A look at the health care reform debate: Dingell explains legislation. What do you think?
Jeers and taunts drowned out Democrats calling for a health care overhaul at town halls Tuesday, and one lawmaker said a swastika was spray-painted at his office as debate turned to noisy confrontation over President Barack Obama's plan.
The bitter sessions underscored the challenge for the administration as it tries to win over an increasingly skeptical public on the costly and far-reaching task of revamping the nation's health care system. Desperate to stop a hardening opposition, the White House created a Web site to dispel what it says are smears, and House Democrats set up a health care "war room" out of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's office to help lawmakers handle questions.
Congressman John Dingell - whose district includes Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti - ran into similar protests last week while holding a town hall in Romulus. Several videos of a Milan man with his adult son, who he said suffers from cerebral palsy, shouting in protest at Dingell, made it into news and blog reports, and onto the video sharing Web site YouTube. Dingell introduced a version of the health care reform legislation.
Check out some stories about health care reform coming out of Michigan here and here.
Here’s a look at a recent conversation about the health care reform bill between AnnArbor.com and Dingell before Congress went into its recess at the end of last month.
Q: How would the health care reform legislation that’s been introduced in Washington impact people in the 15th district - more specifically in the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti area?
A: There’s one person who’s very much affected by it - he’s been working on this thing for better than 50 years, and his father before him worked on it for 20 years. So if it goes well, there will be great celebration in the Dingell family. … We are closer to accomplishing this than at any time during my service … and we have learned, I think and I hope, from the mistakes of before … There’s more public support for this than I have ever seen before, and it is heightened by the economic downturn, which I think gives us more arguments to move vigorously forward than we would have without this downturn.
Q: How does this area stand to uniquely gain from legislation like this?
A: Eighty-three thousand uninsured individuals, they’re going to get high quality affordable health insurance and interestingly enough, they are going to have their choice and hopefully their choice not only between a number of private plans but also at least one public option. There’s going to be 11,500 small businesses that are going to receive tax credits and that will provide coverage to their employees with the government picking up through the tax credits about 50 percent of the cost. 2,700 seniors are going to avoid the (Medicare Part D) donut hole, which is an important matter. Nine hundred and fifty families are going to escape bankruptcy … We’re hoping to get up to 97 percent of all Americans, which is good … Uncompensated care is a major problem, and health care providers in just this district provided $330 million in uncompensated care. That’s a big item and if you take a look we have a bunch of great hospitals, we’ve got University of Michigan and St. Joes … Those numbers are only going to go up if we don’t address it. The nice thing about it is, it’s fully paid for.
Q: How?
A: Half is going to come from efficiencies in Medicare and Medicaid and half from the surtax on the income of the wealthiest individuals … There’s only going to be about 2,300 households in the district that are going to get hurt by this. And those are going to be folks who will have better able ability to sustain it and afford it. So 99.2 percent are not going to get a tax increase at all.
Q: What would this do to address the ultimate problem of enormous waste in the healthcare system?
A: There are all kinds of provisions we’re putting in there to bring out efficiencies and get rid of inefficiencies. For example, it will do several things I think are going to be important. The most important of which is it’s going to essentially standardize a lot of the forms and a lot of the bureaucracy in the billing system. When you go by your doctor's office, you walk in you see all these wonderful people running around in white uniforms and you say, ‘My, look at all these health care professionals they’re looking after me, this is wonderful doctor.’ When you get right down to it, health care professionals so far as their handling billing, there are literally thousands of different billing problems that are handled in different ways. There’s a real question about whether the doctor spends more time worrying about your health care or filling out the damn forms. So we’re building a bunch of efficiencies in to the system that will reduce waste, reduce cost and overlap and duplication.
Q: In Washtenaw County, the county health insurance plan Washtenaw Health Plan has closed enrollment due to high demand. That’s left a lot of people here unable to get any insurance and safety net providers have said the county is being strained from health care costs.
A: That’s exactly the same problem everybody’s got. Wayne County’s got a similar situation and of course Monroe has got the same problem. But all three counties have particular problems with low income and un-served or underserved areas and we’ve put in there a significant amount of help with the states in terms of Medicaid. But we do something more and that is we fund increasingly, community health centers, including mental health centers, to see to it you can get availability of services and high quality health service of the kind that these community health centers provide made available to our people and those are tremendous resources.
Q: What is working in the health care system right now?
A: We’ve got great medicine, great health insurance, great physicians and all kinds of great providers from laboratories, to hospitals and nursing homes. And then you’ve got the problem of paying for it. Our problem is not that we don’t have the best medical care available. It’s just people can’t get it because they can’t afford to pay for it. That’s the real thrust of this legislation.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report. Contact reporter Tina Reed at tinareed@annarbor.com.
Comments
racerx
Fri, Aug 14, 2009 : 2:48 a.m.
To Gary, gee bro', did you wake up on the wrong side of life today? How is the proposed health care bill "contolling (controlling), racist, and insulting to americans" (Americans)? Obama doesn't report the 9.4% unemployment, YOUR government does. And what source are you obtaining 17% from? Even taking in account those who might be unreported due to those who've just stop looking for a job, the national level is no where near that. If, as you say, that people have no jobs have no health coverage, then how is providing those people without with health coverage, a joke? And, who since 2007 when the recession begin and did nothing for 2yrs. was president at that time? Oh, I'm sorry, someone you probably voted for, George Bush?!? To continue, the government aren't calling us un-American and nazis, they are calling Obama these terms, and, are mainly from Republicans. So, please either develop a coherent thought process or stop listening to Fox news!
MI-expatriate
Fri, Aug 14, 2009 : 1:14 a.m.
Someone above commented that few here are without health coverage. My family and I have no health coverage. After decades of company sponsored coverage, why do we have no coverage? Unemployment. The cost of family cobra coverage is about 1/4 of the cost of maximum unemployment payments, and that is only because of subsidized cobra. Unsubsidized, it would have been 66% of the unemployment payments. We had the suggested 6 month emergency savings in place but when unemployment continues for 10 months (to date) there is less and less to cut from the budget to make ends meet. We need a place to live, to eat, and gas to get to job opportunities. There was no safety net for us after paying into the federal tax system for nearly 40 years. Here is what we need: prescription coverage, doctor visit coverage (dental is a luxury), and emergency care. If we need long term treatment we are prepared to lay down and die. Our older teen children know that the death plan is to donate our bodies to science. It is practical and free. How sad for them to know this, that it has come to this, in one of the wealthiest nations on this earth, priding itself on its compassion.
gary
Fri, Aug 14, 2009 : 12:34 a.m.
The reason people are mad is unemployment is really 17% not 9.4% like Obama reports. People have no jobs, they have no health coverage. The government calls us unamerican and nazis. The healthcare plan is a joke. Members of the congress and senate don't know what's in the bill. That haven't even read the bill. The bill is contolling, racist, and insulting to americans.
Marvin Face
Thu, Aug 13, 2009 : 12:38 p.m.
Wow. Is this how we try to have a debate about an important topic? Every single post here seems to start out by trying to make a valid point on one side or the other then they lose all credibility (both sides) by inflaming the other side. If I am on the left, am I going to be convinced if you call me a facist or smug? If I'm on the right, am I going to change my mind to yours if you call me clueless or a liar? Why is everyone so angry?
timjbd
Thu, Aug 13, 2009 : 9:17 a.m.
Not sure why you pulled my earlier post but I will try to remove what might be considered inflammatory... Questions about "tort reform" have been asked and answered so many times that there remain very few people who believe the republican spin on this issue. Medical malpractice costs ar less than 1/2 of 1% of health care spending and the problem THERE is not frivolous suits, but rather the increasing number of disastrous medical MISTAKES which are causing grievous harm and death. There is also the fact that insurance companies have raised rates FAR BEYOND what is warranted by actual court costs. Why? Because they CAN, that's why. _________________ Read this: http://www.slate.com/id/2145400/ (Both Obama and Hillary Clinton had recognized the TRUE problem early on.) ______________ Quote: The Harvard researchers took a huge sample of 31,000 medical records, dating from the mid-1980s, and had them evaluated by practicing doctors and nurses, the professionals most likely to be sympathetic to the demands of the doctor's office and operating room. The records went through multiple rounds of evaluation, and a finding of negligence was made only if two doctors, working independently, separately reached that conclusion. Even with this conservative methodology, the study found that doctors were injuring one out of every 25 patientsand that only 4 percent of these injured patients sued. The Harvard study stands for a large body of literature. On their own, however, the results don't disprove the Republicans' thesis that many medical malpractice suits are frivolous. Maybe badly injured patients don't sue, while the reflexively litigious clog up the legal system, making tort reform a viable solution. But a new study, released in May, demolishes that possibility. Dr. David Studdert led a team of eight researchers from Harvard School of Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and the Harvard Risk Management Foundation* who examined 1,452 medical malpractice lawsuits. They found that more than 90 percent of the claims showed evidence of medical injury, which means they weren't frivolous. In 60 percent of these cases, the injury resulted from physician wrongdoing. In a quarter of the claims, the patient died. When baseless medical malpractice suits were brought, the study further found, the courts efficiently threw them out. Only six of the cases in which the researchers couldn't detect injury received even token compensation. __________________________________ And this: http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/hs.xsl/1952.htm Quote: The American Association for Justice (AAJ) today released a report revealing the medical malpractice insurance industry has been price-gouging doctors through excessive premiums and needlessly contributing to the growing cost of healthcare. Written by former Missouri Insurance Commissioner Jay Angoff, the study is based on recent annual reports from the top 15 medical malpractice insurers as rated by A.M. Best. The report shows that these insurers artificially raised doctors premiums and misled the public about the nature of malpractice claims asserting that a so-called malpractice crisis exists. The report puts the lie to that claim. ________________________
corazon
Thu, Aug 13, 2009 : 8:42 a.m.
Mr. Dingell is probably doing his best on health care. This country needs universal care; these scare-monger hecklers are working against the best interests of everybody. Any bill must have mental health coverage; people with paranoid delusions need treatment!
racerx
Thu, Aug 13, 2009 : 2:15 a.m.
America needs health care reform, period. The cost are rising and if you look at infant mortally rates for developed nations, we rank very low. If a nation as rich as ours, can't take care of those most vulnerable, what does that say about a nation? Seems those who post have health insurance. What about the 40M who don't? Risisng cost is cited as a main reason why some businesses can't effectively compete in a global economy where health insurance is provided by their government. Medicaid has work for over, what, close to 40-60yrs? And really, what taxes do you ACTUALLY see that has an impact on your paycheck? If the defense dept cut spending, do you see any difference in your personal taxes? That whole arguement is crap. So I wonder, how much of this really has to do with those who are not "comfortable" with Obama being president? Seem's as though his mandate as a candidate in providing and improving health care was one of many reasons why he won. And those naysayers who think it isn't needed just look at what the Remote Area Medical organization does in rural America and what transpired recently in Los Angeles where thousands of people lined up for free heatlh care. And any one who listens to Sarah Palin really needs their head examined. Unless of course you too are an expert in foregin policy because you can see Russia from your house!
timjbd
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 10:10 p.m.
That Dave Janda must be some doctor! He misrepresented almost every single thing he brought up. Classic. As for Tina Reed's follow up questions to Dingell, don't bother. It's the same tired stuff the right wing has been braying since the beginning. All of it asked and answered many times. Unfortunately she blamed the reader's here specifically for asking them. Which I find irritating.
The Grinch
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 8:27 p.m.
Most of Dr. Janda's page number-referenced "facts" appear to have come from am e-mail circulating among conservatives and conservative groups, an e-mail that flatly mis-represents most of what is in the several BILLS (there is no single bill before Congress). For more, see the article in the St. Petersburg Times at: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/
Alan Benard
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 8:05 p.m.
Dr. Janda is mistaken about the UK health system and cardiac care for seniors: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/11/nhs-sick-healthcare-reform
The Grinch
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 7:59 p.m.
Dr. Janda may (or may not) have been on Oprah, but he is part of the Mackinaw Center for Public Policy (http://www.mackinac.org/bio.aspx?ID=59), a notoriously conservative think-tank that is in the pocket of the Chambers of Commerce and of the Republican Party. All of what he has posted here therefore must be suspect. And his charge of fascism is spurious and inflammatory. I urge him (and anyone else who throws around that term) to consult a dictionary.
The Picker
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 7:58 p.m.
Dear Mr. Jesse, Perhaps it time for your E-paper to post a copy of the legislation to be voted on in Sept. We can all read! Even if we don't get through it all, we will be able to decern the mindset of our elected representatives and the legislation they are crafting on our behalf. This will shed light on their behavior so the voting public can make a responsible decision at the polls.
David Jesse
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 6:35 p.m.
FYI: Tina e-mailed Congressman Dingell several follow-up questions based on the conversation here. You can see that story at: http://www.annarbor.com/news/q-a-response-to-your-health-care-reform-legislation-questions-from-congressman-john-dingell/
Knick
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 6:12 p.m.
From Ann Arbor's own nationally known physician (as seen on Oprah, CBS, etc.), Dave Janda. He read the HR 3200 and reported on it and here is his opn letter -- look it up on his website if you don't beleive he wrote this... "Let me summarize just a few salient points of the above plan......warning.......they need to put the same warning on The Obama Plan as they do a pack of cigarettes.....Consuming this product WILL be hazardous to your health. The underlying method of cutting costs throughout the plan is based on rationing and denying care NOT PREVENTING health care need. The plan's method is the most inhumane and unethical approach in cutting costs. The rationing of care is implemented through The National Health Care Board, according to the plan. This illustrious Board "will approve or reject treatment for patients based on the cost per treatment divided by the number of years the patient will benefit from the treatment." Translation.....if you are over 65 or have been recently=2 0diagnosed as having an advanced form of cardiac disease or aggressive cancer.....dream on if you think you will get treated.....pick out your box. Oh you say...this could never happen......sorry....this is the same model they use in Britain. Not to worry, according to the plan, there will be little or no advanced treatments to be available.....why? The plan also creates The Federal Coordinating Council For Comparative Effectiveness Research. This illustrious Council's purpose is "to slow the development of new medications and technologies in order to reduce costs." How special is that!! The plan also outlines that doctors and hospitals will be overseen and reviewed by The National Coordinator For Health Information and Technology. This " coordinator" will "monitor treatments being delivered to make sure doctors and hospitals are strictly following government guidelines that are deemed appropriate." It goes on to say....."Doctors and hospitals NOT adhering to guidelines will face penalties." According to those in Congress penalties could include large six figure financial fines and possible imprisonment. So according to the Obama Plan....if your doctor saves your life you might have to go to the prison to see your doctor for follow -up appointments. I believe this is the same model Stalin used in the former Soviet Union. On page 425 of The Obama Plan, "The End of Life Counseling Program" is discussed. After each American turns 65 years of age they have to go to a mandated counseling program that is designed to end life sooner. This session is to occur every 5 years unless the person has developed a chronic illness then it must be done every year. The topics in this session will include, "how to decline hydration, nutrition and how to initiate hospice care." It is no wonder The Obama Administration does NOT like my emphasis on Prevention......Prevention is the "enemy"......people would live longer. Finally, on page 16 of the plan.....it is ILLEGAL for a citizen to have private insurance if they lose their job, change their job, become a senior citizen or graduate from college and land their first job.....yes....illegal. When President Obama was asked about this portion of his plan yesterday his response was...." I am not familiar with that part of the plan." Don't believe me......take a look. Obama hosted a conference call with bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible. During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed? President Obama replied: You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about. I rest my case....The Plan authored by Obama / Pelosi / Reed is hazardous to the health of every American. In Washington on Thursday night, I was asked by a Congressman in the question - answer session...." I am doing a number of network interviews next week on the Obama Health Care Plan. If I am asked what is the one word to describe the plan what should I answer." The answer is simple, honest, direct, analytical, sad but truthful...... the word is FASCIST. Dave Janda
timjbd
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 5:31 p.m.
"Name 1 single payer system in the world that has worked and worked well." _______________ Taiwan has a "single-payer" system based on the US Medicare (also single-payer) system. Taiwans seems to work very well from what their administrators say about it and so does the US Medicare system as long as it's properly funded. There obviously needs to be a better system of deciding what procedures should cost but that's an easy fix. Can look to Japan for that answer. So that's two. Canada has a single-payer system which all of the Canadians I know- like- and it seems to work well although not perfectly, of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer#Taiwan_-_Universal_Single_Payer_modeled_on_US_Medicare Lots of other countries with systems FAR superior to ours are hybrids of public/private funded and operated systems with cost/profit controls, etc. If you're just looking to tangle the semantics, have at it. The point is, whether or not we model our system on another or come up with something new, our current system is collapsing. There are many roads to fixing it but these town hall protesters all seem to favor the status quo (when you can find one who actually KNOWS what he thinks). And probably will continue to right up until they are personally cancelled. They are being played for chumps by big business. As usual.
Tina Reed
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 1:29 p.m.
I'm waiting for additional information from Congressman John Dingell's office for this conversation. His spokesman Adam Benson pointed out a fact-checking piece that ran on Mlive today at: http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/08/fact_checking_john_dingells_he.html. I also received a release today about a telephone town hall forum about health care reform with Congressman Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek. Here is a link to the details: http://schauer.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=141466
Hiram
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 12:53 p.m.
What About a Single-Payer System? We have the technology that we could feed and clothe and house and give reasonable, minimal health care to every single person on this planet. I like this idea:"Only single-payer national health insurance can make universal" Dr. Steffie Woolhandler (Steffie Woolhandler is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, a primary-care doctor and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.) According to Dr. Steffie Woolhandler "guaranteed access to health care for all members of society, including the forty-two million Americans currently without medical insurance." "guaranteeing universal financial access to care"
Alan Benard
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 12:24 p.m.
"Uncompensated care is a major problem, and health care providers in just this district provided $330 million in uncompensated care." This is what is closing hospital after hospital in urban areas -- uncompensated E/R births, gun-show wounds, care of chronic illnesses in the E/R. The county hospitals have to stay open and the taxpayers directly and indirectly pick up the cost now. With reform, the costs will be more evenly and fairly spread, and there will be greater access to preventative care. It is not accurate to say that we have choice in doctors now. Many U-M health centers have months-long, even years-long wait lists for enrollment. Unless you have top-flight BC/BS PPO coverage, you must stay withing a group and have your care referred through your primary-care doctor. No plan under discussion rations care, no plan calls for euthanasia, no plan tells your doctor what to do for your care, no plan is a government takeover or socialized medicine (though I personally favor that), no plan changes or ends Medicare. Doing nothing will cause premiums to DOUBLE within a decade. What group of wild-eyed Stalinists state these facts? The AARP: http://healthactionnow.org/ It would be unkind to insist that those asserting otherwise are liars, so I will refrain.
DagnyJ
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 11:18 a.m.
We need reform. I concur with the suggestion to read the Atul Gawande article about health spening http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande.
MI-expatriate
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 10:17 a.m.
While living in England a decade ago, we were eligible for national health coverage, but like many others, we carried a private insurance policy and went to our personal physicians almost exclusively. I believe this proposed plan is a safety net for those unable to afford private coverage. Isn't that better than NO coverage, which in the end, all of us with private coverage pay for anyway in increased costs when emergency rooms are used for basic care? Regarding "Death Panels", your elderly parents will not be denied care and your Down Syndrome baby will not be killed at birth under these plans. If like my dying father (of sound mind) requested, there was a Do-Not-Resuscitate order in effect at the time of his death, then yes, an elderly parent will die. It was a blessing to him and us, his family. Please try to know the facts rather than believing the propaganda. Think America!
timjbd
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 9:50 a.m.
Sorry about the ruckus. Now, I would urge everyone to read "The Cost Connundrum" by Atul Gawande in the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?yrail It examines how two towns in Texas can have such a drastic difference in the cost of providing the same level of care. ____________________________ Here's a question: If a group of doctors are allowed to own medical testing facilities (blood work, MRI's, etc), and private surgical centers, do you think those doctors will prescribe more or fewer tests and surgeries for their petients?
Tony Dearing
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 9:34 a.m.
What started out as a good conversation about health care reform is rapidly devolving. This is as far as we're going to go with name-calling or comments that aren't directly related to health-care reform. Any future posts that include personal comments or drift off-topic will be removed.
timjbd
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 9:29 a.m.
"timjbd: Do you actually believe that "cost savings" isn't picked up by the hospital or physicians down the line. The government doesn't pay enough out on medicare on the service that is provided yet the hospitals are forced to provide care." __________________________ If you read what I wrote, I said, "But that would also mean that people would have to agree to have their taxes reflect the ACTUAL costs of providing care." A good example would be the way Japan has a board which determines prices for all services based on the ACTUAL cost of providing the particular services. Doctors make a tidy living but maybe do not get obscenely rich- as some here seem to think they are entitled to be- and everyone is included. But that's PRIVATE insurance in Japan. Another difference being insurance companies are RESTRICTED in the amount of overhead and profit so there is no gouging. And there is no recission. Ever.
timjbd
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 9:22 a.m.
From deep with-in the annals of cluelessness: "I find it funny he thinks it is ok to keep putting the load on the wealthiest people. Listen folks, those people provide us our employment!" If you seriously think the rich pay their fair share of taxes, maybe you can explain the ever widening gap between the richest 10% and the poorest? Or even between the richest 1% and EVERYONE ELSE? I'll give you a hint: It has to do with the amount of taxes they avoid paying.
timjbd
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 9:15 a.m.
Oh, and as for "tort reform," that would be a tiny, tiny drop in the bucket. All studies show that the number of malpractice cases has stayed relatively stable for the past 30 years. What HAS happened is the insurance companies have been GOUGING doctors because they can. The problem is not the lawyers, it is the insurance companies again. And as a means to obfuscate, people here bring up the huge federal debt and deficit as if that were not entirely the product of 8 years of total republican control. Clinton handed Bush a projected balanced budget and Bush used it to launch a catastrophic invasion of Iraq, privatize nearly the whole government and military and then give the richest among us a massive tax cut which went straight to the bottom line. If you could go back in time to see what these "deficit-conscious" posters were doing while Bush was fleecing us, I'm sure you'd see an entirely different attitude about it all. Just a guess.
timjbd
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 9:05 a.m.
Tony, If everyone told the truth, there would be no debate. Everyone (except insurance and drug co. executives) would agree that a single-payer Medicare-style system would be the way to go. People who are actually ON Medicare seem to like it just fine as a whole and Medicare has 2% overhead compared to private insurance with 24-26%. But that would also mean that people would have to agree to have their taxes reflect the ACTUAL costs of providing care. This would end up costing everybody much less but if you mention taxes at all, the right wing noise machine stokes up the crazies and they start waving guns around and shouting down all opposing views. That's how a tiny minority ends up controlling the "debate" because congress (as an institution) is a pack of spineless jackals with notable exceptions, of course. And I say that with all due respect.
Freemind42
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 8:15 a.m.
Reform is needed. If people want to have a civilized debate about it, great. Shouting down congresspeople is no way to prove a point.
Top Cat
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 8:03 a.m.
What is evident is that Congressman for Life Dingell is no longer physically or mentally up for this job. The Congressman for Life has been voting for a $1.8 trillion Federal deficit this year and cannot credibly answer the question of where the money will come from to pay for health care for tens of millions more. This is the same guy that is supposed to be an advocate for the automotive industry and its workers. Instead, he is the poster child for term limits on Congressman and having congressional districts set by independent panels.
The Picker
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 7:41 a.m.
Its hard to take the congressman seriously when he crafts a plan for us that he won't be subscribing to. He hasn't read this legislation. If they allowed Insurance companies to compete across state lines you would see much more competition/lower premiums. What about tort reform? I happen to believe that doctors are not as concerned about money as lawyers are. Here's a simple plan, just change the billing address of patients to the US Treasury, surely we already pay enough taxes to cover this option and congress could then spend its valuable time on better budgeting. This bill is about growing government and its union control over our lives, not better medicine
Bob Martel
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 7:29 a.m.
@ timjbd: Based on some of these other posts, it looks like Sarah Palin is alive and well in Ann Arbor!
Diagenes
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 7:15 a.m.
Kosmo, I cannot agree with you more. Rep. Dingell did not mention tort reform to reduce cost. Give vouchers to people who do not qualify for medicaid and cannot afford insurance. Michigan has Blue Cross to supply insurance for people with pre-existing conditons, that can be required in all states. Let insurance companies sell across state lines like car insurance. That will drive down premiums. Afterall Dingell, Pelosi, Reid,Obama, and all the other statists think they know what's good for us. What they do not seem to know is that the Canadian health care system is failing. Why would we want to copy it here? For a successful European model look to the Swiss. It is based on private insurance with government assistance to those who need it. Dingell's time has past. Vote him out in 2010.
BlueNever!
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 7:06 a.m.
Obama PROMISED to reduce waste and inefficiencies in the Government to stay within budget. In his first 30 days, he publicly told his staff to cut $100 million from each of their budgets. Yet, he could not even find a 1% decrease in budget waste to cut, so he dropped the rhetoric about reforming Government. Now he says we can pay for the Health Care reform by just eliminating the waste and inefficiencies in Medicare, Medicaid and healthcare costs? The Government should set the example. If Obama can't cut $1 trillion from his budget this year in the form of waste and inefficiencies, there is absolutely no hope of finding it in the healthcare industry. Bottom line: more taxes, denial of service, rationing of treatment and more Government waste will pay for this ill-conceived plan. (Then again, John Dingell, like the President, are relying on the public to not have passed 3rd grade math.)
timjbd
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 6:43 a.m.
I loved it (at an earlier panel) when the guy on Medicare stood up and shouted how he didn't want the government to take his health care away. And how the Wall St rag 'Investors Business Daily' claimed: "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldnt have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless. Paul Krugman answers: "That would be Stephen Hawking, British professor, who was born in the UK and has lived there for his whole life." And Sarah Palin (she'd make a really interesting president!) claimed that some "Death Panel" would have killed her infant son even after her own behaviour leading up to his birth put him in the only life-threatening jeopardy he's ever known. Here's a Republican Senator explaining exactly what it is that has been smeared as a death panel: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/is_the_government_going_to_eut.html Thank you, Senator Isakson! Now, let the fear, loathing, lies and slander begin!
kosmo
Wed, Aug 12, 2009 : 6:38 a.m.
"The nice thing about this is that it is fully paid for"?? Really?? It seems to me like we have two choices: we can get the kind of insurance we want(lots of choices out there) and pay for it ourselves, or we can get the kind of health insurance the government wants and pay for it in higher taxes. Personally, I will take the first option. Are we to expect that the government, who has bankrupted social security and is bankrupting medicare and medicaid, can run a program like this? Always, politics gets in the way of good business. Better to leave it in the hands of the private sector. Furthermore, if half can come from effeciencies in medicare and medicaid, WHY, I ask, is not this being done NOW!!! Finally, if anyone thinks that this cost can be forced on the backs of "rich" taxpayers, let me remind you what rich taxpayers and businesses in California did and are doing in states and citys like New York; they are leaving and have left. Believe me, they are not just going to roll over and take this. And consider the morality of stealing from the rich as well. If this thing is worth having then everyone should pay a fair share.