RiverWillow's Blog

Why Democracy Functions Less Effectively With Ignorance…

_______________
AP Poll: Gov’t health plan divides public
By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer
Wed Nov 18, 6:12 am ET

WASHINGTON – Tell Americans that letting the government sell insurance in competition with private industry would be cheaper for them, and a majority is in favor.

Tell them the government would be making decisions about what medical care they could get, and support sinks.

The findings from an Associated Press poll come as lawmakers struggle to advance President Barack Obama’s signature health care overhaul, with the final shape of any government insurance plan very much in doubt. The issue has been the biggest flash point in the health care debate, and the poll results underscore that how it is defined can make a big difference in the public’s response.

Politicians know that. It’s why when Republicans talk about letting the government sell health coverage in competition with private carriers, they cast it as a government takeover that would destroy private industry. Democrats talk about choice, competition and “keeping health insurance companies honest.”

The AP poll, conducted by Stanford University with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, suggests that when such messages are heard, they have an effect.

Half of the 1,500 participants in the AP poll were told that a government insurance plan “would be less expensive than other insurance plans, because the government would not need to make a profit the way businesses do and because the government is able to negotiate lower prices with doctors and hospitals than insurance companies can.”

Fifty-two percent said they favored such a plan, while 35 percent were opposed and 12 percent neither favored nor opposed it.

“I fundamentally feel that the private insurance industry basically holds all the market power” and could use some competition from a nonprofit alternative, said Robert Baulch, 58, of North Chatham, Mass.

The goal is “covering a lot of folks that just can’t get coverage and reducing the cost overall,” he said.

The other half of the people polled were told the government plan would be less expensive, but they were also told that “the government would run the insurance plan and decide which medical care would be paid for and how much would be paid, like insurance companies do.”

That version of the question found 44 percent in support and 38 percent opposed, while 15 percent neither favored nor opposed the idea.

“They would decide which medical care would be paid for,” said Jeff Anderson, 43, of Burlingame, Calif. “If you have a tumor growing inside you that needs to be removed or you’re going to die, and they decide, well, we don’t cover cancer or we don’t cover other types of diseases — you know, that’s just wrong.”

So while both questions elicited more supporters than opponents for a public insurance plan — bearing out the results of past polling that has shown the public generally supportive — the plan commanded majority support only when cast in positive terms that emphasized benefits to consumers over government control.

The poll also sought to elicit views of the government insurance plan design under consideration by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., as he finalizes a health care bill to bring to the Senate floor.

Legislation passed by the House this month included a public plan available nationally for small businesses and, mostly, self-employed people. Under Reid’s version, individual states would be able to opt out of the public plan.

Poll participants were asked whether government insurance should be available to all, or whether state governments should be able to decide not to offer it. Seventy percent favored making it available nationally while 25 percent said state governments should be able to decide.

Overall, the poll found the public split on Congress’ drive to enact sweeping legislation extending coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans. Opinion was also evenly divided on Obama’s handling of the matter, and participants expressed concerns and confusion about costs and various other aspects of the issue.

Despite the controversy surrounding the public plan, it would affect a small number of people. A Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House bill estimated that about 6 million people would sign up for the public option in 2019, once it was fully phased in. That represents about 2 percent of Americans under age 65. (Older people are covered through Medicare.)

The overwhelming majority of the population would remain in private health insurance plans sponsored by employers. Others, mainly low-income people, would be covered through an expanded Medicaid program.

The budget office also said that “a less healthy pool of enrollees” would probably be attracted to the public option, drawn by the prospect of looser rules on access to specialists and medical services. As a result, premiums in the public plan would actually be higher than the average for private plans, according to the budget office.

In the AP-GfK poll, the differently worded questions on the public plan each had a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points. The poll interviewed 1,502 people from Oct. 29-Nov. 8 with an overall sampling error margin of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

The interviews were conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Stanford University’s participation in the project was made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

___

AP Polling Director Trevor Tompson and Associated Press writers Ann Sanner and Natasha Metzler contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – A second Republican senator signaled Wednesday she’s open to voting for sweeping health care legislation this year, putting President Barack Obama closer to a historic achievement that has eluded generations of Democratic leaders.

But Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told The Associated Press that the bill approved Tuesday by the Finance Committee needs substantial improvements to make coverage more affordable, contain costs, and protect Medicare. Nevertheless, she joined her Maine GOP colleague Sen. Olympia Snowe in endorsing the goal of far-reaching changes.

“My hope is we that can fix the flaws in the bill and come together with a truly bipartisan bill that could garner widespread support,” Collins said in an interview. “I think this bill is far superior to the ones passed by the Senate (health) committee and the three House committees, but it needs substantial additional work.”

The ten-year, $829 billion Finance bill was approved by the committee Tuesday on a 14-9 vote, after Snowe broke ranks with her Republican colleagues to support Chairman Max Baucus’ middle-of-the-road plan.

Wednesday, Snowe tackled the most divisive issue still on the table: creation of a government insurance plan that would compete with private ones.

While emphasizing that she still opposes the so-called public option, Snowe said in a nationally broadcast interview that she could foresee a government-run plan that would “kick in” if private insurers failed to live up to expectations that they keep premiums in check.

“I think the government would have a disproportionate advantage” in the event of a government-run option, Snowe acknowledged. At the same time, she added, “I want to make sure the insurance industry performs, and that’s why we eliminate many egregious practices.”

If the industry didn’t follow through on congressionally-mandated changes aimed at making health care more affordable, she said, “then you could have the public option kick in immediately.”

Snowe previously had proposed using the public option as an incentive, or a threat, to private insurers. This “trigger” option, or some version of it, has survived the bitter debate and scrutiny to remain a viable option for compromise.

Such a statement from a Republican can be very influential in an environment in which GOP lawmakers almost universally have opposed any kind of government-run health care option to compete with private insurers. It represents a break in party solidarity, even if finite. Health care proposals advanced in the House include such a government option.

Snowe broached her standby notion again as talks among lawmakers on health care were going back behind closed doors; Senate leaders are trying to merge two very different bills into a new version that can get the 60 votes needed to guarantee passage.

Collins, however, said she could not support Snowe’s idea because she thinks it would make it too easy for a Democratic administration to impose a government plan nationwide. “It would simply delay the public plan for a couple of years,” she told AP.

The White House dispatched chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag and other top advisers to Capitol Hill for afternoon meetings on combining the bills.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said he wants move quickly to merge the Finance bill with a version passed earlier by the Senate health committee. His goal is to get health care overhaul legislation onto the floor the week after next.

Both bills were written by Democrats, but that’s not going to make it easier for Reid. They share a common goal, which is to provide all Americans with access to affordable health insurance, but they differ on how to accomplish it.

The Finance Committee bill that was approved Tuesday has no government-sponsored insurance plan and no requirement on employers that they must offer coverage. It relies instead on a requirement that all Americans obtain insurance.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill, passed earlier by a panel in which liberals predominate, calls for both a government plan to compete with private insurers and a mandate that employers help cover their workers. Those are only two of dozens of differences.

In general, bills moving toward floor votes in both houses would require most Americans to purchase insurance, provide federal subsidies to help those of lower incomes afford coverage and give small businesses help in defraying the cost of coverage for their workers.

The measures would, among other things, bar insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and for the first time limit their ability to charge higher premiums on the basis of age or family size. Expanded coverage would be paid for by cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from future Medicare payments to health care providers. Each house also envisions higher taxes — an income tax surcharge on million-dollar wage-earners in the case of the House, and a new excise levy on insurance companies selling high-cost policies in the Senate Finance Committee bill.

___

Associated Press writers David Espo and Erica Werner contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc

Do you think there is a real possibility for our government to come together and agree on a plan that would, among other things. “bar insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions…” Have you and your spouse or family sat down and talked about it? Have you thought about it? Do you have any ideas that are good and don’t know where to take them?

And if they do, how are we going to pay for it?

Thoughts? Suggestions?? Ideas? Comments?

The Primary Focus of Comprehensive Health Care… + The Primary Focus of National Comprehensive Health Care should be providing Health Care for the Masses, and not protecting a Private Health Insurance Industry– that is part of the problem– at all cost. + There is an inverse direct proportionality with Health Care Cost Containment and the heavy involvement of the Private Health Insurance Industry( which tends to engender a ‘middleman front-loaded administrative cost factor’). Under this dis-functional scenario, funds that should go directly to Health Care, end up going toward such things as Private Health Insurance Industry Media Promotions and Lobbying, among other things. + The Health Care Delivery System in the U.S.A. would begin to improve dramatically(at affordable cost levels) when once there is more of a collective mindset that begins to view Public Health Care as a Political Ideology Neutral phenomena that is akin to National/Civil Defense. + Under the present dispensation of things Health-wise, the Masses are being proverbially cooked in their own juices with both their own Private and Public Funds.

Cheers and be well! E.N. … Oct. 14, 2009

Obama calls for ‘honest debate’ on health care
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is challenging his critics on a national health care overhaul, accusing them of making “phony claims” about the legislation.

“This is an issue of vital concern to every American, and I’m glad that so many are engaged,” Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address.

“But it also should be an honest debate, not one dominated by willful misrepresentations and outright distortions, spread by the very folks who would benefit the most by keeping things exactly as they are.”

Obama said illegal immigrants would not be part of the health care overhaul, taxpayers would not be mandated to fund abortions and he does not intend a government takeover of health care — all claims that critics have made at
contentious town hall-style meetings with members of Congress.

He also took a swipe at “death panels,” an idea former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin introduced on her Facebook page.

“As every credible person who has looked into it has said, there are no so-called death panels — an offensive notion to me and to the American people,” Obama said. “These are phony claims meant to divide us.”

Obama’s liberal base was angered this past week after he seemed to suggest he would be fine with a plan that lacked a government-run health insurance option.

“This is one idea among many to provide more competition and choice, especially in the many places around the country where just one insurer thoroughly dominates the marketplace,” Obama said. “Let me repeat: It would be just an option; those who prefer their private insurer would be under no obligation to shift to a public plan.”

In their weekly address, Republicans accused Obama of
misrepresenting his proposal.

“As opposition to the Democrats’ government-run health plan is mounting, the president has said he’d like to stamp out some of the disinformation floating around out there,” said Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga. “The problem is the president, himself, plays fast and loose with the facts.”

Price said that the whole plan should be scrapped and lawmakers should start over with a plan that makes sure patients — not Washington or insurance providers — are the top priority.

“We all know that when the government is setting the rules and is backed by tax dollars, it will destroy, not compete with, the private sector,” said Price, a physician. “The reality is, whether or not you get to keep your plan, or your doctor, is very much in question under the president’s proposal.”

Was President Reagan a “Communist”?

Passed Under The Reagan Administration( As posted by http://www.myspace.com/jayryan7) :

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act
imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual’s ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented.

Was President Reagan a “Socialist”?

E.N.