So says Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, Harvard Medical School professor, and cofounder of Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization that has been pushing for comprehensive health reform all along.
She makes a lot of good points in the interview, but this one sticks with me:
So there’s regulation, but there are plenty of loopholes for the insurance industry.
There’s a good chance I’m being both naive and dim here, but I want to think that we will, among other things, close those loopholes and make this a workable piece of legislation. As I said, I could be naive and dim on this.
And thanks, Bro. Leftover, for the link.
Advertisement
Here’s a loophole, or possibly an illustration of public perception of the contents of the bill versus what’s actually written in the bill.
The popular perception of the bill, fostered by the administration, is that an immediate effect of the bill is that children with pre-existing conditions will not be denied coverage.
“This year insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions,” said President Obama on March 19, 2010. [emphasis added]
The insurance companies now claim they would be obligated to cover pre-existing conditions in any policy offered to a child — but that the insurer is not obligated to sell insurance to that child until 2014. Currently, insurers may choose to cover an entire family, including a child with a pre-existing condition, but choose to exclude coverage for that condition from the policy. Under the new rules, an insurer may opt to simply not cover that child at all rather than be forced to provide coverage for their condition.
Kathleen Sebelius said she will institute new regulations in the coming weeks to prevent insurers from exploiting the “loophole” , confirming children with pre-existing conditions may not be denied access to their parents’ health insurance plan and that insurance companies will no longer be allowed to insure a child but exclude treatment for a pre-existing condition.
But I didn’t hear anything from her on the subject of denying health insurance coverage to those not currently covered by any plan due to a pre-existing condition.
That’s where their feet need to be held to the fire. Early descriptions was that children would be covered, regardless. They can’t afford to parse this.
It’s difficult to gauge right now how Sebelius and DeParle will approach this issue. We’ll have to wait and see what they come up with as a response.
Medicaid is still widely available for poor families and SCHIP is still an option in most states for people with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid. It’s the middle income bracket, (45-85,ooo) that could be frustrated with this particular loophole.
Sebelius is using pretty strong language regarding this. I know that a lot of these things only apply to grandfathered policies as the Secretary defines it. So we have to trust that she will handle it appropriately. So far, it looks good.
I don’t expect one person to do it all. I don’t expect this bill to be perfect, and never did. It is not what I lobbied my senator’s office for. BUT I am pleased that we have SOMETHING. I am pleased that in 4 years if my husband decided to start his own business fulltime, we could also have health care, with a limit on what we spend for it. As long as it isn’t gutted entirely by a GOP congress, I think it could get better too. I’m reading a book by the guy who does the ZenHabits blog and he points out that when you are starting something new it takes time. I think there is a macro equivalent of this. Progress, not perfection.
Yes, there are loopholes. Yes, the bill is not perfect. But thank God SOMETHING was done. it was a start.
This will be a marathon, but at least someone started the race.
Here is an old work adage that I learned a long time ago. Some people would rather rush through a job, and then go back and fix the errors.
It is always best to fix the problems first. Why is it perceived that there is no time to do it right, but always time later on to fix your mess?
Life imitates theory.
This is too big to expect a perfect fix. They will refine it as needed.
It is a starting point, to be sure, but we must keep the pressure on.
Representatives from the states (50) are meeting with the federal government and 1700 representatives of the insurance industry to plan how the exchanges will be set up. The states will be responsible for determining what coverage will be offered at what tier of affordability. States’ representatives include, of course, those states wishing to block any implementation of the legislation.
We need to find out who our state representatives are and lobby as strongly as the insurance industry and the Republikan Party.
That’s going to take some effort.
Perhaps all the loopholes would have been “plugged’ had the bill not have been drafted in secret, was debated by Congress and explained to the American people.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Or if the Republicans hadn’t been involved (200+ R amendments) or if the insurance lobby wasn’t given such leniency in their influence.
That’s it, Vegas. Start pointing fingers at the other party and the insurance industry to deflect the real issue, the administrations hack job of forcing a botched bill past Congress, just to “Get something done.”
This is Government at its worst.
Partisanship be damned. There are real consequences to people thanks to the Presidents desire to look like he was doing something good.
I agree with your use of the word “the” in the first line of your comment and absolutely nothing else. Isn’t that fascinating?
Well, at least that’s more than Congress can agree on!
With our boy Maximum Baucus praising Wellpoint VP Liz Fowler for writing the Senate Plan and Nancy Pelosi crediting the conservative Heritage Foundation and AHIP with inspiration it’s getting difficult these days to draw distinction between Democrat and Republikan on Capitol Hill.
Makes me kind of want to hack, but I maintain that the line has been pretty thin for years now.
It’s a gray line between neoconservative and neoliberal.
It’s beginning to look more and more like a One Party Country.
Did you read that book? I meant to, but will suffice with a book report.
The sad fact is, it IS hard to tell everyone apart, being as how we’re all so closely tied to the Corporate Party. And I didn’t like things much when we were reduced to two parties since, like, forever.
I read it a few years ago and just started a second look. I’ll give you a better report when I’m finished.
Tell me you do this too: Go to the library, check out an interesting-looking book, bring it home, get maybe 10 pages into it and think, “Crap. I already read this.” I shall await your second read.
Drafted in secret?
It is something good, Mario. That’s why it looks like it. And hardly “drafted in secret” you could have read it before the vote, right? I could have. So what’s so dang secret about that?
We’ll see.
I have my druthers.
How many days to read 1,200+ pages?
Now, many still don’t know.
Not good for me, not good for you.
Gallup poll shows widespread skepticism on ObamaCare costs, effectsposted at 3:35 pm on March 30, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly If Democrats really believe that ObamaCare will help them in the midterm elections, then the most recent Gallup survey will leave them disillusioned. Americans remain just as skeptical as they have been for months on Democratic claims of cost effectiveness and improvements, both personally and to the system as a whole. In fact, only 21% think the new law will improve their health care, while 50% believe it will make it worse:
One week after the passage of historic new healthcare legislation, Americans remain worried about the bill’s effect on costs — both for the nation as a whole and for them personally. A majority of Americans say healthcare costs in the U.S. and the federal budget deficit will get worse as a result of the bill. Half of Americans believe that healthcare costs for themselves and their families will get worse. …
In response to two broad questions about the impact of the bill, Americans clearly see more benefits from the bill for the country as a whole than for themselves personally. Even so, less than half of Americans say the benefit will be positive for the nation or themselves.
Americans’ views on the impact of the new healthcare legislation are quite similar to those measured last November.
ObamaCare scores best on whether it improves healthcare coverage in the nation in general and whether it will make Americans more healthy. On both points, positive responses have a plurality, 44% and 40%, respectively. Even on those points, though, they get outweighed when considering no change or worse in combination (53% and 59%, respectively). On the remaining questions, the negative responses have the plurality, especially so on key talking points of Democrats.
Overall health-care costs in US will get worse (55%) rather than better (29%)
Quality of health care will decline (44%) rather than get better (34%)
The federal deficit will get worse under ObamaCare (61%) rather than improve (23%)
The worst numbers, at least politically speaking, come from the personal assessments of the respondents. A majority of people believe that their health care costs will increase as a result of ObamaCare, while only 21% believe the costs will decrease. More people think their coverage will get worse (34%) rather than better (24%), and that the quality of care they receive personally will decline (35%) rather than improve (21%). There aren’t many voters that will trudge out to the polls to endorse the person who made their health care cost more and deliver less, and the people who feel that way will be more motivated to kick those politicians out of office than those who want to maintain the status quo.
There is one more piece of bad news for Democrats. This is a poll of adults, not registered or likely voters, which would normally skew more towards liberal sensibilities. If this is the sense of the general adult population, then the attitudes of voters will be even more dour than this.
If ObamaCare is the truly the best thing since sliced bread…why are over 300 companies working to repeal it? Some of the corporations include Deere & Company, 3M, and AT&T.
This appeared in today’s New York Times, let me repeat that… the New York Times…not Fox News, not the Limbaugh Letter, or the American Thinker.
The. New. York. Times!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30subsidy.html
I don’t know anybody, not one person who thinks this is the best thing since sliced bread. I know a whole lot of people who think it’s a decent place to start.
And I find it shocking SHOCKING, that large corporations don’t want to cut into their profits to provide their employees with health coverage. /snark
Because they don’t want to cut into their profits, maybe? I maintain that providing health care for employees should be folding into the cost of doing business but then, I would think that.
Of course if there were some way to make the insurance companies non-profit…..
I’ve seen some articles recently on the future of the for-profit insurance industry. There are some analysts out there, Krugman among them, who say that industry is in a “death spiral”, and within about ten years will probably evolve into a non-profit industry. Pension plans and retirement funds are beginning to divest themselves of industry stock, or so it is said, due to market volatility and public outcry for severe regulation.
Bolstering this view is a report Obama will nominate healthcare scholar Donald Berwick to be CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) administrator.
Berwick, a pediatrician and health policy expert, is president and CEO of the not-for-profit Institute for Healthcare Improvement in Cambridge, Mass.
Berwick is a proponent of the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care, and has experience with the Massachusetts model of healthcare reform, both comprising the basis for our health insurance legislation. From what I’ve read, he seems to know what the problems are in the for-profit system, but I haven’t read enough to get a handle on where he might think the solutions lie.
Kaiser Permanente, a managed care company integrating non-profit insurance and hospitals with for-profit groups of professionals has been mentioned as a national model for the future. But as Huffington Post Investigative Fund reporter Danielle Ivory points out, they have their problems, too. But with strict government regulations in place, it may be a model for the future everyone can get behind.
I’ve only read a smattering of this, and need to read more. I don’t love everything Paul Krugman writes (I always have to say that because otherwise eagle-eyed people will pull up something from a writer that makes me gag) but he’s not-stupid.
And thus I have typed the most tepid atta-boy-Paul-Krugman imaginable.
“The Shrill One” is often criticized for his “over the top” or “one sided” viewpoints, but he knows the game, and not unlike Ezra Klein, is usually worth the read. Well…maybe sometimes worth the read.
Well….let’s just say you have to keep your eye on those people, and Krugman is as good a place as any to start.
There you go, watering down your endorsement, too. If I didn’t think I was dealing with smart people here, I would speak with more authority. As it is, I have to back into everything. Dammit.
AP reports today that young people will see a 17% increase in their premiums.
According to Gallup:
65% of Americans think the goverment’s role in HC will be too much.
Another Gallup poll states that 64% of Americans think ObamaCare is going to cost too much.
Well Duh! When has the Federal Government ever taken something over and made it more efficient, and cost effective?
Or more like German insurance companies, which are for profit and yet! provide decent healthcare!