The election of Obama teaches us, not only that a well-organized, dedicated and competent electorate will respond to an articulate smart and sensible leader, but that it will recognize its legitimate self-interest and take forceful action.
That lesson is applicable to our health care system. The Clintons tried to design a hierarchical system from the top down: it didn't work. Let our united voices help build a system, from the bottom up, which provides affordable appropriate necessary health care to all Americans. See my blog dated November 6, 2008,write your letters, and make your voices heard.
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clinton. Show all posts
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Words Do Count - As Obama Should Know
Senator Obama's web site (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/)speaks of his health care plan on several levels of complexity. The "At a Glance" section talks of "Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage For All", "Lower Costs by Modernizing The U.S. Health Care System", and "Fight for New Initiatives". The next level of complexity describes. in vague terms, such items as guaranteed eligibility, comprehensive benefits, affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles, subsidies, simplified paperwork, easy enrollment, portability and choice and quality and efficiency. It goes on to describe a "National Health Insurance Exchange," employer contributions, children's mandatory coverage, expansion of Medicaid and SCHIP, and flexibility for state plans. It proposes to lower costs by modernizing the US Health Care System, ensure that providers deliver "Quality" care, lower costs through investment in electronic health information technology systems, lower costs by increasing competition in the insurance and drug markets, and fight for initiatives which appears to be a mix of politically appealing verbage.
Skip to "Background Questions and Answers On Health Care Plan" and discover that all of this will cost "us" taxpayers a mere $50-65 billion a year when fully phased-in. The basis for this number is not made clear: is it conjecture? Is Obama proposing an adjective laden piecemeal patch to the current system?
Not long ago we were told that $70 billion dollars (if my recollection serves me correctly) would cover our costs for the war in Iraq. It didn't, it won't and neither will Obama's health care proposal cost what it says in print on his site. He should provide a realistic tabulation of costs versus savings.
Obama's site does not explore the impact of his proposal on the economy, especially on the small businesses which are the lifeblood of American industry. It does not explain the impact of globalization on the offshoring of employment which allows major companies to get out from under health care insurance costs (and their pension costs) and shift them to others. It does not explain the risks of tinkering with a $2 trillion plus economic sector which, if it implodes, will make the current housing recession look like childs' play (health care is a major employer) as well as destroying the function we now have in our dysfunctional health system. Obama offers a simplistic fix.
In my opinion, Clinton and Obama suffer from a common defect. Each believes that she/he knows precisely what is wrong and exactly how the American people want their health care system to deliver services. My analysis is that they are wrong on both counts and that it would be better to start by having national bipartisan hearings to find out what is wrong and what the people want in the way of a health care system. Enough with the patriarchal approach - let's really have a sensible program for improvement founded in reality and the compromises which the American people will accept.
Skip to "Background Questions and Answers On Health Care Plan" and discover that all of this will cost "us" taxpayers a mere $50-65 billion a year when fully phased-in. The basis for this number is not made clear: is it conjecture? Is Obama proposing an adjective laden piecemeal patch to the current system?
Not long ago we were told that $70 billion dollars (if my recollection serves me correctly) would cover our costs for the war in Iraq. It didn't, it won't and neither will Obama's health care proposal cost what it says in print on his site. He should provide a realistic tabulation of costs versus savings.
Obama's site does not explore the impact of his proposal on the economy, especially on the small businesses which are the lifeblood of American industry. It does not explain the impact of globalization on the offshoring of employment which allows major companies to get out from under health care insurance costs (and their pension costs) and shift them to others. It does not explain the risks of tinkering with a $2 trillion plus economic sector which, if it implodes, will make the current housing recession look like childs' play (health care is a major employer) as well as destroying the function we now have in our dysfunctional health system. Obama offers a simplistic fix.
In my opinion, Clinton and Obama suffer from a common defect. Each believes that she/he knows precisely what is wrong and exactly how the American people want their health care system to deliver services. My analysis is that they are wrong on both counts and that it would be better to start by having national bipartisan hearings to find out what is wrong and what the people want in the way of a health care system. Enough with the patriarchal approach - let's really have a sensible program for improvement founded in reality and the compromises which the American people will accept.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Words Do Count - As Lawyers Should Know
Senator Clinton is a Yale Law School graduate; Senator Obama is a Harvard Law School graduate. (I must acknowledge a bias towards HLS - my class was 1959.) Both of these respected institutions teach their students that words do count and lawyers must be experts at using words.
Clinton's web site (Obama will be discussed in a separate blog( has a summary of her health plan proposal: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/summary.aspx. As I read through it (fully recognizing that it is a "summary"), I noted the use of vague terms, weasel words, and few concrete definitions. The summary calls for ". . . affordable, quality health insurance" and reigning "in costs and to insist on value and quality." Clinton calls for a plan which "will secure, simplify and ensure choice in health coverage for all Americans. . . finally addressing the needs of the 47 million uninsured and the tens of millions of workers with coverage who fear they could be one pink slip away from losing their health coverage - with no overall increase in health spending or taxes." Magically, "For those with health insurance, the plan builds on the current system to give businesses and their employees greater choice of health plans - including keeping the one they have - while lowering cost and improving quality".
When I turn to Clinton's "americanhealthchoices.pdf" site, where the resources (savings related to existing spending) to pay for this utopian health care system are described, I find projected savings related to "Reducing Overpayments and New Efficiencies": $10 billion from Phase-outs of Excessive Medicare Overpayments to HMOs and Other Managed Care Plans; $7 billion in savings related to Unnecessary Medicare and Medicaid Spending; $4 billion in savings related to Constraints on Prescription Drug Costs; $35 billion in savings from Modernizing the Health System. I also find a projected $54 billion savings through "Limits on High-Income Tax Breaks". Add these together to get $110 billion which is a relatively small percentage of our $2 trillion plus current expenditure.
The words do not adequately describe the means for accomplishing the needed savings and new revenue sources Clinton's plan requires, nor do they address the practical means of accomplishing her proposed enormous task. Clinton has not just left herself wiggle room, her use of words belies her own belief in her ability to accomplish the health reform which America needs.
Clinton's web site (Obama will be discussed in a separate blog( has a summary of her health plan proposal: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/summary.aspx. As I read through it (fully recognizing that it is a "summary"), I noted the use of vague terms, weasel words, and few concrete definitions. The summary calls for ". . . affordable, quality health insurance" and reigning "in costs and to insist on value and quality." Clinton calls for a plan which "will secure, simplify and ensure choice in health coverage for all Americans. . . finally addressing the needs of the 47 million uninsured and the tens of millions of workers with coverage who fear they could be one pink slip away from losing their health coverage - with no overall increase in health spending or taxes." Magically, "For those with health insurance, the plan builds on the current system to give businesses and their employees greater choice of health plans - including keeping the one they have - while lowering cost and improving quality".
When I turn to Clinton's "americanhealthchoices.pdf" site, where the resources (savings related to existing spending) to pay for this utopian health care system are described, I find projected savings related to "Reducing Overpayments and New Efficiencies": $10 billion from Phase-outs of Excessive Medicare Overpayments to HMOs and Other Managed Care Plans; $7 billion in savings related to Unnecessary Medicare and Medicaid Spending; $4 billion in savings related to Constraints on Prescription Drug Costs; $35 billion in savings from Modernizing the Health System. I also find a projected $54 billion savings through "Limits on High-Income Tax Breaks". Add these together to get $110 billion which is a relatively small percentage of our $2 trillion plus current expenditure.
The words do not adequately describe the means for accomplishing the needed savings and new revenue sources Clinton's plan requires, nor do they address the practical means of accomplishing her proposed enormous task. Clinton has not just left herself wiggle room, her use of words belies her own belief in her ability to accomplish the health reform which America needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
