Content Preview: rss
3 days ago
With every passing month in America's "jobless recovery," more jobs are lost. Lost jobs in the U.S. quickly morph into uninsured lives. In April 2008, the Kaiser Family Foundation calculated a metric that showed a 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate leads to a 1.1 million person increase in the uninsured and a 1 million person increase in Medicaid enrollment. That was April 2008 -- this is November 2009. State governors, who fund one-half of Medicaid, are hard-pressed to absorb these hundreds of thousands of lives. Then what? The number of the uninsured increases. "I'm insured, so should I care?" ask Harry and Louise. Based on recent surveys on American attitudes about the health-care safety net for people 'other than me,' it appears the European model of social insurance is seen by many American health citizens, still, as socialism, not insurance. The sooner we get uninsured people covered --
4 days ago
It's better to take more time rather than rush through a Pandora's box of perverse incentives like the 1,900-page House bill (HR 3962). The quality of the reform is far more important than the date of enactment. At the same time, that doesn't mean it's OK to kick back and relax for another 15 to 20 years. Open the House bill and out flies a menagerie of stinging things: Job-killing employer mandates, payroll taxes and surtaxes. Hazy market rules to be set and re-set by a powerful "Health Choices Commissioner." A public option menacing private markets and amplifying the financial disasters of Medicare and Medicaid. Onerous red-tape and reporting requirements for firms and individuals. Dozens of new government agencies. New incentives for lawsuits. And a staggering price tag, according to the nonpartisan Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Lewin Group (which analyzed an earlier, but similar, version
4 days ago
To paraphrase President Obama, "the U.S. Congress works better when they have deadlines." As practicing physicians, the National Medical Association is very concerned about the tens of thousands of Americans who lose their coverage every day. For their sakes we should be reviewing the final bill now, so that Obama can sign it this year. The deadline is necessary. We hope the Senate Majority Leader will find it feasible.
5 days ago
Health-care reform is not a fairytale, though it often seems to be an elusive dream. And that dream, in order to be realized, needs good politics as well as good policy. Looking back across the American landscape, great presidents, led by an enduring sense of urgency, dared to birth a nation, end slavery, champion citizen rights, broker a Square Deal, a New Deal and ultimately a Fair Deal. Change agents have fought tirelessly to advance the American domestic agenda, though universal health coverage has never been among the purse. What about now? Time remains of the essence. Meaningful reform and not an artificial cutoff should be the priority. Too often in a rush to be efficient we become less effective. Neither must we deliberately delay or prolong a solution, yet we must build a foundation, upon which progress can begin. Still is the 2009 deadline necessary? Yes, if none other
5 days ago
Every year, the primary deadline Congress has is September 30th, the cut-off date for passing all federal spending bills. Do they meet it? No. The last time they stuck to it was 1994, in fact. Does it serve to spur progress and keep efforts moving? Absolutely. Let's examine the alternative: no deadline. I can picture the current health-care debate creeping far into 2010, derailing on middling controversies and irrevocably mired in partisan dissent. Clearly, deadlines are necessary. Congress needs them in order to sustain the momentum that keeps big reform efforts like this one from going off the tracks. And while the deadline set by President Obama may not be met, it is doubtful we would have made the amount of progress we have seen to date without it.
