health-care-reform/

  • midad

    I have heard this argument before, but seriously, when was the last time we actually cured something?