prev
next
Political Hotsheet
Obama Zeroes in on Consumer Protections in Health Reform
5192097While the main battle over health care reform -- creating a government-run insurance plan versus some other coverage mechanism -- is coming to a head between conservatives and liberals in the Senate, President Obama is pressing ahead today with his call for health insurance reform -- focusing on the consumer protection elements of reform that face less controversy.
At his two events in North Carolina and Virginia today, Mr. Obama will emphasize that reform will create more security and stability for families, including those that already have health insurance, according to White House officials. He will focus on eight specific consumer protections expected from a reform package: an end to discrimination for pre-existing conditions, a cap on out-of-pocket expenses, an end to cost-sharing for preventive care, prohibiting insurers from dropping coverage for serious illness, the elimination of gender discrimination, an end to annual or lifetime caps, an extension of coverage for young adults and guaranteed insurance renewal.
The White House will continue its push through e-mail campaigns and messaging on social networking sites, officials say.
Health care reform hinges on the support of Americans who already have health insurance, Drew E. Altman, president and chief executive of the Kaiser Family Foundation, told the Washington Post. "This debate will turn on people like this trying to answer the question 'Will this benefit my family?' " he said.
The president will be able to appeal to that audience with the specific set of consumer protection reforms he will discuss today. His remarks regarding broader reform proposals have been lacking in detail as he waits for Congress to decide on a specific plan.
Meanwhile, speculation about what the overall reform package might contain has muddled Mr. Obama's message. That much was clear at his tele-town hall meeting with members of AARP on Tuesday when a woman asked if Medicare reforms would force people to choose how they want to die.
"Nobody's going to be forcing you to be making decisions on end of life care," the president responded.
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. At his two events in North Carolina and Virginia today, Mr. Obama will emphasize that reform will create more security and stability for families, including those that already have health insurance, according to White House officials. He will focus on eight specific consumer protections expected from a reform package: an end to discrimination for pre-existing conditions, a cap on out-of-pocket expenses, an end to cost-sharing for preventive care, prohibiting insurers from dropping coverage for serious illness, the elimination of gender discrimination, an end to annual or lifetime caps, an extension of coverage for young adults and guaranteed insurance renewal.
The White House will continue its push through e-mail campaigns and messaging on social networking sites, officials say.
Health care reform hinges on the support of Americans who already have health insurance, Drew E. Altman, president and chief executive of the Kaiser Family Foundation, told the Washington Post. "This debate will turn on people like this trying to answer the question 'Will this benefit my family?' " he said.
The president will be able to appeal to that audience with the specific set of consumer protection reforms he will discuss today. His remarks regarding broader reform proposals have been lacking in detail as he waits for Congress to decide on a specific plan.
Meanwhile, speculation about what the overall reform package might contain has muddled Mr. Obama's message. That much was clear at his tele-town hall meeting with members of AARP on Tuesday when a woman asked if Medicare reforms would force people to choose how they want to die.
"Nobody's going to be forcing you to be making decisions on end of life care," the president responded.
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- Petraeus biographer regrets affair
- The Ted Cruz conundrum
- As summer approaches, sequestration threatens holiday fun
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 196 Comments
- Obama prom pictures surface 131 Comments
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
- Is President Obama ending the war on terror? 326 Comments
Most Popular
-
01
-
02
-
03
-
04
-
05
Most Shared
Most Discussed
The point I wanted to make was it seems that everyone I speak to who is opposed to the so-called "Obamacare" plan has some form of employer sponsored or subsidized insurance, but here's the thing..No one is bulletproof or recession proof & while they may have secure jobs with a generous benefits plans, that could change at their employer's whim and I guarantee that the moment ANY of them loses their job and subsequently, their insurance, they WILL be singing an entirely different tune! In my case, I have a full time job & my employer co-pays the requisite amount of FICA and all other required deductions are taken from my paltry paycheck, but they do NOT offer me any sort of medical insurance, so I must dig deep into my pockets to pay for it myself. In my opinion this is a clear case of the haves and the have-not's with the real root of the problem being what the media refers to as "Big Pharma" How is it that the pharmaceutical and the rest of the health care industry feels it has a "right" to RAPE myself and the rest of the American public by charging whatever it feels like for life sustaining health care? Don't we as tax paying American citizens have a right to comprehensive and affordable care without being taken to the cleaners?
Okay, forget that; what does he think about Favre retiring?
You are a business owner, You have hired employees for your business, you pay those employees every week, you supply them with good health insurance and awesome perks.
You walk into your business one day, and your employees inform you that they have decided that from now on THEY will vote on their own pay raises, you will have no say in it, but will be required to pay them those raises.
You walk into your business a month later, and your employees inform you that their health care is not good enough, they have found the best health care available and that is the health care they will be using from now on, again you have NO say in it, but will be required to pay for it.
You walk into your business after another month has passed, and your employees inform you that those perks are just not good enough, they want full retirement benefits, with the same health care and at the same wages they have decided you owe them, you still have no say in it, but will be required to pay for it.
Another month passes and you walk in, and your employees inform you that since you smoke and they do not want you to, they are going to charge you a certain amount every time you buy them, you still have no say, but you are still required to pay for it.
Another month and they inform you that those sodas you drink are affecting them and since they want to control your weight they will be charging you for them, you still have no say, but you are still required to pay.
Another month goes by and they inform you that YOUR health care is costing them to much, therefore they will set a policy they decide on in place for you, again you have no say, but you will be required to pay for it.
You walk in again, only this time they inform you that they have decided you will no longer have any say in the business, they know what is best for it and will be making all decision, you no longer have any say in it, but you are still required to pay for it.
At some point during this scenario most people would think "I would fire the whole bunch", with that in mind, think back over what those EMPLOYEES did and compare that to Our government, who are EMPLOYEES of the people, they are HIRED by US to do a job, that JOB is to be OUR VOICE. Over the years they have removed OUR say in OUR government while STILL requiring US to pay for it.
Time to take BACK OUR government.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/are-we-confident-our-government-is-working-for-us
I agree, but you do not change the other 299 million to accomodate the 1M
-----------------
jgg00000008, in developed countries where a public option is the primary coverage for their citizens, I don't hear them complaining about the quality of care or coverage. I mentioned elsewhere that in those countries, 70% pronounced themselves satisfied. In the U.S., that figure is a shrinking 56%. People in other developed countries say they wouldn't trade their health care for the world. If they're thinking of health care in the U.S., you can't blame them, can you?
lollll...I should have said:
"to include mandatory premium payments by all Americans who can - on paper - scrape together the dimes to do it"
Because you KNOW they'll go just by gross income, and any other factor - such as unexpected losses due to your house burnt down or your car was in an accident involving an uninsured driver - will not be considered as they are levying a penalty payment upon you for not paying your premium.
By the way: That levying of insurance premiums? First they hit us with mandatory car insurance, and it looks like mandatory health insurance is in the pipeline.
Net effect is an upwards bump in the cost of living of many Americans, but particularly those Americans that fall into the "working poor" and lower middle class.
The working poor and lower middle class will likely be eligible for sibsidies since Obama has steted that subsidies will be available for a family of 4 making up to $88K a year.
Quite the contrary.
Without consumer protection legislation, a health bill would just be an income generator for the insurance corporations with no reciprocal benefit to the American consumer; the insurance corporations would continue those unsavory practices - such as "losing" the paperwork of individuals who need operations until after their deaths - that they employ to make such massive profits now.
"to include mandatory premium payments by all Americans who can - on paper - scrape together the dimes to do it"
Because you KNOW they'll go just by gross income, and any other factor - such as unexpected losses due to your house burnt down or your car was in an accident involving an uninsured driver - will not be considered as they are levying a penalty payment upon you for not paying your premium.
By the way: That levying of insurance premiums? First they hit us with mandatory car insurance, and it looks like mandatory health insurance is in the pipeline.
Net effect is an upwards bump in the cost of living of many Americans, but particularly those Americans that fall into the "working poor" and lower middle class.
Now I am in favor of national health care, but anything that raises the cost of living of the American worker/consumer affects his or her competitiveness on the global labor market.
As our costs our legislated upwards, our ability to compete with people whose costs of living started out being 1/10th of ours drops correspondingly.
The American economy is in a mess because of inequitable free trade, and that mess includes our ability to pay for health care.
Until we get a leader with the gonads to put America first and address the differing costs of production nation-to-nation, the American consumer/worker should continue to maintain a firm grasp upon his or her ankles.
The US doesn't have a crisis. We have very few American citizens who want health insurance but don't have it despite what the alarmists say. (And no, the "50 million" number isn't intellectually honest because it includes illegal aliens, people eligble for Medicare/Medicaid and just don't apply, and people that can afford insurance but choose not to.)
Americans have started waking up to the soaring rhetoric that spews from the left and realize it isn't any more intellectually advanced than what an 8-year old feels.
2010 can't come soon enough.
In every other developed country, there is a public option and health care costs are half as much as ours. Their health care also delivers much better outcomes. How? We are last in longevity, infant mortality and medical errors leading to death. We are #1 in costs, where we don't want to be. Our health care occupies 37th slot according to a WHO ranking of countries around the world.
The preponderance of facts and arguments surrounding health care reform is on the side of those in favor. The only arguments from the other side are bogus: illegals (see my comments), rationing (we have them today in the U.S. with almost 50 million uninsured, 20% of those with insurance forego care to avoid out-of-pocket costs), "socialism" (if market solutions don't work, I say ditch them).
Don't get hung up on illegals. We have bigger fish to fry. Besides, controlling health care costs makes sense, illegals or not.