9 Things in the Health Bill We Should Now Reconsider

Reader Comments
Back to blog

What we need is a one page list of "thou shalts" for the AMA and insurance companies to obey-and a comprehensive implementation of price controls for hospitals for specific health care procedures-as well as what insurance companies may charge for various specified policies. And-last,but not least-this wouldnt cost a dime.

Michael R of MN 7:15PM March 22, 2010

Health care is far more complex than physicians, hospitals, and insurance companies. Behind the scenes, it is important to look at the health care input costs such as labor costs, the costs of new technologies, the cost of defensive medicine, the cost of pharmaceuticals, as well as maintenance costs and the burdens put on various providers by the truckloads of regulations that have been added in wellmeaning ways. Merely focusing on the issues that are plainly visible will crush those issues while the iceberg of issues underneath remain. Preventive care, workforce, technology, reducing unpaid mandates, tort reform, drug pricing reform and other below the waterline issues would control the cost of health care more effectively in the long term than the types of legislation that are being disucssed. By the way, tort reform will affect more than the cost of insurance, it will affect workforce and lower the amount of defensive medicine (and the tests/diagnostic imaging that come with it) decisions. Things are far more complicated than what we are looking at and than what is being legislated.

Les of KS 8:07AM March 03, 2010

Seems to me the phrase "don't fix what ain't broken" is becoming more and more approriate! The deeper we dig into the heath care fix, the more we realize the "problem" is bigger than we expected, and the fix is going to cost more than it's worth. It's kind of like a water leak from the attic that's damaging down below the foundation. You don't seal surgery with bandaids, only to realize you left surgery instruments in the patient; and the patient can't go back to get them removed, or approved by someone who wasn't part of the operation.
At this point, our current system is "quite the deal". The proposed new system is becoming the "illness" itself.

LOU of FL 8:54AM February 15, 2010

The current health care "system" is incredibly dysfunctional and outrageously expensive and inefficient. The proposed changes outlined by Bernadine Healy didn't sound so bad to me. How is Canada's system so much worse than ours? In some regions of Canada, patients have to wait months for elective surgery. We have the 37th best ranked health care system in the world. Approximately 50 million Americans have no health insurance. Those without health insurance must wait indefinitely for elective surgery and health care they cannot afford!

Mark Mulligan of WV 5:35PM January 27, 2010

The author of that little blurb must be 'smokin' somethin". Why don't we start over instead of creating chaos and government control of our lives...as both House and Senate plans do. Health care is and has never been a right. Just because Obama says it is doesn't make it so. Free only invites misuse.
No country our size or even much smaller has had any true success managing anything this monstrous in scope. Switzerland may have a solution...non-for-profit health insurance companies, but we aren't smart enough to do something simple like that.
Under government controlled health coverage, I can see it now...I'm 75 and I or my doc checks for approval of some particular treatment. The first thing some govt "unionized" bureaucrat does is cross reference to see if I'm a registered Republican or Democrat. If the former, I'm denied. Far-fetched? I think not. Then as in England, if I should have the audacity to pay for the treatment myself, I'm penalized.
Where are the gonads and the smarts to tackle the real issues...tort reform, over govt regualtion, state restrictions on insurance companies etc.? Why do politicians miss the point and refuse to tackle the real issues? Votes? Special interest?
We do not need once size fits all programs that are just wasteful.
Get the freakin' governemnt off our backs. They screwed up social security (took the money), screwed up Medicare (way underestimated its costs...so it's broke)...so now we want to turn over the whole health care system to these freakin' carpetbaggers.
Some of us are insane.
JW
Las Vegas

Jerry Werner of NV 3:15PM January 27, 2010

Yes, this is not a perfect bill. But there is no perfect solution. Changes can be made as the need arises...and it is sure better than doing nothing. If congress fails to act now, we won't have to wait 20 or 30 years for a major cirsis in health care financing and delivery. Employers will increasingly drop employee coverage. Employees will be forced to buy in the individual market at greater cost. Doctors will see their incomes decline and their ability to treat patients further restricted as fewer and fewer patients will have decent insurance, or any at all.
Obama's biggest mistake was in not make crystal clear that this issue was and is a about far more than giving coverage to the uninsured--that it impacts every American. It is about American businesses abililty compete in a global environment. It is central to any serious effort to control the deficit. It is key to job creation and middle class security. In a nation where most people still get health care coverage through their employers, he should have pointed out that employees right now have very limited choice in the heath care coverage the get...or whether they will continue to get it in the future. He might have asked Americans to compare the coverage they have today with what they had 10, 7 or even 5 years ago. Most would see that the trend is for less and less coverage.
Obama's second mistake was in not going for simpler solutions--like expanding coverage under Medicare to those 55 and up. Many of these folks have been downsized and, if they have had any health issues at all, can buy individual policies, if at all, at enourmous cost. He could have expanded Medicaid coverage and funding and proposed that the federal government be the re-insurer for catastrophic expenses, so that, once an policyholders annual medical care reached a certain amount, the federal government would pick up the expense. That would have lowered premiums and made coverage far less expensive. In return, insurers could have been required to drop the pre-existing condition requirement, as under the current legislation.
Even with its flaws, the senate bill at least moved things in the right direction. If it goes down, look for the issue to return to congress's doorstep, probably in the context of a health care coverage emergency in which the need for an immediate solution will trump the concerns of many "special" interests. Maybe that is why health insurers were willing to support the senate bill this time. They know--well--that failure now could mean a solution down the road, when they are in a far less favorable position politically.
Sorry about the long comment, but this is a time for serious thought, not cheap phrases, posturing and pandering.

Want2Know of MI 3:12PM January 27, 2010

Malpractice insurance is only 2% of the medical costs, so tort reform doesn't help, it just takes away the possibility to recover the costs of the sometimes terrible consequences of malpractice. If we had a non-profit organization to handle malpactice it would go down to 1%.
We have to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices and at least allow re-importation of drugs.

Andrea of CA 2:41PM January 27, 2010

We have to start somewhere to reform health care. Problems can be addressed and the legislature can fix what is broken.

Paul of FL 2:36PM January 27, 2010

When will we ever figure out that if we don't discuss tort reform, caps on awards to patients for malpractice and definitions on patient responsiblity, bad luck and deliberate malpractice.
Doctors have never professed to be godlike, we do not have crystal balls, and we can use all our medical knowledge and things still go wrong - that is bad luck not the fault of someone.
what do guns have to do with healthcare?---throw that out
readmissions for the elderly have a lot to do with required early discharge and inadequate nursing staff in hospitals so patients can be taught, before they leave how to care for and monitor their meds and treatments.
I do agree that looking at quality of life issues should alter how aggressive we should be with caring for our elderly, especially when dementia diminishes their mental state---families and patients need complete and compassionate counseling to help them make reasonable and humane choices.
Not everyone is "entitled" to heallthcare. If you know how to work the system and simply choose not to work, you do not deserve free healthcare insurance.

diane of IL 1:54PM January 25, 2010

With the Democrat's super-majority now dissolved, exactly ZERO possibility exists for anything even remotely related to quote-unquote "health", quote-unquote "care", quote-unquote "reform".
No problem, no worries. Sometime in the next 30 or 40 years, the topic will again arise, and medical industry interests will again kill the monster.
Oh! Wait! The Republican court just rule corporations are people, too! We've nothing to worry about! The topic of health-related "reform" won't ever rear it's ugly, profit-threatening head.
(You! There in back! Sit down, and shut up about 35 TRILLION dollar unfunded Medicare liabilities!)

Alfred E Neumann of CA 4:50PM January 24, 2010