Sunday, May 31, 2009
Me on Fox
If I could go back and redo this interview, my response to "We can't afford to do this" would be something snappy like "We can't afford not to."
Zing!
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Daily Show about Healthcare
Best stat, courtesy of Elizabeth Edwards: "$1 in every $700 dollars went to pay CEO of UnitedHealthcare"
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Elizabeth Edwards | ||||
| ||||
The Republican Non-Alternative
Here's the Republican proposal. It's a non-alternative to the real efforts at healthcare reform. They call it the Patient Choice Act.
There's a lot of language in the PCA that makes it sounds progressive and forward-thinking. They throw around words like "accountability" and "prevention", "affordable" and "guaranteed". But the devil's in the details, and the details here are...well, there aren't any. Just vague posturing.
The details they do provide are complete non-starters. An example: they say that a "non-profit board would penalize insurance companies that cherry pick healthy patients." What criteria would this board use to decide if a company is cherry-picking? How would they penalize these companies? Would there be a fine? How much?
This board would be made up of political appointees, presumably. To me, this is exactly the wrong kind of government involvement in private insurance. I'd rather have an independent public health plan, and LESS regulation of private insurance. Let the two compete. Don't just have the government mess around in the private sector and call that a solution to our healthcare problems.
There's a lot of language in the PCA that makes it sounds progressive and forward-thinking. They throw around words like "accountability" and "prevention", "affordable" and "guaranteed". But the devil's in the details, and the details here are...well, there aren't any. Just vague posturing.
The details they do provide are complete non-starters. An example: they say that a "non-profit board would penalize insurance companies that cherry pick healthy patients." What criteria would this board use to decide if a company is cherry-picking? How would they penalize these companies? Would there be a fine? How much?
This board would be made up of political appointees, presumably. To me, this is exactly the wrong kind of government involvement in private insurance. I'd rather have an independent public health plan, and LESS regulation of private insurance. Let the two compete. Don't just have the government mess around in the private sector and call that a solution to our healthcare problems.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Great Factoid
Here's a good one to use when they tell you that a public plan will destroy the private insurance market:
And then throw in the many examples of private and public options existing side by side: FedEx and USPS, public schools and private schools, etc.
[Ms. Sebelius] said Mr. Obama did not support “dismantling the private market” and relying entirely on a public program. Indeed, she said, “the president and I want to stabilize the private insurance market.”
In more than two dozen states, she said, state employees have a choice between traditional private health insurance products and a public plan. Such competition does not destroy the marketplace but simply gives people an additional choice, she said.
And then throw in the many examples of private and public options existing side by side: FedEx and USPS, public schools and private schools, etc.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Gentlemen, Start Your Rebuttals!
There's a very illuminating article on Politico, from a big-time Republican consultant on how to defeat healthcare reform. He talks a lot about the language conservatives need to use to thwart our reform efforts.
Here are the phrases he thinks are winners for Republicans, followed by my rebuttals:
THEM: “One-size-does-NOT-fit-all.”
US: "Exactly. That's why we need options: private insurance or a public plan. American's deserve to have a choice."
**
THEM: “Would you rather … ‘Pay the costs you pay today for the quality of care you currently receive,’ OR ‘Pay less for your care, but potentially have to wait weeks for tests and months for treatments you need.’”
US: "We're in luck, we don't have to make that choice. By giving all Americans access to healthcare, we will lower costs by preventing the most serious illnesses. The money saved will be used to make sure that no one waits weeks or months for tests or treatments. And lower healthcare costs mean lower premiums for everyone, in both the public plan and private insurance."
**
THEM: “It could lead to the government rationing care, making people stand in line and denying treatment like they do in other countries with national healthcare.”
US: "Do you know someone without health insurance? Since that's 1 in 6 Americans, you almost definitely do. And those people --- your neighbors, your friends --- are on a very long waiting list: forever. Even people who have insurance in the U.S. are on waiting lists. I know a woman who is in constant knee pain, but her insurance plan only uses certain surgeons, so she has to wait until a spot opens up. It's been months of chronic pain, and she's still waiting."
**
THEM: “President Obama wants to put the Washington bureaucrats in charge of healthcare. I want to put the medical professionals in charge, and I want patients as an equal partner.”
US: "President Obama wants to keep healthcare private, but give Americans choices. In his recent press conference, Obama said "I have two wars to run. I have an economy to fix. I have enough on my plate." He has no interest in putting Washington in charge of healthcare. He supports a public plan because it's the only way to give quality, affordable healthcare to everyone in America. A public health insurance option is exactly that: an option. Doctors and hospitals will stay private, and decisions will always be made between doctor and patient."
**
THEM: “In countries with government run healthcare, politicians make YOUR healthcare decisions. THEY decide if you’ll get the procedure you need, or if you are disqualified because the treatment is too expensive or because you are too old. We can’t have that in America.”
US: "Creating a public health insurance option is not 'government run healthcare'. A public plan just adds an option for people who can't get health insurance through their employer. Private insurance exists exactly like before. If you like your current health plan, you can keep it. Politicians don't make healthcare decisions now, and they won't after the public plan is created."
**
THEM: “A balanced, common sense approach that provides assistance to those who truly need it and keeps healthcare patient-centered rather than government-centered for everyone.”
US: "Yes, by all means let's have a balanced approach. Let's not get rid of the insurance companies, but let's have an alternative to them. They can compete with each other on a level playing field, and everyone in America will have more choices. That sounds like patient-centered common sense to me."
**
THEM: “More access to more treatments and more doctors…with less interference from insurance companies and Washington politicians and special interests.”
US: "Republicans are trying to block reform by promising you anything you want as soon as you want it: more treatments, more doctors, more everything. But someone has to be responsible for controlling costs and making sure our premiums are not sky high. We are in favor of responsible reform, where every proven treatment is available to every American that needs it. Be suspicious when politicians start promising you the moon so they can block any kind of reform."
Here are the phrases he thinks are winners for Republicans, followed by my rebuttals:
THEM: “One-size-does-NOT-fit-all.”
US: "Exactly. That's why we need options: private insurance or a public plan. American's deserve to have a choice."
**
THEM: “Would you rather … ‘Pay the costs you pay today for the quality of care you currently receive,’ OR ‘Pay less for your care, but potentially have to wait weeks for tests and months for treatments you need.’”
US: "We're in luck, we don't have to make that choice. By giving all Americans access to healthcare, we will lower costs by preventing the most serious illnesses. The money saved will be used to make sure that no one waits weeks or months for tests or treatments. And lower healthcare costs mean lower premiums for everyone, in both the public plan and private insurance."
**
THEM: “It could lead to the government rationing care, making people stand in line and denying treatment like they do in other countries with national healthcare.”
US: "Do you know someone without health insurance? Since that's 1 in 6 Americans, you almost definitely do. And those people --- your neighbors, your friends --- are on a very long waiting list: forever. Even people who have insurance in the U.S. are on waiting lists. I know a woman who is in constant knee pain, but her insurance plan only uses certain surgeons, so she has to wait until a spot opens up. It's been months of chronic pain, and she's still waiting."
**
THEM: “President Obama wants to put the Washington bureaucrats in charge of healthcare. I want to put the medical professionals in charge, and I want patients as an equal partner.”
US: "President Obama wants to keep healthcare private, but give Americans choices. In his recent press conference, Obama said "I have two wars to run. I have an economy to fix. I have enough on my plate." He has no interest in putting Washington in charge of healthcare. He supports a public plan because it's the only way to give quality, affordable healthcare to everyone in America. A public health insurance option is exactly that: an option. Doctors and hospitals will stay private, and decisions will always be made between doctor and patient."
**
THEM: “In countries with government run healthcare, politicians make YOUR healthcare decisions. THEY decide if you’ll get the procedure you need, or if you are disqualified because the treatment is too expensive or because you are too old. We can’t have that in America.”
US: "Creating a public health insurance option is not 'government run healthcare'. A public plan just adds an option for people who can't get health insurance through their employer. Private insurance exists exactly like before. If you like your current health plan, you can keep it. Politicians don't make healthcare decisions now, and they won't after the public plan is created."
**
THEM: “A balanced, common sense approach that provides assistance to those who truly need it and keeps healthcare patient-centered rather than government-centered for everyone.”
US: "Yes, by all means let's have a balanced approach. Let's not get rid of the insurance companies, but let's have an alternative to them. They can compete with each other on a level playing field, and everyone in America will have more choices. That sounds like patient-centered common sense to me."
**
THEM: “More access to more treatments and more doctors…with less interference from insurance companies and Washington politicians and special interests.”
US: "Republicans are trying to block reform by promising you anything you want as soon as you want it: more treatments, more doctors, more everything. But someone has to be responsible for controlling costs and making sure our premiums are not sky high. We are in favor of responsible reform, where every proven treatment is available to every American that needs it. Be suspicious when politicians start promising you the moon so they can block any kind of reform."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)