Obama's Town Hall Meeting on Health Insurance Draws Criticism

Obama's Town Hall Meeting on Health Insurance Draws Criticism in Politics and Legislation

Helen Thomas and CBS’s Chip Reid were among the critics who slammed President Obama for prepackaging a town hall meeting yesterday, reports CBS News.

The hour-long discussion on health insurance reform took place in Northern Virginia and featured seven questions picked from the live audience, Twitter and YouTube.

Along with a tearful 53-year-old woman who didn’t know how to get coverage for her cancer, the others called on all had close ties to the Obama administration: the Service Employees International Union, Health Care for America Now, and Organizing for America, which is part of the Democratic National Committee. White House officials claimed this was a coincidence.

Even though one question did come from Republican Rep. Michael C. Burgess, who challenged Obama to support caps on medical malpractice awards, the question were by far and large softballs. On the other hand, a town hall meeting isn’t a press conference, and isn’t bound by the same transparency standards.

Regardless, at a daily briefing with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, Thomas and Reid ripped into Gibbs, accusing him of prepackaging the event and trying to control the media.

Town hall meetings have long been a trademark of Obama’s communication strategy and it is clear that they are counting on public pressure to help push health care reform legislation through. At yesterday’s meeting, the President said, 8220;In order to make it happen, I’m going to need ordinary Americans to stand up and say now’s the time.”

Smart campaigning or unethical deception? Judge for yourself.

Comments[0]

Wal-Mart Backs a Mandate on Health Insurance

Wal-Mart Backs a Mandate on Health Insurance in Group Health Insurance

In a letter to the White House and Congress, Wal-Mart’s chief executive Michael T. Duke endorsed “an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage,” reports The New York Times. Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, has long resisted a group health insurance mandate.

This new stance stunned more than a few folks. Not to mention the letter was cosigned by the Service Employees International Union and liberal think tank Center for American Progress — strange bedfellows for a company with an embattled history with unions and a reputation for being stingy with benefits.

Now that health care reform is becoming certain, companies are starting to jockey for a spot at the negotiating table. Or as Rahm Emanuel said, “Everybody is trying to get their seat on the train,” adding that other CEOs have also expressed support for the idea of requiring employers to provide their workers health insurance.

The tide is undoubtedly turning. A pharmaceutical trade-group representative recently pledged to reduce prescription drug costs by $80 billion over the next decade. Hospitals have a similar cost-cutting agreement in the works.

What is Wal-Mart bargaining for with their endorsement of a health insurance mandate? A guarantee that health care costs will be contained by what’s called a trigger mechanism. They would like to see a system in place that would kick in automatic reductions if certain spending targets aren’t met.

Grab a front row seat, ladies and gentlemen, the next round of negotiations promises to be the most intense yet.

Comments[0]

A New Group Health Insurance Tax Possible On Employer Benefits

A New Group Health Insurance Tax Possible On Employer Benefits in Group Health Insurance

Today’s big health insurance reform news is that President Obama is officially open to new taxes on employer health benefits.

It’s a gigantic leap away from what the president’s message during the 2008 campaign, in which he criticized any thought of a brand new tax on group health insurance and he promised no tax increases for middle-class Americans.

Unfortunately for Middle America, any tax on employer health insurance would hit them square in the nose.

But times have changed. Obama is now president, the 2012 election is still more than 3 years away, voters have short memories, and most of the proposed health insurance reform plans are estimated to cost $1 trillion-plus.

Obama’s senior advisor David Axelrod told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that the White House won’t be “drawing lines in the sand” about where they’re going to get the money for reform, and taxing employer benefits could be a possibility, wrote the Washington Post.

As McClatchey Newspapers reported, however, President Obama isn’t so keen on the idea. As a compromise, the president is considering taxing only health insurance plans with Cadillac-like coverage, obviously in attempt to aim these potential tax hikes at higher earning Americans.

Politically, such a decision could significantly hurt President Obama’s credibility, but could also be necessary to pay for a massive health reform bill.

On the other hand, the president and his advisors have been shockingly brilliant when it comes to snaking their way out of tough political situations. After the way the president has handled his politics in the past, we wouldn’t be surprised if he could pull this one off.

We shall see.

Comments[0]

Details Emerge on Health Care and Insurance Reform Bill and How to Fund

Details Emerge on Health Care and Insurance Reform Bill and How to Fund in Politics and Legislation

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus expressed confidence that a health care bill would be assembled shortly after Congress returns from the 4th of July break, reports The Washington Post.

As it looks now, the $1 trillion health care bill will be fully funded by tax increases, Medicare cuts and new penalties for employers who do not offer health insurance.

The Finance Committee reduced the bill’s price tag largely by cutting subsidy levels for uninsured people. The issue of a government alternative to private insurance has not been resolved, although a member-owned cooperative model seems more and more likely.

The bill may also empower the MedPAC federal agency to monitor Medicare costs and make adjustments with Congress’s approval. The shift would remove considerable Medicare authority from the political process, reducing the health care industry’s lobbying power.

Although there’s still a long way to go, cutting the bill’s cost by more than a third and sorting out a deficit-neutral way to fund it bodes well for its future. And now that the shape of health care reform is finally taking form, we can look forward to a whole new round of debate.

Comments[0]

America Questions President Obama on Health Insurance Reform

America Questions President Obama on Health Insurance Reform in Politics and Legislation

Last night, President Obama held a “town hall” style meeting for an ABC News special with Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson.

In the meeting, President Obama took questions about health reform and talked a lot about how he sees it going down.

The president covered a lot of different topics such as why the government should get involved with reform and talked about the potential public plan to compete with private health insurance plans.

Here are a few of the excerpts, courtesy of ABC News:

Comments[0]

Health Insurance "Story Bank" Join the Debate on Both Sides

Health Insurance "Story Bank" Join the Debate on Both Sides in Politics and Legislation

Remember Organizing for America? It was the arm of the Democratic National Committee that brilliantly leveraged the Internet, organized a grassroots movement, bore a Pepsi-esque logo, and helped elect Barack Obama to the presidency.

Now OFA has brought their online tactics to bear on the health reform debate, reports The Wall Street Journal.

To make use of their estimated 13 million subscribers, OFA is presenting hundreds of thousands of stories chronicling people frustrations with the American health care and health insurance system. This so-called “Story Bank” is meant to build nationwide support for President Obama’s health reform effort.

The Story Bank also contains stories from health care professionals who can attest to the need for sweeping reforms.

“I am an RN of over 34 years in the medical field. I see more and more Doctors who are overwhelmed with the number of patients they need to see hourly and the small amount of time they are given to treat these patients,” wrote one provider in California.

In response to OFA’s effort, the conservative Americans for Prosperity Foundation recently created its own story bank with woeful tales of what would happen “If Washington succeeds in bringing Canadian-style health care to the U.S.”

Partisan warfare over health care and health insurance reform never ceases to entertain.

Comments[0]

Seniors To Save More On Prescription Drugs

Seniors To Save More On Prescription Drugs in Individual Health Insurance

This week, the big pharmaceutical companies agreed to help seniors better afford their prescription drugs, particularly when they reach a major gap in coverage with their Medicare Part D plans.

With Medicare prescription drug coverage, informally known as Medicare Part D, seniors have all their prescription drugs covered up until they reach $2,700 in total costs for the year. After reaching $2,700, seniors get zero coverage until those costs go over $6,100.

It’s a whopping $3,400 gap, commonly known as the “doughnut hole.”

Now, drug companies say they’ll give seniors a 50 percent discount for their medication if they fall in the doughnut hole, reported The New York Times.

President Obama hailed this move as a “historic agreement to lower drugs costs,” but as the Times article pointed out, the federal government might not reap any of the benefits.

Because the half-off discount only eases out-of-pocket costs for seniors who reach the doughnut hole, the government gets left out of the deal.

But really, if we had to pick who would save money between the people and the government, we ought to choose the people every single time.

Comments[0]

Will Health Insurance Co-ops Answer Reform's Biggest Question?

Will Health Insurance Co-ops Answer Reform's Biggest Question? in Individual Health Insurance

The biggest question is of course: Will Congress enact a public health insurance plan?

If not, there’s now an alternative. Last week, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee offered the idea of health insurance cooperatives to take the place of that pesky “public” health insurance plan idea.

U.S. Senator Kent Conrad, the Finance Committee member who proposed the co-ops, said it was designed mostly to compromise with Republicans who are so adamantly against a public plan.

According to a Time Magazine article, 50 separate cooperatives would be created for each of the 50 states.

Because the co-ops would be required to self-insure by covering the cost of claims entirely with premiums paid by members, the name of the game would be volume. The more members a cooperative had to pay premiums, the easier they’d be able to keep costs low. Lower population states would be able to join with other states nearby to form regional cooperatives.

To start up the co-ops, the government would initially have to kick in some $4 billion.

But unfortunately for this back-up plan, there’s been little success with health insurance cooperatives, according to the Time article.

Most cooperatives have a hard time staying financially solvent and keeping its members and providers happy. The two exceptions are Seattle’s Group Health and Minneapolis’ Health Partners. Both have enjoyed success largely because they provide both health insurance and health care services — with their own networks of physicians, hospitals, and clinics.

Unless the government can execute the co-op idea perfectly, it could easily crash and burn. Politically speaking, co-ops might seem less controversial, but without confidence in a solid plan, it too could just be a pipe dream.

So far, it doesn’t look like co-ops are the answer.

Comments[0]

Report: Health Insurance Fraud Increasing

Report: Health Insurance Fraud Increasing in Individual Health Insurance

Health insurance fraud is on the rise. Lt. Robert Sebby, who investigates medical identity theft cases, blames unemployment and the failing economy, reports the Las Vegas Sun.

Our migration to electronic medical records probably isn’t helping much either.

Pam Dixon, executive director of the nonprofit World Privacy Forum and author of a report on medical identity theft, warns that without extensive safeguards, we are going to see this type of crime skyrocket.

Remember the medical clerk in Florida a few years ago who downloaded the records of more than 1,000 Medicare patients and gave them to a relative, who made $2.8 million in fraudulent claims with them?

While we agree with the president’s call for electronic medical records (EMR), we hope that it is done with strategy and foresight. A lot of strategy and foresight. Who wants to get a surprise bill for a diabetic’s dialysis in Maryland or an addict’s prescription swindle in Oregon?

Straightening out stolen health care is a special kind of red tape nightmare. Strict patient privacy laws and the decentralized bureaucracy of insurance providers complicates things to Kafka-esque levels.

So, let’s indeed proceed into the brave new world of computerized medical records, but let’s make sure that part of the $19 billion earmarked for the job is used to adequately protect patients’ information.

Comments[0]

The American Medical Association Warms to Public Health Insurance

The American Medical Association Warms to Public Health Insurance in Politics and Legislation

The American Medical Association’s 5-day meeting ended yesterday. Unsurprisingly, they reasserted their opposition to a single-payer plan. However, the 543-member policymaking body did vote to support new “health system reform alternatives,” reported the Chicago Tribune.

The ice had already begun to thaw on Monday when President Obama’s speech to the AMA drew a standing ovation. The President said that the public health insurance he envisioned would be more of an exchange wherein patients would still choose their doctors. He clarified that, although still undefined, this option would function the same as private plans covering federal employees.

This went a long way in reassuring the AMA that a government-run system wasn’t in the works. Their opposition to health care reform has been largely out of concern that it would reduce the role of private insurance companies and lead to price controls. In recent years, they have worked diligently to prevent attempts to cut Medicare payments to doctors. Their new openness to insurance alternatives is sweet news for public plan proponents.

The White House wasted no time seizing on the favorable shift. They issued a statement yesterday saying, “The AMA agrees with the President that enacting reform that drives down costs and expands choice and coverage is an urgent priority. We look forward to working with them as the process moves forward.”

Although the AMA didn’t fully endorse a public option — the details have yet to be determined — supporters of a public health plan have reason to walk a little lighter this week.

Comments[0]

Health Insurance Reform For $1 Trillion Says Congressional Budget Office

Health Insurance Reform For $1 Trillion Says Congressional Budget Office in Politics and Legislation

Last week, U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy unveiled his landmark 600-plus page health care and health insurance reform bill.

This week, the Congressional Budget Office said Senator Kennedy’s plan will increase the federal deficit by a staggering $1 trillion in just 10 years, reported Reuters.

The CBO estimated the cost of the bill by looking at the provisions as the Kennedy bill stands now, but they pointed out that the bill was incomplete — so take the number with a grain of salt.

Still, damage done.

Critics of Democratic lawmakers’ reforms now only have political fuel that could potentially keep reform provisions such as a public health insurance plan option at bay.

If health reform could be killed this year, its cost might be the biggest danger.

What’s the political advantage for critics of Kennedy’s bill?  Consider how this hypothetical headline might look to the average person who only causally pays attention to the health reform debate: Health reform will cost $1,000,000,000,000. What an attention grabber.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs recognizes what a political time bomb this could be, but said we can’t let “political posturing stand in the way of reform,” reported the Reuters article.

President Obama has also been actively lowering expectations about reform, explaining it will cause a short-term deficit.

Kennedy spokesperson Anthony Coley pitched in a disclaimer, as well: “As the CBO letter indicates, this is an incomplete statement of an incomplete bill. We look forward to a complete CBO estimate of a complete bill.”

Still, damage done.

Comments[0]

President Obama Talks Health Care and Health Insurance Reform at the American Medical Association

President Obama Talks Health Care and Health Insurance Reform at the American Medical Association in Politics and Legislation

This morning in Chicago, President Obama spoke at the American Medical Association 158th Annual Meeting about, guess what, health care and health insurance reform.

The president covered a lot of ground in his nearly hour-long speech, touching on his main views on reform but tying each provision in with doctor interaction.

Here were some of the most notable parts of his speech:

• Cut Medicare Advantage payments. This has been a sticking point for the health insurance industry when it comes to reform. President Obama wants a more competitive market when it comes to Medicare Advantage and sees $177 billion in savings over 10 years if Advantage plans get paid similarly to traditional Medicare coverage.


• Medical malpractice. Traditionally speaking, one of the biggest no-no’s for Democrats when it comes to health reform has been medical malpractice reform. It’s been a battle between doctors who believe they are vulnerable to unfair lawsuits and politicians who believe consumers are vulnerable to poor doctors. President Obama is playing both sides of the fence in a sense,  saying he’s against caps on malpractice awards, he’s very much for reducing the lawsuits.
  
  But medical malpractice is a double-edged sword. Because doctors can be sued if they don’t act, many do what’s known as “defensive medicine, ” or ordering up lots of costly health care treatments even if they aren’t necessary. So while defensive medicine helps protect doctors from lawsuits, it drives up overall health care costs.


• A public health insurance plan. Doctors are worried a public plan would only provide Medicare-like payments to health providers, but President Obama argued that a public plan would cut costs in the long run and without it, growing health care costs would hurt doctor payments anyway.

Another key part of this speech was, well, that he addressed the AMA at all. The president was clear that he wanted to keep all parties, doctor associations included, in the conversation and debate over reform.

And most reports after the speech ended said the president was fairly well received by the doctor’s group. How all this openness helps Obama and other health reformers on Capitol Hill still remains a big unanswered question.

To read more and view the speech, check out this article in The New York Times.

Comments[0]

Debate Over Public Health Insurance Rages On

Debate Over Public Health Insurance Rages On in Politics and Legislation

Things are heating up over the proposed government-run health insurance plans. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has rejected a Senate proposal to substitute government-run insurance plans with privately run health care cooperatives, reported The Hill.

The day before, in a visit to Green Bay, Wisconsin, President Obama was greeted by demonstrators who denounced his health care reform as socialism. In response, his speech stressed that he wasn’t endorsing nationalized health care.

Indeed, while some of the details have yet to be delineated, it’s clear that suggested reforms would allow people to stay with their private health insurance providers. Also, the public plan wouldn’t be subsidized, so it would compete fairly with private plans.

So, what’s the trouble?

Groups like the American Medical Association fear that the availability of a public plan would inevitably lead to a single-payer health care system with the government coming out on top. Simply put, they don’t want Uncle Sam in their business.

But they may not have the bite or bark to be a real obstacle.

They now barely represent one-fourth of the nation’s physicians. And an independent study of U.S. doctors published in Annals of Internal Medicine last year revealed broad support for government-sponsored health insurance. Almost 60 percent supported some form of national health insurance.

Decades ago, the AMA fought bitterly against the formation of Medicare, but had to succumb to overwhelming public support of the program. Today, public sentiment has grown so loudly in favor of health care reform that they are already tempering their stance.

However, they remain the country’s largest, most visible group of doctors. And they still expend vast amounts of money to shape national health policy. This Monday, President Obama is scheduled to address the AMA’s annual meeting in Chicago. It should be interesting to see how the organization receives the president’s message.

Comments[0]

Pew Survey: Health Consumers Turn to the Web for Health Care and Health Insurance Information

Pew Survey: Health Consumers Turn to the Web for Health Care and Health Insurance Information in General Healthcare

A new study released today by the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project and the California HealthCare Foundation revealed that 61% of all adults go online for health information, including getting health insurance quotes and finding doctor reviews.

Gone are the days of limiting your health knowledge to your doctor and immediate circle. A few mouse clicks now grants us as much information as we can digest. And even at that point, online group forums, podcasts and email queries can make further sense of a subject. For health matters, this makes a big difference.

A whopping 42% of all adults say they or someone they know has been helped by health information found on the Internet. Even more impressive is how fast that number is rising: Just three years ago, only 25% reported finding useful help online.

We find these figures heartening — and logical. Whether you’re researching Medicare or shopping clinics, the health care landscape in general is going digital. Hospitals and insurance companies, such as Kaiser Permanente, are migrating to a mostly paperless operation, and in February, President Obama signed a stimulus bill that gives $19 billion to hospitals to invest in technology.

As The Wall Street Journal Health Blog points out, “the growth in mobile access has let people access and share health information on their own time,” which is another indicator that this trend will only increase in the future.

Comments[0]

Senator Ted Kennedy Aims High For Long-Term Care Insurance

Senator Ted Kennedy Aims High For Long-Term Care Insurance in Politics and Legislation

This week, U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy unveiled a whopper of a health care and health insurance reform plan, coming in at a hefty 651-page bill.

We haven’t yet gotten around to reading the entire bill, but the provisions are similar to those outlined already by the lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Senator Kennedy’s bill includes the creation of a health insurance exchange where Americans can shop for coverage in a highly regulated market and health insurance companies won’t be able to turn down applicants for pre-existing conditions.

Under the Kennedy bill, individuals would be required to obtain health insurance, but waivers would be available for those who truly cannot afford it, reported the New York Daily News.

One big new thing Senator Kennedy introduced into the health care/health insurance fray is long-term care insurance reform.

Long-term care is designed to assist those who need nursing and health care services for long periods of time to help them recover from serious injuries or illnesses. Any constant care needed for longer than a couple months could be considered long-term care.

While anyone might need long-term care, say if a person was seriously injured in a major car accident, long-term care is most needed by elderly people in nursing homes and assisted living facilities.

Kennedy’s bill would actually help seniors pay for the health care services they need in their own homes, rather than forcing a person to move into a nursing home.

Americans would be able to get this coverage for $65 a month from the federal government and would get no less than $50 a day in benefits. You’d have to pay premiums for at least five years to get any benefits, though. Younger Americans can buy this coverage as well for as little as $5 a month.

The idea is to help people plan out how they’ll get their care as they age, and give them access to care when they need it. It can also help cut nursing home care expenses, which are exorbitant.

With the Baby Boomers all approaching the Golden Years, Kennedy has timed this provision pretty well. We shall see how it’s received as the weeks pass.

Comments[0]