May 27, 2009 5:07 PM

Conservative Groups Mobilize Against Health Care Reform

By
Stephanie Condon
Topics
Health Care
(AP)
While Washington this week has been largely engrossed by President Obama's Supreme Court pick, the debate over health care reform has continued to gain momentum. Two new conservative responses to reform thrust the issue back into the spotlight today.

The nonprofit Americans for Prosperity Foundation launched a new campaign called Patients United Now "to educate citizens about the threat of government controlled health care."
As part of the campaign, an ad called "Survivor" was released on Wednesday that says Washington wants to bring "Canadian-style" health care to the U.S. -- meaning dangerously long waits for care, if it is to be received at all.

The ad features a Canadian who suffered from a brain tumor who says, "If I'd relied on my government for health care, I'd be dead."

Americans For Prosperity has funded a number of campaigns that promote limited government and free market ideas. The group enlisted Sam "Joe The Plumber" Wurzelbacher to speak at rallies against the Employee Free Choice Act, a pro-union bill, and it opposed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act at NoStimulus.com. Its "Hot Air Tour" focuses on "exposing the ballooning costs of global warming hysteria."

Meanwhile, the group Conservatives for Patients' Rights began airing on Wednesday a 30-minute documentary-style video entitled "End of Patient's Rights — The Human Consequences of Government-Run Health Care." The video is airing nationally on cable networks and will air on A&E, the History Channel and the Washington NBC affiliate after "Meet the Press" on Sunday, according to Politico.

Conservatives for Patients' Rights is run by Rick Scott, the former chairman and CEO of Columbia/ HCA. The health care company's board of directors forced Scott out of the company amid a fraud scandal surrounding its billing practices.

Both new ad campaigns attack the notion of a "government-run" health care plan -- an idea promoted heavily by liberal organizations.

A key member of the House of Representatives said Wednesday that a health care bill will not make it through the House unless it gives the public the choice of signing up for a government-managed plan rather than a privately-run insurance plan, Bloomberg reported.

"It's my political judgment a plan without the public option would not be able to pass the House," said Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee -- the committee that oversees tax laws.

In the Senate last week, 28 senators signed a resolution demanding that a public option be included in health care reform legislation.

While Congress has the week off, it will soon pick up the issue of health care reform again. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is expected to work on a health care bill sometime in June. Leaders in the House of Representatives promised to have a comprehensive health care reform package ready for a vote by the end of July.

Add a Comment See all 17 Comments
by chartrandmax August 29, 2009 1:08 AM EDT
Yes, I am--like nearly all the informed health professionals I know--dead set against the federal government "reforming" healthcare. That's too much power for an entity that produces nothing and is at the very heart of the current problems. My estimate is that as much as 41 cents of today's private healthcare comes from cost-shifting from the short/no pays under MediCare, Medicaid, and Indigent Care. That particular aspect grows everytime Congress puts its nose into the matter---their idea of "savings" is to shift more of the cost of public programs into the private sector. Defensive medicine is alive and well, also, and while many seem to be looking at the obvious bouncing ball (professional liability premiums) the real elephant in the living room are the endless tests, second and third opinions, and just to be sure, piles of waivers and releases that plague the hispitals in the U.S. The solutions are so obvious it almost hurts to see so many in the debate tiptoeing around them. We don't need an overhaul, but we need some serious clean up:

1) If we want competition, we can have it by allowing competition across state lines. Taxpayer subsidized anything is unfair "competition" (if can be called that).

2) Remove hundreds of state and federal mandates that continue to drive up costs by requiring needless coverage (such as maternity, etc, for those who do not need it). These regs were designed more for protectionism than by patient needs.

3) Tort reform needs to go much further than merely putting caps on non-economic suffering. The spectre of malpractice claims looms no matter how low or high the caps are. Currently, the cost threshold for legal representation in tort claims runs at $250,000---and that is just to get to trial! Tort reform must address ambulance chasing, unnecessary medical tests, and frivolouos claims with heavy penalties. There is more to the issue, of course, but they must be addressed---any of the socialized systems touted as a shining example would fall on their faces within a year if they had to survive in our litigation environment!

4) Expand Medical MSAs (we called them Medical IRAs in the Golden Rule study, which, by the way, was the most successful health insurance program I've ever seen in reducing costs, increasing quality of care, and incentivizing better health and lifestyle choices. This model consists of two simple components: 1) A very low cost, high deductible (say, $2,500-$5,000) major medical policy, and 2) An interest-bearing, tax-exempt, medical savings account from which the deductible is paid (amazingly, the draw down rate from that account goes to nil when people get healthy!

5) Use the Medical MSA model of health insurance become an option for Medicaid and for MediCare and watch the costs of those program go into meldown. For those who cannot afford insurance, a voucher system on the deductible can be devised with established financial thresholds. For instance, those at 125%, say, of poverty line, can recieve the entire Major Medical policy free of charge (still a lot cheaper than ObamaCare's Spartan program), and enjoy an income-adjusted voucher for the deductible portion. In this way, the poor receive the same insurance coverage as everyone else, and are incentivized to abstain substances that are bad for them--by not drawing anything out of their savings account, they don't have to put any more into it. Then, they have a stake in making better health and lifestyle choices. This particular group, as evidenced by myriad studies, are the largest consumers of the non-elderly groups of healthcare consumers. From the Golden Rule study and years of observations, we will see this group get better care and require less of it as they become healthier in the process. Their access to the preventive aspects alone, constitute progress; but far greater progress when bad health habits that predominate in the lower economic strata are curtailed through the incentives that eminate from the Medical MSA experience.


As one can see, we should reject out of hand having such a costly, inefficient, freedom-robbing, power-based entity as the federal government running healthcare. It can be done much cheaper at the private market without curtailing a laundry list of lost freedoms and onerous taxation. The only reason ObamaCare has earned silence from many of the players at the table (AMA, Pharma, AARP, etc.) is because each have been promised "business as usual" and more. Bribing does not come cheap. ObamaCare will cost more than the current system and cost us much, much--and progressively--more. The nature of this freedom-destroying beast should not be let out of its cage. Instead, get the beast out of the way, and give us the hard-working, ingenious enterprise of freedom and entreprenuership to resolve what's wrong in healthcare today. Other countries are bound to follow suit.
Reply to this comment
by tbirdpt August 11, 2009 8:32 AM EDT
It is very interesting to read the comments! I am not a member of any organization left or right. I do believe that health care reform needs to happen. The insurance companies, health care providers and importantly Lawyers need to have more accountability. Goverment control is not the answer. Medicare is broke, Medicaid is broke, Social Security will be broke soon. You think the Governement can do it better?

As an American I believe that the we should not look to the government to support us. It is apparant that government programs do not promote independence. My question to all of you, Who is going to pay for all of this. The Rich? The Business Owners? You? All this promotes is an attitude of the government will support me! But it is you and I who will be paying and what happens when the money runs out. Or until you find out it is more beneficial to not work, not contribute to society and just be a leach.

The greatness of America was not built on who will take care of me, it was built on we will take care of ourselves.
Reply to this comment
by rxvette August 7, 2009 9:01 PM EDT
I always find it interesting that opponents to health care reform argue that it will be the "death to all of us" or "it will restrict our choices" or "medical decisions will be made by bureaucrats".

It is the current unregulated capitalistic private insurance companies who are actually fulfilling their worst nightmare right now. "Death to us all" - private insurance companies are literally killing patients right now by denying lifesaving care like in the case of Cigna's denial of Natalie Sarkisyan's care.

"It will restrict our choices" which is exactly what our private insurers are doing. I have private coverage myself as a medical professional through my hospital who employs me. I'm restricted to a list of doctors I can see and also to only 4 hospitals in the local Tampa Bay area and if I seek medical care outside of this my insurer will put a majority of the financial cost on me so if I want somewhat affordable medical care I'm forced into their restrictive measures.

"Medical decisions will be made by bureaucrats" - in the private insurance market medical decisions aren't made by myself or my doctor but rather by bureaucrats (executives and internal business analysts) from my private insurers when they decide what is covered and what is not.

Healthcare reform would put a stop to all this and I've actually researched for hours on what the best way to achieve this is. Here's my solutions - http://******/9QLV8
Reply to this comment
by sr1859 May 28, 2009 9:28 PM EDT
For all of you who are pro-socialized medicine you may want to research many of the existing systems with closer scrutiny. Look to the north and you will find a system that as many have pointed out is less than desirable on many fronts. The waits for care have been pointed out numerous times. Look at the statistics on children diagnosed with Leukemia, which for those of you without any medical knowledge is one of the most treatable cancers, who actually receive treatment in Canada. This treatment is NOT payed for by the national health insurance. If a family is unable to pay $300,000 out of pocket for the treatment and related care the child is not treated. Should your parent develop kidney failure and require dialysis to stay alive, he/she will no longer receive dialysis after the age of 65 unless it is payed for out of pocket. The examples are ample and easy to find if one takes the time to look at more that the political propaganda. Sure it looks good on paper and in conversation to have affordable health care for everyone. But if that "affordable" care comes at the expense of many years of life of a loved one who could have still been with you enjoying life and sharing in your happiness.... it's about as good as telling someone their life has no more worth. Quantity does NOT equal Quality! There are numerous ways to decrease the cost of health care without resorting to a national system which is what people are being asked to believe. Any given problem has multiple solutions. If our so called political leaders can only come up with one solution that effectively tightens their grip on each individual and increases the size of government...they have proven that it is impossible for any politician to put the needs of the people before their own agenda.
Reply to this comment
by HGOODGUY May 28, 2009 3:40 PM EDT
THE GOP HAS A GREAT PAIR OF STANDARD BEARERS.
I WONDER HOW:

RUSH LIMSBAUGH=DRUG ADDICT

DICK CHENEY=DRAFT DODGER & WAR MONGERER,

FEEL ABOUT NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE
Reply to this comment
by mattcat25 May 28, 2009 9:47 AM EDT
The constant obstruction displayed by the Republican Conservative Right Wing against an improved Healthcare System is simply SICK!
Reply to this comment
by abbe91 May 28, 2009 8:59 AM EDT
Because we do not need a Nanny state, sponsored by that negro obama
Posted by BarrySoetoro at 5:52 AM : May 28, 2009

For sure, you have a pre-existing condition ...
Reply to this comment
by abbe91 May 28, 2009 8:58 AM EDT
WE NEED A government insurance OPTION in the USA, so you will NOT be DENIED COVERAGE BY GREEDY and UNSCRUPULOUS INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Posted by DefendLiberty at 7:03 PM : May 27, 2009

Indeed.
Reply to this comment
by babooph May 28, 2009 8:04 AM EDT
Lets have only gated communities have police,fire protection ,garbage PU & health care,we are very close to that now,only this last step need be taken-the military can collect taxes from the troglites to pay for it-HEAVEN ON EARTH is possible.
Reply to this comment
by sfranz99 May 28, 2009 12:19 AM EDT
Private Medicare Advantage plans cost more than government Medicare? Why is that? UnitedHealth made $992 million in Q1,
spent $1.5 million on lobbying, and paid its CEO $3 million. Three reasons right there.

Their suggestions for cutting costs?

he UHG paper translated into English: 1) Pay doctors less 2) Get terminal patients into hospice sooner and reduce cancer treatments 3) Do fewer transplants and only at top transplant centers 4) Quit making people sicker in nursing homes and hire nurse practitioners instead of MDs to treat nursing home patients 5) Keep people out of the hospital

6) Quit aggressive treatments and get people to accept hospice or DNR orders sooner 7) Get better medication control for heart failure patients 8) See if a nurse can treat chronic patients over the phone. 9) Make hospitals call the insurer before admissions and get patients to be healthier to keep them out of the hospital

10) Use cheaper family practitioners as gatekeepers to coordinate and approve care 11) Quit paying doctors so much and give them bonuses to deny care. 12) Black list doctors that don't do things cheaper 13) Make the doctor call the insurer before ordering an X-Ray, CT, or MRI 14) Make the doctor call the insurer before ordering radiation therapy for cancer patients 15) Take longer to approve claims and reject more claims for more reasons.

COPY OF THE PLAN: http://***********/r6j7xp
Reply to this comment
See all 17 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...