Health Care: The White House and the Unions Have a Deal

Health care legislation took a major step toward the finish line today, when the White House and congressional leaders reached a deal on one of the major remaining issues: a proposal, known was the Cadillac tax, to impose a 40% levy on expensive insurance policies. Indeed, it was with the end in sight–and the prospect of a difficult midterm election season to come–that President Obama journeyed to Capitol Hill to declare to House Democrats: “If Republicans want to campaign against what we’ve done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have.”

Where Obama until recently has stayed out of the details of negotiations over the bill, preferring to let Congress sort them out, he has been far more closely involved in recent days. There have been a series of marathon sessions with House and Senate Democratic leaders this week at the White House. And Obama had served notice to labor leaders at a meeting on Monday that the excise tax was something he would insist upon. Unions had estimated that between 3 million and 4 million of their members would be among the 31 million Americans hit by the tax by 2016.

Obama is supporting the tax not only because it would raise a lot of money that would go toward covering the uninsured, but also because it is a measure that many economists argue could do a lot toward reining in the forces that have been driving up medical costs. The compromise version agreed upon today, however, included a number of modifications aimed at winning labor’s support. Among them:

* A five-year exemption from the tax for policies that were arrived at through collective bargaining, and for those that cover state and local employees.

* An increase in the threshold at which plans would be subject to the tax, to $24,000 for family policies (the original version passed by the Senate would have set it at $23,000) and $8,900 for individual policies (compared to $8,500 in the Senate-passed version).

* An exemption for dental and vision costs, beginning in 2015–a provision that union leaders say could add as much as $2,000 to the threshold at which plans would be taxed.

* Adjustments for policies that cover a disproportionate number of women and older workers–both of whom have higher health costs.

In a conference call with reporters, union leaders also said they had reached a deal on another point that could have far-reaching effects: Unionized workers would be allowed to enter the health insurance exchanges–new marketplaces where consumers could shop among a variety of insurance plans–beginning in 2017. Previously, those exchanges were to be open primarily to the uninsured and to small businesses. White House officials were more vague about this aspect of the deal, with one saying: “The exchange discussions are ongoing.”

The deal signficantly reduced the amount of money that would be raised by the tax. Where the original version would have generated $150 billion over 10 years, the new one would raise $90 billion, union officials said. (White House officials declined to confirm that amount.)

While the deal amounts to a signficant breakthrough, there remain many other issues to be worked out–among them, such thorny questions as abortion. And any final bill still must be “scored” by the Congressional Budget Office, a process that is expected to take a week or more. As a result, sources on Capitol Hill say it is likely that any bill will not reach Obama’s desk until mid-February at the earliest.

UPDATE: The marathon sessions continue. White House spokesman Reid Cherlin offers this readout of last night’s meeting, which lasted until this morning:

The President and congressional leaders continued to work through the differences in the health bills. They made solid progress toward a final package, including common-sense adjustments that strengthen the legislation and make sure it works for middle-class families while bringing down costs and expanding coverage to millions of Americans.

More on the meeting:

– The meeting was held in the Cabinet Room. The meeting began at approximately 9:15 pm and ended at approximately 1:25 am. The President departed the meeting shortly before 1:00 am.

– Members attending this evening:

Speaker Pelosi

Leader Hoyer

Congressman Clyburn

Chairman Miller

Chairman Rangel

Chairman Waxman

Leader Reid

Senator Durbin

Senator Schumer

Chairman Baucus

Chairman Dodd

Chairman Harkin

– Secretary Sebelius attended a portion of the meeting.

– Staff attending this evening included Rahm Emanuel, Phil Schiliro, and Nancy-Ann DeParle.

Related Topics: cadillac tax, organized labor, Unions, Barack Obama, Congress, Health Care
  • Latest on Swampland

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, is the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, who Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

  • Paul-no not that one

    “Unionized workers would be allowed to enter the health insurance exchanges–new marketplaces where consumers could shop among a variety of insurance plans–beginning in 2017″
    .
    If true that’s the only thing of importance that the unions got.
    .
    “Adjustments for policies that cover a disproportionate number of women and older workers–both of whom have higher health costs.”
    .
    What does that mean?

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    Perhaps its time that the CBO get with the program and work overtime like everybody else. If Obama and Congress can do it then I’m certain they shouldn’t be shone up Gruber.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    Hopefully it means the formula they judge women and older worker policies will be rated based on the same percentage that insurance companies are allowed to over charge their policies.

  • rustyreturns

    Wow, imagine that, President Obama made a “deal” with Big Union.
    .
    My only question is how can they sleep at night?

  • Paul-no not that one

    From TPM, which helps explain point 1
    .
    Collectively bargained plans would be exempted until 2017, to provide workers with a real opportunity to renegotiate their benefits packages, which were designed under current law and excluded from taxation.
    .

  • Paul-no not that one

    KT –Goodhair versus KBH on C-Span 2 right now.

    (As if you didn’t know)

  • rustyreturns

    “Obama is supporting the tax not only because it would raise a lot of money that would go toward covering the uninsured, but also because it is a measure that many economists argue could do a lot toward reining in the forces that have been driving up medical costs.”

    .
    Explain to me please, how exactly a tax is going to “rein in the forces that have been driving up medical costs”?
    .

    “If Republicans want to campaign against what we’ve done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have.”

    .
    Status quo? Fight? Hmmmm
    .
    Is anyone not Big Pharma, Big Union or the Uninsured considered the “status quo”? I know that would primarily be mostly Republicans or folks who are considered to be “wealthy”. Yes Mr President, you will be in a fight. I wish you much success in your eventual defeat. From this “status quo” individual, I will fight you tooth and nail. Fight you Mr President every step of the way on this and everything else you attempt to push upon the American citizens of this nation.
    .
    Your socialist ideals will be stopped, and those who back you will be voted out of office. You have most certainly awaken those of us who have sat back for years and permitted your kind to take over. We are awake. We are ready for the “fight”.

  • shepherdwong

    “My only question is how can they sleep at night?”
    .
    Because they’re stopping the egregious abuse of customers by insurance companies leading to hundreds of thousands of bankruptcies and deaths and improving access to health care for millions of the working poor? Wha’d’ you do today?
    .
    Telling that you picked now to figure out and start worrying about the corrupt process by which policy-making happens.

  • shepherdwong

    “Fight you Mr President every step of the way on this and everything else you attempt…”
    .
    My only question is how can they sleep at night?

  • kevin

    Is anyone not Big Pharma, Big Union or the Uninsured considered the “status quo”?
    .
    No, the “status quo” is pretty obviously the present state of health insurance, not people insured by it.
    .
    Go find an adult with a dictionary, rusty. They’ll help you out.

  • kevin

    “My only question is how can they sleep at night?”
    .
    Given that what happened here is about as everyday an event in the political process as the sunrise, I’m guessing they sleep pretty well.
    .
    Interest groups, on the left and the right and everywhere in between, work out deals to support legislation all the time, rusty. Most grownups know that.

  • rustyreturns

    “If Republicans want to campaign against what we’ve done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have.”

    .
    Didn’t you see that little “and” which follows status quo and before insurance companies, kevin?
    .
    No Obama is declaring a “fight” against anyone who presently HAS insurance, and anyone who has wealth, a job or any subsistence which puts them into the middle class or higher. Period.
    .
    Status Quo defined, “To maintain the status quo is to keep the things the way they presently are.”
    .
    My status quo is I have insurance, I like what I have and I want to keep it. Obama is saying “no, you can’t keep it, you will take what I give you”.
    .
    If you have Medicare Advantage as many of the patient’s I know, then he will take it away from you, and give you what he believes to be best.
    .
    If you have a cadillac plan insurance policy, he will tax it, which in turns cost 45% more than it currently does now, which will in turn cause your employer to drop your insurance and give you some sub-quality plan. You lose, but that is how Obama wants it now. Oh, unless you are a Union member who just received a sweetheart deal from him (Andy Stern), then you can wait until 2017 to get all of your ducks in a row so you don’t lose anything.
    .
    Nah, you protect him and defend his policies kevin, I will fight it tooth and nail. I will do everything humanly possible that he is driven out of his office. Starting with 2010 elections to rid Congress of every Democrat so that they cannot be re-elected to support his policies and programs.
    .
    It is very clear the direction that Obama is going with all of this. His tax on Banks and Wall Street he announced today. Again, middle and upper class are screwed.
    .
    His Cap and Trade bill, green energy my ass. It is another under the table tax on middle and upper class folks so that he can set up a big money scheme for his croonies who will run the new comodities in Chicago.
    .
    Yea, keep on believing the lie kevin. We’ll see you soon on the other side.

  • kevin

    Keep stamping your little feet, rusty. It. Is. ADORABLE!

  • Paul-no not that one

    I know no one else watched but that debate was gold.

  • rustyreturns

    I just made a contribution to Scott Brown for U.S. Senate and I’m hoping you will do the same. You can donate by going to https://www.icontribute.us/scottbrown. Thank you for your support!
    .
    Calling all conservatives to click on the link above. Make a contribution to Scott Brown. This is the “shot heard round the world” to stop Obama and his croonies in their tracks.
    .
    If you have been reading any of the posts on this site, you know this health care bill has to be stopped. I fear Scott Brown may be our last hope.

  • grollican

    Please, rightwing kooks, do waste your welfare queen checks on Scott Brown. He’s going down in flames in Massachusetts, along with his sad little band of teabaggers.

  • rustyreturns

    We shall see little grolli.
    .
    Even Obama won’t go to Massachusetts because his poll numbers are even worse than Coakleys. She asked him to “just stay in Washington”.
    .
    I am challenging every conservative that writes on this blog site or just reads. Send in your contribution and show your support for Scott. He can definately win. He can show the snob nosed Democrats from Beacon Hill that this seat in the Senate is not “Teddy’s seat”, it is the good people of Massachusetts’ seat!!

  • grollican

    Yes, do waste your welfare queen checks, Republicans. Prop up a failed teabagger and watch your hopes fall apart on January 19th. Coakley is going to win by 10% easy, because the Brownies know they’ve lost and won’t even bother turning out.

  • newfreedomblog

    Here are promises in video from our President, Barack Obama.
    .
    http://video.foxnews.com/v/3968631/common-sense-114?playlist_id=87249
    .
    Yes, he promised to give major deals to Big Pharma and now Big Union. Not to the people of this country who pay their taxes, go out and work hard everyday. It is corruption that any Chicago crook would be proud of. Obama is nothing more than a tool for SEIU and all the other big labor unions. He doesn’t give a damn about the regular folks out in the heartland. Only how he can tax and spend his way into the record books.
    .
    Watch this video, if you want to be truly informed and not hood-winked by the Obama controlled MSM, like TIME.com
    .
    Also see this: http:www.newfreedomblog.com
    .
    I have a new post about how Scott Brown is leading in the polls for the Senate seat that Teddy Kennedy once held. How Martha Coakley is so disliked that the usual Democrats are staying at home next Tuesday.

  • grollican

    Tune in for more factfree blogging from New Fleahome blog – the “news” source for all teabaggers within a three yard radius of the author’s basement.

  • redraven937

    Again, middle [...] class [is] screwed.

    As opposed to how it is now, when the junk insurance we buy increases in cost at three times the rate of inflation per year, stymies our wage growth, and yet still doesn’t save us from bankruptcy when something actually does go wrong. Yeah, we weren’t screwed with the status quo at all. At least, not when we’re healthy and deluded into thinking the insurance we never used will actually be there for us when it matters the most.

  • orangecatholic

    Tea Party: Awoken to the fight, eight years after the fact. What’s your platform, lower deficits? We’ve been in deficit every year since 2002.

  • http://jennyro15.wordpress.com jennyro15

    That is very true. But You can get always get a full medical coverage at the lowest price from http://bit.ly/68ShhE if you do your home work you can
    find the best plan.

  • stuartzechman

    This is a very, very good question:

    Explain to me please, how exactly a tax is going to “rein in the forces that have been driving up medical costs”?

    Anybody want to answer that?
    .
    Forget that it came from a movement conservative for a second or two.
    .
    What assumptions let Obama argue that this is the case?
    .
    What are those economists talking about, exactly?
    .
    “medical costs” to whom?
    .
    Well, fellow reality-based community members?
    .
    Can you explain what Obama means?

  • stuartzechman

    Don’t click on the link, this is spam.

  • 3xfire3

    grollicon, can’t handle the truth can ya.
    Facts can be so inconvenient for those on the left who make their facts up to fit their views. Your comments regarding newfreedom’s post only makes you look more ignorant than you are.

  • Cliff

    I have insurance, I like what I have and I want to keep it. Obama is saying “no, you can’t keep it, you will take what I give you”.
    .
    This is shockingly dumb.
    .
    I mean, this is just an atrocious level of stupidity.
    .
    rusty, you need to STOP DRINKING THE RUBBING ALCOHOL. IT IS PICKLING YOUR BRAINS.
    .
    If you want actual things to complain about with HCR, you should read SZ’s posts.
    .
    But you are manufacturing reasons to complain, and all that does is degrade our discourse.

  • Cliff

    Explain to me please, how exactly a tax is going to “rein in the forces that have been driving up medical costs”?

    .
    We don’t know (or at least I don’t). That’s part of the problem: this is an opaque system. It’s complicated.
    .
    I remember you, SZ, asking exactly what it is that makes health care so expensive in the US, and IIRC no one had a clear answer.
    .
    As far as I know statements like what Rusty highlighted are sheer handwaving, used in conjunction with the phrase “bending the cost curve.” I don’t know what that means. I don’t know what the machinery is that is supposed to drive these things.
    .
    I know when they say things like “recission is not allowed,” I understand (and like) that. But the abstract financial matters are beyond me.

  • kevpvp

    Stu – so the basic cost savings comes from incentives. The problem with “Cadillac Plans” is they’re extremely easy to use with little or no cost to the member. Which means the individual incentive is to seek medical care and services that aren’t necessary. That’s why things like copays are important. A $20 copay is nothing when compared to the $500 or $1000 bill your doctor will send in for an office visit, but the hope is that a $20 payment is just enough to make sure you only go to the doctor when you’re really sick. As you tax the high end plans, these are suddenly less attractive to employers who provide them and people eventually people will begin to receive more typical coverage, creating more incentives to only go to the doctor when sick (and you’d think that Rusty would LOVE free market incentives), thus helping bend the cost curve down.

    And Rusty, I don’t get why making a deal to get a provision that unions DESPISE is an example of Democrats caving to unions? If Obama caved to unions, he’d push for the House version of funding that adds additional taxes to those making more than $250,000/year instead of taxing high value plans. If anything, this says he’s sticking true to his original cause of supporting a bill that will eventually lower health care costs…you know, that thing that is more than 20% of our budget?

  • kevpvp

    “Bending the Cost Curve” – if you figure that health care is currently growing at 3 times inflation, when graphed over time this creates an upward curve rapidly accelerating in total costs. Why is this? Simply put, incentives in the current health care system are to test agressively, test and treat expensively, and deny coverage whenever possible (meaning the uninsured go to expensive Emergency Rooms rather than their family doctor). Oh, and don’t forget buying brand name instead of generic drugs.

    The issue I have with “conservatives” (Rusty, listen up here) is they suddenly feel compelled to argue that our system is just fine. These same people throw a tantrum at the cost of the stimulus package, but act deaf, dumb and blind when faced with the fiscal realities of inaction on health care reform:

    “The results of CBO’s projections suggest that in the absence of changes in federal law:

    ■ Total spending on health care would rise from 16 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2007 to 25 percent in 2025, 37 percent in 2050, and 49 percent in 2082.”

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8758/MainText.3.1.shtml

    This is why reform is so important for anyone who is truly a fiscal conservative to support reform.

  • http://vameen.com/a-tax-compromise-moves-health-reform-one-step-closer-time-magazine.html A Tax Compromise Moves Health Reform One Step Closer (Time Magazine) | Health Blog

    [...] here to see the original: A Tax Compromise Moves Health Reform One Step Closer (Time Magazine) AP Sources: Tentative deal on health bill tax (AP via Yahoo! News)Obama, Dems seek final [...]

  • Cliff

    I appreciate the summary, you make a lot of sense.
    .
    I get what the cost curve is (I was mostly making a dig at their use of dry financial speak in my original post), but it strikes me that our health care costs are unsustainable now for many thousands of people.
    .
    So that’s great if we can decelerate the increase in cost, but if 10% more people are getting f–ked every year as opposed to 20% more people, then we still have a lot to work on.
    .
    Are there measures in place to improve the situation, as opposed to making it more sh*tty a little bit slower than before?

  • http://eeasts.com/?p=1102 A Tax Compromise Moves Health Reform One Step Closer (Time Magazine) | Health Blog

    [...] post: A Tax Compromise Moves Health Reform One Step Closer (Time Magazine) « Democrats see progress on health care bill compromise (USA [...]

  • http://healthtipscentral.com/a-tax-compromise-moves-health-reform-one-step-closer/ A Tax Compromise Moves Health Reform One Step Closer | healthtipscentral.com

    [...] more on Time Magazine Share and [...]

  • http://ffici.com/a-tax-compromise-moves-health-reform-one-step-closer-time-magazine.html A Tax Compromise Moves Health Reform One Step Closer (Time Magazine) | Ffici Health

    [...] Visit link: A Tax Compromise Moves Health Reform One Step Closer (Time Magazine) [...]

  • http://eeasts.com/?p=1104 Health Care: The White House and the Unions Have a Deal … | Health Blog

    [...] post: Health Care: The White House and the Unions Have a Deal … « AFL-CIO NOW BLOG | Health Care Tax: Union Leaders Outline Big … Unions Collect A [...]

  • http://vameen.com/health-care-the-white-house-and-the-unions-have-a-deal.html Health Care: The White House and the Unions Have a Deal … | Health Blog

    [...] the original post here: Health Care: The White House and the Unions Have a Deal … A Tax Compromise Moves Health Reform One Step Closer (Time Magazine)AP Sources: Tentative deal on [...]

  • http://iiixxx.net/?p=246 Health Care: The White House and the Unions Have a Deal … | IIIXXX HEALTH

    [...] here to read the rest: Health Care: The White House and the Unions Have a Deal … Tags: cadillac, care-legislation, leaders-reached, major, major-step, remaining-issues, the-major, [...]

  • stuartzechman

    kevpvp:

    Why is this? Simply put, incentives in the current health care system are to test agressively, test and treat expensively, and deny coverage whenever possible (meaning the uninsured go to expensive Emergency Rooms rather than their family doctor). Oh, and don’t forget buying brand name instead of generic drugs.

    How do you know this?
    .
    Why are you so certain that is use or “overuse” or “unnecessary use” the culprit?
    .
    If the prices of these health care commodities were as low as they are in Japan, for example, wouldn’t “overuse” not be nearly as much of a problem?
    .
    In Japan, the population sees its doctors three times as often, and has even more frequent expensive (in the US) procedures such as MRIs, and yet they pay less than half the cost per person that we do.
    .
    If you have an incredibly expensively priced commodity to begin with, then yes, “overuse” of that commodity will cause spending per person to rise, but stopping people from spending insurers’ or Medicare’s money isn’t really doing much about the problem of expensive health care that afflicts Americans alone out of every developed nation in the world.


    Total spending on health care would rise from 16 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2007 to 25 percent in 2025, 37 percent in 2050, and 49 percent in 2082.”

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8758/MainText.3.1.shtml

    This is why reform is so important for anyone who is truly a fiscal conservative to support reform.

    Yes, actual reform, i.e. real market reforms such as price controls effected on prescription drugs, hospitals, laboratory tests & medical procedures such as the rest of the wealthy world’s governments have done, is necessary, or Medicare will be badly in the red, and a quarter of the country’s wealth will be wasted on hyper-inflationary health care prices.
    .
    Unfortunately, that’s not what is passing Congress just about now.

  • http://lowwow.com/a-tax-compromise-moves-health-reform-one-step-closer-time-magazine.html A Tax Compromise Moves Health Reform One Step Closer (Time Magazine) | Lowwow Health

    [...] this article: A Tax Compromise Moves Health Reform One Step Closer (Time Magazine) Tagged as: a-major-step, and-congressional, care-legislation, finish, finish-line, major, [...]

  • stuartzechman

    kevpvp:
    .
    So you’re contending that the economists’ assumption is that overuse and unnecessary use in the United States is unmatched anywhere else in the developed world, and so that’s why we overspend on health care costs twice what the average OECD country spends.
    .
    I’m contending that the prices of health care products and services are twice as high in the US as anywhere in the developed world, and so unnecessary use isn’t the problem –inflationary prices are. The reason I’m proposing that the United States alone in the wealthy world experiences this wild price inflation is that we do not have an effective system of price controls, unlike these countries where there the state negotiates prices for these nations with the suppliers of health care commodities. The reason we pay $7400+ per person, and the Germans pay $3600 per person, or the Canadians pay $3900 per person, is that the prices of things like prescription drugs and medical supplies aren’t effectively regulated, like they are in Germany or Canada.

    …so the basic cost savings comes from incentives. The problem with “Cadillac Plans” is they’re extremely easy to use with little or no cost to the member. Which means the individual incentive is to seek medical care and services that aren’t necessary.

    How do you know this?
    .
    Why is the individual’s incentive to get knee operations that they wouldn’t normally get, or cholesterol-lowering drugs that they don’t need, or stay in the hospital weeks longer than necessary? Do you believe that folks like to receive surgery that they don’t need to have? If so, what data do you have that supports this claim?

    Which means the individual incentive is to seek medical care and services that aren’t necessary. That’s why things like copays are important. A $20 copay is nothing when compared to the $500 or $1000 bill your doctor will send in for an office visit, but the hope is that a $20 payment is just enough to make sure you only go to the doctor when you’re really sick.

    How do patients know which treatments are necessary, and which treatments are unnecessary?
    .
    How do ordinary people know when they’ve got potential melanoma, and when they’ve got harmless skin discoloration?
    .
    Absent a medical diagnosis, how do folks know when they’re “really sick”?
    .
    Isn’t that quite a perverse incentive, when you think about it? Why should people who have no expertise whatsoever be “incentivized” to stay away from medical care? Isn’t that the opposite of what a functional health care system would be intended to accomplish?
    .
    If the goal is to get people to use less health care, then yes, that’s an incentive, one that might appeal to a certain type of economist who’s just looking to plug a function into an equation that produces a less steep upward curve. If the goal is to reduce prices, that’s not a terribly effective means.

    If anything, this says he’s sticking true to his original cause of supporting a bill that will eventually lower health care costs…you know, that thing that is more than 20% of our budget?

    The problem is that the bill is intended to lower costs for insurers (private and public), raise costs for ordinary people, and leave prices alone to continue on their hyper-inflationary curve skyward.
    .
    When we speak about lowering costs, the question that needs to be asked is “For whom?”, otherwise we’re not clearly thinking about the goals of reform. If the costs of health care are lowered for private insurers and Medicare/Medicaid by reducing access to health care, then insurers and the government have got themselves a lovely New Democrat partnership that works for those parties. Unfortunately, that means that the costs are raised for ordinary people, which is what you’re actually (and honestly) advocating. If prices are lowered, then costs for everyone go down, but the profits of health care commodities sellers go down.
    .
    Thanks for answering, and for reading this, kevpvp, I know that you understand what I’ve written here.

  • rustyreturns

    Well kevpvp, I hate to bust your bubble and all, but stuart and I have been “debating” this issue ever since it first came out. Right here.
    .
    Actually, stuart is the one who convinced me that OECD countries DO have the type of health care insurance “reform” which we need right here in the US. If we are going to make the changes to what we have now, then we must demand that those changes come in the form like those in Japan, Switzerland or even Germany. Otherwise, forget it.
    .

    “The problem is that the bill is intended to lower costs for insurers (private and public), raise costs for ordinary people, and leave prices alone to continue on their hyper-inflationary curve skyward.”

    .
    As stuart says above, costs will not come down. Costs will continue to rise at the hyper-inflationary way it has been for the past 15 or 20 years. Preimums WILL continue to rise even despite higher co-pays and/or deductibles.
    .
    No kevpvp, you should really look deep inside your Democrat soul, and ask yourself.

    Is Obama, Pelosi and Reid really looking out for my best interests?

    .
    Or is the change that Obama promised, change for those who are very close to him, that have provided the lion share of his progressivism support? And you kevpvp simply left out in the cold.

  • rustyreturns

    Stuart:
    .
    Put it in basics for them like you did for me. In simple elementary example using the cost of an apple.
    .
    Maybe that is when their light-bulb will go off.

  • http://healthcarerepair.org/2010/01/15/health-reform-news-for-january-15-2010/ Health Reform News for January 15, 2010 « Health Care Repair

    [...] The White House and the Unions Have a Deal – Time [...]

  • http://ffici.com/health-care-the-white-house-and-the-unions-have-a-deal.html Health Care: The White House and the Unions Have a Deal … | Ffici Health

    [...] See the article here: Health Care: The White House and the Unions Have a Deal … [...]

  • http://coocmm.com/health-care-the-white-house-and-the-unions-have-a-deal.html Health Care: The White House and the Unions Have a Deal … | Health Blog

    [...] rest is here: Health Care: The White House and the Unions Have a Deal … Wee-Hour Health Talks Focus on Costs – Prescriptions Blog …Obama: Hurry Up On Health [...]

  • http://healthyooy.com/?p=237 Health Care: The White House and the Unions Have a Deal … | HealthYooy

    [...] the rest here: Health Care: The White House and the Unions Have a Deal … Uncategorized care-legislation, finish-line, [...]

  • stuartzechman

    Cliff:
    .
    Imagine, if you will, that the only food that people have to eat comes from McDonald’s.
    .
    Now imagine that a strange phenomenon occurs, in which it is noticed (but, oddly, not widely reported) that Americans on the Canadian border seem to stream across into Canada to buy their Big Macs.
    .
    It is discovered, and the information spreads through word of mouth on the internet, that a Big Mac in Grand Forks, North Dakota costs $7.40, but –incredibly– McDonald’s sells that same Big Mac in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada for $3.90.
    .
    Many people continue not to notice this strange situation, after all, most people get their information about McDonald’s from the television commercials McDonald’s airs, and they don’t advertise their Canadian prices during Meet The Press, they advertise their “6 Dollar Menu!” specials. A huge population of Americans don’t live near the Canadian border, and so remain unaware that they pay so much more than Canadians for the same sandwich. And, again, somehow these disturbing facts don’t regularly make it into newspapers, magazines and television shows that depend on McDonald’s for the advertising dollars for which they’re starting to starve.
    .
    But, more and more, word spreads via new communications technologies that this is the case. Economic data that previously sat in dusty reports ( link to comparison of Big Mac prices around the world ), waiting for reporters to notice, and publishers to publish, is instantaneously available to anyone online. It is by this new channel that the shocking information starts to come out: the price that McDonald’s charges for Big Macs in the United States is almost twice that of every other country that has McDonald’s restaurants.
    .
    The data shows that it’s not just Canada. A Big Mac in Switzerland costs $4.61, in France it’s $3.61, in Germany it’s $3.58, in the UK it’s $2.99, in Italy it’s $2.68, in Spain it’s $2.57, and –unbelievably– in Japan it’s only $2.58 for the same Big Mac.
    .
    What’s different about these countries?
    .
    Lots of things, but one thing they also have in common is that their governments have special ministries set up to negotiate the price of a Big Mac with McDonald’s every few years for the entire nation of tens and tens of millions of people.
    .
    The reason that the price of a Big Mac in Japan is so low is that their government has decided how much a Big Mac should cost, and told McDonald’s that, if they don’t like it, the Japanese government will fund a project to make their own McDonald’s, complete with Golden Arches and Special Sauce, and that they’re pretty confident they can make Big Macs, if they had to. Plus, they don’t really respect McDonald’s “worldwide patents” on Big Macs. They just don’t care. So McDonald’s takes the deal, otherwise they’ll lose the money, and they know that the Japanese are not f*cking around.
    .
    So now it comes time in the United States to deal with the fact that McDonald’s expenditures are taking up, like over 16% of the nation’s wealth, because we’re overpaying for Big Macs, and as the price stays low in other countries, McDonald’s keeps raising the prices here to compensate and make more profits. Gradually, and then suddenly, it’s getting ridiculous. Nobody can continue to bankrupt themselves paying for Big Macs, and so something must be done. The Federal government’s “Medi-Mac” program, which feeds people over 65, is going broke in ten years at a desperate pace.
    .
    What does the government of the United States do?
    .
    Well, they ask economists. The economists put up big, long, complex math equations with Greek letters in them up on white boards and Power Point presentations, and they explain what the symbols mean to government officials.
    .
    One of these symbols is for the price of Big Macs, one is for the number of people who need Big Macs, and one is for the number of Big Macs. Then they draw a graph of what that equation looks like, just like kids are forced to do in algebra class. The graph radically curves upwards, like the trajectory if you shot a balloon out of a cannon.
    .
    These economists come from different schools of economic theory, so some economists say “Set the price of Big Macs lower, then run the equation!” Unfortunately, the government officials say “We can’t do that! That’s off the table! You’re fired. Somebody shut them up!
    .
    Other economists, though, say “Set the number of people lower! Now run the equation.“, and the officials say “Sure. Now the graph looks like a cannon shot of a balloon that’s got a slow leak. Great!“.
    .
    The problem is that the government officials are trying to make a new Federal program called “Big Mac Reform” that actually increases the amount of people who can buy Big Macs a little bit, because those poor folks are going to get a tax break at the end of the year for all of the Big Macs they buy.
    .
    So these officials go back to the economists, and say “We’ve got a problem here. How do we get that number of people who need Big Macs lower again, so the graph doesn’t go back to exploding?” These helpful economists say “Well, why don’t you tax the people who buy Big Macs now? Then the resulting decrease will offset the increase you’re planning by a bit. That will keep the people who need Big Macs number more or less the same!”
    .
    Did you get that?
    .
    These economists can “bend the cost curve” on that graph of Big Mac spending, if they can offset the number of new Big Mac buyers with those who are taxed, and therefore can buy less. How much will the graph change? Not much, but enough so that that the government officials can say that it’s “historic”.
    .
    Everybody in Washington goes home happy, job well done, live to fight another day. The economists, in particular, are pleased with their equations and graphs. Science! $700,000 in US Dept. of Health and Human Services research money! Science.
    .
    Meanwhile, back in Grand Forks, North Dakota, people hear grand statements about “bending the cost curve” and “historic” and “31 million people now covered”, and get increasinly irritated. They still have to go to Winnipeg to buy low-cost Big Macs, and they don’t understand why they can’t just go to Walmart, and get them cheap there.
    .
    They also know that, in addition to having to go to Canada to get McDonald’s food, they’re also paying taxes to supply revenue for the government’s “Medi-Mac” program, and they know that the Feds aren’t paying Canadian prices for that, so they’re getting soaked no matter what. They hate the political party in charge of Washington that did this to them. Their incumbent Senator from that party actually declines to run again. This scenario plays out similarly in many other states, just with different degrees of anger and disappointment. The price of a Big Mac in the United States begins to climb skyward to $8.00, $9.50, $15.90, $21.20, just like a cannon shooting a leaky hot-air balloon at the horizon.
    .
    Many middle class people who used to be able to afford a Big Mac start to starve.
    .
    That’s the story of this Health Care Reform legislation, if it were about Big Macs instead of health care, and McDonald’s instead of Pfizer, Cliff.
    .
    Rustydog said I should put it in terms of apples, but I felt like writing a little novella today, so I didn’t. I hope that you enjoyed this little novella.
    .
    18 and over, entertainment purposes only.

  • shepherdwong

    “The problem with “Cadillac Plans” is they’re extremely easy to use with little or no cost to the member. Which means the individual incentive is to seek medical care and services that aren’t necessary.”
    .
    I’m sorry but I have a big problem with this entire premise. Perhaps economists like to go to the doctor just for the fun of it but everyone I know has to be approaching death’s door. Hmmm…let’s see, what medical services which require driving to a medical facility, hours of waiting with other sick people, dressing in a paper smock, embarrassment, physical pain or discomfort and then recovery from treatment, shall I seek today?

  • 3xfire3

    stz, What if I switch to filet of fish sandwiches and stop buying Big Macs?

  • stuartzechman

    3xfire3:
    .
    My commentary would probably become the length of Homer’s “The Trojan War” and “Ulysses’ Travels” combined.
    .
    Thanks for reading, though.

  • shepherdwong

    Anyway, doctors and insurance companies decide what medical care and services patients get so placing the cost barriers on patients is obviously just avoiding regulating the (rich and powerful) providers, where the costs of the system are actually determined.

  • http://lowwow.com/health-care-the-white-house-and-the-unions-have-a-deal.html Health Care: The White House and the Unions Have a Deal … | Lowwow Health

    [...] post: Health Care: The White House and the Unions Have a Deal … Tagged as: a-major-step, cadillac, care-legislation, finish, finish-line, leaders-reached, major, [...]

  • kevpvp

    Let me clarify my position, I don’t believe that people are out seeking unnecessary care for the fun of it. I think that people go see their doctors for what they feel are valid reasons. But think of the times when you’ve been sick. You have a cold for a few days, do you or do you not go see the doctor. I’m willing to bet things like copays and paying coinsurance enter your mind. Now extend this out and think of more major procedures, do you get a MRI or a CT Scan? Do you look at having surgery or possibly use physical therapy instead? These are choices where money matters. If cost is of no issue, there is no incentive to think through the individual economics of the medical choices we make. I personally think the bigger issue is the fact that when faced with two equally effective procedures, a doctor/hospital’s economic incentive is always to do the more expensive process, but this bill does not tackle that complex issue.

    As for regulating costs, I would love to be able to buy a $5,000 luxury vehicle, but don’t see that happening. Government caps on costs are only effective if economically viable and I haven’t seen anything that says this is the case. Canada has cheap drugs because Americans essentially subsidizes them with our higher priced drugs. Put a cap on what can be charged in the U.S. and drug costs in places like Canada have to go up or something has to give in R&D investment.

    Complex stuff, this health care….

    Thanks both to Rusdy and Stu for some of the better debate on this I’ve seen in a while. It’s nice to get away from the talking points and have actual discussion….

  • kevpvp

    Stu….very good analogy. Thanks for putting it out there. A few comments.
    .
    31 Million people used to not be able to buy Big Macs and went hungry. In the future they’ll be able to eat. I call that significant.
    .
    You talk about how our Big Macs cost more because we subsidize the government limits of other nations. So once our government steps in and caps the costs, what happens to global health care? Obviously the costs around the world will go up or McDonalds will go out of business. I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, just that this is a consequence of this policy.
    .
    Ideally we would have a McDonalds that sells us grilled chicken and salads, not Big Macs (i.e. reduce preventable, costly, chronic diseases like diabetes) and have pay the cooks and cashiers for the number of us they keep healthy instead of based on the number of Big Macs they sell us.

  • iggydwonderllama

    It seems to me that so-called Cadillac plans do contribute to the cost of health care, even though they are not the number one factor (perhaps not even close). True, few people would choose to have an unnecessary knee surgery. However, if it costs them nothing, they may be less likely to question a doctor that suggests one. Still, that benefit would be rare, and it would be accompanied by people questioning and occasional refusing beneficial surgeries. On the other end of the spectrum, people can and do take drugs they don’t need. Especially pain medicine and antidepressants. Both very important for those who need them. And sometimes desirable to those who don’t. That would continue to be the case even if drug advertising were to change, although that might help with other overused drugs. This drives up both the total spending because more drugs are sold, and the price, because of demand. It can also discourage healthy behavior. If cholesterol medicine is free, some people will decide (quite wrongly) that there are no consequences to eating tons of fatty foods. This also leads to greater health costs.
    .
    Obviously there are drawbacks to discouraging strong health insurance plans too. Enough so that I’m not convinced that in balance the “Cadillac” tax is a good thing. For one thing, there are many people who are in such dire trouble that co-pays are a serious hardship. I don’t think anyone is arguing against this, so I’ll so no more for the moment.
    .
    What the Japan example demonstrates is that this is not a magic bullet. It will not solve the whole problem. I don’t truly believe it would solve even 5% of the problem. But as far as I can see, the argument does not to prove that it would not save any money.
    .
    Of course, if they hang their hats on this and do nothing significantly stronger to contain costs, they will fail us. Which looks highly likely.

  • http://aylux.com/health-care-the-white-house-and-the-unions-have-a-deal.html Health Care: The White House and the Unions Have a Deal … | Aylux Health

    [...] Visit link: Health Care: The White House and the Unions Have a Deal … [...]

  • http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/01/15/the-unions%e2%80%99-deal-on-health-reform-beyond-the-excise-tax/ The Unions’ Deal on Health Reform: Beyond the Excise Tax – Swampland – TIME.com

    [...] Related Topics: afo-cio, exchanges, gerald shea, health insurance, health reform Part of the deal the unions struck with the White House and congressional Democrats was a promise that their members [...]

  • http://www.allbestnews.info/3317/health-tip-thyroid-problems-may-affect-pregnancy/ Health Tip: Thyroid Problems May Affect Pregnancy | All world Best News

    [...] Read more on Time Magazine [...]

  • http://bloglikeacat.com/holistic-cat-care-for-feline-urinary-tract-infections-ten/ Holistic Cat Care for Feline Urinary Tract Infections: Ten … | Blog Like A Cat

    [...] Health Care: The White House and the Unions Have a Deal … [...]

  • http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/01/27/pelosi-on-health-care-we-have-to-get-this-done/ Pelosi on Health Care: “We have to get this done.” – Swampland – TIME.com

    [...] The so-called "Cadillac Tax" on high-priced insurance policies: Pelosi says the deal that the White House reached with labor might be "a good start." But her preference, she said, [...]

  • http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/02/17/health-care-the-white-house-readies-its-own-plan/ Health Care: The White House Readies Its Own Plan? – Swampland – TIME.com

    [...] Medicaid costs. There would also likely be some kind of revision (and probable retrenchment) on the deal that was struck with the unions on the "Cadillac [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus