A Way Forward on Healthcare
- Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 7:25
- Iowa, News Center
- 371 views
- 24 comments
Written by Will Rogers
Over the past few weeks the Obama Administration and Congress have unveiled their plans to overhaul healthcare. However, as the political rhetoric between special interest groups and political parties has begun to reach a fever pitch, I have come to the realization that the single most important element of reform has been left out of the discussion thus far.
Obama has proposed a plan that includes a role for government, insurance companies, drug manufacturers, private businesses, hospitals, and medical professionals. Unfortunately, the fact that all of these groups are involved does not automatically mean that real transformation will take place. If Obama wants to have true healthcare reform, he must put the power of decision-making back in the hands of the consumer.
The fact is that most of our healthcare decisions are being made for us. If you are insured, your healthcare is determined by doctors, hospitals, or insurance companies—and the decisions being made are all driven by one thing: profit. On the other hand, if you are uninsured or rely on some form of public healthcare coverage, the decisions regarding your healthcare are being made by the government, doctors, and hospitals—and are driven by cost. Neither one of these situations necessarily creates bad decisions for a patient, but they do not create a consumer-driven healthcare system.
This is not to say that government does not have a role in healthcare reform. In fact, the government has an essential role in creating a meaningful transformation in our healthcare system.
Simply put, if government wants real reform, it needs to put the power of change in the hands of the consumer. This can be accomplished by creating a system of transparency and competition in the marketplace.
One example of how the government can help foster transparency and competition to create consumer driven healthcare, can be found in the state of Florida. Six years ago, Florida was dealing with a medical crisis of its own. Due to a multi-decade long migration of senior citizens to the Sunshine State, prescription drug costs spiraled out of control and resulted in huge increases in Florida’s state budget as it attempt to keep up with benefits for its citizens.
Florida’s solution to this problem was not having the government take over the pharmaceutical industry and local drugstores, however. Instead, the solution created by the state’s leadership was to introduce transparency and competition into the market place.
Florida accomplished this by setting up a website called www.myfloridarx.com. The website works like this. After a doctor gives you a prescription and before you go have it filled, you visit the myfloridarx website. The website gives the user access to a database of prescription drugs, a list of the pharmacies in their area that carry that prescription, and what each pharmacy charges to fill the prescription. At the time of the website’s creation, the difference in price for a prescription at one pharmacy versus another was, in some cases, only a few dollars, while in other cases it was the difference between $4 at one store versus $44 at another store.
As the state of Florida expressed in the creation of the website, “Most pharmacies do not advertise or even display drug prices. This website was developed…to help consumers shop for the lowest price in their area.” By creating a market that was now transparent, consumers had the power to make informed decisions and had real power when it came to making decisions.
One of the initial reactions from some critics to myfloridarx was that it favored pharmacy chains like Walmart, CVS, and Walgreens with large purchasing power, and would put the locally owned pharmacies out of business. In reality, the result was just the opposite. It forced the small drug stores to get leaner and negotiate with drug companies for the same wholesale prices that the chain stores were getting.
The results from the myfloridarx website were astonishing. In less than one year, the price of prescription drugs in the state of Florida decreased by nearly 40%.
Using this same model, Florida has created a new website that creates further transparency and competition in the market place by examining other areas of healthcare such as medical procedures, testing, and services. The new website,
The lesson to be learned from Florida’s example is simple. By informing and empowering consumers to make decisions about their healthcare, most of the issues surrounding healthcare can be resolved without having government take over the healthcare system.
About the Author
The Iowa Republican has written 272 stories on this site.
24 Comments on “A Way Forward on Healthcare”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Good article Will. That’s more like it. Insurance companies suck because of the degree of government involvement already. More competion is the key, not less competition. The D’s plan will make the current situation worse by a factor of at least 10. It just takes what is already wrong about insurance companies and the system and makes it just bigger.
This whole scheme of theirs is nothing more than Ted Kennedy’s 1973 HMO Act Part Deux Times 10 to Infinity. They used the same rationale they are using today (preventive care cures all ills) to sell HMO’s back then and 35 years later we find their claims did not come true. Did they lie? Did they make it up? Why should we believe them now?
Consumer driven healthcare and health care financing is the key to reform – not employer driven, not government driven, not hospital system driven.
I want to buy a high deductible plan that pays 100% for major issues like transplants, heart surgery, accident or injury, hospitalizations, ambulence etc and shop for my well care, sore throats and flu care etc. I can’t buy such a thing cuz the government says I can’t do that. If insurance companies could develop products driven by consumers without government interference other than reasonable oversight, everyone would win.
I hope you sent your column to our entire delegation in DC.
Rassmussen has an article today on this very topic. It’s written by a woman who’s husband had to go before the HMO version of the death panel. They were insured by an HMO. Her story is what is wrong with healthcare currently. It is not driven by the patient or the doctor, but by the panel – who are not doctors and have a self – interest in saying NO. I recall the motivational chart at my HMO that tallied the successes in saying NO to procedures. The person with the most money saving NO’s won the prize for the month as the best employee.
This woman’s story will happen under the “reform” as currently presented. They just took Kennedy’s old bill and updated the numbers. If they got rid of all these review (death) panels, the nursing shortage could be solved too. The nurses that currently tell Drs how to practice medicine would have to go back into health care rather than being a denial of care bureaucrat.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_froma_harrop/free_market_death_panels
so let me get this straight, the solution is to just set up a website and find who offers the cheapest care for your medical care??? Yes because, when it comes to healthcare, People are going to look for the cheapest care possible, not the best, but the cheapest. This has got to be the dumbest solution put forward yet. Hey look at this bargain basement chemo treatment, I think I will but my life in their hands. Standard prescription drugs are one thing, Xanax is Xanax, that isn’t how it works for medical care.
I find it funny that there ever illogical esther wants more competiton in the market place, just not the government be the competition, the only entity that would be not for profit, not have shareholders to answer too, no multimillion dollar CEOs, and won’t collude with other competitors, because this would be bad for competiton and “free market.”
Silence
Yeah, because the government has done such a wonderful job of regulating the industry why don’t we let them begin operating a health care plan. Talk about a recipe for disaster. I have a better idea, why don’t we get some common sense regulations. Such as do away with the employer based healthcare subsidies. Eliminate any and all taxes on health services. Allow the public to shop for their own insurance plan that best suits their needs even if that means purchasing insurance from an company in another state.
Silence,
While your remarks are simply following the vociferous and pedantic arguments being advanced by the very liberals attempting to take over healthcare, your shallow and mundane remarks afford me the opportunity to further argue my position.
One of the best examples of how the “free market” has worked in controlling costs is in the area of elective surgery. As the word implies, “elective” surgeries are paid for by the consumer, and are not paid for by insurance, the government, or typically any other third party provider.
When someone is looking to have elective surgery two intrinsic free market values are at work: 1. the consumer is looking for the best surgery at the lowest price. 2. and if there are more than one provider of the elective surgery-competition between providers occurs.
Take for example LASIK eye surgery. Roughly a decade ago in the Des Moines area there were only one or two doctors that performed this surgery. Subsequently, the doctors and clinics performing LASIK could charge a hefty fee-somewhere around $5,000. And as an elective surgery, consumers were responsible for paying the cost of this surgery out-of-pocket.
Now under the government-insurance model of healthcare, the cost of LASIK should have gone up 10-20 % a year for the last 10 years. But since free market forces are at work instead of the government, the cost has actually gone down. In fact, you can get LASIK procedure done for under $1000.
And why did the price go down instead of up…..because the consumer is the one in charge.
Back in the day when we were free – and quite a while before Algore invented the internet – and before Ted Kennedy infected the system with his mini government controlled health plan prototype, the 1973 HMO Act and quite a while before state governments started getting themselves involved in health care financing (small group health ‘reform’) etc, the consumer could buy just about any kind of product that suited their particular financial needs.
HSM/MM was a really good thing. It paid for high dollar expenses and not so much for low dollar expenses. I think those are illegal now.
Now, you get full dollar coverage for low dollar expenses and about 50% coverage for high dollar expenses. It’s stupid. It doesn’t work and it bankrupts people when something big happens, like a translant or heart surgery.
That didn’t used to happen back in the days when we were free. State Governments created the problem we have now due to their tinkering in something they know nothing about.
No one bought products on the internet, yet you you could price shop for coverage. There were more companies in the game. Now, there is almost no competition in pricing because state governments pretty much price control it.
Consumers have no control whatsoever. They have no choice in health plan because their employer chooses it, changes it and controls what is charged to the employee. Obama is lying when he says you can keep your plan – you don’t have that choice now, let alone under an obama plan.
Why are democrats against free choice unless it involves killing your unborn child? That seems to be the only place where they feel human beings can be in charge of themselves. Every other decision must be made by the state.
Al – the entire government is Not for Profit. Your point makes no sense. How is it that liberals have never come to understand the difference between apples and oranges.
Obama says you can keep your physician. that is another lie.
I can only keep my physician if my physician belongs to a network and that network works with the insurance company that my employer chooses when they choose my health plan. I don’t really have a choice to use that physician if he leaves the network my employer chooses for me.
A local HMO may employ about 200 people. Of that number, there are approx 50 nurses approving or denying procedures. About 50 people answering the phones from customers who are calling in to get permission to get health care. Another 30 or so are working on contracts with physicians for the network – reimbursement rates, adminstrative rules provisions about appeals, etc. Another 20 or so visit doctor offices to ‘inspect’ them for compliance to the cook book procedures, looking at patient records, teaching them how to work through the various bureaucracies associated with compliance to the rules of the HMO, etc. The Dr’s offices have 2-5 folks dedicated to working through insurance company bureacracy as it relates to getting approval from nurses at the HMO for procedures, to get permission to refer a patient to a specialist, or to a hospital or any kind of care. etc. There is a medical doctor on staff at a medical doctor salary who tries to deny claims to save the plan money. He works on appeals for denials of things like transplants – (always due to them being experimental). So, how much does all that cost and has absolutely nothing to do with delivering health care.
This is exactly how the obama plan would work but on a massive scale. The obama plan comes with an additional work force of 150,000 people. These are not doctors. These are not nurses. These are adminstrators and bureaucrats who will be working on your behalf to reduce your health care costs. Well, just how they gonna do that by adding on 150,000 more people to oversee your healthcare? There is no other way but rationing. They just can’t get around it.
Will, your idea of free market in health care is ignorant at best, as I pointed out before, people are not going to shop for the cheapest care when it comes to their health. Additionally, your “ideas” which aren’t yours, still won’t cover people who simply can’t afford it, employer doesn’t provide it, lost their jobs etc. Plus, you miss that fact that groups can get better rates than individuals. Your “ideas” are a complete red herring and a non solution to very serious problems.
You are corrct on one point, many of the “issues” people are complaining about with the various reform plans can and do happen right now, it is just there is no other option at this time for people to go on, so they are really not reasons to not have a public option for people to go on. Plus, it is create real competiton on the market place instead of the collusion going on now, and force private insurance to offer real competitive options to stay in business instead of screwing the public over like they do now.
Silence
Today’s Obamacare “health insurance reform,” like the Clinton health care “reform” of 1993, was driven by Kennedy’s lifelong obsession to nationalize American health care.
A supporter of Medicare in 1965, Kennedy assured the nation that the taxpayer cost of care for our 3.9 million elderly would not exceed $4 billion a year. This year, 45 million beneficiaries cost almost $500 billion.
The “crisis” of cancer was the stated reason for Kennedy’s National Cancer Act of 1971, which promised millions of dollars for cancer research and produced a gravy train of grants to favored institutions and very little progress in curing cancer.
As the author of the HMO Act of 1973, Kennedy spoke in 1978 to the Senate in support of amendments strengthening the HMO law. He praised HMOs for delivering high quality care at 20 to 25 percent less cost than “fee for service” providers.
By 2001, HMOs were not enough government regulation of medical care. In that year, Kennedy authored a “Patients’ Bill of Rights” condemning HMOs as “second-rate care” and calling for an end to “abuses in managed care.” Only full government control of medical care would do. —
the HMO’s were able to deliver ‘care’ at a 20-25% discount because they were supported initially by tax dollars. They bullied doctors into accepting lower reimbursement rates than they got from non HMO plans by threatening them that unless they joined the group, they would lose their practices. Tthey required ‘panels’ to approve procedures Drs thought necessary for their patients. Employers were forced to offer HMO’s alongside their current healthplan to “compete” against the private plans. Since the premiums for the HMO were artificially priced to be 20-25% lower than the private plans, the private plans went away. Now, you can’t find an insurance plan that does not behave like an HMO. They just call them PPO’s.
Ted Kennedy gave birth to the ‘evil’ insurance companies that Democrats now blame on republicans. Democrats made them and now complain about them. But, it was all part of a master plan that continues to roll over America like The Blob from horrer pictures past.
“A supporter of Medicare in 1965, Kennedy assured the nation that the taxpayer cost of care for our 3.9 million elderly would not exceed $4 billion a year. This year, 45 million beneficiaries cost almost $500 billion. ”
Ever hear of inflation and cost of living increases esther??? You can’t possibly think that kennedy meant it would stay ab 4 billion for ever. Funny, I saw this crap on fox, way to regurgitate the talking points esther.
Silence
HMO’s got in between the dr and the patient. They rationed care. They reduced reimbursement rates to drs. Dr’s began to close their practices from accepting new patients from HMO’s causing access and waiting time issues for care. The (death) panel approved Dr list often showed that a large number would not take you as a new patient. Only current patients were allowed in.
All the things that the public is fearing is based on what they already know about how current health care plan use (death) panels to ration care, deny coverage for needed procedures and saw wait time for services increase.
The HMO’s never lived up to what Ted Kennedy promised. They lied. They want to do it again on a bigger scale. The 1973 HMO Act needs repealed. How about we start there and see how that works out.
Silence – take your argument to today’s blathering by the oby gang about cost and then explain the difference between those promises and today. Did you see the CBO report regarding the next 10 years and how much that’s going to increase over time? The point is – you can’t believe anything that comes out of a democrats mouth with respect to costs of anything the government does. It’s always sold and being more efficient and less costly, but it never turns out that way. Just how many times do you think we are going to fall for that? You guys are like Charlie Brown thinking Lucy is really going to let him kick the football.
I see why you guys are called the Victim Party. You are just a bunch of Charlie Browns and your leaders are all Lucy’s.
In fact, it would be fitting to repeal the 1973 HMO Act before Ted Kennedy dies so he ends up, wherevever he ends up in the afterlife, knowing his evil plan to nationalize healthcare died before him. Good Riddance Senator Kennedy.
First, medicare, now HMOs, can you ever stay on any point. You can repeal the HMO act, doesn’t mean they will go away, if the insurance companies like the structure they will keep it. You have to lower costs and provide a government option to create real competition. It is estimated that 250 billion is wasted a year on administrative costs to health care providers for having to fight with health care insurance companies for payment and pre authorization, not to mention anothe 250 billion on unnecessary testing, most of which is done because that is how doctors make more money. These would be two key areas to focus to reduce costs.
Silence
Nice esther, cheering for a person to die, I thought you were pro life, apparently you are selectively pro life. Yes, very evil to want to provide healthcare to everyone (even if you think it is misguided, it is far from evil), in fact, ted kennedy sounds far more pro life than you esther, he actually cares about people’s health after they are born, unlike you.
Silence
Busy as always defending the insurance industry, Esther saiz: “I see why you guys are called the Victim Party. You are just a bunch of Charlie Browns and your leaders are all Lucy’s.”
Ehh, CB and L are OK, just so’s we never end up with our party being led by a couple angry egos like Limbuggerer and Palin.
Kennedy die?, esther you’re disgusting.
Con Dem, it is always interesting with people like esther, they try to sound rational, but in the end, they can’t control their crap and the crazy, nasty truth about them shines through. You know, I don’t like rush or palin, but I certainly don’t wish illness or death on them.
Now for the rational people, here are some stats from pricewaterhouse on where savings can be made in the healthcare system to help offset the cost of a public option. Last time I check, pricewaterhouse is not exactly know as some liberal group.
Silence
More than $1.2 trillion spent on health care each year is a waste of money. Members of the medical community identify the leading causes.
Down the drain: $1.2 trillion.
That’s half of the $2.2 trillion the United States spends on health care each year, according to the most recent data from accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Health Research Institute.
What counts as waste? The report identified 16 different areas in which health care dollars are squandered. But in talking to doctors, nurses, hospital groups and patient advocacy groups, six areas totaling nearly $500 billion stood out as issues to be dealt with in the health care reform debate.
Too Many Tests
More from CNNMoney.com:
• U.S. Doctor Shortage: Who Should Fill It?
• Free Medical School for 40 Lucky Students
• Family Doctors: An Endangered Breed
Doctors ordering tests or procedures not based on need but concern over liability or increasing their income is the biggest waste of health care dollars, costing the system at least $210 billion a year, according to the report. The problem is called “defensive medicine.”
“Sometimes the motivation is to avoid malpractice suits, or to make more money because they are compensated more for doing more,” said Dr. Arthur Garson, provost of the University of Virginia and former dean of its medical school. “Many are also convinced that doing more tests is the right thing to do.”
“But any money that is spent on a patient that doesn’t improve the outcome is a waste,” said Garson.
Some conservatives have suggested that capping malpractice awards would help solve the problem.
President Obama doesn’t agree; instead, his reform proposal encourages doctors to practice “evidence-based” guidelines as a way to scale back on unnecessary tests.
Those Annoying Claim Forms
Inefficient claims processing is the second-biggest area of wasteful expenditure, costing as much as $210 billion annually, the PricewaterhouseCoopers report said.
More from Yahoo! Finance:
• 5 Freedoms You’d Lose in Health Care Reform
• What Health Reform Means for You
• Is the U.S. Becoming More Like Europe?
——————————————————————————–
Visit the Insurance Center
“We spend a lot of time and money trying to get paid by insurers,” said Dr. Terry McGenney, a Kansas City, Mo.-based family physician.
“Every insurance company has its own forms,” McGenney said. “Some practices spend 40% of their revenue filling out paperwork that has nothing to do with patient care. So much of this could be automated.”
Dr. Jason Dees, a family doctor in a private practice based in New Albany, Miss., said his office often resubmits claims that have been “magically denied.”
“That adds to our administrative fees, extends the payment cycle and hurts our cash flow,” he said.
Dees also spends a lot of time getting “pre-certification” from insurers to approve higher-priced procedures such as MRIs. “We’re already operating on paper-thin margins and this takes times away from our patients,” he said.
Susan Pisano, spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, said “hundreds of billions” of dollars can be saved by standardizing procedures and using technology — something the White House has mentioned as a key to health care reform.
“For that to happen, we need the technology,” she said. “Doctors and hospitals must adopt the technology, and we have to develop rules for exchanging of information between doctors, hospitals and health plans.”
Pisano said the industry is launching a pilot program later this year that will allow physicians to communicate with all health plans using a standardized process.
Using the ER as a Clinic
More insured and uninsured consumers are getting their primary care in emergency rooms, wasting $14 billion every year in health care spending.
“This is an inappropriate use of the ER,” said Dee Swanson, president of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners. “You don’t go to the ER for strep throat.”
Since emergency rooms are legally obligated to treat all patients, Swanson said providers ultimately find ways to pass on the cost for treating the uninsured to other patients, such as to those who pay out-of-pocket for their medical care.
Dees also took issue with consumers who don’t get primary care for their diabetes or blood pressure on a timely basis, hence finding themselves in the ER.
“Going to the doctor for strep throat would cost $65-$70. In the ER, it’s $600 to $800,” he said.
The $787 billion stimulus bill signed passed by President Obama earlier this year includes allocates $1 billion for a wellness and prevention fund, including $300 million for immunizations and $650 million for prevention programs to combat the rapid growth in chronic diseases such as obesity and diabetes.
Medical “Oops”
Medical errors are costing the industry $17 billion a year in wasted expenses, something that makes patient advocacy groups irate.
“Do we have a good health IT system in place to prevent this?” asked Kim Bailey, senior health policy analyst with consumer advocacy group Families USA.
Bailey suggested that processes such as computerized order entry for drugs and use of electronic health records (EHR) could help ensure that patients get the correct dosage of medications in hospitals.
The stimulus bill calls for the government to take a leading role in developing standards by 2010 to facilitate the adoption of health information exchanges across the system, including patient electronic health records by 2014.
Obama has repeatedly said that the use of technology in the health sector will help boost savings, enhance the coordination of care and reduce medical errors and unnecessary procedures.
Going Back to the Hospital
Bailey suggested that processes such as computerized order entry for drugs and use of electronic health records (EHR) could help ensure that patients get the correct dosage of medications in hospitals. Discharging patients too soon is a “huge waste of money,” said Swanson.
“This happens a lot with elderly patients who are discharged prematurely because of insurance, bed unavailability or ageism,” she said.
Many times, patients also don’t follow instructions for care after discharge. “So complications arise and they are readmitted in a week,” Swanson said.
PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates the cost of preventable hospital readmissions at $25 billion annually.
Among the reform plans, one proposal being considered is for Medicare to potentially penalize hospitals who readmit patients within 30 days of discharge.
You Forgot to Wash Your Hands!
Those ubiquitous dispensers of hand sanitizer are in hospitals for a reason: PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that about $3 billion is wasted every year as a result of infections acquired during hospital stays.
“The general belief is that hospitals are getting much better in managing this than they have in the past,” said Richard Clarke, CEO of Healthcare Financial Management Association, whose members include hospitals and managed care organizations.
Something as simple as hand-washing often can reduce the problem.
“Sometimes doctors are the most difficult people to convince to do this,” said Clarke. “The challenge here is that patients sometimes come in with infections which then spread in the hospital.”
The stimulus bill signed by Obama earlier this year includes $50 million for reducing health care-associated infections.
Other areas of waste identified in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report included up to $493 billion related to risky behavior such as smoking, obesity and alcohol abuse, $21 billion in staffing turnover, $4 billion in prescriptions written on paper, and $1 billion in the over-prescribing of antibiotics.
Silence
Here is another little tidbit for the “free market” theory people. People keep screaming over the alleged elimination of the medicare advantage programs, but they are the perfect example of how more “competition” and free market drives cost down argument is a bunch of crap. This program just turned out to be a giveaway to private companies to run government programs that the government eventually proved to run better, more efficiently, and more honestly for seniors.
Silence
The study, done by George Washington University professor Brian Biles, estimates that the average Medicare Advantage client will cost taxpayers $1,074 more in 2007.
The program was designed to reduced costs, largely through increased competition.
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent group that advises Congress, recently reported that the government pays 12 percent more on average to private Medicare plans than to treat comparable beneficiaries through traditional Medicare.
Elimination of excessive subsidies to the program would save nearly $150 billion in 10 years, which could improve total Medicare coverage and lower prescription drug costs, Obama said.
That is 12% more to treat the healthiest senior citizens, because they are the ones the private companies cherry picked to be on the plans that they administered and got paid set rates for for the treatment offered, that is, if the people could find treaters to take the coverage, often a problem as treaters didn’t want to put up with the private provider, like trying to dodge paying for the treatments.
Silence
Now here’s the _real_ truth about the health care squabble in Congress.
Taken from The Onion
I cleaned up one “F-word” and hope I didn’t miss any others. If I did, I apologize in advance.
——————
Congress Deadlocked Over How To Not Provide Health CareAugust 18, 2009 | Issue 45•34
Leaders on both sides of the aisle try to hammer out an agreement on screwing over Americans.
Article Tools
Digg Facebook Stumbleupon via @TheOnion – Congress Deadlocked Over How To Not Provide Health Care Twitter Reddit Email
To:
From:
Print Related ArticlesCongress Allocates $1.4 Billion For Development Of Inner-City Youths’ Rhyming, Dribbling Skills
03.04.98
Nevada Gaming Commission Lobbies Congress For Just $20 Million ‘Til Friday
08.23.00
Related MediaSlideshow: Congress
08.18.09
Onion News Network: Study: Most Children Strongly Opposed To Children’s Healthcare
06.17.08
WASHINGTON—After months of committee meetings and hundreds of hours of heated debate, the United States Congress remained deadlocked this week over the best possible way to deny Americans health care.
“Both parties understand that the current system is broken,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Monday. “But what we can’t seem to agree upon is how to best keep it broken, while still ensuring that no elected official takes any political risk whatsoever. It’s a very complicated issue.”
“Ultimately, though, it’s our responsibility as lawmakers to put these differences aside and focus on refusing Americans the health care they deserve,” Pelosi added.
The legislative stalemate largely stems from competing ideologies deeply rooted along party lines. Democrats want to create a government-run system for not providing health care, while Republicans say coverage is best denied by allowing private insurers to make it unaffordable for as many citizens as possible.
“We have over 40 million people without insurance in this country today, and that is unacceptable,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said. “If we would just quit squabbling so much, we could get that number up to 50 or even 100 million. Why, there’s no reason we can’t work together to deny health care to everyone but the richest 1 percent of the population.”
“That’s what America is all about,” he added.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said on Meet The Press that Republicans would never agree to a plan that doesn’t allow citizens the choice to be denied medical care in the private sector.
“Americans don’t need some government official telling them they don’t have the proper coverage to receive treatment,” Boehner said. “What they need is massive insurance companies to become even more rich and powerful by withholding from average citizens the care they so desperately require. We’re talking about people’s health and the obscene profits associated with that, after all.”
Though there remain irreconcilable points, both parties have reached some common ground in recent weeks. Senate leaders Harry Reid (D-NV) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) point to Congress’ failure to pass legislation before a July 31 deadline as proof of just how serious lawmakers are about stringing along the American people and never actually reforming the health care industry in any meaningful way.
“People should know that every day we are working without their best interests in mind,” Reid said. “But the goal here is not to push through some watered-down bill that only denies health care to a few Americans here and a few Americans there. The goal is to recognize that all Americans have a God-given right to proper medical attention and then make sure there’s no chance in hell that ever happens.”
“No matter what we come up with,” Reid continued, “rest assured that millions of citizens will remain dangerously uninsured, and the inflated health care industry will continue to bankrupt the country for decades.”
Other lawmakers stressed that, while there has been some progress, the window of cooperation was closing.
“When you get into the nuts and bolts of how best not to provide people with care essential to their survival, there are many things to take into consideration,” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said. “I believe we can create a plan for Americans that allows them to not be able to go to the hospital, not get the treatment they need, and ultimately whither away and die. But we’ve got to act fast.”
For his part, President Barack Obama claimed to be optimistic, even saying he believes that a health care denial bill will pass in both houses of Congress by the end of the year.
“We have an opportunity to do something truly historic in 2009,” Obama said to a mostly silent crowd during a town hall meeting in Virginia yesterday. “I promise I will only sign a clear and comprehensive health care bill that fully denies coverage to you, your sick mother, her husband, middle-class Americans, single-parent households, the unemployed, and most importantly, anyone in need of emergency medical attention.”
“This administration is committed to not providing health care,” Obama added. “Not just for this generation of Americans, but for many generations to come.”