Southeast Michigan congressional delegates defend 'Obamacare' as Supreme Court hearings start
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act, Southeast Michigan's congressional delegation is embracing "Obamacare."
"Having the president's name attached to the first large health care legislation since Medicare is an honor, and so I'm one of the ones that call this bill Obamacare with pride," said U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Detroit, during a conference call with AnnArbor.com.
Friday marked the two-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, Obama's signature domestic policy achievement. And Monday marks the start of a three-day hearing before the nation's highest court, which will devote six hours to oral arguments.
John Dingell is defending Obamacare
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
U.S. Rep. John Dingell, whose district covers Ann Arbor, said the individual mandate is needed to ensure a large enough number of Americans are buying insurance to allow the government to require insurance companies to sell policies to people who have pre-existing health conditions.
"It is absolutely important to the insurance industry, if we're going to do this thing right, that we cover everybody — or as many as we can — so we have a large pool," said Dingell, D-Dearborn.
"One of the problems with insurance, as it is now practiced in this country, is that it is not insurance in the conventional case where you provide coverage for everybody."
Rather, Dingell said, there's a lot of picking and choosing that goes on.
"And the picking and choosing turns out to create some very serious hardship for the people covered by insurance," he said. "You have pre-existing conditions, you have cancellation and rescission of polices, and a lot of other things like this, which deny people coverage because insurance companies are avoiding risk because they must do so to stay in business."
Dingell and U.S. Rep. Sandy Levin, D-Royal Oak, both cited an estimate that uninsured Americans consumed $116 billion worth of health services in 2008. In that year, people without insurance did not pay for 63 percent of their health care costs, Levin said.
"What the Affordable Care Act is going to mean is that the number of uninsured will diminish dramatically," Levin said. "It will place over time at least 35 million people with insurance. That will be good for them and it's going to be for all of us who pay premiums."
Dingell defended the provisions of Obamacare that will push more Americans to pay for health insurance by calling the uninsured "freeloaders."
"Everybody else is paying $1,000 a year on their policies because of these freeloaders," he said. "Now if you want to defend the freeloaders, you can just go right ahead and do so."
Republicans in Congress want Obamacare repealed, and they aren't counting on the court to declare it unconstitutional. They're itching to repeal it themselves.
Tim Walberg
"The Congressional Budget Office projects the law will now reduce the labor supply by 800,000 and cost $1.76 trillion, nearly double what was projected when the bill was signed into law," Walberg said. "In addition, CBO estimates there will be 20 million fewer people accessing health insurance through their employer, and by 2019 as many as 27 million people uninsured."
Many of the act's most contentious provisions are still to come. In 2014, the law provides for the expansion of Medicaid, the mandate requiring most people to have health insurance, subsidies for low-income residents, and rules requiring businesses with more than 50 employees to provide coverage for employees or pay a fine.
A nonprofit group called Know Your Care is hard at work promoting Obamacare, claiming the law already is benefiting millions of people around the country.
According to the group's statistics, which also are being used by the Obama campaign, there are nearly 3.5 million people in the nation on Medicare, including 84,000 in Michigan, who saved money on prescription drugs because of the Affordable Care Act.
That represents a savings of $2.1 billion nationally, including $49 million in Michigan or nearly $600 per person.
Meanwhile, 32.5 million people nationally and 1.1 million people in Michigan with Medicare have received preventative services thanks to the Affordable Care Act.
In all, 54 million people, including 1.8 million in Michigan, have seen added coverage of preventive services without cost sharing through their private insurance.
Sandy Levin
"If the Supreme Court acts wrongly and holds this unconstitutional," Dingell said, "all of these benefits, all of these privileges, all of these new heath care protections that so many million Americans are getting will go out the window and will be gone forever."
Dingell said that's the potential consequence of "careless judicial work and disregard of the needs and the concerns of our American people."
The Obama campaign provided AnnArbor.com with local information for how the Affordable Care Act is believed to be benefiting Washtenaw County residents.
In Washtenaw County, 1,700 seniors in the Medicare coverage gap — often called "the doughnut hole" — got a 50 percent discount on their brand-name drugs, saving them an average of $610 each, according to the data supplied by the campaign.
Meanwhile, an estimated 3,100 young adults in Washtenaw County who would otherwise be uninsured have been able to stay on their parents' health plans.
Insurance companies also are prohibited now from denying coverage to an estimated 33,000 children in and around Ann Arbor with pre-existing conditions.
Mark Hodesh, the owner of a home-and-garden shop in downtown Ann Arbor, is among those lobbying for the Affordable Care Act. Hodesh is featured in a video on HealthCare.gov where he talks about the importance of Obamacare to small businesses.
"A lot of people say it's a job killer," Hodesh says in the video. "In my experience, it's a job creator."
The Affordable Care Act allows employers to claim a tax credit for up to 35 percent of their health insurance premiums. Hodesh says while his insurance rates have skyrocketed over the past decade, the tax credit gave him the ability to hire another employee.
Levin said he hopes the Supreme Court will set aside political ideologies this week and simply hold the law up to the Constitution, but he thinks there's a danger to the whole act.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee is among the groups taking aim at the act as the Supreme Court hearings get under way. The NRSC has been blasting U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., for supporting the president's health reforms, arguing Obamacare has made health care less affordable for Americans.
The NRSC cites data from the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit research group that tracks employer-sponsored health insurance on a yearly basis, showing the average health care premium climbed 9 percent last year from $13,770 to $15,073. The NRSC argues the average Michigander is now paying $132 more for health insurance.
Dingell still believes Obamacare is good for the country. He said it reduces the federal deficit, helps states fund their affairs, and sees to it that the U.S. is moving in the direction of ensuring every American has decent and adequate health coverage.
"The Affordable Care Act protects doctors and their patients," Dingell said. "It holds health insurers accountable. It ends the practice of insurance companies denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. It prohibits rescissions of coverage and it eliminates lifetime caps on coverage. It also extends the solvency of the Medicare trust fund by at least nine years."
And shortly, Dingell said, all Americans will be able to say this: No longer can insurance companies cancel your policy because you get sick.
"If this law is held unconstitutional, we can look forward to seeing all that going out the window," Dingell said. "And as I've mentioned, 90,000 seniors in Michigan are going to fall back into the doughnut hole. The price and the peril of this to our people is enormous."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
15crown00
Tue, Mar 27, 2012 : 3:01 p.m.
Let's force ALL government employees especially the legislators to be on this program.I'll bet support would vanish fast if this was done.
15crown00
Tue, Mar 27, 2012 : 2:57 p.m.
Why is it you suppose we should help the lazy people among us get health care.let them get up off their sorry butts and do something productive. Federal Govt. wants to force us to do something "for our own good. The federal govt. can't even run the govt. why would we think they can run health care. This crap is another haven for the lazy among us.get up off your lazy rear ends and do something productive. Don't need a corrupt govt. telling me what's best for me.Go away and reform yourself first.. '
Mike
Tue, Mar 27, 2012 : 1:42 a.m.
Of course they support it, they are exempt from it!!!!!! Who are the brainless fools that keep re-eelcting guys like Dingell?
mun
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 11:36 p.m.
If "socialized health insurance" is so bad, why doesn't Canada, UK, etc. switch to the American health insurance system? Maybe their doctors don't want to waste their time dealing with private insurance companies.
maallen
Wed, Mar 28, 2012 : 1:38 p.m.
@mun, Interesting that you brought Canada and UK up. Canada is currently allowing private practices to be set up. When Canada nationalized healthcare they banned private practices. But now Canada is in such dire straits financially with HealthCare costing them billions and billions of dollars, long wait lines, lagging in new technology they are now allowing their citizens to go to private practices and still be covered under the health care in Canada. They are slowly converting back to privatized medicine. England is also in dire financial straits that they are cutting coverages in healthcare, allowing their citizens to go to a doctor of their choice instead of the government telling them where to go, and increasing the copays that they have to pay for services and tons of other things that not enough space here allows me to write.
Mike
Tue, Mar 27, 2012 : 1:42 a.m.
You obviously don't know any doctors..............
mun
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 11:32 p.m.
Hey Tim Walberg! Since you're opposed to government health care, are you going to give up your taxpayer funded Congressional health plan?
talker
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 11:23 p.m.
I want to add to my 9:03 a.m. post that anyone can be one day away from a diagnosis that makes them uninsurable, regardless of having wonderful health practices such as no smoking, healthy eating, and regular exercising. Nobody knows in advance whether and when a genetic or cellular condition or a serious accident or attack will occur. I used to sell health insurance. Cancer survivors, even those who had been symptom free for years, were turned down for individual policies. Meanwhile, people who could be diagnosed tomorrow were given insurance. Then some companies try to cancel policies when expensive care lurks. Routinely, women pay more than men, partly due to potential pregnancy and delivery. Younger people don't always escape illness. Men in their 20's can get testicular cancer and hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills. Men and women of any age can get cancer, be in a serious accident, be diagnosed with a congenital heart condition, etc. regardless of having great exercise and food habits. While a single payer system would be less expensive, the Affordable Care Act is the best system we have available now. The major improvement some want for the future is the elimination of many intermediary costs so that more of our money goes solely for medical care.
maallen
Wed, Mar 28, 2012 : 1:43 p.m.
@mun, At least with an insurance company you have an appeals process, two of them. And then you can take it up with the government and/or sue. Under the government's program, you don't get to appeal nor can you sue.
maallen
Wed, Mar 28, 2012 : 1:41 p.m.
@Talker, Apparently you didn't sell health insurance for very long. Blue Cross of Michigan does not turn down anyone. That is why they are the insurer of last resort. They cover everyone with illnesses or no illnesses.
mun
Tue, Mar 27, 2012 : 9:48 p.m.
"Even though you might now have insureance you can most definitely be denied care by a government board." "And your willing to pay bureaucrats to do that instead of you in conjunction with your doctor?" What do you think it is when a health insurance company says we won't cover that treatment? A board coming between patient and doctor.
Mike
Tue, Mar 27, 2012 : 1:46 a.m.
There are parts of the plan we should keep but 99% of it is taxes, bureacracy, and fees all leading to rationing of care. Even though you might now have insureance you can most definitely be denied care by a government board. You have a very rose colored glasses view of this. The government doesn't do anything well except screw things up. And your willing to pay bureaucrats to do that instead of you in conjunction with your doctor?
Mike K
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 7:19 p.m.
All I have say is, "what's next?" What will the all powerful Federal Government mandate next? What will they "compel" me to do with the threat of FORCE and penalty? This is exactly the type of government the Founders wanted to avoid.
maallen
Wed, Mar 28, 2012 : 1:45 p.m.
@mun, Can you please explain how the Patriot Act "tramples" the 4th and 5th amendments? Go ahead and explain it. This ought to be good.
mun
Tue, Mar 27, 2012 : 9:49 p.m.
@Mike K So where were you when they passed the Patriot Act, which tramples on the 4th and 5th amendements of the Constitution?
Mike K
Tue, Mar 27, 2012 : 1:36 p.m.
Talker - the point is power. One needn't electricity to understand it. There is nothing more powerful than our Federal Government - period. Kudos to the liberals for understanding this and using it to their advantage. They knew about power and government. It won't take you long to find quotes like this from Thomas Jefferson. "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. (Letter to Edward Carrington, 1788)" Kudos to the Founders for knowing this some 250 years in advance.
Mike
Tue, Mar 27, 2012 : 1:47 a.m.
There going to have the 16,00 new IRS agents climbing down your throat, that's what's next. Get out your checkbook or they'll garnish your wages plus interest. There's no getting away from this if it's not appealed
talker
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 11:29 p.m.
There were few means of improvement or cures at the time of the Constitutional Convention. There was no electricity either so there were no electric bills. There were no motor vehicles and no cost for gasoline. One reason for a much lower life expectancy was the much higher death rate among children. There are so many differences between then and now.
Ryan J. Stanton
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 5:01 p.m.
Audio of today's oral arguments: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Monday
Pickforddick
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 4:49 p.m.
I seem to remember a German back in the 40's that tried to convince people that they needed a new direction for their Gov't....how did that work out?
Ann English
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 11:19 p.m.
I wasn't around in the forties, but I do know that Adolf Hitler was born in Austria, not Germany. Of course, you might be referring to someone else.
Pickforddick
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 4:47 p.m.
Given the choice between socialism and capitalism I will choose Capitalism every time.
Pickforddick
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 10:45 p.m.
Think People...Think
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 9:51 p.m.
I would like to see a list of industrialized democracies that have zero "socialism". The countries that do have zero socialism are places I think you would not choose to live. Total "free market" countries include Sudan and ost parts of Afghanistan not controlled by govt paid security services.
Mike K
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 7:12 p.m.
Someone voted "down". Wow. It is really unbelievable.
bobslowson
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 6:40 p.m.
PickDick...do you really need to cut and paste your tired response multiple times in the same story? Geesh...
Randolph
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 5:20 p.m.
Seems like you're starting to drink the koolaid, there. We already have corporate welfare and that kind of socialism is killing us. Unchecked capitalism leads to unbridled greed; that's why, I think, most modern industrial countries do have a social contract with their citizens, especially with health care. None of them are perfect, but meanwhile, the people do have some level of care which allows them to compete in a global capitalistic world. Of course if I were young, healthy, well employed and my 401k was doing well I might just think this was a static situation and choose Capitalism every time...
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 4:22 p.m.
Nobody has answered one of my basic questions yet. If you oppose this mandate, do you currently carry health insurance? If not, how much do you have set aside so that the rest of us will not have to pay for your unexpected health care bills? If you currently have health insurance, do you plan to drop that insurance? If so, why? Hospitals face about $50,000,000,000 in unpaid medical bills annually. Right now we all pick up this tab. --HHS study, 2011 On average, uninsured families can only afford to pay in full for about 12% of the admissions to hospital (hospitalizations) they might experience. Even uninsured families with incomes above 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) can afford to pay in full for only 37% of their hospitalizations. Hospitalizations for which the uninsured cannot pay in full account for 95% of the total amount hospitals bill the uninsured. Even among the uninsured with incomes above 400% FPL, hospitalizations for which the patient would not be able to pay in full account for 64% of the total amount hospitals bill the uninsured. Lacking health insurance poses a greater risk of financial catastrophe than lacking car insurance or homeowner's insurance. Although an individual is 50 percent more likely to have a car accident in a year than to be hospitalized, the average bill for a hospitalization is over two and a half times higher than the average loss for a car accident. And, while the bill for a single hospitalization is about the same as the loss from an average house fire, a person is ten times more likely to be hospitalized than to experience a house fire. -- If you have a mortgage, you are required to have insurance on your home. Is that socialism?
David Spence
Tue, May 15, 2012 : 1:07 a.m.
Yes, I oppose the mandate. Yes, I carry *private* (non-employer-provided) health insurance.
Stephen Landes
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 6:48 p.m.
Everything you cite is voluntary while a Federal mandate is not. The question is, does the Constitution give the Federal government the power to force you to buy a product? I contend, and I believe the Supreme court will conclude, that it does not. This is not about insurance being a good or bad thing; it is about freedom from government intrusion in our life.
Arno B
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 3:36 p.m.
I have often wondered why the Washington deep thinkers such as Conyers, Dingell, Levin, and Stabenow don't initiate a simple bit of legislation which might end all of the Health Care squabbling! All that any or all of them would have to do is introduce a simple bill which would cancel their current federal medical policies and have the members of the Congress and Senate join the Obamacare program. They would not only be putting their money where their mouths are but leading the way to show all of us how wonderful this new government program is. Regarding Walberg, I suspect that he has benefited greatly from the Lansing largesse which has provided lifetime health care for those who have served for two terms in Lansing.
Ann English
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 11:16 p.m.
The Democrats don't believe in rule by law, but in rule by men and women. Whether it's environmentalism or socialized medicine, they show by their behavior that they don't want to live under the laws they want the rest of us to live under. Throw in public education, too.
Pickforddick
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 5:05 p.m.
I agree....You have made a very good point here...why are they not rushing to be a part of it?
mhirzel
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 3 p.m.
For 3 days, view for free, movie "Sick and Sicker" to educate yourself on just how these rosy bureaucratic promises play out in reality (Canada). http://www.aapsonline.org/sickandsicker Hopefully, it will open some eyes.
talker
Tue, Mar 27, 2012 : 1:12 a.m.
I know people in Canada and other countries with national health insurance who have received excellent, life saving treatment. One friend received certain breast cancer drugs that were considered very important and given without any co-pay to make sure all people with breast cancer could take that drug.
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 2:41 p.m.
How many people opposed to "socialism" want to get rid of mandated car insurance in Michigan? Definition of SOCIALISM 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state How does mandating PRIVATE insurance equal socialism? Has the Obnama administration set any industrial production quotas? Have they nationalized any industry? If you are against socialism, did you protest the Medicare Part "D" program passed by the GOP President in 2003? There are 28 Republicans currently in the Senate who were in the Senate back in 2003. Of this number, 24 voted for health care reform in 2003. There are 122 Republicans currently in the House who were in the House back in 2003. Of this number, 108 of them voted for health care reform in 2003. Rick Santorum voted for Part "D". Newt advocated for it.
Pickforddick
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 2:23 p.m.
Given the choice between socialism and capitalism I will choose Capitalism every time.
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 2:22 p.m.
Interesting that those opposed to "judicial activism" want the Court to overturn the legislature passed law.
Mike K
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 8:49 p.m.
That bill would never have passed a truly bipartisan congress and executive branch. NEVER. That's one thing the liberal left will never realize. It was the highly partisan acts of the left in 2008 - 2010 that created the polarization we have now, but as they say, to the victors go the spoils. Too bad that many Americans don't want it. You have to hand it to the liberals. They know the power resides in federal government. If they can the the federal government to mandate by force of law, check mate. The Founders are rolling over in their graves. This is exactly the power they wanted to avoid.
annarboral
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:56 p.m.
Isn't it obvious what Obamacare is really all about? Democrats are simply buying votes by giving away free medical care. It's simply another in a long list of "entitlement" programs that buys the votes of select demographics. You already know who pays for this, that's right, everyone that works hard to support their family. What's worse is that the cost of medical care will rise dramatically, the quality will decrease and the availability will be controlled by "big government" bureaucrats. That isn't speculation, it's a sure thing. Look into medical care in Canada or England.
maallen
Wed, Mar 28, 2012 : 1:51 p.m.
@mun, "But it's OK for insurance bureacrats to ration health care in the US. What else do you call it when a private insurance company says "we won't cover that treatment?" At least you can appeal the decision and/or sue the decision that the insurance company makes. The only time a health insurer won't cover a treatment is if it's experimental, has not been approved by the government, etc. But if the government denies you the care, what is your recourse? You can't sue them. So what do you do then?
mun
Tue, Mar 27, 2012 : 12:31 a.m.
"Over in England, care is rationed. If the medical bureaucrats think that there isn't enough tax money to cure someone from a disease that could kill her, they deny her care" But it's OK for insurance bureacrats to ration health care in the US. What else do you call it when a private insurance company says "we won't cover that treatment?"
Ann English
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 11 p.m.
Canadians look to the U. S. as their safety net, when they can't get timely medical care in their own country. I once heard of a couple whose triplets had to be born in Montana for no Canadian hospital would take them. They're Canadians from Alberta, and had to travel 300 miles to find a hospital ready and willing to take them. I guess some parts of Hawaii practice socialized medicine more than other parts. Over 30 years ago, I read of a man who got an infected tooth. In the part of Hawaii where he was living, the medical bureaucracy told him to get on a waiting list for oral surgery. But the tooth infection killed him before his appointment came up. Over in England, care is rationed. If the medical bureaucrats think that there isn't enough tax money to cure someone from a disease that could kill her, they deny her care. One family who had such a relative decided to pay for her life-saving treatment themselves, but the government stepped in, disallowing them from doing that because it would make them look bad. So their relative died a needless death. THIS IS WHAT IPAB WILL DO TO US!
maallen
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 4:36 p.m.
Clownfish, Please explain why the President of the Canadian Medical Association said Canada's health care system is imploding and precarious, and needs an overhaul? If it works so well, then why is the Canadian government in the process of allowing private doctors offices to be set up? It was illegal once they Nationalized healthcare. Hint, because it reduces the wait time and its cheaper than the system they currently have. My relative had to come to the States to have a cat scan done because there was a one year wait in Canada. When asked if they could speed up the process, the Doctor responded, "No because it is not a life threatening situation." However, due to the wait time it could have become life threatening. The Canadian Supreme Court has several rulings against the Canadian healthcare system because people could not get the proper care they needed in time. Also, the National Report Card on Health Care in Canada, which surveyed Canadian citizens had this: When it came to modern diagnostic equipment and specialty care majority of the citizens gave it an F to a D. Only 29% rated "access to family doctor" an A. Only 24% rated "access to children care" an A. Over 55% said they waited longer than they should have for routine things. Not a healthcare system that sounds very good, eh?
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 2:44 p.m.
I guess if you cannot answer easy questions it is better to attack using the term "socialist" than to back up your theories with any evidence.
Pickforddick
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 2:36 p.m.
If you want socialism stick with your current administration, I prefer capitalism.
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 2:23 p.m.
Even if the alleged "capitalist" system costs more and provides inferior care?
Pickforddick
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 2:21 p.m.
Given the choice between socialism and capitalism I will choose Capitalism every time.
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 2:17 p.m.
http://potentialandexpectations.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/this-americans-experience-of-britains-healthcare-system/ "I can sum up my experience of the British and American healthcare systems in one simple sentence: given a choice between the two systems, I'd choose the NHS in a heartbeat. And though this is the experience of only one single person out of millions, unlike so much of the propaganda and hysteria surrounding the current healthcare debate, it is the absolute Gospel truth."
Pickforddick
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 2:13 p.m.
Very good post annarboral.......enough of this socialistic gov't mandates.
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 2:07 p.m.
In 2007, the majority (85.7%) of Canadians were very or somewhat satisfied with the health care services they received in the previous 12 months. Satisfaction with health care services received increased from 81% for those 20 to 34 years of age to 90% for those aged 65 and over. Canadians in the 15 to 19 age group also reported a high proportion of satisfaction at 88%. Before Canada implemented their national health program, their health costs were the same portion of their economy as in the U.S. After they implemented their program, their costs stabilized at 9% while U.S. costs have increased to 14%. They spend one tenth of what U.S. health care providers spend on overhead. The economic advantages of the Canadian system are multi-faceted. Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans. Preventive care to an entire population minimizes expensive care associated with undetected, untreated health problems. There is very little litigation because there is no need for awards to cover future health care costs; they are already covered. Further savings occur because there is no longer a need for a health insurance component of automobile or home insurance.
Ryan J. Stanton
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:39 p.m.
Just a bit more background on the individual mandate - Dingell correctly pointed out in our discussions that it was Republicans who originally pushed for the individual mandate, and it's an idea supported by Mitt Romney who shares the same opinion about so-called freeloaders. "Gov. Romney sometime back pointed out that it was a wrongdoing of the citizen to get a free ride on other people paying the cost of the health care programs in the United States," Dingell said during our interview. While Romney wants the Affordable Care Act overturned, he does still back the mandate in the law he signed as governor of Massachusetts.
Stephen Landes
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 3:59 p.m.
Ryan -- I do not support the individual mandate. However, I do recognize the difference between a state enacting such a mandate and the Federal government trying to do so. The Federal government was never given the power to require all states or all Americans to buy a product. Our Constitution reserves to the people and the states the power to do a wide variety of things that the Federal government cannot do. It is John Dingell being "careless" and disregarding the "needs" of the people by pushing for this unconstitutional law.
justcurious
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:38 p.m.
So will Dingell personally pay for the individual mandate insurance all of the folks who are stuck making $9.00 and hour at a company that offers not healthcare benefits? Yet they also need to somehow provide a roof over their head, buy ever increasing costly food, pay ever escalating utility cost and almost $4 a gallon to get them to that job? Or would he prefer that they be fined for not being able to afford even the most stripped down commercial policy?
maallen
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 4:01 p.m.
Justcurious, Dingell will not personally pay for the individual mandate. We as taxpayers pay for it. Individuals, depending on income will receive anywhere from 25% to 75% subsidy to pay for their health insurance. A family making $85,000 will get 50% of their premiums paid for by the taxpayers. Here's the kicker, the government is only predicting about 7% to 8% of all employers to drop their employer health insurance coverage once ObamaCare takes full effect in 2014. However, independent surverys show anywhere between 30% to 40% of all employers will drop it and force individuals to buy it on their own. Why? Because it will be a lot cheaper for the employer to pay the fine than to offer health insurance. Can't blame them. However, that will increase the cost of providing health insurance to the individuals because more people will be getting their premiums or part of their premiums paid for by the taxpayer. Can you imagine the cost that the taxpayers are going to pay?
Top Cat
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:27 p.m.
Dare we interfere with Mr. Dingell's prized legislation designed to "control the people?" That slip just said it all.
Pickforddick
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:43 p.m.
You are right, they want to control us, that is very clear with this current administration.
Michigan Man
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:26 p.m.
I would think that politically appointed death panels determining how healthcare is allocated as well as the Obama police tracking down the fine residents of Ann Arbor in the ER at St. Joes/U of M hospitals to card the patients for their insurance status would be offensive to most Ann Arborites?
maallen
Wed, Mar 28, 2012 : 1:26 p.m.
@Clownfish, Now we are getting somewhere....who says they have to be medical experts? No where in the law does it state they HAVE to be medical experts. But let's use your logic anyway and have a "board of medical experts." Now I am sure you would agree with common sense and know that not all medical experts are good. Case in point is Donald Berwick, the Director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. You know, the guy that President Obama appointed while congress was in recess. You know the guy that is ok with rationing healthcare, has talked about it and wrote about it. He's a "medical expert" but should he be appointed to the board when he is advocating health care rationing? Again, you should really read the law instead of cutting and pasting what the media and others report.
bobslowson
Tue, Mar 27, 2012 : 2:40 p.m.
"Politically appointed death panel" I can't believe someone is still trying to spout this lie...I know , I know...Obama is a muslim, wasn't born in this country etc...etc....
clownfish
Tue, Mar 27, 2012 : 1:34 p.m.
Yes, MAALEN, I could see how dangerous it could be to have a board of medical experts making recommendations on medical science.
maallen
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 5:06 p.m.
Clownfish, Again, you haven't read the law. The Independent Payment Advisory Board has the authority to make changes to the health insurance program with the Congress being given the power to overrule the agency's decisions. Whatever the Board says then it is AUTOMATICALLY put in force. The only way it can be stopped is by majority of congress OVERRIDING it. So, the board can make changes to the insurance program, but the only thing congress can do is override the decision. Hmmmm.....with the state of the Congress is currently in we can see how well that is working. It shouldn't be up to these 15 people, appointed by the President, to make decisions that WE have to live by. The panel is appointed by the President and CONFIRMED by the congress. However, the President RESERVES the right to make recess appointments to get around congress. Which unfortunately, both sides have used to their advantage. Can you see how dangerous this is? Do you understand now, or are you going to keep cutting and pasting, instead of actually reading what the law says?
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 4:10 p.m.
Here is the first annual report from the "death panel". http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/annlrpt/index.html
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 4:02 p.m.
The AHRQ Prevention and Care Management Portfolio fulfills AHRQ's Congressionally mandated role to support the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). The USPSTF is an independent panel of non-Federal experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine and is composed of primary care providers (such as internists, pediatricians, family physicians, gynecologists/obstetricians, nurses, and health behavior specialists). The USPSTF conducts scientific evidence reviews of a broad range of clinical preventive health care services (such as screening, counseling, and preventive medications) and develops recommendations for primary care clinicians and health systems. These recommendations are published in the form of "Recommendation Statements." In an effort to make the USPSTF recommendations clearer and its processes more transparent, the Task Force is sharing drafts of many of its documents for public comment, including all draft Research Plans and draft Recommendation Statements. In addition, in partnership with AHRQ's Effective Health Care (EHC) Program, the USPSTF also offers opportunities for public comment on draft EHC Evidence Reports that are related to the USPSTF's work.- http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 3:58 p.m.
The board needs approval from congress for member appointment. The board RECOMMENDS, it does not have the authority to make law.
maallen
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 3:55 p.m.
@Clownfish, You do realize that Obama has appointed a government panel, The United States Preventative Task Force, that will dictate what is covered and what is not covered and forces private health insurance to to abide by it. This panel is appointed by the President himself and we have no recourse to stop it. You did read the law didn't you? Or are you just relying on media reports? You do realize that the "Independent Payment Advisory Board" has full authority as to which things get cut out of medical care to save money, don't you? This 15 person panel has the authority to reduce costs of medical care. Let's take a wild guess how many ways they will be able to achieve this? You did read the law didn't you?
Pickforddick
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:42 p.m.
I think this type of mandate is nothing but an attempt by our gov't to convert this country to socialism and I am against that.
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:30 p.m.
How about a factual argument instead of propaganda? http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/palin-vs-obama-death-panels/
Johnny5k
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:19 p.m.
"I will not sign on to any health plan that adds to our deficits over the next decade." -President Obama Now that it has shown to add billions if not trillions to the deficit would the President be in favor of repealing his own law?
Randolph
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 4:31 p.m.
There is plenty of money (we print it as we need it) but there would be a lot more if we just got out of the business of war.
SonnyDog09
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 4:26 p.m.
The estimate that clownfish references is for ten years of revenue and five years of spending.
maallen
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 3:37 p.m.
@Clownfish, I find it interesting how you use only part of the statistic, the first 9 years. Now share the rest of the story/statistics. What happens after 2021? The costs and everything explodes. But even then, using the first 9 years of cost estimates/statistics is very misleading. What is interesting to point out are the costs to implement and run ObamaCare. The CBO admits that a lof the costs for administering the program aren't in the bill or projections. Like for an example, the $5 billion to $10 billion in Health and Human Services spending and another $5 billion to $10 billion ot the IRS. Now remember these costs are only estimates and they surely will rise. And how can we forget so soon that the Health & Human Services department requested ANOTHER $850 million to pay for setting up exchanges? And this is just the beginning.
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:31 p.m.
Estimated Budgetary Effects of the Enactment of PPACA and the Health Care Provisions of the Reconciliation Act: "On net, CBO and JCT's latest comprehensive estimate is that the effects of the two laws on direct spending and revenues related to health care will reduce federal deficits by $210 billion over the 2012–2021 period"
Peter
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:12 p.m.
Socialized, single payer healthcare is the real goal we should be striving for.
1bit
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 8:07 p.m.
Peter: It doesn't have to be like that. The government could provide a plan of basic catastrophic care for everyone. People could then purchase separate supplemental plans on their own.
maallen
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 3:35 p.m.
"Socialized, single payer healthcare is the real goal we should be striving for" Yeah, because it is working so well in Canada, England, Cuba, Russia, etc.
5c0++ H4d13y
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 3:27 p.m.
While we are at it we should socialize other life essentials. Socialized single payer farming and grocery stores. Socialized single payer housing. Socialized single payer clothing. Utopia is four short laws away!
brb11
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:33 p.m.
I agree 100%. Nobody in this country should be denied health care or be saddled with debt for the rest of his life because he gets sick.
talker
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:03 p.m.
Anyone can be one day away from a diagnosis that makes them uninsurable or insurable only at much high prices. That diagnosis could be for something that has nothing to do with anything the person has done. Some conditions occur due to cellular or genetics conditions and can affect people who have never smoked or been overweight and who exercise regularly. Before arguing against community rated costs for medical coverage, consider that you are just as vulnerable as anyone else and could be diagnosed with a chronic condition, including cancer, regardless of what you do or don't do. Support businesses that care about health care for all.
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:01 p.m.
A little history lesson: Nov. 20, 1993- Consumer Choice Health Security Act (SB 1743) (624 KB) Sponsored by Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) & 24 Republican cosponsors : "Subtitle C: Employer Provisions - Requires employers to: (1) withhold health insurance premiums from employee wages and remit such premiums to the employee's chosen insurer; Nov. 23, 1993 (date introduced) Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act (SB 1770) (1.6 MB) Sponsored by Senator John H. Chafee (R-RI) & 20 cosponsors (2-D, 18-R) "Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005. Jan. 18, 2007 (date introduced) Healthy Americans Act (SB 334) (427 KB) Sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) & 17 cosponsors (7-D, 1-I, 9-R) "Healthy Americans Act - Requires each adult individual to have the opportunity to purchase a Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plan (HAPI). Makes individuals who are not enrolled in another specified health plan and who are not opposed to coverage for religious reasons responsible for enrolling themselves and their dependent children in a HAPI plan offered through their state of residence. Sets forth penalties for failure to enroll." In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. "We were for it before we were against it".
maallen
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 3:33 p.m.
@Clownfish, It could help explain why these people are no longer in congress. Also just because a few select people introduced these bills, does not mean there was a full support from everyone. Obviously, there wasn't because it never passed.
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 2:02 p.m.
Pick, can you debate the history of mandates without resorting to ad-hominem attacks or non-sequiturs? Why do you think these people favored mandates before they were against mandates?
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:15 p.m.
Mar. 5, 1992 Heritage Foundation The Heritage Consumer Choice Health Plan (10 MB) , by Stuart M. Butler "Step #2: Require all households to purchase at least a basic package of insurance, unless they are covered by Medicaid, Medicare, or other government health programs. All Heads of households would be required by law to obtain at least a basic health plan specified by Congress... The private insurance market would be reformed to make a standard basic package available to all at an acceptable price... Employers would be required to make a payroll deduction each pay period, at the direction of the employee, and send the amount to the plan of the employee's choice." Jan. 1994 Health Affairs Personal Freedom, Responsibility, and Mandates (109 KB) , by Robert E. Moffitt "Absent a specific mandate for at least catastrophic health insurance coverage, some persons, even with the availability of tax credits to offset their costs, will deliberately take advantage of their fellow citizens by not protecting themselves or their families, with the full knowledge that if they do incur a catastrophic illness that financially devastates them, we will, after all is said and done, take care of them and pay all of the bills. They will be correct in this assessment... An individual mandate for insurance, then, is not simply to assure other people protection from the ravages of a serious illness, however socially desirable that may be; it is also to protect ourselves. Such selfprotection is justified within the context of individual freedom; the precedent for this view can be traced to none other than John Stuart Mill."
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:12 p.m.
What don't you agree with, PICK? Look it up. If you can find some facts that say these bills were never introduced or that the Heritage Foundation never flip flopped... Oct. 2, 1989 Heritage Foundation Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans (1.6 MB) , by Stuart M. Butler * "[N]either the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement... Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself... A mandate on households certainly would force those with adequate means to obtain insurance protection."
Pickforddick
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:08 p.m.
I do not agree
The Picker
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 12:56 p.m.
Not a single word about the fact that NONE of these so called representatives, participate in this program. How can they even be objective under these circumstances? No sweat off of their backs about its costs, complications, intrusiveness, they have a separate plan much better than the one they have chosen for us, the unwashed masses. I say we abolish Obamacare and implement their golden plan for all Americans ! P.S. And make them all participate in Social Security as well !!!!
maallen
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 3:23 p.m.
Ah, yes the government mandating how much an industry can make. I am wondering why the government stopped with just the health insurance industry? Why not the auto industry? How come there is no mandate as to how much profit they can make and put back into vehicles? Why not the food industry? With the spiraling costs of food going up, how come the government hasn't stepped in to mandate that they limit their profits and put the money back into the food? Gee, there is no end in sight what the government can mandate on private businesses. So why are we stopping with just the insurance industry?
Veracity
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:36 p.m.
The federal employees retirement plan does include payment of payroll tax for social security as well as the medicare tax. The Federal Employees Health Plan offers all of the protections of the ACA including no cap on total health care benefits and no exclusions for pre-existing conditions. Two major expenses to our health care budget is the expense of providing care to the uninsured and the 20% or more profits built into the health insurance business. The ACA provides the first requirement that at least 80% of health care premiums must be spent on health care delivery.
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:21 p.m.
Just so I have it right, PICK, you would favor doing away with private insurance and replace it with a government run insurance program, including the right of all citizens to have access to govt run hospitals like Bethesda Naval Hospital? So, you would favor a Single Payer plan?
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 12:46 p.m.
I am curious, all those opposed to mandated insurance, do you currently carry insurance on yourself and or family members? If not, how much do you have put away so that Other People will not have to cover your bills? Do you have $70-80,000 set aside to cover a heart attack, $14,000 for a new knee or $25,000 for an emergency appendectomy? IF you do have insurance, then why are you upset that it will be mandated?
David Spence
Tue, May 15, 2012 : 12:50 a.m.
I, for one, am opposed to mandated insurance and carry a private health insurance policy because I am unemployed.
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:18 p.m.
For the curious, my 9:02 AM comment was in answer to a censored comment. which inquired about what else should be mandated, with a hint that forced sterilization was next.
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:02 p.m.
I would like to mandate an end to non-sequiturs. Next would be a mandate to answer questions, not place straw men in blog pages.
xmo
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 12:37 p.m.
Nobody mentioned that the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) rescored Obamacare and now it will cost twice as much as stated when it was passed. Affordable-No, Lost of personal freedom-Yes Where are all of the freedom loving liberals on this one? ACLU?
maallen
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 3:10 p.m.
@Clownfish, I find it interesting how you use only part of the statistic, the first 9 years. Now share the rest of the story/statistics. What happens after 2021? The costs and everything explodes. But even then, using the first 9 years of cost estimates/statistics is very misleading. What is interesting to point out are the costs to implement and run ObamaCare. The CBO admits that a lof the costs for administering the program aren't in the bill or projections. Like for an example, the $5 billion to $10 billion in Health and Human Services spending and another $5 billion to $10 billion ot the IRS. Now remember these costs are only estimates and they surely will rise. And how can we forget so soon that the Health & Human Services department requested ANOTHER $850 million to pay for setting up exchanges? And this is just the beginning.
Pickforddick
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 12:55 p.m.
How often have you seen these Gov't estimates turn out to be real?
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 12:52 p.m.
Maybe the liberals like the idea of people getting access to health care? Estimated Budgetary Effects of the Enactment of PPACA and the Health Care Provisions of the Reconciliation Act: "On net, CBO and JCT's latest comprehensive estimate is that the effects of the two laws on direct spending and revenues related to health care will reduce federal deficits by $210 billion over the 2012–2021 period" "CBO and JCT estimated that repealing PPACA and the health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act would produce a net increase in federal deficits of $210 billion over the 2012–2021 period as a result of changes in direct spending and revenues." http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf Facts, not myths will set you free.
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 12:37 p.m.
The biggest problem is the falsehoods and myths put out by opponents. Even Pat Boone has gotten into the act in a new commercial filled with outright lies. The new Act specifically prohibits rationing, but Pat says it rations. (As if there was no rationing going on at insurance companies!). There are no "death panels". Insurance premiums have been going up 6-10% annually for a long time, that amount is nothing new. Even insurance executives have admitted that the new act has added only about 1% to the premium cost. Again what confuses me is why the same people that claim this is a "Christian country" seem to be the ones most opposed to bringing health care to those that need it. When did Ayn Rand take over Jesus spot on the Ticket? Why do the people that talk about "personal responsibility" oppose former GOP positions that mandated insurance , which insures that peoples medical care is covered, not paid for by Other People, generally at high rates due to care being provided at emergency rooms instead of in primary care settings. Unpaid medical bills cost us all a LOT of money in our current premiums and in each bill we pay. So much of the oppositions comes from who the guy is that passed it, an evil black muslim bad Christian Kenyan not an American Marxist, all myths like "death panels". Turns out Newt Gingrich and Romney (and Bob Dole, and the Heritage Foundation and many other GOP) pols were for mandates before they were against their Commander in Chief.
bobslowson
Tue, Mar 27, 2012 : 2:37 p.m.
That Pat Boone ad is shameless....let's scare old people into thinking this is a bad thing so they will vote GOP. We'll see how that will work out.....
maallen
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 4:45 p.m.
Clownfish, No matter which way you slice it the premiums are going up. I thought Obama and the Democrats promised the premiums will go down? So depending on who you believe, your sales executive, or an economist, the premiiums are going up. The only question that remains is by how much. Good day!
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 3:10 p.m.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/factchecking-health-insurance-premiums/
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 3:06 p.m.
Robert J. Klonk, president and chief sales officer of Cleveland-based Oswald Cos., an insurance consulting business, said the portion of the premium hike attributable to the new law depends on the specific carrier but is "somewhere between one-and-a-half and three" percent. Gary Claxton, a vice president at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, which studies health insurance issues nationally, puts the figure even lower. He says that for many health plans already in existence, "1½ percent might be a stretch."
maallen
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 2:54 p.m.
@Clownfish, "Even insurance executives have admitted that the new act has added only about 1% to the premium cost." The insurance executives did NOT say this. It was Kathleen Sebilius, Secretary of Human and Health Services, who said according to their studies it will only cause premiums to rise 1% to 2%. So far, all of the government studies have been proven WRONG. John Gruber, an economist who fully supported ObamaCare said that the law will reduce premiums. President Obama and the Democrats jumped on this and cited Mr. Gruber many times leading up to the vote for ObamaCare and afterwards. Well guess who has changed his tunes Now Mr. Gruber is saying because of ObamaCare and all the mandated extra benefits, extra regulations, health insurance premiums will EXPLODE 19% to 30% once the law is fully implemented. And besides, using what you said clownfish, "the new act has added only about 1% to the premium cost" whatever happened to REDUCING premium costs that President Obama assured us and all the democrats said during their townhall talking points? Where is the reduction? Even President Obama touted the bill's ability to "bend the cost curve" and promised repeatedly that the law would "bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family." So which is it will the bill bring down premiums or will the bill make prremiums go up? Can't have it both ways.
clownfish
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:36 p.m.
Note that this link -http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-won-t-add-dime-deficit-add-1-231800123.html- is COMMENTARY.
Johnny5k
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:17 p.m.
Or maybe we just believed the President wasn't lying to us when he said Health Care wouldn't add "a dime" to the deficit? http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-won-t-add-dime-deficit-add-1-231800123.html
Pickforddick
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 12:27 p.m.
I hope the Supreme court does away with this atrocity.
bobslowson
Tue, Mar 27, 2012 : 2:24 p.m.
It appears the supreme court is not going to let a century old tax law derail this plan...so...no....they are not doing away with this "atrocity"
1bit
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 8:03 p.m.
"atrocity" Which part? The mandate? The IPAB? The part where you can't be excluded for pre-existing conditions? The part which eliminates a cap on lifetime limits to the policy?
David Briegel
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 12:25 p.m.
I suggest A2.com provide a puiblic service (imagine that) and correct all the misinformation that appears and is about to appear in these comments. I mean why let an untruth remain on these boards?
clownfish
Tue, Mar 27, 2012 : 1:32 p.m.
Examples "death panels", calling private insurance "socialism", calling the use of private doctors, private hospitals and clinics "government run health care".
Unusual Suspect
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 7:27 p.m.
This is typical Ann Arbor. "There's an opinion contrary to mine. I will label it 'misinformation' and seek to mute the person who uttered it."
Mike K
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 7:14 p.m.
No, its just misinformation, that's all you need to know.
maallen
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 2:33 p.m.
@David, Can you please cite the "misinformation"? Or are you just going to perpetuate what you are complaining about?
Pickforddick
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 12:15 p.m.
Who pays for Mr Dingells health care? We Do....Who pays for Sandy Levin's health care? We do. It is time for our elected representatives to have the same treatment the rest of us have. They pass legislation that does not affect them and they push it down our throats. This has got to stop.
mun
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 11:41 p.m.
You forgot Tim Walberg. We pay for his health insurance.
a2zyzzyva
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 9:05 p.m.
Of course I pay taxes. What is your point? As for your second question, "the rest of us" is the term that you yourself used. I meant to refer to the same people.
Pickforddick
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 12:35 p.m.
Do you pay taxes? Who are "The rest of us"?
a2zyzzyva
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 12:32 p.m.
The people you mention are the ones who support health care for the rest of us. Wouldn't it make more sense to direct your attacks at those who get publicly-support health coverage and then oppose it for the rest of us?
Jim Osborn
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 12:11 p.m.
Our present system is admittedly bad, but so is the yet-to be implemented ObamaCare. Whenever you have a third party payer, it is inefficient. As an example, I know someone who is on Medicare or Medicaid, and is provided a wheelchair. It broke 2 months ago. The Medicare authorized service shop is waiting for approval to buy the replacement part, a complicated joystick switch. This person now told me that the shop will get her/him a new wheelchair since they are allowed one every 6 years. Where is the incentive just to fix the wheelchair at the lowest cost? There is none, since the government is paying, not a private person. While this is just one example from a conversation last week, it happens all too often. Then there is outright fraud… With private insurance, this sort of thing also happens, since the user does not pay directly, and is not as concerned about costs. Muchof what the insurance carrier does to reduce costs is to ration care. Is anyone surprised that Medicare costs are high and will rise even higher under Obamacare.
maallen
Wed, Mar 28, 2012 : 2:02 p.m.
@Sparty, You are wrong. You need to tell the WHOLE story. Medicare premiums increased for most people in 2012: "The standard Medicare Part B monthly premium will be $99.90 in 2012, a $15.50 decrease over the 2011 premium of $115.40. However, most Medicare beneficiaries were held harmless in 2011 and paid $96.40 per month. The 2012 premium represents a $3.50 increase for them. Although, some saw a decrease, most beneficiaries saw an INCREASE.
Sparty
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 8:09 p.m.
Actually, you are wrong, the Medicare premiums decreased this year.
1bit
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 8 p.m.
Jim: There are portions of the new health care law that are already active and some are already being phased in. Your phrase "Medicare or Medicaid" is a huge problem in your anecdote. There is a big difference. Medicare costs are going up irrespective of Obamacare. Without it, the projections were for costs to increase faster. The biggest problem with the healthcare law was that it really doesn't do anything to make you healthier. Ultimately, no law passed in Washington D.C. is going to do that for you.
catfishrisin
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 3:14 p.m.
So, according to you, government insurance is bad and private insurance doesn't work either. Seems you are full of solutions.
Vivienne Armentrout
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 12:05 p.m.
The term "Obamacare" is intended to be derogatory and disparaging, and is considered offensive by supporters. It should not have been used in the headline and its use elsewhere should have been more judicious. For example, it should not have been used in this sentence: "Dingell still believes Obamacare is good for the country. "
Chase Ingersoll
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 10:39 p.m.
Ryan Stanton 1 Vivienne Armentrout 0
Vivienne Armentrout
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 7:55 p.m.
I am a writer and editor who loves a good use of language. I dislike the way our political discourse has been poisoned by the use of language that is intended to stir antagonistic feeliings rather than convey real meaning. In my opinion, this is an example. Ironically, if Mr. Obama had originally named it "Obamacare", he would have been attacked.
Unusual Suspect
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 7:22 p.m.
Vivienne, then we're even, because we find Obamacare itself offensive.
Ryan J. Stanton
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 5:26 p.m.
From the Obama campaign via Twitter last Friday: "If you're proud of Obamacare and tired of the other side using it as a dirty word, complete this sentence: #ILikeObamacare because ..." https://twitter.com/#!/BarackObama/status/183267904530300929
Vivienne Armentrout
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 3:15 p.m.
The New York Times has an interesting history of the term today. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/25/us/politics/fighting-to-control-the-meaning-of-obamacare.html As it indicates, the name is offensive but some supporters are now trying the tactic of reframing it.
Ryan J. Stanton
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:19 p.m.
Vivienne, as the first two sentences of the story point out, supporters of the Affordable Care Act are now owning the term. They're proudly calling it Obamacare now.
Johnny5k
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:13 p.m.
"Having the president's name attached to the first large health care legislation since Medicare is an honor, and so I'm one of the ones that call this bill Obamacare with pride," said U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Detroit, during a conference call with AnnArbor.com. Did you read the article?
Homeland Conspiracy
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 1:10 p.m.
Thank you pointing that out. It's Healthcare not Obamacare. Obamacare is a talking point (spin) started by a GOP "think" tank then repeated over & over by Fox News, Rush, & the likes.
Jim Osborn
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 11:51 a.m.
This article is disguised as an editorial! It fails to mention several facts, among them the reason that the Supreme Court may find Obamacare unconstitutional in that it forces the uninsured to purchase insurance against their will. The federal government lost a very similar case in the mid 1990s when it tried to force the states to accept (buy) radioactive waste. Obamacare does nothing to lower medical costs, it just shifts the payments around. It is a supply and demand problem. There is a huge medical doctor shortage that is growing and will be exacerbated with the aging of baby boomers. Medical pay is very high due to this, in part. There also is a nursing shortage. Opening many additional medical schools, even if paid for in full by the federal government is very cheap, especially when compared to Obamacare's open-ended cost structure. When I mentioned this to Congressman John Dingell 5 years ago, he said, "That would take too long, we need to do something NOW!". Well, he could have acted and help expand the supply of doctors, but rather say that he provided free care for all, even if we all need to wait weeks for an appointment.
Sparty
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 8:01 p.m.
Like Social Security? Like Medicare/Medicaid? Like State and Federal Taxes? Like Local Taxes? Like Sales Taxes? All things the government forces us to pay, for the greater good.
1bit
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 7:55 p.m.
There are a lot of reasons health care is expensive, including those you mentioned. We pay too much for drugs and devices (that in many instances are publically subsidized at their outset). We pay too much for preventable illnesses (those that occur because we don't care of ourselves like we should). We pay too much for administrative costs and legal costs related to healthcare. So there's a lot of "we" in there because we share a lot of the blame for this system. It's fixable, but I'm not sure there is enough political willpower to do it.
SonnyDog09
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 11:49 a.m.
If the government can force you to buy health insurance, "for your own good", what else can the government force you to buy? Virus protection software for your computer? Mittens to wear in the winter? Sunscreen for the summer? A smiling portrait of the dear leader to be proudly displayed in every home and workplace? Just what are the limits on the power of the federal government?
cgerben
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 6:08 p.m.
Yeah! And what if the government makes us pay tax dollars for wars that we don't approve of or support? What then!?
motorcycleminer
Mon, Mar 26, 2012 : 11:47 a.m.
Political balderdash........