The Republicans won't be joining us, with the exception of one or two in the Senate, in 'cleaning up' the health care industry in the USA. I think there are recommendations from one Republican Senator that have studied the subject and set a goal for reform before President Obama was even a candidate. That would be Senator Baucus. Unless the winds have shifted with him since this article in USA Today.
...Senator Baucus (click here): "Well, we are going to cut spending and that's the basic way we're able to come up with a way not to add to the national debt. People think it adds to the debt. But the dollars spent on health care will not add one thin dime to our national debt."...
...Senator Baucus: "Nothing is certain. But I think that this is a lot different than when President Clinton attempted health care reform. This time around costs are so high and second the major groups are on board."...
The President tried to reach out in bi-partisanship, but, for that effort there are Republicans such as Grassley that rather try to make a fool of Presient Obama for his trust placed with Senator Grassley. It is why I stated, Senator Grassley is incompetent. I defy any member of the Senate or Congress to come forward 'in good faith' to be an advocate and participant in bipartisanship only to laugh behind our President's back for acting in good faith in return. That isn't even politics. That is playing with the future of our nation. Grassley is incompetent. He might be a joker too, but, more than that he is a joke.
It's time for Obama to stop handwringing and put on the boxing gloves (click title to entry - thank you)
...It's beyond ironic that those rallying in rage at town hall meetings portray Obama as some malevo.lent tyrant driving a steamroller over them and their concerns. In fact, though, he's cripplingly starry-eyed about bipartisanship, dialogue and compromise when it's quite clear that his opponents see this as a weakness they can exploit....
Kyl is the Senate Minority Whip. It doesn't take any more words from the GOP to know they have every intention of ending a health care debate.
Secretary Sebelius mentioned the 'idea' of Health Care Insurance Co-ops as an alternative to a Government Option that was being proposed by the Senate. Well, she put faith in the "W"rong people. The Senators that were proposing such a 'competitive' option aren't going to anymore. They have withdrawn from any participation and are completely opposed to health care reform in the USA.
They don't care. It is better that the President, his staff, his cabinet and leadership in the House and Senate come to terms with the fact the only interest Republicans have in health care reform is to stall it as long as possible in hopes of defeating it.
I suggest the President ask Commerce and Treasury to convince any Democratic Senators and House members of the soundness of this measure while they linger in doubt today.
I'll tell you something, this House Bill is really 'dry' reading. From page 30 forward it spells out all the particulars in deployment of the bill after it is passed and how the administrative components will manifest. Sadly to some there is no additional salary to the members of any board. Traveling expenses, but, no additional salary to the one they already receive. In other words, the Surgeon General has to add this to his job description.
The bill requires 'plain language' by any insurance entities, it requires fairness in advertising and this is a good one, it demands timely payment of claims. There will definitively be data collection for the purpose of finding further efficiencies:
Page 43, Lines 19 through 24:
DATA COLLECTION.—The Commissioner shall collect data for purposes of carrying out the Commissioner’s duties, including for purposes of promoting quality and value, protecting consumers, and addressing disparities in health and health care and may share such data with the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Don't fool yourself to believe your insurance companies aren't already doing this for internal purposes such as finding greater profits. In addition, this is like the CIA and FBI sharing information. I don't know if that is a great analogy, but, at least the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the CDC won't be duplicating work. That is a savings all by itself. And the best part is that the data will be real and truthful, not derived statistically by a study group.
The bill provides for clear and concise language to be used that already exists within the USA health care industry. There is no trickery or anything up anyone's sleeve. The language in all documents between the government and any private entity or citizens themselves will reflect words already defined and used by the industry. The 'additional' definitions of the bill that does not exist in the industry today is due to the 'new' entity of that this bill produces.
The bill leaves open the ability of the Commission to consultation with any other entity, including attorneys general, NAIC (National Association of Insurance Commissioners, regulators, appropriate state agencies, etc. The new Commission will be fluid and blend with existing authority without undermining any other authority that already exists. The new entity for our health care reform will consult with any state or federal agency to apply the new standards without misinterpretation.
There will be the creation by appointment of a Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman. This basically is a consumer advocate that receives complaints and administrates them. Most every state has at least one, especially when it comes to dealing with issues of the elderly. This is just a different level of government that will do basically the same thing to be sure there is equity in the administration of the policy set forward by the bill. As a rule, Ombudsman are blind to government when it comes to advocacy for citizens. The Ombudsman will receive complaints from individuals and not the industry alone. The Ombudsman will answer directly to Congress in oversight by annual reports. That removes any conflict of interest in administering any health care insurance or care.
The way I see the Ombudsman is as a critical component in the first year or two of the new law until everyone gets used to it. The volume of its work will probably diminish as time goes by and there is better understanding of the law.
The House bill goes on to state this new law will not interfer with any previous government health insurance already existing. There is also a provision that laws regarding state laws and their application to any circumstance when providing a greater benefit. I have to mention here that it is my opinion, the passage of this bill help relieve some state budgets of their current health insurance initiatives. There is a good chance that 'charity care' or whatever other verbiage one wants to call it may very well be something of the past if people currently uninsured now find themselves insurable and a member of a plan. That will assist many states with budget issues they are facing today.
There are provisions that prevent discrimination. That is something never addressed by any entity anywhere in the government, except, at some state agencies that administer their own plans. But, that is a vital part of this bill. It will be the first time Americans cannot be discriminated against for any reason in applying for and using the health care industry in this country. It will literally be a brave new world when this bill is passed. Nice. I think that is very appropriate for the USA. Absolutely. It is a matter of civil rights.
There is also protection for Whistleblowers, too. That is always a good thing. No misbehaving by anyone.
This may be one of the big reasons Republicans simply cannot get their minds around reform:
Page 53, Lines 9 through 14
SEC. 154. CONSTRUCTION REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
Nothing in this division shall be construed to alter of supercede any statutory or other obligation to engage in collective bargaining over the terms and conditions of mployment related to health care.
See, if anyone can get Kyl to say 'Collective Bargaining' without fainting. If you do, get it on tape, it will be a once in a lifetime chance.
Page 53, Lines 21 and 22 start talking about 'Ensuring Value and Lower Premiums.' Wow.
Subtitle G—Early Investments
SEC. 161. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.
Ready for this one. Sit down you won't believe this one. Seriously, sit down for this one. Ready? We get money back. This that flyin' amazing or what?
‘‘SEC. 2714. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Each health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the small or large group market shall provide that for any plan year in which the coverage has a medical loss ratio below a level specified by the Secretary, the issuer shall provide in a manner specified by the Secretary for rebates to enrollees of payment sufficient to meet such loss ratio.
Why don't I end there on a good note. I don't care how long it takes to get through this bill. It has its upside in actually reading this and writing about it. I think it is a historically great document. In sincerely do.
Until tomorrow.
