Miles Mogulescu

Entertainment attorney, writer, and political activist

Posted: February 23, 2010 05:44 PM

The Real Reason Obama's Plan Doesn't Include a Public Option

The reason Robert Gibbs gives for President Obama's health care plan not including a public option -- that despite majority voter support, it can't get 51 Democratic votes in the Senate -- doesn't hold up. The real reason is that Obama made a backroom deal last summer with the for-profit hospital industry that there would be no meaningful public option.

This is one of the great under-reported stories of the health reform saga. Much has been written about the Obama administration's deal with big Pharma to continue to block Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices or to allow consumers to buy cheaper drugs from Canada, in exchange for Pharma running pro-Democratic ads and giving campaign contributions to Democratic candidates. That's the reason, under pressure from the White House, that Senate Democrats voted down an amendment that would have allowed consumers to buy cheaper drugs from overseas.
But Obama's deal with the for-profit hospital lobby to insure there would be no public option has, as best I can tell, only been reported in two articles in The New York Times. On August 13, The Times reported that while President Obama had presented himself as "aloof from the legislative fray," particularly in connection with the public option, "Behind the scenes, however, Mr. Obama and advisors have been...negotiating deals with a degree of cold-eyed political realism potentially at odds with the president's rhetoric." One of the deals reported in The Times article was the Pharma deal. The other was a deal with the for-profit hospital lobby to limit its cost reductions to $155 billion over 10 years in exchange for a White House promise that there would be no meaningful public option.
According to The Times:

"Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying-Medicare rates...or controlled by the secretary of health and human services. 'We have an agreement with the White House that I'm very confident will be seen all the way through conference', one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter...Industry lobbyists say they are not worried [about a public option.] 'We trust the White House,' Mr. Kahn said."

Mr. Kahn's lobbying group, with whom the White House made the deal, represents America's investor-owned, hospitals whose profits could be diminished by a public option with the negotiating clout to negotiate lower prices. To say that the deal included ensuring that any public option would not be "controlled by the secretary of health and human services" is code for saying it would not be national in scope and would lack negotiating clout--In other words, the Obama administration made a deal that a national public option on day one comparable to Medicare was off the table.
On September 9, a few weeks after The Times reported Obama's deal to gut the public option, President Obama gave his big health care speech to a Joint Session of Congress. In the speech, Obama said one of the programs he was considering was a "not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange." Supporters of the public option took this as a sign that Obama was on their side.
But Washington insiders noticed that Obama parsed his words very carefully. The New York Times noted that:

"Mr. Obama's call for a public plan, however, omitted any discussion of what rates it might pay or who might control it...'He worded it really carefully, because he said 'not for profit' and he didn't say it had to be controlled by the government,' Mr. Kahn [the hospital lobbyist] added. 'The way he described it, we could support that!"

In other words, Obama signaled the private health care industry that his deal that there would be no meaningful public option still stood.
Throughout the process, the White House has given vague statements supporting the public option -- enough to keep liberals and progressive on board -- while repeatedly undermining the public option in practice. Jane Hamsher has written a useful timeline of White House efforts to undermine the public option.
There is no evidence that President Obama has ever twisted the arm of a single Senator to support a public option and plenty of evidence that he has assiduously avoided doing so, sending a message to Senators that he doesn't want a public option. When the Senate passed its version of the health reform bill, the reason the White House gave for there being no public option was that it couldn't garner 60 votes. But Joe Lieberman, who could have been the 60th vote, insists that the Obama administration never pressured him to support either a public option or a Medicare buy-in. And Sen. Russ Feingold blamed the demise of the public option in the Senate on the White House's failure to push for it.
Now the White House is saying they're not including a public option in Obama's plan because they can't get even 51 Democratic votes in the Senate. Does anyone really believe that if President Obama really wanted a public option -- if he hadn't dealt the public option away in a backroom deal with the for-profit hospital industry -- he couldn't get 51 out of 59 members of the Senate Democratic caucus to vote for it?
As a long-time supporter of single payer, I'm not the world's biggest fan of the public option and I've written about its limitations in these pages many times, included here. But at this point, when it comes to health care reform, the Democrats face a Hobson's choice of their own making between two suboptimal alternatives. Either they can use reconciliation to pass a defective health care bill that's supported by only 1/3 of the voters. Or, as in 1993, they can let health reform die for this year. The first choice means passing an unpopular bill, but at least it would show that when Democrats set out to accomplish something, they actually have the strength to do it. The second choice means admitting that their year-long efforts to pass health reform were a failure.
The most popular aspect of health care reform is the public option, which is supported by nearly 60% of voters while the overall bill is supported by only about 33%. Adding a public option to the final legislation may be the only thing that can boost its popularity among voters.
Will the Obama administration continue to cling to its deal with the for-profit hospital industry to block the public option, even at the price of public support? Or will it finally release at least 51 Democratic Senators to include a public option in the final bill through reconciliation? Its decision may be decisive in determining whether President Obama and a Democratic Congress can govern.

Yes, Obama did campaign on the public option

Oy. I'll defend the argument that the health-care bill that looks likely to pass is structurally similar to the health-care proposal released by the Obama campaign. But it's impossible to defend Obama's statement that "I didn't campaign on the public option." For one thing, it was in his campaign plan, which is to say, he campaigned on it. The proposal (pdf) assured voters that Obama's plan will "establish a new public insurance program available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers."
The White House argues that they didn't emphasize it in public speeches, and according to Salon's Alex Koppelmann, that's true. But speaking as someone who did a lot of reporting on their health-care plan, they emphasized it privately quite a bit. It was, in fact, their answer to a lot of the other flaws in their proposal. So whether Obama used it in his speeches, his campaign purposefully pushed it to, at the least, some reporters, which is to say they worked to ensure that people knew about the public option's important role in their health-care thinking.
Obama's latest statement on this is hair-splitting at best and misleading at worst. That's even more true given how often he mentioned the public option after he got elected. And it's a good example of why the left is losing its trust in Obama. Obama could have given an interview where he expressed frustration that the math of the Senate forced his administration to give up the public option but nevertheless argued that the rest of the health-care bill was well worth passing. Instead, he's arguing that he never cared about the public option anyway, which is just confirming liberal suspicions that they lost that battle because the president was never really on their side.
Photo credit: Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post.




 Comments with a similar take on Public Option

Ezra, good to point out this and glad that you still bat 'straight'.
There is little of humility missing here on President's part. He is doing more of 'mission accomplished', 'Iraq is the front of terror war' and 'we fight Al Qeda in Iraq so that they do not attack us at home' kind of stuff. It is all heady in President Obama's head. I guess something happens with White House - an occupant of it becomes this 'head strong, arrogant and dishonest person' with no trace of humility.
Let us start:
1. Stimulus package - it worked, but it is time for him to acknowledge that WH was way too aggressive in their assumptions and they should have listened to many other outside experts in being more down to the earth; especially while selling that package to Americans.
2. Obama could have said that HCR could have waited in this Great Recession but he still wanted to pursue for (fill in the blanks) reasons. However, he needs to acknowledge that it took more time than what he thought and that kind of eaten up time in focusing on Economy.
3. PO, he did support and he did want it. He is on record, but he needs to say simply that it is sacrificed for now so that overall the bill moves forward.
4. Iran - diplomacy has not worked and there are no chances that it would work. Task is cut out in terms what needs to be done.
5. Israel does not see merit, for wrong reasons, in American position of stopping settlements and hence we are stuck.
These are all solid blockages President Obama has encountered in his first year and he better be upfront and honest about those.
Otherwise, another most important reason why Public backed Obama - absence of foolish arrogance of Bush Presidency - will very much whittle away.
Remember, it is our this Camelot who said he expected people to hold him accountable. President, time of deliverance is here.

Ezra...I recall Obama always saying he preferred a public option but it was not essential, and you admit yourself that they played it down. I think the exchange idea that is in the bill is a much more politically sound way to go. There were really a lot of questions about how feasible a public option was, who would run it, how it would be paid for. I am disappointed that the Medicare expansion did not go through (thanks Joe Lieberman), but to suggest this bill is "window dressing" is BS. And it's a start. I am a true blue Liberal who still supports the efforts of our President. I wouldn't listen to PUMAs such a Jane Hamsher, as reflective of most Democrats. Last poll I saw had Obama's approval ratings twice as high as GWBs. He still has great support.

Dialing Into Health Care Debate

 A focus group in Philadelphia made up equally of democrats and republicans talking about the health care summit it is interesting and valid for what WE THE PEOPLE feel about the health care reform. And even though it was on Fox News with Hannity it was still good. 

USA ranked 37th in the World (not Impressive)

If anyone can find newer rankings that show us any higher please let me know. I have looked and looked this is where I am




The Truth-O-Meter Says:

The U.S. ranks 37th in the world for health care.

Paul Hipp on Wednesday, September 9th, 2009 in a YouTube video

Rocker in viral video mocks U.S. for 37th-best health care in world

In a music video, Paul Hipp says the U.S. ranks 37th in the world in health care.

With biting sarcasm, singer Paul Hipp says the United States should be proud of its global ranking on health care.

"We're No. 37!" he sings in a YouTube video released Sept. 9, 2009. 

With some electric guitar riffs and topical references to the summer's vitriolic debate over health care reform — including Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" heckle of President Barack Obama — the satiric romp "celebrates" the United States' standing:

We're No. 37
We're the U.S.A.
We're No. 37
And we're so proud to say
We got old people crying at the pharmacy
Pay your deductible
This ain't the land of the f-f-f-free Grandma
We're No. 37
We're the U.S.A.

The number refers to the World Health Organization's ranking of the United States as the 37th best health care system in the world, out of 191 countries. In a cheeky countdown, the video shows viewers a cross-section of nations that ranked better than the United States in WHO's tally — a mix of industrialized nations in Western Europe, Scandinavia and Asia; wealthy oil producers from the Middle East; tiny realms of prosperity such as Monaco and Luxembourg; and some seemingly unlikely nations such as Colombia, Cyprus, Morocco, Dominica and Costa Rica.

It's an anthem for health care reform that even shows its sources: Hipp includes a shot of himself looking at WHO's report. So he wins points for transparency in sourcing.

But as hummable as the song is, we thought it deserved a bit of scrutiny. How did WHO arrive at the numbers? And how widely accepted is the health organization's methodology? Ultimately, did Hipp choose a good benchmark on which to base his song?

Observers generally agree on two things about the report. It was a landmark study that attracted a lot of attention around the world. And its conclusions have inspired controversy for nearly a decade.

We should point out that the ranking is actually not new. WHO, an arm of the United Nations, published the international comparison in its World Health Report 2000 , and it hasn't been updated since. (Other groups have offered their take, as we explain below.)

Five factors went into WHO's calculation:
• Health level, as defined by a measure of life expectancy, which shows how healthy a country's population is. This factor gets a 25 percent weight.

• Responsiveness, which includes factors such as speed of health services, privacy protections, choice of doctors and quality of amenities. This factor gets a 12.5 percent weight.

• Financial fairness, which measures how progressive or regressive the financing of a country's health care system is — that is, whether or not the financial burdens are borne by those who are economically better off. This factor receives a 25 percent weight.

• Health distribution, which measures how equally a nation's health care resources are allocated among the population. This factor receives a 25 percent weight.

• Responsiveness distribution, which measures how equally a nation's health care responsiveness (which we defined above) is spread through society. This factor gets a 12.5 percent weight.

Once these statistics were collected, the WHO combined them into two summary rankings. One, called "overall attainment," is the basic weighted average of the five factors listed above. The other, called "overall performance," took that number and adjusted it for how well a country's health system was doing compared to how well WHO's experts believed it should be doing based on education level and economic resources.

Using the second of the two ratings — overall performance — the United States does indeed rank 37th. But using the first factor — overall attainment — the United States does better, finishing 15th. One might be tempted to downgrade Hipp's song for cherry-picking the less favorable number, but Hipp seems to be on solid ground here. The WHO itself considers overall performance to be the more important ranking of the two. In a news release accompanying the original report, the WHO placed the 37th-place ranking right near the top and never even mentioned the 15th-place ranking. So it seems fair to us for Hipp to focus on that number.

Of course, any ranking — whether it's U.S. News and World Report 's ranking of universities or the WHO's ranking of health systems — is subject to disputes over what factors should be included. In his 2009 book, The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper and Fairer Health Care , journalist T.R. Reid finds value in the WHO's study even as he acknowledges that it is "all but impossible to design a single rating scale that would accommodate countries ranging from Monaco (population, 33,000; per capita income, $30,000 per year) to Nigeria (population 101 million; per capita income, $310 per year)."

Despite some quibbling on technical matters, most observers broadly agree that two of the WHO's five measures — health level and responsiveness — are reasonable. The first statistic gauges health outcomes, which are obviously a health care system's No. 1 goal, and the second seeks to measure how well a health system works when interacting with patients, another widely agreed upon mission.

But there is far less consensus over the other three factors. Concerns stem from a mix of methodology and ideology.

Glen Whitman, an associate professor of economics at California State University at Northridge, offers one critique in a paper for the libertarian Cato Institute. "Suppose, for instance, that Country A has health responsiveness that is 'excellent' for most citizens but merely 'good' for some disadvantaged groups, while Country B has responsiveness that is uniformly 'poor' for everyone," he writes. "Country B would score higher than Country A in terms of responsiveness distribution, despite country A having better responsiveness than Country B for even its worst-off citizens."

Whitman also joins other conservatives in taking issue with the assumption that the rich should pay a similar percentage of their income for health care as the poor do. Because basic mathematics suggests that those with smaller incomes will naturally spend a larger share on highly important items such as food and health care, doing well in WHO's rankings almost requires a steeply progressive tax structure.

WHO officials make no bones about their desire to push countries in the direction of aiding the have-nots. They gave the controversial factors that reward socioeconomic fairness 62.5 percent weight, compared with only 37.5 percent for the broadly accepted factors of health level and responsiveness.
Tweak the weighting a little bit and a country such as the United States rises or falls in the rankings. For instance, judged on responsiveness alone, the United States ranked No. 1 in the world. A bigger weight for that factor — and a smaller weight for financial fairness, where the United States ranked 54th in the world — would have given the country a much higher ranking.
Adding other factors could also change the results. A 2001 paper in the journal Science found that adding just one more variable into the mix changed the rankings dramatically for 79 of 96 countries studied.
Meanwhile, Whitman also raised questions about the WHO's "overall performance" measure — the one in which a country's health ranking is adjusted for its education level and economic resources. (This is the category in which the United States finished 37th.) The implication from the WHO itself as well as subsequent news reports, Whitman wrote, "is that the United States performs badly ... despite its high expenditures." In fact, he writes, in the WHO's statistical model, America's first-in-the-world expenditures for health care actually hurt its ranking in overall performance by setting the theoretical bar it had to reach very high. "A more accurate statement is that the United States performs badly because of its high expenditures, at least in part," Whitman writes.

Finally, a number of other critics say that WHO listened to the experts but did not measure public satisfaction with health care.

A paper published in the journal Health Affairs found the rankings did not necessarily reflect whether people were happy with their country's health coverage. For instance, Italy finished second in WHO's study, even though only 20 percent of its citizens say they were satisfied with their health care system. Meanwhile, Denmark ranked 16th in the WHO report even though 91 percent of Danes say they were satisfied.

So while Hipp is right that the United States ranked 37th in the most widely known barometer in the WHO study, it ranked 15th by another WHO ranking and, for one factor (responsiveness) it actually ranked No. 1. Still, this is a rock song, and a well-sourced one at that. So we find Hipp's claim to be Mostly True.

PolitiFact.Com

Truth-O-Meter Statements about Health Care

There are 13 pages and I can not put them all here so take a peruse and see how some statements and talking points fared.
 Here are the first four

Statements about Health Care

Barack Obama

Pay more, get more

"The costs for families (in the individual market) for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent."

Charles Boustany

On average, CBO expects drop in individual premiums to be smaller

The CBO found that the House Republican health care plan would lower premiums by "up to about 10 percent" and, for purchasers in the individual market, "those cost savings could even be higher."

Harry Reid

Reconciling reconciliation

"Since 1981, reconciliation has been used 21 times. Most of it's been used by Republicans."

C.W. Bill Young

Most people would still have private insurance

The Democratic health care plan is a "government takeover of our health programs."

Tort Reform by a Republican Congressperson

Opinion Contributor
Bipartisan health care reform must include tort reform

Now that his yearlong partisan push for government-run health care has so far failed to produce legislative results, President Barack Obama wants Republicans to join him for another White House summit to see if he can salvage his proposals. But unless the president and congressional Democrats address the need for tort reform as a critical component of cutting health care costs, a bipartisan solution seems unlikely.

The unsustainable path of rising costs is a serious national problem. Currently, health care spending exceeds $2.5 trillion per year. By 2019, it is expected to top $4.7 trillion per year. Any hope for cost containment would involve comprehensive medical malpractice reform to end the practice of defensive medicine, close the loopholes that allow frivolous lawsuits to clog up the system, and set reasonable limits on jury awards.

The president seems to think that eliminating wasteful spending alone would get Americans on track to more affordable coverage. But the government’s track record of recouping its losses from waste, fraud and abuse leaves something to be desired. In 2008, for example, the government recovered a meager $35 million from criminal prosecution of fraud once enforcement costs were factored in. Real savings would start when Congress tackles the billion-dollar problem of defensive medicine.

Defensive medicine — when doctors order unnecessary and usually expensive tests and procedures in order to avoid lawsuits — is a major contributor to skyrocketing health care costs. As much as $210 billion is spent on defensive medicine annually — equal to $700 for every U.S. man, woman and child. This helps drive up insurance premiums that are already too high for many Americans. And the excessive malpractice litigation inevitably leads to physician shortages — especially among obstetricians, neurosurgeons and emergency room physicians.

Fewer doctors mean reduced access to medical care for everybody. New Jersey, for example, will be short 2,800 family doctors and specialists by the year 2020, according to a recent report from the New Jersey Council of Teaching Hospitals. The reason for the shortage, council President Richard Goldstein says, is a “morale problem” because of the state’s “hostile” environment for doctors and the heightened threat of malpractice lawsuits.

As long as out-of-control malpractice premiums are built into medical costs, many will never be able to afford coverage. Shamefully, it is estimated that the cost of defensive medicine and the associated liability-based medical care costs account for at least 3.4 million uninsured Americans.

Moreover, the current system is studded with irresponsible lawyers’ fees associated with malpractice claims that do not involve injury or medical error. A large share of the awards goes to pad the pockets of plaintiffs’ attorneys. Recently, the Manhattan Institute concluded that approximately 10 cents of every dollar paid for health care services goes to cover malpractice premiums, defensive medicine and other costs associated with excessive litigation.

Tort reform that reduces frivolous lawsuits and caps outrageous jury awards is a critical component of any solution to bring the cost of health care within reach of every American. So far, however, the president has barely mentioned it.

If bipartisan support is what he’s after, the president needs to do more than host Republicans at the White House for a chat. He’s going to have to get serious about the damage being done to U.S. health care by frivolous lawsuits and the cost of defensive medicine, which real reforms could correct.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Trial lawyers to Obama: Don’t deal on tort reform in healthcare neogtiations

By Jeffrey Young - 02/14/10 04:56 PM ET

President Barack Obama wants a bipartisan deal on health reform, but trial lawyers don’t want him to deal on a top Republican priority: tort reform.

Trial lawyers defeated President George W. Bush’s push for medical liability reform and successfully lobbied to water down tort reform provisions in healthcare reform bills this Congress. But the battle is far from over.


And in an odd twist, a longtime ally of the trial lawyers could be the one to resurrect the idea -- President Barack Obama.

“I would hope this would be an area we just don’t go,” said Linda Lipsen, vice president for public affairs at the American Association for Justice, the trade group for trial attorneys.

Lipsen said. “The last thing Congress should be doing is eliminating people’s rights when the real issue is safety in hospitals.”

Obama’s hints that he is willing to make a deal with Republicans on medical malpractice reform has got physicians and trial lawyers scratching their heads.

As recently as Tuesday, Obama floated the possibility of offering an olive branch to Republicans on malpractice reform as a gesture of bipartisanship. “I've said from the beginning of this debate I'd be willing to work on that,” Obama remarked during a press briefing.

Retiring Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) has recently indicated he is open to a healthcare compromise, stressing the need for malpractice reform to be included.

The White House announced on Friday that it will post a detailed health reform proposal online before the Feb. 25 bipartisan health summit, which Gregg was not invited to. It is unclear if that plan will be Obama’s own proposal or a merged version of the House and Senate-passed bills.

In an interview on Federal News Radio on Friday, Democratic strategist Bob Weiner said Obama should strike a deal on tort reform. He noted that Gail Wilensky, head of the Medicare and Medicaid agency in the first Bush administration, recently said Democrats could have gotten Republican votes if they had compromised on medical liability.

Weiner, who worked in the Clinton White House, said, “Why don’t we give a little on that and put some limit on [caps] and then get all of this national health insurance coverage for people and protect them with it? It’s not that much of a price. That’s part of the sausage-making that I think we could done that actually might have made a difference.”

Although Obama has repeatedly cited medical malpractice reform as a possible area of compromise with the GOP, he has not explained where he sees the middle ground and, indeed, has rejected Republicans’ top priority in this area: the hard-dollar caps on lawsuit awards in malpractice cases long sought by the physician and business lobbies.

But officials from pro- and anti-malpractice reform camps agree that, beyond the modest measures already in the healthcare reform bills that passed Congress and some demonstration projects under way at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Obama has not give a clear indication of what sort of offer he is willing to make.

Asked whether they were aware of any new malpractice reform proposals from the Obama administration, these officials professed they were aware of none.

“I haven’t heard anything like that,” Lipsen said.

“Not that I know of,” said Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, a proponent of limits on malpractice lawsuit awards.

“We haven’t seen any substantial proposal that supports his rhetoric,” said Kurt Bardella, a spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who has been a critic of the Obama administration’s stance on malpractice reform. “We have been waiting for his follow through and that’s what we have yet to see,” Bardella said.

Based on Obama’s oft-stated views on federal policy governing malpractice lawsuits, the trial lawyers likely have little to worry about. “I don’t think he’ll shock the world and come out and embrace caps,” Rickard said.

Obama indicated he could embrace malpractice proposals that “make my party a little bit uncomfortable.” Unlikely though it is that Obama would reverse positions on malpractice lawsuit caps or other proposals, it would not mark the first time he aggravated his liberal allies during the healthcare reform debate.

Despite campaigning against taxation of employer-sponsored health insurance, Obama put himself at odds with unions by endorsing a Senate-passed excise tax on high-cost insurance plans that organized labor and most House Democrats passed. The White House also struck a controversial deal to win the support of the pharmaceutical industry for healthcare reform, frustrating liberals who think Obama went too light on their long-time nemesis.

The House and Senate bills each contain provisions aiming to improve patient safety and offering grants to states that develop alternate ways to resolve disputes over medical errors. Proponents of broader malpractice reforms dismiss these proposals as inadequate while trial lawyers have rejected another possible compromise, the creation of special “health courts” that would hear cases and medical errors and malpractice.

Moving toward the middle on medical malpractice reform is no guarantee of winning GOP support, however. Any concession that Republicans would view as meaningful would prompt an outcry from Democratic lawmakers and the trial bar, a close ally of the party.

“I don’t see that as a credible place to go if the object is to pass the bill,” said Lipsen, noting that legislation to enact malpractice award caps could even not advance through the Republican-controlled Senate several times in the last decade.

Moreover, Republicans have stood so strongly opposed to the Democratic healthcare bills that even full capitulation on medical malpractice reform would not produce instant bipartisanship, Rickard noted. “There are so many issues that are in dispute in this bill,” she said, “that malpractice reform in and of itself isn’t going to overcome them.”

Bob Cusack contributed to this article

 A comment I found interesting
Even before it was a Republican idea - The People have been calling for TORT REFORM! Did Obama and this org Hear THAT?These Frivolous (stupid) Lawsuits are killing Healthcare - IF someone is truly negligent it's these Lawyers trying to mae a fast buck on peoples misguided ways! IF a doctor is truly Negligent, then he should pay - but also pay with his license, but he isn't going to be negligent for every LITTLE thing, some is always with the patient and MORE is what these, so-called Lawyers, do and say. REFORM in this area is a definite need OR Healthcare cost's will continue to rise! The monetary % amount that these lawyers get should be cut way, way down and then see how many cases they do - more money should go to the patient - NOT to these lawyers, remember the damage was done to the patient, not the lawyer!

51% Fear Government More Than Private Health Insurers

 Now I want tosay something these last four pages by the Rasmussen Reports to me are straw votes because they only contacted 1000 voters to me that is a drop in the bucket.  Unfair and not typical of a broader geographical survey....That's my opinion and that's all I have to say about that.....


Wednesday, February 24, 2010

President Obama and congressional Democrats are citing a jump in rates by a California health insurer as grounds for getting their national health care plan back on track, but voters are still more fearful of the federal government than private insurance companies when it comes to health care decisions.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% fear the federal government most when it comes to such decisions. Thirty-nine percent (39%) fear private insurance companies more.
These views are unchanged from early August when many congressmen went home to town hall meetings filled with voters angry about the proposed health care plan.
A new provision in the plan proposed this week by the president is “a Health Insurance Rate Authority to assist and oversee state efforts to review ‘unreasonable rate increases’ and ‘unfair practices’ in the industry,” according to the Los Angeles Times. The largest public health insurer in California has just announced rate increases up to 39%.
Forty-one percent (41% ) of voters favor the proposed health care plan, while 56% oppose it. Just 23% Strongly Favor the plan while 45% are Strongly opposed. Support for and opposition to the plan are at the same levels they’ve been at since just after Thanksgiving.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
Among those who strongly support the health care plan, 80% fear private insurance companies most when it comes to health care decisions. But 86% of those who strongly oppose the plan are most fearful of the federal government.
Male voters are more fearful of the government than female voters. Whites are twice as likely as African-Americans to fear the government most.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats have a greater fear of private insurance companies, while 77% of Republicans and 52% of voters not affiliated with either major party fear the government most when it comes to health insurance decisions. That’s partly why most Democrats favor the proposed legislation while most Republicans and unaffiliated voters are opposed.
Similarly, 62% of Mainstream voters worry most about the government, but 64% of the Political Class fear private insurers most.
From the beginning of the health care debate, one of the challenges facing reform advocates has been the fact that most Americans have insurance and are generally happy with their coverage. As Scott Rasmussen noted in a Wall Street Journal column last year, “Most of these voters approach the health care reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain.”
In December, 52% of those with insurance feared that passage of the health care plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats could force them to change coverage.
Only 25% of voters agreed with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last summer when she described America’s health insurance companies as “villains.”
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.


This national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports February 21-22, 2010. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence (see methodology). 

Is Our Government Really Broken?

A Commentary By Tony Blankley

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

If you want to see broken government, consider the fall of the constitutional Roman Republic and the rise of Julius Caesar: "Fortune turned against us and brought confusion to all we did. Greed destroyed honor, honesty and every other virtue, and taught men to be arrogant and cruel, to neglect the gods. Ambition made men false. Rome changed: A government which had once surpassed all others in justice and excellence now became cruel and unbearable." So said the historian Sallust at the time.

But in retrospect, while moral decay surely played its part, the more complete explanation for the fall of the Roman Republic lay in the consequences of the successes of Rome's vast Mediterranean conquests. The flow of wealth into Rome from the conquered empire -- which had been built to protect the city-state of Rome -- undercut the republic it was built to protect. The Roman constitution had been designed to govern a city-state, but with the wealth of empire came severe economic inequalities that the Roman Senate would not, or could not, resolve. Demagogues arose, private armies were formed -- and finally force of victorious arms replaced republican government.

Another familiar example of broken government was our Washington government in the 1850s, which failed to peacefully resolve the matter of slavery. Once again, force of arms was required to resolve an existential crisis of a republic. Six hundred thousand Americans died during our Civil War. Although I and most Americans (at least outside the South) think Abraham Lincoln acted wisely and saved the republic -- and we returned to more or less constitutional government in 1865 -- it cannot be denied that America got its first real, sustained taste of authoritarian government under Lincoln.

We had better hope our government isn't broken -- or we are likely to have more to worry about than 10 percent unemployment.

In fact, as many have observed recently, our government is working just fine -- blocking the enactment of unpopular laws by a government that is out of step with the people. There is nothing new in that. I served in the Reagan White House and with Newt Gingrich in the 1990s. I recall feeling both times that government was broken -- the filibuster was blocking our majority rule -- because we couldn't get "vital" legislation enacted. (In fact, both times I was involved, inter alia, in the failed effort to close down the Department of Education, saving only its essential student loan functions.) We overreached. We got a lot done, but only that with which the public was comfortable.

Other administrations, including Jimmy Carter's, complained that government was broken because they generally were incompetent to lead.

However, a form of government and the public are functioning adequately not only when they block bad or unacceptable law (as currently is the case) but when they are able to solve great dangers to the nation. We may soon get a test on that second matter.

There is broad agreement (as close to a universal agreement as we have seen on a great issue) that if we don't get our national debt and deficits to sustainable levels, we may never recover our prosperity -- and will then lose our military strength and our great sovereign freedom.

If, as many expect, the Democrats lose effective or actual control of Congress in the November elections, it is likely to be because the public has risen up and rejected the party that has brought us these intolerable multitrillion-dollar deficits with a budget proposal that fails even to propose a path out of the morass.

Although many hard decisions will have to be made, everyone agrees that at the core, we have to reduce vastly the current estimated $50 trillion of unfunded liability that exists in our entitlement programs -- Social Security and Medicare particularly.

So, should the election play out as described, 2011 will be the year that will test whether our government is broken, because a pretty good definition of a broken government (or more accurately, a broken polity -- a government and its electorate) is one that agrees on a great threat to society, agrees broadly on what needs to be done -- and cannot do it.

While many of us have for years complained of our failure to get entitlement costs under control, in fact, only starting in 2011 will the true test of our polity begin. Because only now is there a strong majority that sees the danger.

Until the 1990s, federal deficits were the concern merely of the green-eye-shade part of the Republican voters. Most Democrats, independents and some Republicans didn't vote based on that issue. Then Ross Perot came along and ran on the deficit issue, thereby expanding the part of the electorate that really cared about deficits. Then in 1994, Newt Gingrich and the new Republican majority championed trying to get to a balanced budget (and succeeded, with Bill Clinton in 1997).

Still, only about half the electorate really cared about deficits. However, during the George W. Bush presidency of 2001-09, most Democratic voters came -- for the first time -- to loudly, emphatically and constantly attack deficits. Thus, in 2009, for the first time since the rise of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a big majority of the public is alive to the dangers of excessive debt and deficit. And just at this moment, we get these staggering multitrillion-dollar-per-year deficits.

Now the danger is manifest. Assuming the November election plays out as suspected and the public manifests its deepest concern -- if the public will not support or the government of 2011 does not enact genuine structural reductions sufficient to honestly project our debt to be under control for the long term -- then we can honestly say that our government is broken. Then we will know that we are in for a hellish future.
Tony Blankley is executive vice president of Edelman public relations in Washington.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports.

Health Care Reform 41% Favor Obama’s Health Care Plan, 56% Oppose

Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Barack Obama share a laugh at the health care summit on Thursday. | AP

 

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Health Care Reform

41% Favor Obama’s Health Care Plan, 56% Oppose

  Voters still strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats and think Congress should focus instead on smaller bills that address problems individually rather than a comprehensive plan.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of voters favor the proposed health care plan, while 56% oppose it. Those figures include 45% who strongly oppose the plan and just 23% who strongly favor it.
Support for and opposition to the plan are at the same levels they’ve been at since just after Thanksgiving.
Democrats continue to strongly support the health care plan much while it is opposed by Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party. Seventy percent (70%) of the Political Class strongly favor the plan, while 57% of Mainstream voters strongly oppose it.
Sixty-three percent (63%) of all voters say a better strategy to reform the health care system would be to pass smaller bills that address problems individually. Twenty-seven percent (27%) still think passing a comprehensive bill that covers all aspects of the health care system is a better idea. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided.
Sixty-five percent (65%) of those who strongly support the president’s plan favor a comprehensive approach, while 85% of those who strongly oppose the current plan say smaller, individually-focused bills are a better way to go.
Earlier this month, just after the president called for a bipartisan summit meeting to get his health care reform plan back on track, 61% of voters said Congress should scrap that plan and start all over again.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The latest findings, from a survey Sunday and Monday nights, come as the president prepares to convene the nationally televised summit meeting on Thursday. Obama is struggling to get some Republican support after the shock GOP win last month in Massachusetts’ special Senate election forced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to admit that she didn’t have even enough Democratic votes to pass the plan.
But despite the president’s efforts since then to draw Republicans into the health care effort, voter opinions seem unchanged.
Just 38% of voters now think it is at least somewhat likely that the plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats will become law this year, the lowest level of confidence in the bill’s passage to date. That number includes 13% who say passage into law is very likely. But 51% believe passage of the plan this year is unlikely, with 33% who say it’s not very likely and another 18% who view it as not at all likely.
Only 35% of voters believe Congress should pass health care reform before the upcoming midterm elections anyway. Fifty-four percent (54%) say Congress should wait until voters select new congressional representatives in November.
Interestingly, 63% of voters also think it would be better for the country if most incumbents in Congress were defeated this November.
This backlash against Democratic Senate incumbents in particular is being found in a number of states where Rasmussen Reports has been surveying recently, including Arkansas, California, Colorado, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, Florida, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin.
Thirty-four percent (34%) of voters now rate the president’s handling of the health care reform issue as good or excellent, while 50% think the president has done a poor job. These findings are comparable to voter feelings last month just after the Massachusetts special election.
Not surprisingly, most Democrats give Obama good or excellent marks, while most Republicans and unaffiliated voters rate his performance on health care as poor. Ninety-two percent (92%) of the Political Class say the president has done a good or excellent job. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Mainstream voters think he’s done a poor job on the health care issue.
Just 24% of voters now say health care reform is the budget priority the president is most likely to achieve, the lowest finding in a year of surveying.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

Date	Favor	Oppose
Feb 21-22	41%	56%
Feb 9-10	39%	58%
Jan 20-21	40%	58%
Jan 16-17	38%	56%
Jan 8-9	40%	55%
Jan 3	42%	52%
Dec 29	39%	58%
Dec 27	40%	55%
Dec 18-19	41%	55%
Dec 12-13	40%	56%
Dec 4-5	41%	51%
Nov 29	41%	53%
Nov 21-22	38%	56%
Nov 13-14	47%	49%
Nov 7-8	45%	52%
Oct 30-31	42%	54%
Oct 24-25	45%	51%
Oct 16-17	42%	54%
Oct 10-11	44%	50%
Oct 2-3	46%	50%
Sep 24-25	41%	56%
Sep 16-17	43%	56%
Sep 15-16	44%	53%
Sep 14-15	42%	55%
Sep 13-14	45%	52%
Sep 12-13	51%	46%
Sep 11-12	48%	48%
Sep 10-11	47%	49%
Sep 9-10	46%	51%
Sept 8-9	44%	53%
Aug 25-26	43%	53%
Aug 9-10	42%	53%
Jul 26-27	47%	49%
Jul 20-21	44%	53%
Jul 10-11	46%	49%
Jun 27-28	50%	45%

This national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports February 21-22, 2010. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence (see methodology).

Congressional Performance 71% Give Congress Poor Rating

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters February 19-20, 2010 How would you rate the way Congress is doing its job?
                 Excellent       Good     Fair      Poor
                   9%                1%       18%      71%

 

Wednesday, February 24, 2010 Congressional Performance 71% Give Congress Poor Rating Voter unhappiness with Congress has reached the highest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports as 71% now say the legislature is doing a poor job. That’s up ten points from the previous high of 61% reached a month ago. Only 10% of voters say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Nearly half of Democratic voters (48%) now give Congress a poor rating, up 17 points since January. The vast majority of Republicans and voters not affiliated with either party also give Congress poor ratings. Seventy percent (70%) of voters say Congress has not passed any legislation that would significantly improve life for Americans, up 10 points over the past month and the highest level of dissatisfaction measured in regular tracking in over three years. Only 15% say Congress has passed such legislation. Forty percent (40%) of voters nationwide now say it is at least somewhat likely Congress will seriously address the most important issues facing the nation. That’s down from 59% last March. Only 9% say it is Very Likely Congress will address these issues. These numbers are consistent with the analysis provided in Scott Rasmussen’s new book, In Search of Self-Governance. Scott notes that “Today, Americans are united. United in the belief that our political system is broken, that politicians are corrupt, and that neither major political party has the answers.” He adds, “Some of us are ready to give up; some of us are ready to scream a little louder. But all of us believe we can do better.” The book has received positive reviews from across the political spectrum. In Search of Self-Governance is available from Rasmussen Reports and at Amazon.com. Other recent polling also reflects voter disappointment in Congress. Earlier this month, 63% of voters said it would be better for the country if most incumbents in Congress were defeated this November. Just 27% of voters say their representative in Congress is the best possible person for the job. Three out of four voters (75%) report being at least somewhat angry at the policies of the federal government. Part of the frustration is likely due to the belief of 60% of voters that neither Republican political leaders nor Democratic political leaders have a good understanding of what is needed today. Still, voters believe Democrats are more likely than Republicans to have a plan for the future. Regardless of which political side voters are on, just 21% believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed. As Congress continues to hash out the health care reform plan proposed by the president and Congressional Democrats, just 41% of voters favor the plan while 56% are opposed. Sixty-three percent (63%) of all voters say a better strategy to reform the health care system would be to pass smaller bills that address problems individually. Just 9% of voters believe most members of Congress are genuinely interested in helping people, which ties the recent low in December. Eighty-one percent (81%) say most members of Congress are more interested in their own careers, a new multi-year high. The plurality of voters (42%) continues to believe most members of Congress are corrupt, a result that has remained fairly consistent over the past several months. One in three U.S. voters (32%) does not see most congressmen as corrupt. Another 26% are undecided. In 2010, Republican candidates have consistently held an advantage over Democrats in the Generic Congressional Ballot. Rasmussen Reports has recently surveyed Senate races in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Florida, Connecticut, Pennyslvania, Ohio, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. Most show a troubling political environment for the Democratic candidates. Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news. This national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports February 19-20, 2010. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence (see methodology).

White House Health Care Summit, Part 2

Blogging the Health Care Summit

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

He is blogging during the summit, take a minute  and take a peak for his view point.....

White House Health Care Summit, Part 1(my opinion has an update)

I listened to all six hours and twenty two minutes. I am not sure who won, but I did hear alot of agreeing but with no consensus, and the republicans used their same old talking points especially with scrapping the voted upon health care bills from both house and senate and starting from scratch. Now why would democrats scrap what has already been voted on. Now tort reform is something both need to rethink, also pre-existing conditions also medicare and medicaid. I am on Medicare and medicaid and I do not want to lose my insurance. And I know alot of people right along side of me that can not afford to lose it. The republicans seemed to be trying to score points for the 2010 election, and the democrats trying to score points with the elect rite. They could meet in the middle on some of their talking points if they cared about WE THE PEOPLE. The republicans talked and talked about how the American people did not want the health care bill as written, I have heard differently from different sources, and if I can find them I will put them in my blog. I was disappointed that nothing was really accomplished, the republicans did not want to see reconciliation on the bill, but the democrats are now more determined to put this bill through. As a stated earlier there were talking points that I believe they should both do further talking on, that either side do not want, and it is imperative to the PEOPLE. They can not seem to come together on the budget differences, they rely on the CBO for their bipartisan input, but without all the little nuances that can be in the bills later they can only give a summary of what the cost, saving, debt of what they currently have before them. I could say the republicans only care about their meal ticket the insurance companies and denying the AMERICAN PEOPLE the same kind of insurance coverage that they have for themselves and their families. Do not understand that one. I do not want to see the democrats ram through a bill, just to spite the republicans, but I do not think the republicans can demand that the congress scrap the bills and start all over again. That would be insane,

work to make the existing bill work for both parties.

UPDATE: 2/26
I have been reading alot of articles today and have added several, the congress I believe does not do for us their constituents what we want them to do to take care of us. If they do not consider what we want then in November we should fire them all and try to put people in who will listen to their constituents WE THE PEOPLE 
I want to apologize for saying that most Americans want this health care bill as written, evidently they don't want the existing bill.  They want both the House and the Senate to scrap both bills and start over with the points that they both agree on.  That is going to take a long time and the sticking points are going to drag it out, if they do that most of the American People will be behind them 100%, as long as they have Tort Reform, pre-existing conditions, a form of Public option whether it is one payer, a pool, or what the congress gets for health care, being able to buy across state lines, the People want options. And some way that medicare and medicaid are re-enforced, and stabilized and not costing billions that the states and federal government cannot cope with.  The insurance companies have bought and paid for most republicans and they do not want the public option, or competition, or the idea that we could buy across state lines because some companies have a monopoly in certain states.
What I want to see is the President of the United States to stand up for the people of this country and by letting both the House and Senate know just exactly what He wants to have in the bill which should include a public option which some articles say he pledged on in his campaign as a promise.  I put a video in my blog from Fox News with a focus group made up of democrats and republicans and they were asked questions about the summit the questions were not one sided, and had relevance to both groups. I was very impressed, because I learned from that small group what the AMERICAN PEOPLE are looking for in health care.

KISS - keep it simple stupid........

President Obama held a bipartisan meeting at Blair H ouse on health reform legislation. Attendees included House and Senate leadership, chairs and ranking members of committees overseeing health insurance legislation, Vice President Joe Biden, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the Office of Health Reform. They focused on controlling costs, insurance reforms, reducing the deficit, and expanding coverage.








A History of Overhauling Health Care - an interactive feature

Once you open the page use mouse and click on differnt lines to read what it says