ICYMI: The Economist -- The Necessity of an Individual Mandate
Posted by The Campaign on December 18, 2009 at 11:01 AM
"You cannot have universal health insurance without a mandate. Every country in the world that has a universal health-insurance system either requires its citizens to buy health insurance, or includes its citizens in a default insurance programme automatically and taxes them for it (which is effectively the same thing). The reasons for this are simple, and have been covered hundreds of times since the current debate over universal health insurance began during the Democratic presidential primaries in late 2007."
"If you don't oblige everyone to buy health insurance, then many young and healthy people will bet on not needing insurance, and will decline to buy it. That shrinks the remaining pool such that it is made up of older, sicker people with higher medical costs, and thus premiums will rise. That in turn will cause more healthy people to leave the system. This is the phenomenon of 'adverse selection'. Ultimately you're left only with rich old sick people, and nobody else can afford insurance. This is known as an insurance death spiral. If you want affordable, universal health insurance, then everyone has to buy in."
For the full article, click here.
Poll Vault: Recent Polls Show Majority Believe Taxes Will Increase Under Current Reform Proposals
Posted by The Campaign on December 17, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Las Vegas Review-Journal Opinion Poll - 12/09
80% believe their taxes will go up vs. 11% who think taxes will not go up.
55% believe they will pay more in taxes or insurance costs under current bill vs. 9% less
Economist/YouGov – 12/6-8/09Bloomberg Poll - 12/3-7/09
57% oppose imposing additional taxes on health care industries, including insurers, drugmakers and medical device manufacturers vs. 38% who favor.
Poll Vault: Recent Polls Show Majority Believe Deficit Will Increase Under Current Reform Proposals
Posted by The Campaign on December 17, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Rasmussen Reports - 11/29/09
60% believe health care reform legislation will increase the deficit vs. 17% believe it will reduce the deficit.
ABC News/Washington Post Poll - 12/10-13/09
Two-thirds (66%) say the health-care reforms would add to the federal deficit, with two-thirds (66%) of those people calling such an increase "not worth it." 11% said reforms would decrease the deficit.
Quinnipiac Poll - 12/1-6/09
74% who think the current reform proposal will add to the deficit vs. only 19% of voters think that the POTUS can keep his pledge that health insurance reform will not add to our federal budget deficit over the next decade.
CNN / Opinion Research Corporation Poll - 12/2-3/09
If a bill similar to the one that the Senate is considering becomes law, do you think the federal budget deficit would or would not increase? 79% Would happen vs. 19% Would not happen.
Poll Vault: Recent Polls Show Majority Believe Costs Will Increase Under Current Reform Proposals
Posted by The Campaign on December 17, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Thompson Reuters Poll - 12/3/09
Believe the amount of money spent on healthcare will be less 12 months from now: 52 percent strongly disagree vs. 13 percent strongly agree.
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics – 12/8-9/09
23% think current reform proposal will save them money vs. 64% who think it will cost them money.
ABC News/Washington Post Poll - 12/10-13/2009
53% think their own health care will cost them more under current proposal.
55% think the country’s health care system’s overall costs will be more.
Rasmussen Reports - 12/12-13/09
57% say costs will go up if the plan passes vs. 17% say costs will go down.
Quinnipiac Poll - 12/1-6/09
63% say that extending health insurance to all will raise their cost of health care vs. 30% say it will not.
Battleground (Tarrance/Lake Research) - 12/09
41% of Americans think lowering costs should be the #1 priority of health care reform vs. 28% ensuring every American has insurance vs. 22% improving quality of health care.
But only 11% of Americans think lowering costs has been the main priority of the President vs. 63% ensuring every American has insurance vs. 7% improving quality of health care.
ICYMI: Senate Bill Cuts Funding for Safety Net Hospitals
Posted by The Campaign on December 17, 2009 at 1:00 PM
A San Jose Mercury News article focuses on a provision in the Senate bill that will negatively impact California.
Here are a few key excerpts:
"Safety net hospitals, such as Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, serve everyone regardless of their ability to pay."
For the full article, click here. "The Senate would also cut Medicare funding to DSH hospitals by $20.6 billion over the next decade...Combining the cuts to Medicaid and Medicare, the Senate version of the health care reform bill would mean $42.8 billion less in funding for DSH hospitals over the next 10 years, $22.5 billion more than the cuts contained in the House bill.""What will this mean to VMC? Put simply, it could well mean the difference between staying open — or not.""In concept, health care reform is designed to lessen the pressure placed on safety net hospitals by providing insurance to the uninsured. But in California and here in Silicon Valley, we are likely to continue to have a large number of uninsured people...""...this exceptional public health system could collapse under the weight of costly uninsured and underinsured patients if the Senate version of health care reform passes."
ICYMI: Ruth Marcus Says Reform Debate Disregards True Cost Drivers
Posted by The Campaign on December 17, 2009 at 12:21 PM
The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus writes about misconceptions regarding GRP and points to real drivers of healthcare costs.
Here are a couple key excerpts:
"Setting that aside, the argument by Dean and his fellow public-planners is that only with a government-run insurance plan alongside private insurers will there be a mechanism to ensure competition and keep down costs. But premium increases are driven in significant part by the rising price of underlying goods and services."
"Consolidation among hospitals has reduced insurers’ ability to bargain for better prices. Pharmaceutical makers are far more profitable than insurers -- and the wholesale price of brand-name prescription drugs has risen by 9 percent in the past year."
For the full Op-Ed, click here.
ICYMI: Chicago Tribune -- Polls Show Public Envisioning Higher Costs and Lower Quality Brought By Congress's Health Reform Proposals
Posted by The Campaign on December 17, 2009 at 11:47 AM
A Chicago Tribune editorial shows that Congress's healthcare agenda no longer reflects what the public wants.
Here are a few key excerpts:
"The 'public option' -- a major intrusion of government into the private health insurance business -- is history...So apparently is the 'trigger'...Gone, too, is the notion of allowing some Americans to buy into Medicare at age 55, 10 years earlier than everyone else gains coverage. That proposal was a huge and awesomely expensive down payment on government-run health care for all."
"The Senate is scaling back its ambitions for health care reform, way back, and that's a good thing."
"But Congress needs a reality check, not a presidential shove. While lawmakers have been busy plugging in and tossing out proposals like jigsaw pieces, many Americans have grown wary. In a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, only 22 percent of Americans said they thought the health care proposals in Congress would help them or their families. That's 22 percent!"
"A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Wednesday echoed those fears: 53 percent of those polled envisioned higher costs for themselves if the proposed changes go into effect. Yet only 37 percent thought their quality of care would improve under a new system."
"That's no groundswell for dramatic change. Just the opposite."
For the full editorial, click here.
ICYMI: Ruth Marcus -- Why Getting Costs Under Control is Essential for Reform, Current Proposals Drive Costs Up
Posted by The Campaign on December 16, 2009 at 11:52 AM
The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus reinforces the necessity of bending the rising cost curve downward, a goal the Senate and House bills fail to achieve.
Here are a few key excerpts:
"The administration's dual selling points for health reform were that it would simultaneously expand coverage and bend the inexorably rising curve of spending. The first part is important, and easy to do. The second is arguably more important, and excruciatingly difficult to achieve."
"A recent analysis of the Senate proposal by Richard Foster, the chief actuary for the Medicare program, offers a sobering demonstration of this reality. If the Senate measure were to become law, Foster concludes, overall health care spending would increase by 0.7%, or $234 billion, over 10 years. The House measure, according to Foster's analysis, would drive up spending slightly more, by $289 billion."
"The trend line for spending growth under health reform at the end of the decade is rising, and the gap between spending increases with and without health reform is narrowing."
"Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner has usefully proposed expanding the board's mandate to include recommendations for controlling private-sector health costs — though these, unlike the Medicare proposals, would not have a fast track to congressional approval."
"An inescapable lesson of the health reform debate is how difficult it is to change just one part of the system; squeeze Medicare, for example, and costs shift elsewhere, cuts are undone, access is reduced. Lawmakers should embrace the Warner proposal and beef it up to give the board real power, not just the ability to make suggestions that sit on a shelf. It could set spending targets, report on what sectors of the industry are failing to contain costs — and, if all else fails, propose steps to get costs under control."
For the full article, click here.
ICYMI: Polls Show Public Fear of Revamped System Bringing Higher Costs and Lower Quality Care
Posted by The Campaign on December 16, 2009 at 11:21 AM
In an article in The Washington Post, public polling shows fear that Congress' health reform proposals will increase costs and decrease quality.
Here are a few key excerpts:
"...a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds the public generally fearful that a revamped system would bring higher costs while worsening the quality of their care."
"More than half of those polled, 53 percent, see higher costs for themselves if the proposed changes go into effect than if the current system remains intact."
"About as many (55 percent) say the overall cost of the national health-care system would go up more sharply."
"Moreover, just 37 percent say the quality of their care would be better under a new system; 50 percent see it as better under the current set-up."
"Democrats believe passage of the bill will give them a political boost, despite the fractious debate that has surrounded the legislative struggle. But they are moving ahead in the face of a sharply divided country, with no certain guarantees that their efforts will be rewarded politically."
"Two-thirds say the health-care reforms would add to the federal deficit, with two-thirds of those people calling such an increase 'not worth it.'"
"By a 2 to 1 margin, more Americans say a new system will weaken rather than strengthen the Medicare system."
For the full article, click here.
ICYMI: Robert Samuelson -- Reform Legislation Will Not Fundamentally Slow Healthcare Spending
Posted by The Campaign on December 14, 2009 at 4:02 PM
In a Washington Post Op-Ed, Robert J. Samuelson clarifies two recently released studies and maintains that cost-saving provisions in the current legislation are not "real" or effective measures.
Here are a few key excerpts:
"Unfortunately, the word 'savings' is used misleadingly [in the two new reports released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Center for American Progress Fund (CAP) and the Commonwealth Fund]. It doesn't mean (as is usual) actual reductions; it signifies smaller future increases. There's a big difference."
"Similarly, family health insurance premiums rise from 19 percent of median family income in 2009 to 25 percent in 2019 under present policies and 23 percent with CAP's "savings." The point is simple: Even with highly optimistic assumptions, health spending remains out of control."
"Higher health spending would put pressure on future budget deficits, already projected to total about $9 trillion over the next decade. If new taxes and Medicare 'savings' are real, they could be used exclusively to pay down deficits, not finance new spending...But many may not be real."
"Richard Foster, the chief actuary of the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, doubts the cost-saving provisions touted by CAP would save much money. He's also skeptical that Congress, facing complaints from hospitals and a squeeze on services, would allow all the Medicare reimbursement cuts to take effect."
For the full Op-Ed, click here.
