Quoting & Saving just got easier…Easy To Insure ME Health Insurance Quotes… Quote all carriers in seconds
Tag: bill
La. can’t afford health-care bill
The United States Senate seems headed for a vote on a nearly $1 trillion health-care overhaul.
We all recognize the need to change the current system of delivering and financing health care â in order to ensure quality and to make coverage more affordable.
The problem is that there is no evidence that the current proposals in Congress will make those needed improvements for Louisianians. In fact, studies by respected organizations have shown that current congressional proposals would result in the people of our state paying significantly more for their health coverage.
The Senate proposal would create an expensive new bureaucracy, levy more taxes on the backs of working citizens and make cuts to Medicare that would mean higher costs borne by our stateâs seniors. If the current proposals are signed into law, health-care costs will rise at an even faster rate. This simply is not the kind of solution Louisiana can afford.
Louisianaâs health plans support health reform and have pledged changes to their business model to make health care more affordable and accessible for everyone. Some time ago we committed to Congress that we would help adopt pro-consumer rules and sweeping protections that would remove restrictions on pre-existing conditions, end the practice of basing premiums on health status or gender, and help achieve universal coverage.
Health plans cannot support, however, proposed changes that would harm individuals and families already enrolled, and small businesses that have acted responsively in offering coverage to their employees.
It appears that U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., will soon have the opportunity to vote on whether: 1) to approve health-care changes some political leaders consider their legacy, but that the majority of citizens of our state do not want and cannot afford; or 2) to ask their congressional colleagues to take the time to develop true health-care reform that addresses affordability and quality. The choice each one makes will speak loudly here at home.
Our country and state need health-care reform that will make health insurance more affordable and that will expand access to the uninsured. Unfortunately, Congressâ current version of health-reform fails to get the job done. Letâs take a step back and consider health-care reform that will work.
King will continue to fight health-care bill
U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said Democrats are working to create a “dependency class” in America in an effort to expand their political base and stay in power.
“That’s part of the motive,” King said when discussing federal health-care reform efforts with reporters after a Tuesday taping of Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press.”
King, who represents Iowa’s 5th District, said he will do what he can to try stop a health-care bill from heading to President Barack Obama’s desk, and he urged others who opposed the bill to join him.
He said Democrats are moving toward nation health care, whether a public insurance option is included in the final bill or not.
“That’s the goal; that’s the endeavor,” King said. “They’ll regulate everything, and when they do that, we will lose the liberty we have today to buy health insurance policies.”
He predicted that if Congress passes health-care reform, Democrats will pay a price at the ballot box in 2010.
“I’ve never seen this kind of energy in America, this kind of uprising, especially from the heart of the heartland of America,” King said.
King said he is worried about the “mindset” drifting into America that doesn’t seem to understand the free-enterprise system.
“We’re descendants in this part of the country from people who came across America in covered wagons,” King said. “I mean, they came here to live free or die on the prairie. They didn’t ask for a government handout.”
Norm Sterzenbach, executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party, called King’s comments hypocritical.
“Before he rails against Democrats for working to help seniors pay for prescriptions and help students afford college, he should consider giving up his government salary, as other members of Congress have,” Sterzenbach said.
King, a four-term congressman, said he plans to seek another term in 2010. Iowa is expected to lose one of its congressional seats, and King said he probably still will seek re-election in 2012 even if redistricting places him in the same district with another member of Congress.
As Iowa Republicans look to unseat Gov. Chet Culver next year, King said he did not know whether he would endorse one of the candidates in the GOP primary.
“I’d like to see them fight this out, because it tests their vigor, and it tests their ability, and it also shapes the policy for Republicans that will be matched up against the policy that’s been set by Gov. Culver,” King said.
The “Iowa Press” featuring King is scheduled to air at 7:30 p.m. Friday and noon Sunday on Iowa Public Television.
Quoting & Saving just got easier…EasyToInsureME Health Insurance Quotes… Quote all carriers in seconds
Democratic Governors Voice Concern Over Health Care Bill
Republican governors are not alone in being concerned about what the proposed health care legislation might mean for their already overstrained budgets: Democrats share the same worries. “We’ve got concerns,” Gov. Jack Markell of Delaware said in an interview Wednesday, hours before getting elected as the chairman of the Democratic Governors Association. “And we’re doing our best to communicate them. We understand the need to get something done, and we’re supportive of getting something done. But we want to make sure it’s done in a way that state budgets are not negatively impacted.”
From the start, Republican governors have been more outspokenly critical about the health care legislation – in particular, the bill proposed by Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader – which they said would saddle them with millions of dollars in additional Medicaid costs as insurance coverage is expanded. At their own meeting two weeks ago in Texas, Republican governors declared Democrats felt the same way as they did, but were less apt to say it out of loyalty to President Obama.
Asked about that, Mr. Markell responded: “Perhaps we’ve expressed some of our concerns less publicly. But I believe all governors are certainly concerned about what the potential impact is of some of these bills.”
Mr. Markell said that there was no division between governors and the administration on the need to get some sort of health care bill through; he said that he was reminded of the need in conversations with small businesses struggling with health care costs and constituents who have been unable to get health care coverage. He said his concern was some of the bills being considered would do that by shifting some of the costs to the state – but said he remained confident, after conversations with the White House, that would not be the case.
Whatever the outcome of the health care deliberations, Mr. Markell said he did not believe it would affect the electoral outcome for governors in 2010, a year in which 19 gubernatorial seats currently held by Democrats are on the ballot. The key issues, the governor said, were jobs and the economy.
And to that regard, Mr. Markell said that he was hopeful that the White House and Congress would dispose of the health care deliberations and move on to discussing some sort of jobs creation legislation.
“Right now I believe we need to be focused really significantly on the state level on jobs and on the economic climate overall,” he said. Asked if Mr. Markell thought Mr. Obama and Congress were spending too much time on health care at the expense of the economy, he responded: “Well I feel it would be terrific if they could finish health care and move on.”
Quoting & Saving just got easier…EasyToInsureME Health Insurance Quotes… Quote all carriers in seconds
Alexander, Corker criticize passage of Senate health care bill
Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander released a statement this morning saying the Senate-approved health care bill is riddled with “sweetheart deals” that will increase taxes and damage education.
Fellow Republican, Sen. Bob Corker, said the bill is “fundamentally flawed” and called for bipartisanship.
The bill, approved on a 60-39 vote, must still be merged with legislation passed by the House.
“The Senate health bill will prove to be an historic mistake if this or anything like it is ultimately signed by the president,” said Alexander, who is chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.
“Congress set out to reduce health care costs to Americans and Democrats have managed to do the exact opposite. Their written-in-secret bill will increase health insurance premiums, raise taxes, cut Medicare and dump millions of Americans into Medicaid.
“For Tennessee, Medicaid’s expansion and the bill’s ‘sweetheart deals’ would cost our state more than $750 million over five years when fully implemented, forcing tax increases or damaging higher education—or both.
“Instead, we should start over and move step-by-step to reduce health care costs using the steps that Republicans have repeatedly proposed: let small businesses pool resources for health insurance; allow purchasing of health insurance across state lines; end junk lawsuits against doctors; eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse; expand health savings accounts; and promote wellness and prevention.”
Corker said in his statement, “I’ve spent almost three years and countless hours in bipartisan meetings working toward reforms that would enable all Americans to access affordable, private health insurance.
“I wanted a bipartisan health care reform bill that would stand the test of time. Instead, we were forced to vote on a 2,000-plus page, fundamentally flawed, partisan bill that expands Medicaid by sending $25 billion in unfunded mandates to states, takes $464 billion away from Medicare and leverages it to create a new entitlement, uses budget gimmickry to hide its true cost; increases federal costs, and actually causes Americans to face increased taxes and premiums.
“It’s my sincere hope that Congress returns in 2010 more willing to work in a bipartisan fashion, and my work on financial regulatory reform gives me hope that that’s possible.”
Quoting & Saving just got easier…Easy To Insure ME Health Insurance Quotes… Quote all carriers in seconds
Even a ‘scaled-down’ health bill is dangerous
Last week, Democratic leaders in the Senate caved to Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s demands and stripped away some major provisions from their health reform legislation, including the public option and a plan that would have allowed middle-age Americans to “buy in” to Medicare. With Connecticut independent Lieberman’s support seemingly secured — for the time being — the president announced that Congress was “on the precipice” of passing comprehensive reform.
But even without these controversial components, the Democrats’ bill would still put government in charge of nearly all Americans’ health care. Patients would have fewer choices in the insurance marketplace, and taxpayers would be on the hook for a multibillion-dollar expansion of the public health care system.
Ultimately, these moves will dramatically drive up the cost and worsen the quality of health care in America.
A key element of the Democrats’ reform bill is an individual mandate, which would legally require people to purchase insurance. Starting in 2013, everyone would have to own a plan that met government specifications or pay a fine.
Proponents of such a mandate claim that it will broaden the insurance risk pool to include those who may not currently have insurance, which would eventually lead to lower premiums for everyone. Previously uninsured younger, healthy Americans would effectively subsidize older and less healthy patients.
Mandating everyone to dive into the insurance pool may seem like a good idea, but it represents a profound assault on individual freedom.
The federal government will decide what constitutes an acceptable benefit plan and what people pay for it. Government will also control how doctors are paid by insurance companies and, ultimately, how they practice medicine.
Congress does not legally force Americans to spend their own money on any other particular good or service — why should health insurance be any different?
In fact, for some Americans, health insurance isn’t a wise use of funds. Young people and health fanatics, for instance, might well shell out premiums for medical services they likely won’t use.
And those premiums can be hugely expensive. The average premium for family coverage is a whopping $12,300 a year. That rate is only going to go up if the Democrats’ plan passes.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that individual insurance premiums under reform would be 10 percent to 13 percent higher by 2016 than they would in the absence of reform. In certain states, the increase in premiums would be even higher.
In California, for instance, the average healthy 25-year-old man would see his premiums rise 106 percent thanks to the Democrats’ reform plan. Premiums for a typical Virginia family with two children would increase 82 percent.
Some folks might be best served by paying for routine health expenses out of their own pockets rather than relying on expensive and inconsistent insurance policies.
These increases in the cost of insurance are largely the result of the reform plan’s array of new controls on insurers. Paramount among these controls is a requirement that insurers issue a policy to any customer who requests one, regardless of one’s medical history or health status.
In those states that mandate “guaranteed issue,” the regulation has induced patients to wait until they actually need medical care before purchasing coverage. In order to cover the cost of an insurance pool filled exclusively with sick people, premiums must be sky-high. Indeed, guaranteed issue has driven health premiums up by as much as 200 percent in some states.
In those states that mandate “guaranteed issue,” the regulation has induced patients to wait until they actually need medical care before purchasing coverage. In order to cover the cost of an insurance pool filled exclusively with sick people, premiums must be sky-high. Indeed, guaranteed issue has driven health premiums up by as much as 200 percent in some states.
The Democrats’ reform package would also install a national “community rating” ordinance, which would restrict insurers’ ability to charge different prices to different enrollees according to their health status. It would also impose new limits on out-of-pocket spending and require all insurance plans to include certain benefits, like maternity leave and newborn care, even if a patient didn’t want them.
These rules are meant to make health coverage more affordable and robust for more Americans. But they’ll do just the opposite.
Mandated benefits can increase the cost of a basic insurance policy by up to 50 percent. And by forcing insurers to charge both the sick and the healthy similar rates, community-rating regulations virtually guarantee that everyone pays more.
Instead, we need low-cost, pragmatic policies that drive down health prices without impinging on individual freedoms.
A great first step in that direction would be for Congress to allow people to buy insurance policies across state lines.
States regulate insurance differently. Some require policies to cover a long list of procedures. Others effectively prevent competition among carriers. As a result, the price of a basic insurance plan varies dramatically from state to state.
For instance, a 25-year-old male in New Jersey has to shell out about $5,600 for a basic insurance policy. His counterpart in Kentucky can get a similar policy for just $1,000.
Currently, Americans can only purchase policies approved for sale in the state where they live. Allowing them to shop around for the best deal would instill competition and drive down prices.
Lawmakers could take a second step in the right direction by enacting major medical malpractice reform. One in eight doctors gets sued for malpractice every year.
These suits cost about $100,000 on average to defend, even though doctors are found innocent 90 percent of the time.
To avoid getting dragged into expensive legal proceedings, many doctors engage in “defensive medicine,” ordering more tests and procedures than necessary. This practice added $124 billion to national health costs in 2006 and drove more than 3 million Americans into the ranks of the uninsured.
Implementing some commonsense tort reforms — like a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages — could reduce these costs without compromising patient care.
Congressional Democrats have been forced to trim some of their more grandiose ambitions for health reform. But the bill remains a bloated, big-government monstrosity. American taxpayers and patients alike simply can’t afford the Democrats’ vision for health reform.
Quoting & Saving just got easier…EasyToInsureME Health Insurance Quotes… Quote all carriers in seconds