Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The Budget…OY…
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
[posted by Mike Murray]
Rep. Kirk held a press conference yesterday in which he attacked Obama’s health care plan and presented a competing plan of his own. This press conference was not a campaign event, but odds are good that this decision will have much greater impact upon the U.S. senate race for IL then it will have upon reform efforts in D.C. I am having a hard time finding the political end game in this decision, so perhaps some group discussion might help. Here are the facts as reported by the media…
* Kirk’s plan was apparently light on detail and the press conference was mostly focused at attacking Obama’s proposed plan instead of explaining his own alternative…
Kirk’s plan, formed with U.S. Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania and 34 members of the Tuesday Group of moderate Republicans in Congress, would pass a Medical Rights and Reform Act, intending in Kirk’s words to “guarantee your right to your doctor” and prevent government interference in that, and would attempt to cut costs through reforms in medical liability and health insurance. Yet, lacking monetary specifics, it was mainly an attack on the proposed $1 trillion plan for health-care reform now being debated in Congress.[…]
* A centerpiece to Kirk’s plan would be “lawsuit reform” to reduce the costs from defensive medicine
that are created when malpractice lawsuits are left unchecked…
U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) promoted what he called a “centrist” approach to health care reform he said could cut health care costs in half.
As proof he offered the difference between New Jersey, where health insurance costs $5,326 per patient, and California, where insurance costs $2,565 per patient.
Kirk attributes the difference in large part to the limits California has placed on the amount of money juries can award victims of doctors’ mistakes. Lawyers say California’s lower rates comes from state’s strict regulation of insurance companies.
Kirk backs both “lawsuit reform” and “insurance reform” as part of a three-pronged effort to reform health care funding.
* Kirk called his plan bipartisan, but in reality he meant the opposition to the president’s plan was bipartisan…
KIRK: The House bill is a very partisan bill at extraordinary expense, complication. And it’s the bi-partisan feeling is on the opposition to this bill, not in favor of it.
Kirk calls his proposal a centrist bill that would cut health care costs while covering the uninsured. The congressman says his plan is a bi-partisan measure, but he says no Democrats have signed on to it yet.
* More on bipartisanship…
Although he presented his plan as a “bipartisan” proposal, he admitted it had no Democratic backing, blaming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
“At this stage, the speaker is extraordinarily authoritative,” Kirk said, “and the penalties for breaking ranks with her are severe.”
* Kirk is surely right on about the fact that Obama’s plan faces opposition from both sides of the aisle…
There’s no doubt there’s resistance to health-care reform, especially along party lines. U.S. Rep. Peter Roskam, a Wheaton Republican, said he’s heard “incredibly strong and forceful” criticism from constituents. “They’re just not convinced that the government-run option is going to be anything other than a prelude to a single-payer system,” he said.[…]
Even U.S. Rep. Melissa Bean, a Barrington Democrat, said she’s heard from voters on both sides and remains “unconvinced” the Democratic plan is worth the cost.
* Kirk claimed the number of uninsured people was drastically overestimated once illegal immigrants were taken out of the equation, though fact checks have not reproduced his figure of only 8 million uninsured Americans…
Kirk maintained that federal census estimates of 45.7 million uninsured Americans in 2007 were overstated, saying it included 9.5 million “non-citizens,” 12 million who were eligible for existing public health care coverage and another 16.4 million who were either in higher income brackets and didn’t purchase insurance or were temporarily uninsured. The real number, he said, was 7.8 million uninsured.
The non-partisan Web site Factcheck.org has tried to go through the numbers and notes that about 9.7 million uninsured are immigrants—but they are both legal and illegal. One group cited by the fact-checking organization suggested that 5.6 million may be undocumented.
* For good measure, here is an ABC 7 local piece on the press conference that hits on a variety of the issues discussed above…
* Also, in the fact column is that IL is considered a solid Democratically minded state (as discussed yesterday)
So what is the deal here? And I am not talking about whether you agree with his ideology or where you stand on health care. I do not question his beliefs. On a solely practical political level of ‘how do I get myself elected’, does this seem wise in IL?
Perhaps Kirk is just trying to cement his primary victory by reinforcing his conservative credentials after his vote for the Cap and Trade bill. Who knows?
I am not foolish enough to claim that it was a poor decision, and I am not wise enough to know what decision would be best.
Time, or should I say the voters, will be the judge.
* Related…
* Quinn, Ill. lawmakers to attend health care rally
* Kirk chirps apologetic tune over Twitter tweets
posted by Mike Murray
Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 2:36 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The Budget…OY…
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Aside from off the cuff remarks, everything Kirk does is well planned and well thought out, or he would be an ex-congressman doing gov relations for boeing. I’m sure they saw something in their polling that said this was a good issue to hit Obama on, remember, as popular as bush was in 2004 there were still democrats who got elected to congress in texas.
Jay Alexander is a longtime kirk supporter and donor.
Comment by Shore Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 2:42 pm
===as popular as bush was in 2004 there were still democrats who got elected to congress in texas.===
Not as a senator there were not. State wide is a whole different can of worms. But I see your point.
Comment by Mike Murray Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 2:45 pm
He’s going to need an alternative in a general and needs to oppose an health care proposal in the primary. The moderate to liberal Tuesday group gives him that. Tort reform is a blatant appeal to chamber types who aren’t all that ideological.
This health care debate is splitting Democrats and independents appear to be against it. Politically, a major overhaul is circling the drain. There isn’t really a downside for him as long as what Congress is calling reform is off in left field.
Comment by Greg B. Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 2:51 pm
Commando Kirk was just looking for the old checkeroo from the tort reformers…..probably not enough.
BTW did everyone one notice GOPS don’t list IL10 as a targeted race…they have already conceded
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 2:55 pm
The first book every international relations student reads is Thucydides: “The strong do what they will, the weak do what they must.”
Kirk does what he HAS to do and as far as statewide goes, look at the top democrats on health care debate and even 2 of the republicans. The dems represent dakotas, montana, nevada, not exactly new york and Rhode island, and the gop woman represents maine. It can be done to be opposite your state’s party affiliation.
This is very calculated and if Alexi thinks he can take a picture with obama, re run the seals campaign and let things fall out, he’s going to be in d.c. january 2011 looking at the plum book for a gig in the obama administration, not as u.s. senator.
Comment by Shore Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 2:57 pm
All Shore needs to do is throw in a box of chocolates …
This is all about the primary Mike. He’s now in full Conservative Kirk mode and is leaving Moderate Mark in the dust.
And why am I not surprised that Charles Thomas didn’t point out that Congress isn’t even talking about “European-style health care” or that the Obama plan already does allow you to keep your own doctor (at least as much as existing for-profit plans and their networks currently do) despite Kirk’s attempts to confuse the American people?
Comment by Rob_N Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:00 pm
Greg, As the article says “tort reform” in California achieved its savings by regulating the med-mal insurance industry, not by capping settlements.
How far have Illinois rates gone down since the Dems put tort reform on the books?
Kirk also failed to point out that California is a much more populous state than New Jersey and health insurers have a bigger pool to work with. The obvious corollary is that a national insurance plan would have an even bigger group of participants with which to negotiate prices.
Comment by Rob_N Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:04 pm
Rob-N,
I know its a primary decision, but he is supported by GOP leadership and should not have that hard of a primary battle.
It seems like the much greater risk of it coming back to do some real damage in the general.
I know politicians say one thing for the primary audience and one thing for the general…
I just would have expected him to play the health care angle a little softer, especially in a Democratic strong hold like IL.
Comment by Mike Murray Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:05 pm
He is against it because it is bad policy. I hope the Illinois poll numbers on this show that people get that it is bad policy.
Comment by GOP Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:06 pm
Greg B, Tuesday group is only moderate-liberal to you guys at the IL Manufacturer’s Association
Comment by Brirei Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:11 pm
Polling shows that people overwhelming want reform and are overwhelming against any plan that they hear the details of.
In the end, I think it just will depend on the salesman.
In that fight my money is on Obama, and I think it could come off like Kirk is pulling more of the GOP attack Obama and offer no solutions non sense.
Im talking about perception and winning an election, not which platform is better
Comment by Mike Murray Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:15 pm
Kirk probably figures coming out against health care will help him build GOP support in the present, and that any health care bill will be passed in ‘09 and won’t be a big issue in the general. He might also feel that even if there is a plan passed it’ll be a mess during its first year.
Comment by George IV Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:18 pm
Fundraising. This was done to help fundraising.
Comment by Scooby Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:32 pm
Simple, he appeals slightly to the GOP base by opposing Obama, but he does not turn away independents and moderates because he acknowledges the need for some type of reform. He then pushes amore centrist agenda.
In the end he opposes Obama, but also embraces the issue. he also gets away from the party of No moniker the GOP unfortunetly saddled itself with by pushing an alternative plan.
Overall i would say this was a good move by kirk.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:46 pm
This is exactly what the public (all you poliltical wonks remember them, right?) are looking for. They want to see something being done, but they don’t want overbearing government intrusion that will kill what they like about their current care.
Kirk has his political radar on overdrive after the cap and trade blowback and knows that the public is turning hard against the Democrat’s over-reaching, budget-busting bill. But he also knows that the public wants action. Kirk’s proposal, while not earth-shattering will do the things Obama’s plan promises, but can’t achieve. It will allow competition in the insurance market and tort reform that will lower premium costs and make insurance more affordable for the self employed and help lower overall coverage costs. He knows he can’t just stand there and say “no.”
And Kirk’s numbers are generally accurate. While there are no hard numbers for illegals, they make up a big portion of the uninsured. That is not debatable. The census provides the other data breakdown that shows what percentage of the unisured are low income and would qualify for governemnt insurance or free care and what percentage have incomes over $75,000/year (a reasonable threshold where the individual shouldn’t be looking to the taxpayers to cover their care.) And he makes a very good point that a very large percentage of the uninsured are only temporarily uninsured.
This is also something Kirk has been working on for a long time, not just since Obama’s numbers on health care started to crater. He’s been working with the moderates for months on an alternative to government health care.
This helps him in the primary and helps in the general and reinforces his reputation as a centrist. Anyone who thinks criticism of Obama’s health plan makes you an extreme partisan needs to get out of their cave and listen to what people are saying on the street.
Comment by Adam Smith Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:49 pm
This is about policy and providing voters a better alternative. A great move by Kirk to show leadership on one of the most critical issue right now.
Comment by Speed Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:51 pm
Mike, Kirk’s bill (HR 2516) was introduced well before he announced for Senate. In fact, I think he intro’d it in May even before L Madigan made her decision.
Looking at the details of Kirk’s bill, in the extreme it actually could be interpreted to ban even Medicare and the VA since those health care plans are “run by the government”.
So his plan would’ve been out there whether he was running for House reelection or Senate election.
Maybe Kirk’s only just using it now as a trump card to take eyes off the Pentagon’s investigation of him.
But I still think it’s solely a play to the primary. Kirk’s backpedaled pretty ferociously on the cap and trade vote despite having originally said he considered it a national security vote.
He’ll look weak going into November unless he wipes the floor with the conservative primary opponents who have little to no name recognition outside of United Republican Fund circles. So bottom line he still needs to pander to the right-wing between now and Feb.
Comment by Rob_N Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:55 pm
I agree with Ghost, it was a good move for Kirk. He needed to say something about health care and he will point to this as proof of his record.
However, in my estimation, Kirk is so namby-pamby on issues like this that yesterday’s event will be a Rorshact test next year when it matters. We’ll all look back and point to Kirk’s stand (against) Obama’s health care plan and/or (for) health care reform. Either way, those of us looking back will remember he offered some vague alternative plan or that he was out front in his opposition to Obama’s plan.
It depends on who is doing the remembering and what their view of Kirk is at the point in time they remember this event. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and now Kirk has a highly ambiguous healthcare related “issue” to own.
His cynical gamesmanship yesterday will be cited ad nauseum as proof of his “leadership” on health care, regardless of what happens with the current legislation. He’s eating his own cake, just like on cap and trade.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 4:00 pm
Rob you are the worst hack in a sea of hacks. I can’t wait for your commercial that “Kirk tried to outlaw Medicare and the VA.” The sleezy outright lies and BS that you creeps put out about McCain and health benefits. That is an idiotic claim and pattently false. But if dems don’t rally the truly gullible and stupid then they have no base.
Comment by E Pluribus Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 4:04 pm
What the heck? My post is taken down? What a joke. What’s the new standard? Even Rich doesn’t censor positive posts about Kirk!
Comment by Adam Smith Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 4:08 pm
Apologize, now it’s back up. Odd.
Comment by Adam Smith Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 4:09 pm
This probably means Kirk plans to vote against whatever health care bill comes to the floor. He can hedge his bets by proposing a plan of his own. That way he can be both against health care reform and for it.
Comment by Ela Observer Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 4:16 pm
I’m not with IMA and Ray LaHood said their PAC was set up for the moderate wing of the party when he was a member.
I don’t understand Rob’s point re: tort reform. It’s an issue a lot of moderates support, that’s all, and its sensible they’d go there from a political perspective.
Comment by Greg B. Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 4:17 pm
Why not knock the plan? Since it is half-baked and doesn’t address the real problems endemic to our present health care system and will never pass. Is there really a plan out there? There are many “plans” floating around, but nobody can tell you what is really in these “plans.” Why not knock an initiative that would bankrupt the country if it was ever to be passed?
Comment by Blind Faith Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 4:38 pm
This is a great move by Kirk. He’s going to get creamed by the White House during quite possibly the best time to get creamed by the White House. Obama’s policy numbers are dropping rapidly. He’s still popular, but just barely on the merits of his policies.
The White House is actively looking for misinformation on “health insurance reform” from Americans from wherever they see it. With Madigan out of the race and Obama looking to put some dents in the GOP momentum, this Kirk might be the poster the White House flings darts at.
The country has no face to put with the opposition to Obamacare. It’s going to be a rough battle and I don’t really see Kirk being the one to lead it, but he’s got a big target on him right now when the people are souring on the actual details of the bill and how the CBO is scoring the projected costs.
Comment by Brennan Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 4:49 pm
Rob -
You crack me up…. Pentagon investigation of Kirk? Outlawing the VA and Medicare? What next - are you going to start quoting “internet powerhouse andy martin?” You are the first to complain when others stretch the truth - but you can sure stretch with the best of them - i’m surprised you haven’t pulled a muscle
Comment by 10th Indy Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 4:51 pm
===Scooby - Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:32 pm===
“Fundraising. This was done to help fundraising.”
Scooby - did they put some kush in your Scooby snack?
If it is about fundraising, why can’t Obama raise the funds he needs for the plan? Why does he have to break his promise to America not to tax the middle class?
I think Kirk is dead on. Why does America need another trillion in debt? There are ways to do this that don’t involve passing the burden of a faltering economy AND massive debt onto our kids.
And let’s be clear, if you actually watch the tape, you see that he is FOR access to health care.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 4:53 pm
Here is my thripence hapenny (inflation, you know.)
If runaway insurance profits are truly the problem (and in spite of CEO pay being out of this world high, the profit margin for heal;th insurance companies is less than other corporations), they should be regulated like utilities competing in a marketplace , with a limited rate of return.
Comment by Truthful James Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 5:20 pm
Love the way Alexi poo-poos tort reform on the abc video and rejects it out of hand because liability limits would only save about “1% of total healthcare costs” Um, where most people come from, 1% of a trillion dollars is a LOT of money. To average voters of either party, for someone to reject the idea of even looking at tort reform is proof of how unserious the underlying Pelosi/Obama “reform” plan really is.
Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 5:28 pm
This isn’t a new issue for Kirk. He has been talking for a long time about how government regulations have been driving down insurance rates. I think he is making this case because he believes in it.
On the political side, every megabytes spent talking about Kirk’s views on healthcare are megabytes not spent talking about ap n’ trade. GOPers gotta protect the flank going into general elections, else they leave themselves vulnerable to ‘having to chose a Palin’.
Wow, I think I just made up a sweet political phrase–”choosing a Palin” is when a candidate has to do something stupid to appease the wingers in his or her party when he or she should be appealing to independents.
Comment by phil Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 5:31 pm
Geez, did NOT mean to say “This isn’t a new issue for Kirk. He has been talking for a long time about how government regulations have been driving down insurance rates.”
Meant to say “how government regulations that limit insureds from purchasing policies out-of-state drives up insurance costs and lowers the how many people are insured.”
Comment by phil Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 5:33 pm
AS A DOC WHO KNOWS KIRK PERSONALLY AND HAS LOOKED SERIOUSLY AT THE AMBIGUOUS OBAMA PLAN, I HHAVE NO DOUBT THAT ONCE KIRK FLESHES OUT HIS PLAN, WE SHOULD SUPPORT IT.WE CANNOT AFFORD ANY MORE SOCIALIZATION IN GOVERNMENT.
Comment by CYNOB Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 6:32 pm
CYNOB-
Isn’t socialization leaning to live within the norms of a society? Seems like we need more of than not less.
Comment by Marcus Agrippa Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 7:01 pm
Is it just me, or do others immediately shy from something Quinn supports? Just doesn’t seem like he thinks things out all the way.
Comment by Bobs yer Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 9:56 pm
Will Mark Kirk guarantee my right to choose my doctor even if my insurance provider no longer has that doctor in its network? Is that protection guaranteed in this legislation?
Comment by Boone Logan Square Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 10:48 pm
[…] See the article here: The Capitol Fax Blog » Kirk picks a fight with Obama on health … […]
Pingback by The Capitol Fax Blog » Kirk picks a fight with Obama on health … | AlternativeInsuranceGuide Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 11:05 pm
[…] See the rest here: The Capitol Fax Blog » Kirk picks a fight with Obama on health … […]
Pingback by The Capitol Fax Blog » Kirk picks a fight with Obama on health … | AlternativeInsuranceGuide Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 11:05 pm
10th Indy and E Pluribus,
Have you read his legislation as introduced? It appears to contradict itself.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2516/text
On the one hand, the sections duke it out over what is prohibited vs allowed and essentially mimic a tightrope walker’s performance. All it takes is one judge to decide one section restricting programs takes precedence over another section exempting programs.
On the other hand, Sec 2(b) could in theory allow the Dem Congress to have its way with Rep. Kirk. If this bill (HR 2516) passed as is, the openness of the language in 2(b) allows for Congress to expand existing programs infinitely larger — meaning that since 2(b) appears to exempt certain existing programs that Congress could just enlarge those programs to include more and more Americans as qualified.
It’s poorly written. You may not like that it’s poorly written. You may even disagree and think it’s somehow clear as a bell. But try reading it before complaining about someone’s comments on it.
As for the military investigation into Kirk’s campaign tweets, you’ll have to talk to the Pentagon as to why they’re “looking into it” (though I would think given the relevant rules it would be clear why they are doing so).
Rich reported last Friday that CNN spoke to a DoD official who told them, “We are aware of it and we are looking into it.” (emphasis added since 10th Indy doesn’t appear to believe me)
Looking into it = an investigation, military brass is investigating the event.
You may not like that they are looking into it. Their investigation may result in nothing more than a stern talking to.
But Defense is looking into Mark Kirk’s campaign tweets.
…Odd that you’d get all jumpy just because I was reciting some factual information. It’s going to be a long campaign season if you’re already on that high an alert level.
–
Finally, Greg, it is very clear that California’s laws regulating the medical malpractice industry’s rate-setting have much more to do with that state’s reduction of rates than the so-called tort reform that was passed in that state.
Other states which have passed tort reform without also simultaneously regulating malpractice insurance more stringently have not seen similar reductions in rates.
By the by, some states which have enacted malpractice review boards but not full-blown tort reform (essentially, they have not capped jury decisions for victims) have also seen reductions in malpractice suits.
What is unclear is why conservatives refuse to admit same (other than for purely base political reasons).
I’m all for cleaning up the justice system so long as victims are still able to fight for their rights as equals in a court of law. But tort reform as presented by conservatives always seems to be more about protecting big business’ bottom line at the expense of the maimed and injured.
As an example, everyone remembers the case of the woman who spilled hot coffee from McDonald’s on her lap and sued for compensation due to the resulting burns.
Most people think of that as a frivolous lawsuit thanks to the constant conservative agitprop framing it as such.
But, most people also don’t know that the coffee was so hot (much hotter than McDonald’s own protocols) it literally melted her nylons into her skin, grafting the material into her legs and requiring painful surgeries and months of after-care.
Does taking McDonald’s to court for negligence sound like a frivolous lawsuit to you?
There are countless examples from the business and medical communities of similar situations involving negligence and malpractice.
Comment by Rob_N Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 11:14 pm
The ‘innovative’ idea of a ‘pay for value / outcome’ pack came after the CBO had previously pointed out this health care reform wouldn’t work without ‘fundamental’ change in the out of date system. It is said that as much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients, and this 700 billion dollars a year can cover a lot of uninsured people.
The expected Benefits of this ‘innovative idea’ are as follows ;
1. Meet the objective of revenue-neutral.
Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and ‘improve’
care, that means more than $1trillian over next decade, and virtually needs no other resources including tax on the
wealthiest. Supposedly even the ‘conservative’ number of such savings might be able to meet the objective of
revenue-neutral.
2. Quality and affordability.
If you are a physician, and your pay is dependant upon your patient’s outcome, you will most likely strive to
prescribe the best medicine earlier in the process, let alone skipping the wasteful, unnecessary treatments.
3. No intervention in decision-making.
The innovative idea of ‘a pay for outcome’ will more likely prompt team approach and decision, as at Myo clinic.
Under the ‘pay for outcome’ pack, for good reason, best practices as ‘recommendations’ would simply help them
make a better decision, and the government won’t still have to meddle in the final, actual decision-making
process as a non-expert.
4. Speed up the introduction of IT SYSTEM.
The pay for ‘Outcome’ pack is most likely to expedite the introduction of Health Care IT SYSTEM.
The synergy effect of the combined Health Care IT & a pay for ‘outcome’ system may allow the clinicians to
‘correctly’ diagnose and effectively treat a patient earlier in the process so that it can measurably scale back the
crushing lawsuits and deter the excuse for unnecessary cares to make fortunes.
5. Accelerate the progress in medical science, in return, it saves more money.
6. Settle the regional disparity.
7. Reduce the emergency room visits & save immense costs.
Public health insurance plans such as Medicare and Medicaid paid for more than 40 percent of U.S. emergency
room visits in 2006, according to government figures released recently. Many experts say reducing these hospital
visits would be an important way to lower the enormous, and growing, expense of U.S. health care.
Thank You !
Comment by hsr0601 Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 11:39 pm
“At this stage, the speaker is extraordinarily authoritative,” Kirk said
Does he have any idea what that statement means?
The lawsuit issue is because Kirk runs each time on money donated by doctors, lots of ‘em.
Comment by SteveD Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 12:48 am
-Some say we don’t have faith in government, others say, we will be forced out.-
What kind of music does this reform dance to ?
I share the opinion that unlike the insurer-friendly, baseless senate plan by ’some’ members, only a ’strong’ public option will be capable of getting the premium inflation under control and saving the U.S in turbulence.
To my knowledge, a dual system tends to deliver better results than a pure single payer system. Supposedly, to be or not to be might be up to the innovations like a pay for value program, otherwise, the forthcoming start-ups may fill the void with competitive deals. The competition based on ‘fair’ market value would be a beauty of true capitalism, not monopoly, an objective for anti-trust.
Comment by hsr0601 Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 3:29 am
-Some say we don’t have faith in government, others say, we will be forced out.-
What kind of music should this reform dance to ?
U.S. health care consumers are usually one step removed from the cost because they are covered by employer-provided insurance, which might operate as a formula for a slow pace of transfer, along with the code of mandate.
And I share the opinion that unlike the insurer-friendly, baseless senate plan by ’some’ members, only a ’strong’ public option by this new administration will be capable of getting the premium inflation under control and saving the U.S in turbulence.
To my knowledge, a dual system tends to deliver better results than a pure single payer system. Supposedly, to be or not to be might be up to the innovations like a pay for value program, otherwise, the forthcoming start-ups may fill the void with competitive deals. The competition based on ‘fair’ market value would be a beauty of true capitalism, not monopoly, an objective for anti-trust.
Comment by hsr0601 Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 6:14 am
The fact is, we do not need the bill to enact huge savings.
First, we can treat health care as a public utility and regulate the rate of return to the insurance companies.
Second, we can get the waste, fraud and abuse with the huge savings suggested by our president without this Obama health care. It would result in savings equal to — he alleged — two thirds of the cost of the bill. The President says it is there. Just get it out. No bill Universal Health care Bill necessary
Third, we can get the estimated $100 Billion plus cost of defensive medicine practiced by Doctors with lawyers looking over their backs sharply reduced by eliminating punitive damages resulting from any government funded health care program errors. — a matter not included in the Obama Health Care Plan.
Fourth, we can save billions by making doctors pay for corrective actions resulting from their own errors instead of re-billing the third party payors for additional procedures required by their errors. Let them use their own errors and omissions insurance.
Fifth, we can save hundreds of billions by using Physicians Assistants and Nurse Practitioners more widely. Pharmacies are showing us the way by doing FastCare solving small problems acting as triage practitioners sending cases on to hospitals when necessary as necessary…a subject I have not heard of in the undergrowth of the President’s bill.
Sixth, we can save billions by packaging suites of procedures and even nursing home days into a Dutch Auction on which qualified medical professionals would bid — reselling them to insurance companies for the use of their customers.
And so much more if we start to think outside of the box we are in.
Taxpayers are not laughing. This is what happens when elected officials proposing a program have had no experience in running one. The Kennedy’s and the Snowes of the world are looking for a Federal bailout of their states’ own failed programs.
Three states have public option choice healthcare plans: Tennessee, Maine and Massachusetts. Romneycare is Taxachusetts is a huge failure. Even the Mittster admits that now. I have not heard of what is happening in Tennessee. Maine is similarly in a deep ditch.
Comment by Truthful James Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 8:02 am
Hawaii has one too. Last I heard they were putting together a plan to drop it because private plans were being dumped for the cost controlled public option.
Comment by Brennan Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 1:41 pm
Bennan,
Hawaii’s plan is universal care for children (”Keiki Care”) and it was clearly designed wrong from the get-go because families who had private insurance were dropping it for their children in order to get that state’s universal care.
That’s just plain abuse of the system which then overwhelmed it.
(Story here.)
Keep in mind that while Hawaii’s program was a universal care system, what’s being debated in Congress is a public option.
(Which makes Kirk’s complaints about “European-style care” all the more odd since that’s not what Congress is discussing….)
Comment by Rob_N Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 9:23 pm