Poll Vault: USA Today -- Opposition to Health Care Legislation Lingers
Posted by The Campaign on November 24, 2009 at 1:10 PM
"WASHINGTON — As the debate over a health care bill enters a critical stage, a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds Americans inclined to oppose congressional passage of the legislation this year.""The survey, taken Friday through Sunday, finds 42% against a bill, 35% in support of it. Despite nearly a year of presidential speeches, congressional hearings and TV ad campaigns by interest groups, more than one in five still doesn't have a strong opinion."
"When pressed about how they were leaning, 49% overall said they would urge their member of Congress to vote against a bill; 44% would urge a vote for it."
For the link, click here.
ICYMI: David Brooks – Reform Bills Would Raise Costs
Posted by The Campaign on November 24, 2009 at 10:35 AM
David Brooks of the New York Times reports on the trade-offs inherent in the health bill, emphasizing that House and Senate bills do not bend the cost curve.
Here are a few key excerpts:
“…there would be trade-offs. Instead of reducing costs, the bills in Congress would probably raise them. They would mean that more of the nation’s wealth would be siphoned off from productive uses and shifted into a still wasteful health care system.”
“…the general view among independent health care economists is that these changes will not fundamentally bend the cost curve. The system after reform will look as it does today, only bigger and more expensive.”
For the full article, click here.
ICYMI: Sen. Susan Collins Opposes Senate Bill Because It Does Not Do Enough to Curb Costs
Posted by The Campaign on November 23, 2009 at 1:03 PM
In a New York Times article, Sen. Collins states her chief objection to the Senate bill - lack of cost-containment.
"The main substantive objection Ms. Collins raised was that the bill focused on extending coverage to Americans without insurance while failing to do enough to curb the costs of insurance coverage and the delivery of care...'The high cost of health care is what is driving up the cost of insurance premiums, causing many middle-income families and small businesses to struggle to meet these needs,' she said."
For the full article, click here.
ICYMI: The Washington Post’s David Broder Says Senate and House Bills are “Budget Busters”
Posted by The Campaign on November 23, 2009 at 11:58 AM
The Washington Post’s long time columnist David Broder examines the statements of independent budget experts and public opinion surveys, and he argues the Senate and House bills come up short when it comes to controlling costs. Here are a few key excerpts:
“[Quinnipiac University poll] read: President Obama has pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our federal budget deficit over the next decade. Do you think that President Obama will be able to keep his promise or do you think that any health care plan that Congress passes and President Obama signs will add to the federal budget deficit?...The answer: Less than one-fifth of the voters -- 19 percent of the sample -- think he will keep his word.”
“While the CBO said that both the House-passed bill and the one Reid has drafted meet Obama's test by being budget-neutral, every expert I have talked to says that the public has it right. These bills, as they stand, are budget-busters.”
“…Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group of budget watchdogs, told me: ‘The Senate bill is better than the House version, but there's not much reform in this bill. As of now, it's basically a big entitlement expansion, plus tax increases.’"
“Maya MacGuineas, the president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: ‘While this bill does a better job than the House version at reducing the deficit and controlling costs, it still doesn't do enough. Given the political system's aversion to tax increases and spending cuts, I worry about what the final bill will look like.’"
“Even with that change, there is plenty in the CBO report to suggest that the promised budget savings may not materialize. If you read deep enough, you will find that under the Senate bill, "federal outlays for health care would increase during the 2010-2019 period" -- not decline.”
For the full article, click here.
ICYMI: Senator Lincoln Opposed to Government-run Plan
Posted by The Campaign on November 23, 2009 at 10:55 AM
“I’ve already alerted the leader, and I’m promising my colleagues that I’m prepared to vote against moving to the next stage of consideration as long as a government-run public option is included.” -- Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
ICYMI: BRT Believes Senate Bill Jeopardizes Coverage, Competition, and Increases Costs
Posted by The Campaign on November 20, 2009 at 5:30 PM
The Business Roundtable issued a press release today stating they do not support the Senate bill because it does not reduce health care costs.
Here are a few key excerpts:
"Based on our experience and research, the current health care reform proposal being considered by the Senate will not effect the needed changes to measurably improve the American health care system. Specifically, two of the bill’s provisions will increase costs for employers and, in so doing, threaten the coverage of 177 million Americans who obtain insurance through the workplace: the government-run plan and the new taxes on devices, drugs and insurance. The employer costs associated with these items will jeopardize not only millions of workers’ coverage, but also the competitiveness of America’s companies in the global marketplace."
“We are also concerned that the current proposals miss several key opportunities to reduce costs, most notably medical liability reform."
For the full statement, click here.
ICYMI: Rep. Altmire Says Reform Doesn't Meet His Two Goals -- Slow Down Costs and Focus on Quality
Posted by The Campaign on November 20, 2009 at 12:40 PM
In the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Congressman Altmire explains his opposition to the House bill, because "without cost-control, health-care reform is an empty promise."
Here are a few more excerpts:
"Unfortunately, the health-care reform bill (H.R. 3962) that was passed in the House on Nov. 7 failed to include the reforms necessary to meet these goals. This is why I voted against it."
"...it failed to address the one issue we cannot ignore in any truly effective health-care reform bill: out-of-control health-care spending. Until we tackle this core problem, we will simply be perpetuating an inefficient system that is unsustainable. This is the reason health insurance is so unaffordable to so many."
"A number of academics, economists and health-care experts from across the political spectrum -- including the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services -- have documented that under the House bill, both federal and overall health-care expenditures would increase in the long term compared to current law."
Poll Vault: AP Poll Shows Most Americans Want to Curb Malpractice Lawsuits
Posted by The Campaign on November 20, 2009 at 12:01 PM
A recently released AP poll shows strong support for curbing medical malpractice lawsuits among Americans, and experts appear to share this view.
Here are a few key excerpts
"...54 percent favor making it harder to sue doctors and hospitals for mistakes taking care of patients, while 32 percent are opposed. The rest are undecided or don't know."
"Limits on jury awards in malpractice cases could reduce the federal deficit by $54 billion over 10 years, says the Congressional Budget Office, because doctors caring for Medicare and Medicaid patients would order up fewer tests to guard against being sued."
"The bill addresses one of the problems with the health care system, which is lack of coverage, but it doesn't address the root causes of an extraordinarily inefficient delivery system," said Philip Howard, founder of Common Good, which advocates for changes to the malpractice system.
For the full article, click here.
ICYMI: Both NFIB and NAM Say No to the Senate Bill
Posted by The Campaign on November 19, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Both The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) issued statements today that oppose the Senate bill.
Here are couple key excerpts from NFIB’s statement:
"It’s clear to us [NFIB] that, at the end of the day, the costs to small business more than outweigh the benefits they may have realized."
"We are disappointed that, after so many months of discussion, small business could be left with the status quo or something even worse."
Here are a couple key excerpts from NAM’s statement:
"Ninety-seven percent of NAM members voluntarily provide health benefits to their employees, and have expressed a desire to continue to do so. Unfortunately, the Senate bill released by Majority Leader Reid and the bill passed by the House of Representatives add massive additional burdens to businesses that are already struggling in this recession."
"A public option will either force private competitors to lower costs by cutting coverage or will drive them out of the marketplace completely. This will lead to a cost shift, which will mean manufacturers who continue to offer private insurance will face higher premiums."
For NFIB's full statement, click here.
For NAM's full statement, click here.
ICYMI: The Atlantic -- "No Bill from Our Congress is Going to Meaningfully 'Bend the Cost Curve'"
Posted by The Campaign on November 19, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Megan McArdle, a journalist for The Atlantic, highlights underlying costs in Congress' health care bills.
Here are a few key excerpts:
"Well, according to the CBO, the savings achieved by Subtitle A, the main delivery system reform part of the bill, are trivial--not really distinguishable from zero, when you consider the uncertainties inherent in the estimates."
"If the mechanism for holding down costs is not realistic--and neither the head of CMS, nor the head of the CBO, seem to think that it is--then in all likelihood, you're planning to increase the budget deficit, whether you want to or not."
"[if] it [excise tax on high cost plans] ends up just being a heavy tax on a random group of people who happen to have expensive health insurance, then it won't cut health care costs, and also, will probably end up being repealed.
"None of these make any real changes to the incentives of either the providers of health care services, or the people who consume them. All they do is tinker with the level of the third party payments. That's not reform. It's wishful thinking."
For the full article, click here.
