Details of Obama’s Health Care Plan

After a year of watching Congress wrangle, deal, twist and tussle over comprehensive health care reform, the Obama Administration finally released its own blueprint today. The release comes three days before a bipartisan summit on the issue that the White House is hoping will be a game changer.

The White House “plan” contains many of the same elements included in the House and Senate bills already passed by Congressional Democrats, but makes adjustments and adds provisions that were on the table when House and Senate Democrats were merging their bills shortly before Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts.

Details on the plan are after the jump, but in essence, the Obama plan is the Senate bill with some changes that the Administration says can all be passed via reconciliation. Getting reform done would require the House to pass the Senate bill and both chambers to pass a reconciliation bill loaded with fixes, like those contained in the White House plan. The Obama plan would cost $950 billion over ten years and provide new insurance coverage for 31 million Americans.

Democrats are still miles from the finish line. House Democrats are not eager to pass the Senate bill and Republicans have promised to obstruct a reconciliation bill in the Senate. Asked on a conference call with reporters if the House and Senate leadership have signed off on the Obama plan, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said the plan was “informed by our discussions with House and Senate leadership…but this is the President’s proposal.” The thing is, the President can’t make laws by himself.

President Obama is hoping that by laying out a compromise health care plan that largely resembles the House and Senate bills, Congressional Democrats will be able to join together to embrace it. By releasing this plan today, three days before the health care summit, the White House is trying to frame the debate until then. The plan, just posted online here, is written in plain language.

Here are some highlights from the White House health care plan:

* New federal insurance regulation The plan includes a new federal health insurance regulatory board that will review rate increases and block those it deems unjustified. (The Obama Administration is hoping to capitalize on the recent attention on exorbitant and unpredictable increases, like those from Anthem Blue Cross hikes in California.) State insurance commissioners have the power to do this in most places, but a new federal authority could strengthen rate regulation.

* Medicaid help for states The plan would eliminate the notorious and despised Cornhusker Kickback, a special Medicaid deal awarded to Nebraska under the original Senate bill. Instead, the Obama Administration’s health care plan would increase Medicaid funding for all states. The plan would also give extra funding to states that have already expanded their Medicaid programs, even without federal prompting. This could do a lot to appease governors who have been loudly protesting the Medicaid expansion called for under Democratic reform, saying the state-federal program will eventually break their budgets.

* Weakens the Cadillac tax The plan delays the implementation of the excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans until 2018 and raises the threshold for which plans would get taxed. Beginning in 2018, individual plans with premiums above $10,200 and families plans above $27,500 would be subject to the tax. There are adjustments made for companies where costs are higher because of age and gender of workers and there is an adjustment made for workers in high-risk occupations.

* Closes the doughnut hole The plan would close the Medicare drug benefit “doughnut hole” completely by 2020. This would be paid for by an addition $10 billion in fees from drug companies.

* Increases affordability The plan increases subsidies for middle-income Americans buying their own health insurance on the open market beyond what the Senate bill called for.

* Imposes higher fees on individuals and employers who go without insurance The plan would strengthen the individual mandate by adopting the House’s higher penalties for those who opt not to buy insurance. There are still hardship exemptions and exemptions for those with income below the tax filing threshold. The fee on employers who don’t offer coverage would be $2,000 per worker, with firms with 50 or fewer employees exempted from this requirement. There is also a $40 billion infusion of tax credits available to small businesses to help them offer coverage beginning in 2010.

* National exchange, no public option and Senate abortion language The Obama plan does not mention any of these sticking points, meaning it favors the Senate exchange design (state-based exchanges rather than the House’s national exchange), the Senate’s abortion language (not the House’s Stupak language) and the Senate’s lack of a public option.

More details throughout the day as I have more time to read the White House plan.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

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

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    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.

  • kevin

    Republicans have promised to obstruct a reconciliation bill in the Senate.
    .
    Great. What better time to debut the Karen Tumulty Make Them Filibuster™ campaign?
    .
    Congressional Republicans have an 18% approval rating. I bet they can drive it into single digits with a good week’s worth of their no-to-everything campaign.

  • Matt

    The problem for the White House is that this is a plan that will not gain any new Republican support. The GOP will simply read this and walk away tomorrow. Obama needs to make a concerted effort to woo Republicans, no matter that they won’t bite. Ir’s all about seizing the most politically advantageous position.

    http://www.political-buzz.com/

  • square1

    Can we stop trying to hide the fact that health care is too expensive and simply lower the costs? Is that too much to ask?

  • kevin

    Politically, I think this does that. Obama has offered his plan and invited the Republicans to offer their own, and then join him for a summit meeting to talk about possible points of compromise.
    .
    If the Republicans don’t offer a plan, then fine. The public will see them slapping away Obama’s outstretched hand.
    .
    If they do offer a plan, it’ll either be shown in the summit to be ridiculous — tax-cuts will solve everything! again! — or it’ll have productive ideas that Obama can incorporate into the negotiations.
    .
    This is win-win for Obama politically, but more important, it’s win-win for the majority of Americans who voted for a solution to health care reform in 2008.

  • square1

    I’m thrilled that KT is pushing the filibuster, but I’m not quite sure whgy she acts like she is the first person to come up with this idea.

  • jeriv

    Reconciliation can’t be filibustered. Which is the whole point behind it.

    I’m sure they can do other things (cry on the Senate floor, throw hissy fits, block the entrances to the building), but otherwise, reconciliation will pass.

    Why do you think Republicans used it to pass so many controversial bills (aka Obscene Tax Cuts)?

  • jeriv

    Sucks about the National Exchange. It would have made the whole thing sooo much easier. I do not understand why they wouldn’t push for it.

  • kevin

    That’s right, of course. They’ll obstruct through endless amendments, not a filibuster. But the end result will be the same.

  • kevin

    National exchange is in; public option is out.

  • diecash1

    “….it favors the Senate exchange design (state-based exchanges rather than the House’s national exchange)”
    ..
    Doesn’t appear so. The Senate bill proposed State-based exchanges.

  • kevin

    I really need to stop trying to do three things at once and read the damn thing.

  • pierogielunaire

    The best news is that the proposal is geared toward reconciliation so it’s a shot across the GOP’s bow. I would be shocked if this bill didn’t go to reconciliation and that is probably still the best chance to get better legislation.

  • Ivy_B

    I don’t think she’s saying she is the first person to come up with it, but her first Swampland post on it was in 2007. It wasn’t so fashionable then. That’s why it has become a fun thing as it keeps being mentioned now that the current Repub Senators have pushed it into the ground.

  • charlieromeobravo

    Obama has said a few times that he’s willing to be a one term president if that’s what it takes to pass a good health care reform package. It’s time for everyone to step up, him especially. I think is going to be one of those programs that a minority will fight and fight and fight saying that it will destroy the country and all sorts of other hyperbole but in 10 years people are going to wonder how people got by before.
    .
    Very few of us have true health insurance. We have employer subsidized health care and the costs to us are completely subject to the decisions our employers make and the whims of the insurance company. That’s if you’re lucky enough to even have insurance through you employer at all.
    .
    It’s long past time to fix this situation and the only way it’s going to happen is if some politicians put their ass out in the wind and risk their own jobs. It’s a gamble but it’s a sacrifice they need to make for the greater good.

  • FlownOver

    Details of the Publicans’ “substantive response:”

    “Socialism!”

    “Government-run health care!

    “Medicare cuts!”

    “Death panels!”

    “Increase the deficit!”

    All predictable, and all lies.

  • mdseverin

    The biggest problem I see is that none of this addresses the cost of health care. It just passes the inital cost to government, which we will then pay for in taxes or fees.

  • carotexas1

    This is a good comparison of the Senate, House and Presidents plan.

    http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/02/22/obama-health-plan/

  • stuartzechman

    Is that too much to ask?

    Yes.
    .
    This has been another fun-filled edition of “Simple Answers to Simple Questions.”

  • stuartzechman

    That’s correct, apparently.

  • nflfoghorn

    Couldn’t he have come out with something others could work with before it got all tea-bagged?

  • grape_crush

    It’s predictable because it’s all been said previously. They’ve kinda shot their collective wads with all those points…what will be interesting is what they come up with next, and – more importantly – how much credence the media will give their ginned-up talking points.

  • allthingsinaname

    “National exchange, no public option and Senate abortion language The Obama plan does not mention any of these sticking points, meaning it favors the Senate exchange design (state-based exchanges rather than the House’s national exchange),”
    .
    I am not so sure about this. From Whitehouse.gov

    >

    Americans without insurance coverage will be able to choose the insurance coverage that works best for them in a new open, competitive insurance market – the same insurance market that every member of Congress will be required to use for their insurance. The insurance Exchange will pool buying power and give Americans new affordable choices of private insurance plans that have to compete for their business based on cost and quality. Small business owners will not only be able to choose insurance coverage through this exchange, but will receive a new tax credit to help offset the cost of covering their employees.
    .

    It mentions exchange, singular not plural. It mentions the same exchange every member of Congress will be required to use, again that implies an exchange not exchanges.
    >

    Can you ask them?

  • hms09ky

    Take a look at Robert Laszewski Dec. 8 blog on why selling across state lines won’t work. It has to do with insurers’ connection to local doctors and hospitals–the ‘in-network” deals that have been set up to curtail our choices and expand their profits.

    Frankly, this entire bill is simply a gift to insurers who will be taking our mandate money all the way to their executive salaries and shareholder profits.

    Time to re-read HR 676, at the Library of Congress site http://thomas.loc.gov Passage of a single payer plan would eliminate the profiteering at all levels.

  • stuartzechman

    I second this request.

  • tjoyce994

    “Very few of us have true health insurance. We have employer subsidized health care and the costs to us are completely subject to the decisions our employers make and the whims of the insurance company.”
    -
    This is true. What most people don’t realize is that, while there have been increases in the co-pays and out of pocket expenses, many companies have resolved the problem of higher prices by offering less coverage. Take a look at the lifetime limit on your current policy and the one you had 5 years ago. I’ll bet the limits have been cut in half. Once the carrier pays those limits, there isn’t an obligation to pay anything else.
    -
    So, you got a smaller merit raise so that your employer can pay for half as much coverage. And you can’t even blame the employers. Their backs are against the wall too.

  • tjoyce994

    I understand that Paul Ryan has a complete healthcare plan, but the republicans won’t claim it. It cuts medicare.

  • afguy

    …how much credence the media will give their ginned-up talking points.
    .
    A LOT.. because it’s what they are “hard-wired” to do, doncha know…
    .
    Remember – bi-partisan = good… GOP viewpoint = still good, by definition.

  • tjoyce994
  • diecash1

    It’s a brilliant plan, no doubt! $400-500 billion in cuts to Medicare is too much so Ryan proposes cutting $650 billion and then privatizing the system with vouchers! That’ll fix it!
    ..
    Here’s Krugman’s take on it:
    Republicans and Medicare

  • robertlsquires

    Most Americans have no clue what a filibuster is. Kudos to Time for well written articles. Too bad the TV media doesn’t shine a light on this. BTY the Rep’s used the reconciliation process for the Bush tax cuts that they now proclaim as Dem arrogance for HC threat – pure definition of hypocracy.

  • tjoyce994

    “It’s a brilliant plan, no doubt! $400-500 billion in cuts to Medicare is too much so Ryan proposes cutting $650 billion and then privatizing the system with vouchers!”
    -
    Now you see why the republicans really don’t want to discuss the Ryan plan, let alone claim it.

  • diecash1

    That’s only a small piece of it too. They also want to cut and eventually eliminate Social Security too. It’s a whole host of provisions that have been widely repudiated since they were trotted out in 1994 and in 2005 and these idiots have the nerve to call Democrats “out-of-touch” with ordinary Americans! It’s abundantly clear that American strongly support SS and Medicare. I say let them own this proposal and pound them with it all summer long!

  • michelekathleen

    Has anyone else noticed what an incredible shell game this has become?

    First, President Obama sends an Executive branch outline of health care reform issues to Congress for their review and draft of legislation. Many Congressional members complain the outline is “too vague” and use that argument to stall progress.

    Now, President Obama assembles a draft of House and Senate bills for discussion at the Health Care summit and it has become a “government takeover”.

    Are Medicare and Medicaid government takeovers?

    Who is/are the Congressional leader(s) who have ordered a complete stonewall of President Obama’s administration?

  • http://linkedin.com/in/bobjacobson Bob Jacobson

    This President always begins with weak proposals and then is forced to weaken them further.

    The deal with Big Pharma continues to rankle. The remedies proposed to deal with billions each year in windfall profits are on the chopping block, of course.

    The lack of the public option betrays a distrust of the President’s own most ardent supporters, the soundness of the scheme as testified to by experts, and his own lack of confidence about getting through a bill that means anything.

    This recommendation is already attracting opposition from every faction. It’s not bold innovation; it’s trying to discern an LCD piece of legislation acceptable to everyone — which of course, means it’s acceptable to no one except the status quo.

    It doesn’t matter what the Republicans or the Tea Party say or do. This President and his politically-blind staff are his own worse enemies.

  • jeriv

    @hms09ky: Actually, not sure that’s true.

    It will give more money to insurer’s, in that there will be a much larger pool of potential members, but it will also force them to cover ALL members. That means profitable AND non-profitable.

    And I’m guessing that covering 100 healthy people will probably not recoup covering one person with serious long-term medical conditions, which is why most (if not all) insurers currently have “lifetime limits”. And believe it or not, some people do hit them.

    This is all about “incremental” progress. First step is to cover everyone. That’s the most difficult thing to do. Once you have “universal coverage”, making incremental changes is a lot easier.

    Another way of putting it is that this is the heavy lift.

    Whether they’ll actually be able to truly get it done or not, well, that’s the question, isn’t it?

  • http://lukeliberty.wordpress.com lukeliberty

    Or maybe the “Publican” response would be along the lines of:

    a) stop protecting the trial lawyer lobby, and furnish true tort reform as a means to mitigate soaring costs;

    b) allow interstate insurance sales and competition;

    c) provide cost-transparency;

    d) do not subsidize public employee union contracts on the backs of taxpayers;

    e) stop insulting anyone who has the audacity to point out weaknesses that they view as toxic to the national health;

    ——————————-

    It may “feel good” to say the “Publicans” will just lie… except, it does not advance a national debate. And, it is a lie in itself.

  • http://lukeliberty.wordpress.com lukeliberty

    bingo.

    and the government cost comes with a multiplier – a sharp and unsustainable multiplier even without the debt we are already in, but since it can’t be paid off for decades, the new debt gets paid back at a drastically heightened multiplier. I know I am a racist for saying so, or so honest Charlie Rangel tells me that is what I am for not liking his health care reform… except maybe I am not a racist. Maybe somebody who understands how numbers works.

  • terriebari

    I have had a “pre-existing condition” since I was a small child. I also have the education and ability to run my own business- but I can’t, because I can’t get healthcare on my own. Doesn’t the govt. want my small business tax money?

    I’m willing to pay for insurance, but nobody will touch me. It’s wrong, and it’s unfair.

    For the rest of my life, I’ll have to work for “the man”.

  • chinshihtang

    People forget that most of the cost of health care pays for people’s jobs–especially that army of paper pushers at insurance companies, and the offsetting army of paper pushers at health care providers.
    Really cutting costs at this time would mean really cutting jobs, and that is politically impossible at the present (even though the jobs effect would be in the future). This is the dirty secret of the healthcare reform.
    We should settle for increasing coverage, encouraging preventive care, and reducing insurance company abuses at the present. We can tackle the cost curve later, when we have the guts to try to really eliminate the waste(ful jobs) in the system.

  • maverick2k9

    lukeliberty, Its not a question of “feel good” . Tort reform and all of the Repub ideas is already on the table for discussion. On tort reform, CBO has already said that in terms of cost reduction, tort reform is like pi$$ing into the ocean. Its not going to save on costs all that much.
    .
    In any case, isn’t it Repubs/conservatives who keep saying the following in order to “feel good”:
    .
    1. “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” – Sen. Jim DeMint
    2. “‘I Hope Obama Fails” – Rush Limbaugh, defacto self-confessed leader of Repub party
    3. “Obama is a one term President” – Cheney, self confessed torture advocate.

  • diecash1

    I don’t recall anyone stating that “Republicans just lie.” More to the point, people have pointed out the lies that Repubs have told and the sorry excuse for solutions they offer, some of which you have detailed.
    ..
    Perhaps you missed the discussion on another Swampland thread today regarding selling insurance across State lines. You can see it here (link) Note the links I posted at 3.1 by Krugman and Klein. As maverick2k9 noted above, tort reform is a joke and amounts to very little if any savings.
    ..
    Perhaps if you are actually good with numbers, you could take another look and see the false choice that Ryan and the Republicans offer.

  • shepherdwong

    Yes, the opportunity costs of forcing people to stay in a job to keep their healthcare is huge, especially in an entrepreneurial society where much employment and economic growth happens at the start-up, micro and small-business levels.
    .
    Great for “the man” though.

  • stuartzechman

    People forget that most of the cost of health care pays for people’s jobs–especially that army of paper pushers at insurance companies, and the offsetting army of paper pushers at health care providers.

    This is only partially true, and not a great part.
    .
    Do you have links to sources that substantiate your claim that “most” of the cost is labor?
    .
    How would that theory explain the disparity between the price of non-procedural health care costs, such as medical supplies, equipment and especially prescription drugs?
    .
    link to a WaPo price comparison column, one of the very few
    .
    US drug prices (such as for Lipitor) range from as high as $334 vs Germany’s $48, or France’s $53 , or the UK’s $40 , or Canada’s $33 .
    .
    There is a great case to be made for the efficiencies that can be gained from a centralized system and a single payer system (and much peril in the implementation of such systems), but please provide evidence that the majority of US cost isn’t the result of hyper-inflationary prices of each health care unit itself.
    .
    Unfortunately, as in the case of prescription drugs, our most centralized systems –Medicare and Medicare– have grossly inept pricing systems that work to keep rates in the entire private and public market high…and climbing.
    .
    Medicaid, for example, contributes to the high retail price of drugs in the US by obtaining its nation-wide negotiated price discounts through a program of rebates, where the states get their money back in a complex schedule over time, while the list price remains high.
    .
    Here is the CBO in a paper from 1996 on the danger of these rebates and inflationary pricing http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4750&type=0:

    The Medicaid Rebate and the Retail Sector
    .
    The Medicaid rebate not only affects the lowest prices charged by the manufacturer for a drug, but it could also affect the price charged to wholesalers for the retail class of trade–namely, the average manufacturer price.
    .
    The minimum rebate, which is based on the AMP, would by itself create an incentive for manufacturers to raise their prices to wholesalers. However, the additional rebate does exactly the opposite–it reduces revenues on Medicaid sales when a firm raises the AMP faster than the inflation rate. The basic rebate when combined with the additional rebate does not create an incentive for firms to increase their AMP in real terms (that is, faster than the inflation rate as measured by the consumer price index for all urban consumers).
    .
    However, new drugs may be launched at a slightly higher price because of the Medicaid rebate. The larger Medicaid’s anticipated share in total sales of a drug, the more important that effect is. The additional rebate is based on the increase in a drug’s AMP since its first quarter on the market.
    .
    Consequently, the additional rebate penalizes a pricing strategy that consists of a low introductory price followed by increases over time as the chug becomes better known. Both the minimum rebate and the additional rebate create an incentive to charge a slightly higher launch price. All things being equal, that effect implies that a drug with a significant market share anticipated for Medicaid may be launched at a slightly higher price because of the Medicaid rebate program.

    There is a great deal of evidence that health care pays for profits, not jobs. Hospitals have insane labor costs, this is true.
    .
    But bubble pricing seems to be the real cost, not the real costs of doing inefficient business.

  • chinshihtang

    stuartzechman: you ask a good question, essentially: where is all the money going? and I certainly don’t have all the answers.

    My argument is more a logical and a political one, that if you look at what our $2-3 trillion a year in healthcare expense is going to, a huge percentage of it is going to end up being labor costs, as opposed to profits, equipment, or raw materials, and that cutting those costs is going to be painful at a time of high unemployment.

    I have used the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ query function to see what I can find out, and I’ll let you know in a couple of days if you’re interested (try me at my blog, http://chinshihtang.blogspot.com). In the meantime, their stats (http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs035.htm) show that some 14 million US jobs are in healthcare: Of those, half a million are physicians, 600 thousand plus in management, and 2.5 million administrative support (about as many as the truest health care providers, registered nurses), but many of those 14 million jobs didn’t fit into classifications. That number is projected to grow by 3.2 million, or 23% in this decade, so that’s a lot of potential new jobs that are on the line.

    Of course, that doesn’t include all those people at the insurance companies whose jobs are to nitpick all the medical claims (appears to be a few hundred thousand).

    This doesn’t mean it’s all waste, or should all be eliminated. I also agree that Americans are, on the whole, paying excessively for our medications, subsidizing those in all other developed countries.

  • stuartzechman

    chinshihtan:
    .
    Thanks for your response.
    .
    I’ll look forward to any good information you can share with us here, thanks so much.

  • hms09ky

    Reply to chinshihtang
    Re health care workforce. In the US census, the health insurance employees are categorized with “bankers and insurance” not with health CARE providers–docs, nurses, therapists, nursing home workers.

    I suggest that those concerned about job loss in the health insurance industry take a look at HR 676, the single payer bill. A phase-out process is spelled out with safety net compensation and retraining offered. HMO employees will be able to take their sales, marketing, actuarial and billing skills into other business sectors.

    And @jeriv: Does the Obama/Senate bill look as if will cover everyone? Factcheck.org says it will cover 56 percent of the uninsured by 2019. Millions will still lack coverage.

  • txindependent

    The good – more Americans insured. The bad – more federal debt, more taxes, more government, higher premiums. We can do better.

  • http://charrenee.wordpress.com charrene

    I dont understand why i voted this man in to be president.he promised he will help find jobs for us unemployed.and be there to support us.YET he is trying to shove a health care down our throat while people like myself who are laid off after 20+ years have to figure out how to feed our children while our unemploymnt benefits run out!NEVER again will i make that mistake!I’ll never trust just a good speech again.

  • rustyreturns

    You are understandably the reason why Barack Obama is failing so miserably. His Presidency was predicated upon lies. His speeches, simply words. He promised a good game, but as he stepped forward he know understands how difficult it is to pass any legislation which would benefit the people of this country because of all the lobbyist and special interest groups who really do control Washington.
    .
    We can only hope at this stage of the game that Obama realizes people are hurting out in the country, and they need jobs.
    .
    This is the backlash against this Administration. Jobs are what is needed at this time. Healthcare does not mean anything, if I do not have a job in order to afford to pay for it.
    .
    Jobs, jobs, jobs, Mr President. How many times does it need to be said?

  • diecash1

    “he know understands how difficult it is to pass any legislation which would benefit the people of this country because of all the lobbyist and special interest groups who really do control Washington.”
    ..
    Perhaps it’s difficult to pass meaningful legislation when Repubs have filibustered 80% of all legislation, even legislation that they demanded or sponsored.
    link to Time article
    ..
    “This is the backlash against this Administration”
    ..
    The backlash is not from the American people, but from the obstructionist Repubs in Congress. They are following Newt’s strategy of nihilism and obstruction in their quest for power, nothing more.
    ..
    As for jobs, the Republicans can’t even get together on a jobs bill. Look no further than yesterday’s vote in the Senate — 29 Repub votes against, 7 Repubs not voting.
    ..
    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00023

  • danatca

    The real problem that is causing the inflation of health care costs, is that the doctors have forgotten their Hippocratic Oath. They put their profit before the what is best for the patients. They proscribe unnecessary procedures to make more money.

    The real problem is that doctors are paid by the number of procedures the perform, rather then receiving a salary. Of course, if anyone were to propose that they be forced to switch to a more reasonable pay scheme, they would shout how unfair that was to them.

    Until something is done about this issue, doctors will continue to cash in at to the detriment of their patients.

  • wayne615

    US drug prices (such as for Lipitor) range from as high as $334 vs Germany’s $48, or France’s $53 , or the UK’s $40 , or Canada’s $33 .

    I don’t doubt this but why? I can’t speak to the other countries, but I know Canadian policy is sell at the price we say or we will “steal” your formula in the name of the public good and produce it ourselves. As producing a pill can’t be that expensive after the millions in research, companies are forced to go along with the pricing. They can easily cover the production costs. Right or wrong, the US is paying much of the drug development costs for the world. Do you really think by the stroke of a pen that we will have drugs like lipitor in the future if we force the company to sell at $48 here as well?

    And I must echo the sentiments of many here. Tax cuts are awful. Daily I tell myself I am not paying near enough in taxes. I really need to pay more. It will solve all my problems. Or, I am guessing, are these people refering to other people’s taxes? Mine are too high, my neighbor though isn’t paying near enough?

  • nomitvit

    You poor americans are paying for all us others… Fools!
    Mr. Obama may be able to fix some of it. maybe. Unless you let your conservative ppl to undermine it all… Like the ones that call themselves republicans.

  • nyguy04

    I have notices over the past few months that when people want to discuss their opinions of the Obama Health Reform they are simply putting comments on news websites but not really into forums dedicated to such a sensitive topic. I would imagine the new health plan is a large topic, either loved of hated. Republicans, Democrats, non affiliated – whatever your side, i am sure you have something to say.

    I decided to start a place for everyone to chat. Let me know if you have any good ideas or feedback, i am really interested in hearing more about this topic.

    http://www.ObamasHealthPLan.com

blog comments powered by Disqus