Political Hotsheet
June 9, 2009 3:33 PM

Cost Issues Loom Large Over Health Care Debate

(CBS/AP)
The Democrats' comprehensive health care reform bill will prove to be a complex, multi-faceted proposal, but the common theme found in every discussion of the legislation is cost -- how to cover the cost of expanding care, and how to make existing health care practices more cost-efficient.

On Tuesday, two key players from the Senate and the White House said that the health care package that passes in the Senate will have to be budget-nuetral for its first years of implementation, but it must also include long term cost-saving measures like comparative effectiveness research. They made their point the same day President Obama urged Congress to pass "paygo" legislation, which would require any new tax cut or entitlement program to be paid for.

During a forum at the Brookings Institution on Tuesday, White House Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orzag promised the health care reform package the president ultimately signs will be deficit-neutral for five to 10 years under Congressional Budget Office scoring.

"It seems to me implausible a plan that is a big deficit-increaser would pass the Senate," he said.

The bill, he added, will also have to include, "the long term game changers we believe over time will lead to a more efficient health care system. We cannot perpetuate a sitaution where we spend twice as much in some areas versus others and don't seem to get anything from that."

The goal of comparative effectiveness research is to find the best treatments at the best prices. More research in this area could make health care more cost-efficient, but skeptics say it could lead to rationing of health care and the denial of various treatments that could work for some patients but not others.

"It strikes me that this is not about getting in the way of you and your doctor," Orzag said. "It's precisely about making sure your doctor and you have as much information as possible about what's going to work for you."

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research, and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is leading health care reform in the Senate Finance Committee, intends to make it part of the Senate's health care package as well, he said Tuesday.

"We believe it is fundamental to transforming our health system from one that is volume driven to one that his evidence based," Baucus said.

The cost of health care reform is just one of many significant hurdles in the way of creating a well-supported, bipartisan bill. Baucus said his committee has gone to great lengths to include Republican input in the legislation.

"I've never participated in a more inclusive endeavor in my life," he said.

Nevertheless, nine of the 10 Republicans on his committee sent a letter to President Obama yesterday opposing the creation of a government-sponsored health care plan, a critical component of reform for liberals.

Baucus said finding a resolution "requires a lot of education. We all have a fairly steep learning curve here, and for some of us, it's nearly viertical. Ignorance breeds fear."

Ignorance, Orzag emphasized, also results in higher costs for health care without improved results.

"We have a payment system that accommodates the more intensive approaches (to treatment), even if they are not backed by evidence they work," he said. "Simply providing information (to doctors and hospitals) and benchmarking against comparison hospitals can help."
Tags:
health care ,
budget
Topics:
Health Care
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 112 Comments
by lkirkpat August 21, 2009 3:31 PM EDT
Published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," by Edward Sylvester Ellis

"...I shall not vote for you again."

"I begged him tell me what was the matter."

"Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.'
"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.
But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.'
" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?

"Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.'

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.'

"'Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.'

"The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'
Reply to this comment
by lkirkpat August 21, 2009 3:15 PM EDT
Why is it that we don't hear anything about what this is truly going to "cost" us? How does Obamacare propose that we provide healthcare of 50 million more Americans? We have a shortage of healthcare providers across all states. If we barely have enough doctors to take care of the people we have now, how exactly are we going to take care of 50 million more? Yes, yes... nurse practioners and physician assistants... When it comes down to it, they lack the experience of a physician (physicians have YEARS of more training within their residency and fellowship programs). PAs and NPs refer, on average, 1/3 of their patients to other physicians or specialists compared to the 1/10 of patients refered to specialists by doctors. Two office trips to take care of something that can be solved in one... How does that cut costs? Do those that want obamacare think that those hospital beds, nurses, doctors, etc. are going to appear out of magical democratland? And they are going to be excited about getting paid less? Costs have to be cut somewhere. Where is the incentive to become a doctor or nurse if they can't pay off the average 208,000 dollars in loans they have to take out for medical school? What about the quality that will be suffered? It will become an assembly line. It could take months to get into a specialist... months is a DEATH SENTENCE to anyone with an aggressive cancer or Non-Hodgekin's lymphoma. This "reform" cannot be done overnight. It is going to take at least 8-10 years to train more doctors. They need to do it in pieces. Start with reducing malpractice and Denial of Care lawsuits...go from there....
Reply to this comment
by chitown639 June 10, 2009 11:28 AM EDT
It should come to no surprise to anyone that the Old Confederate will stand against human rights issues at every turn....from slavery to women's right to vote to segregation and Jim Crow laws and now even the public health.....
Reply to this comment
by cydygitt1 June 10, 2009 11:24 AM EDT
First of all he's not repeating from Fox news...

Posted by texassanna
---------------------------

Sure he was just like you, repeating the same, old, tired foxnewsus propagandus from the same suspects like o'liely, hannity and beck amongst others, with the same attacks on everything not republican't -- the party of NO -- NO SOLUTIONS and NO NEW IDEAS.

Your marginalized party of southern, white, evangelical morons will just remain in the minority that bush put them in, as long as you just have racist and ideological attacks!
Reply to this comment
by chitown639 June 10, 2009 11:19 AM EDT
What's really funny is that we didn't get that much federal money, as a matter of fact very little...yet Galveston is up and fully running and mostly restored...

While New Orleans is still griping and beeching and running around with their heads up their butt trying to figure out how to get it back together and it's been almost six freaking years.
Posted by IThoughtItWasFunnyAgain

Yeah, isn't that typical of Bush to take care of his home state of Texas and totally ignore New Orleans during Katrina....
Reply to this comment
by chitown639 June 10, 2009 11:13 AM EDT
You know we agreed to a federal government to protect our borders, made decisions about federal lands, a national monitary system, national tarriffs and infrastructure the joins the states....we didn't give the feds rights over anything else....especially health care and private businesses, private property.
Posted by IThoughtItWasFunnyAgain

Well, perhaps you should spend more time reading and learning your country's constitution. You being a woman, probably wouldn't even have the right to vote, had it not been for the federal government meddling....but that kind of meddling from the federal government is okay with you I assume.....
Reply to this comment
by chitown639 June 10, 2009 11:00 AM EDT
What's funny is that on every single issue Republicans always run back to STATES RIGHTS, hoping that their own little local governments could override federal law and the U.S. constitution. In a Republican world, the United States would consist of 50 little third world countries.....
Reply to this comment
by cydygitt1 June 10, 2009 10:56 AM EDT
posted by texassanna
---------------------------

Is there supposed to be a relevant comment in your diatribe or are you just typing attacks on everyone and everybody that doesn't agree with your texass politics and moronic perceptions of the world?
Reply to this comment
by cydygitt1 June 10, 2009 10:52 AM EDT
You people must like throwing your money away on a house that's barely livable.
Posted by texassanna
-------------------------

Thanks for the insight into such a roach-infested texass dream, of more RED states of the southern, white evangelicals, that need more federal dollars to rebuild totally devasted places like the texass coast from hurricanes of past years as this hurricane season begins!
Reply to this comment
by cydygitt1 June 10, 2009 10:47 AM EDT
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

We can't have DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY when Americans are dying because they can't afford to pay for health care. We can't PROMOTE GENERAL WELFARE without promoting and supporting the publics health.
Posted by chitown639
---------------------------

Ooooops......you're going to ruin texassanna's day by giving her a dose of her own REALITY, which she obviously doesn't want in her parallel universe!
Reply to this comment
by cydygitt1 June 10, 2009 10:45 AM EDT
Its those profits that allow companies to continue to provide coverage.

Posted by vinnyb5
---------------------

I see you're repeating the same nazi propaganda from the foxnewsus propagandus talking heads and commercials like CPR, just another rightwingus whackosus 'swifty boat' analysis for republican't syccophants guzzlin' the Kool-aid like crazy!
Reply to this comment
by chitown639 June 10, 2009 10:41 AM EDT
The second answer to your diatribe is that if we don't get health care out of the hands of the federal government and it's corruption and back into the hands of the people, then your health care will continued to be controlled by SOMEBODY ELSE, namely corrupt politicians in Washington DC.
Posted by IThoughtItWasFunnyAgain

Back in the hands of WHAT people? Our health is in hands of the greedy insurance companies!!! Your doctor has to get permission from the insurance company before he can provide treatment, and if the insurance company says no, then guess what, your doctor won't give you treatment unless you can afford to pay for it yourself.....
Reply to this comment
by cydygitt1 June 10, 2009 10:40 AM EDT
We also pay so much because we have the best overall health system in the world.

Posted by vinnyb5
----------------------

PROOF of that totally absurd comment?

The U.S. is ranked 37th in the world for our health care debacle, which is why many Americans are currently traveling abroad for major operations!
Reply to this comment
by cydygitt1 June 10, 2009 10:37 AM EDT
Okay, you think the states should foot the bill for universal health care? Lets start with your good state of TEXAS, which just received $17 billion in federal fund from the stimulus package, can your state afford a universal health care plan? Answer: No Your state didn't even want to extend unemployment benefits for those fellow Texesans in need during the worst recession in decades, now you're saying that your state government could afford universal health care?
Posted by chitown639
------------------------

Yep....'ol 'good hair' perry, after talking big about secession and turning-down the stimulus funds, finally decided to remodel the governor's mansion with the funds so he could look like less of a hypocrite, yet still deny citizens both unemployment benefits and health care.
Reply to this comment
by cydygitt1 June 10, 2009 10:32 AM EDT
The Federal Government is not mandated anywhere in the Constitution to interfere and the provision of HEALTH CARE...

posted by texassanna
---------------------------

And I'm thinking that conglomerates like United Healthcare with their billions in profits and their CEO's with their $150 million per year paychecks all at the expense of the American worker making far less but wanting to stay healthy at a reasonable price, weren't around when those liberal forefathers of ours crafted Our Constitution either!

Your republican't argument is very WEAK, and your eternal fascism is showing in every posting anna.
Reply to this comment
by chitown639 June 10, 2009 10:30 AM EDT
Ask erasmus....her health care model is is put together in the province in which she lives, NOT by the Canadian government! Every provence in Canada provisions their own health care!
Posted by IThoughtItWasFunnyAgain

Okay, you think the states should foot the bill for universal health care? Lets start with your good state of TEXAS, which just received $17 billion in federal fund from the stimulus package, can your state afford a universal health care plan? Answer: No Your state didn't even want to extend unemployment benefits for those fellow Texesans in need during the worst recession in decades, now you're saying that your state government could afford universal health care?
Reply to this comment
by cydygitt1 June 10, 2009 10:25 AM EDT
NONE of you figure in the FOR PROFIT businesses the insurance companies have to support!

Posted by texassanna
---------------------------

Oh.....you mean like the congresscritters with their hands out that need to make a profit before leaving D.C., or the TV stations like murdoch enterprises that have a need to play their nazi propaganda like harry and louise?
Reply to this comment
by chitown639 June 10, 2009 10:17 AM EDT
The Federal Government is not mandated anywhere in the Constitution to interfere and the provision of HEALTH CARE, nor do they have the right to be meddling IN IT!
Posted by IThoughtItWasFunnyAgain

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

We can't have DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY when Americans are dying because they can't afford to pay for health care. We can't PROMOTE GENERAL WELFARE without promoting and supporting the publics health.
Reply to this comment
by erasmus111 June 10, 2009 10:12 AM EDT
The Federal Government is not mandated anywhere in the Constitution to interfere and the provision of HEALTH CARE, nor do they have the right to be meddling IN IT!

Posted by IThoughtItWasFunnyAgain at 7:07 AM : Jun 10, 2009

I'm beginning to think that that CONSTITUTION of yours IS the problem.
Reply to this comment
by cydygitt1 June 10, 2009 10:12 AM EDT
He's stupid, that's why!
Posted by texassanna
---------------------------

The one that's stupid is YOU. The American people NEED affordable health care. People are DYING from lack of health care. Just because you can afford it, most people can't. You are one of those people that care only about yourselves. As long as you have it, that's all that matters. The insurance companies are sucking you dry. They are CORRUPT. You like being taken for a ride?

Yes, it's going to cost money to do this, but once it's set up, you'll be saving money. And everyone will have health care.
Posted by erasmus111
---------------------------

Exactly! But we'll never get the moronic republican't idiots to understand that the current for-profit health care debacle is completely unaffordable and unsustainable.

The current mess costs America $2.5 Trillion or 18% of GDP today, with about 50 million still UN-insured and tens of millions UNDER-insured and losing homes and declaring bankruptcy due to medical costs, and predicted to be about double in less than 20 years -- $4.5 Trillion and 34% of GDP -- if reform doesn't happen.

This is ludicrous and insane to live only for today like the moronic republican'ts (or in the past as they continue to try to dig-up reagan's ghost since they lack any solutions or new ideas for anything) since we have 80 million baby boomers retiring over the next 2 decades, and the current health care debacle will only bury this country!

WAKE-UP you moronic republican'ts, since the vast majority of Americans sees the need for health care reform, and it's YOU and the for-profit health care industry digging a deeper hole for our great nation!
Reply to this comment
See all 112 Comments

About Political Hotsheet

Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com.

E-Mail Political Hotsheet
Follow On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
HOTSHEET ON TWITTER