Town Square

Post a New Topic

Straight forward information in regard to Heath Care Reform Bill:

Original post made by Andy, Carlton Oaks, on Jul 27, 2009

By Robert Schroeder, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- President Barack Obama doesn't want to hear it, but his Herculean drive to overhaul the U.S. health-care system doesn't necessarily have to be comprehensive, or even quick.

Over roughly the past week, Obama has made almost daily calls for passing a bill that would extend coverage to the nearly 50 million Americans who lack insurance. The package he wants would set up a public insurance option to compete with private companies. It would aim to control rising costs over the long term. And (among other things) it would create insurance "exchanges" where individuals and businesses could buy coverage. What he wants, in other words, is huge change -- and he wants it soon.

"I look forward to working with Congress in the days ahead to getting the job done," Obama said Tuesday afternoon.

That's right -- days, not months, ahead. Obama is still pressing for Congress to finish work on a bill before lawmakers' August recess, which begins July 31 for the House and Aug. 7 for senators.

But does an overhaul have to be done that fast? And all at once? Mechanically, no, say some analysts (and Obama's critics). Politically, however, Obama has made it hard for himself to deviate from the all-or-nothing course he has set.

"All of the parts could be done separately," says Michael Lind, policy director of the economic growth program at the New America Foundation. In particular, says Lind, cost controls could be tackled independently. Diane Rowland, executive vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, agrees to a point, saying there are "down payments" to cost containment that could be made -- through setting up an electronic medical records system or changing the ways in which payments are made to hospitals, for example.

Indeed, addressing costs first -- and universal coverage second -- could benefit Obama, a new poll suggests. Sixty-one percent of voters nationwide say that cost is the biggest health care problem facing the nation today, a new Rasmussen Reports poll found. That's compared to the 21% who believe that the lack of universal health insurance coverage is the bigger issue. Read more.

So pushing through something that contains costs or even expanding coverage to fewer Americans than Obama wants seems possible. Another stand-alone measure could be filing in the gaps in insurance coverage through Medicaid, says Rowland -- although there would still be the question of how to pay for it.

Comments (8)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Take Notes
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 27, 2009 at 10:57 pm

"The package he wants would set up a public insurance option to compete with private companies. It would aim to control rising costs over the long term. And (among other things) it would create insurance "exchanges" where individuals and businesses could buy coverage."

""All of the parts could be done separately," says Michael Lind, policy director of the economic growth program at the New America Foundation. In particular, says Lind, cost controls could be tackled independently. Diane Rowland, executive vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, agrees to a point, saying there are "down payments" to cost containment that could be made -- through setting up an electronic medical records system or changing the ways in which payments are made to hospitals, for example."

It aint over until the fat lady sings and she has not even warmed up her vocal cords!

So PLEASE STOP all the hype, panic and propoganda!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Carol
a resident of Country Fair
on Jul 28, 2009 at 8:20 am

At 10 last night (Mon) CNBC 58 had a very informative Health Care discussion by about 8 qualified at a round table. Knowing CNBC,I'm sure it will be rerun over & over...like their great special on "Scams & Greed". It is worth watching...as they are too.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Diane
a resident of Gatewood
on Jul 28, 2009 at 8:44 am

It was amazing to watch MzzPelosi, Sun morning with John King, CNN.
He ask her about how illegals were addressed in her Health Care bill. She stuttered and stammered,wet her lips and said , pardon,(while thiniking). Illegals ?? wwwell, their not covered. John said he had talked with a CA county hospital this week that said they deliver 6,000 babies a year...70 % illegals. He questioned, SO...is that addressed in the bill, Her reply "NO". John ask, what if illegals walk in off the street and want care. "Well, by law they would be treated". That's right, free means you & I pay for the WORLD to access our medical....which, they do.
Shouldn't the new law spell out that proof of citizenship is required.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Joyce
a resident of Birdland
on Jul 28, 2009 at 9:28 am

I just saw on channel 3 a local nbc public statement.
Contact nbcbayareanews.com orthey ask you to
EMAIL.... editorials@nbcbayareanews.com
to support HR 554 requiring Congress to post online ALL
NON-emergency legislation for 72 hours before it is debated on the floor. We have a right to know....before the decisions are made.
They are suppose to work FOR us.
Was transparency just talk ????(unless it's 911 attack it's never emeregency)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Doc
a resident of Castlewood
on Jul 28, 2009 at 10:33 am

"It was amazing to watch MzzPelosi, Sun morning with John King, CNN.


He ask her about how illegals were addressed in her Health Care bill. She stuttered and stammered,wet her lips and said , pardon,(while thiniking). Illegals ?? wwwell, their not covered. John said he had talked with a CA county hospital this week that said they deliver 6,000 babies a year...70 % illegal. He questioned, SO...is that addressed in the bill, Her reply "NO". John ask, what if illegals walk in off the street and want care. "Well, by law they would be treated". That's right, free means you & I pay for the WORLD to access our medical....which, they do.


Shouldn't the new law spell out that proof of citizenship is required."

Listen,

The Law requires hospitals to treat people in an emergency situation and that will never change. Most Hospitals and doctors support this Bill.

Keep in mind most Hospitals are PRIVATE and you don not PAY with your tax dollars, but rather the hospitals PAY into the tax system.

What cost YOU is the treatment of those unable to pay, dives up YOUR premiums.

Illegal Aliens are not covered under this Bill, however their CHILD, that YOU say is a CHILD the moment of CONCEPTION, IS a LEGAL U.S. CITIZEN and therefore LEGALLY qualify for MediCal, Healthy Families etc.

Now, keep in mind that in the case of California, the State is BROKE and MediCal and healthy Families are not enrolling new children and services are being cut for those enrolled.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by joyce
a resident of Birdland
on Jul 28, 2009 at 11:36 am

Obviously, you speak without knowledge or facts. I have never said a child is a child at the moment of conception, WHY oh WHY would you think that? and worse, WHY would the SAY that ??Only ignorant generalize. In fact I fight against that thinking.
And I would work against calling the child a citizen...we need to clear up that cloudy thinking. I follow our founders 'personal responsibility" concept of America.
I clearly pick up all the stuffy noses including Mom & Pop & unclea & aunt ILLEGAL in PUBLIC hospitals. You say I don't pay at Private hospitals. How wrong. COSTS are determined so that we DO SUBSIDIZE thru our own personal rate payments and the OVERcharged RATES to INSURANCE companies , which we pay in additional premiums. You don't think too deeply. OH, you must be a public employee who does NOT PAY your own premiums. Clouds your reality.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ken in South Pleasanton
a resident of Downtown
on Jul 29, 2009 at 10:27 am

Have you ever received an itemized bill for medical service, then received the statement from your medical insurer that shows the same charges reduced (sometimes by as much as 50% or more)? Who actually pays those significantly higher prices for itemized medical treatments? The Government through subsidized medical care to the uninsured? Seems to me that it would be a prudent move to address the charges set by hospitals and doctors as a way of minimizing the cost of health care to the whole nation. I don't think the way to do this is through the legislation that is being whipped up so quickly in Washington.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by LawStudent
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 29, 2009 at 3:32 pm

Ken,

That is EXACTLY a big part of the plan! Reducing what WE Tax Payers already pay for Medicare! Give it a chance and watch the Bill unfold. It is a work in progress and may be much better than imagined.

As it stands yesterday, then revised again today, the Bill does NOT resemble what the fatalist anti socialist fear mongering crowd is portraying.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Hayward NAACP officials threaten blog posters
By Tim Hunt | 21 comments | 2,141 views

Duck!
By Tom Cushing | 18 comments | 859 views

Thanksgiving Transfer Fever!
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 130 views