2

Health care reform hit with recess

TEXT OF STORY

Steve Chiotakis: President Obama said he wanted a health care reform bill before Congress took its summer break. Well, it's recess time, but still no bill. What will a five-week timeout on Capitol Hill mean for health care reform? Here's Marketplace's Dan Grech.


Dan Grech: President Obama managed to bring on board a lot of drug makers and hospitals. But it was members of his own party that took health care reform off the fast track. Fiscally conservative House Democrats, the so-called Blue Dogs, persuaded the Obama administration to postpone a vote until September.

Henry Aaron: They've decided to go back and take the pulse of the electorate before they come back and take what for many will be a quite difficult vote.

That's Henry Aaron with the Brookings Institution.

In the coming weeks, critics will argue the reforms under consideration are too expensive and pave the way for socialized medicine. The Obama administration will counter that it's far more costly to do nothing. Aaron says the debate could swing either way.

Aaron: One day, it looks like the administration is in terrible trouble. The next day, it sounds like a deal is on the verge of being struck. The jury is out as to which side is going to prevail in this fight.

Come September, the Blue Dogs will have their day -- at least in terms of being a critical swing vote.

I'm Dan Grech for Marketplace.

Log in to post2 Comments

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came after the CBO had previously pointed out this health care reform wouldn't work without 'fundamental' change in the out of date system.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 cash. 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. I share the opinion that unlike the insurer-friendly 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. Thank You ! -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. Thanks Again !

A pay for outcome / value payment system, key to the deficit-neutral, might be capable of bringing all groups together.

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 a decade, and virtually needs no other resources including tax on the wealthiest. (Please visit http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=820455&catid=391 for detailed infos).

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,” Thus the remaining $239 billions over a decade do not matter. Supposedly even the conservative number of such savings might be able to meet the goal.

Dr. Armadio at Mayo clinic says, "If we got rid of that stuff, we save a third of all that we spend and that is 2.5 trillion dollars on health care. A third of that and that is 700 billion dollars a year. That covers a lot of uninsured people."

Apparently, just in case of the difference between the estimate and result, or the worst case of scenarios, Obama officials may have made a statement taxes may rise to pay health care. The perfect can not be an enemy of the good,
This appeal occurs to me.
THANK YOU !

With Generous Support From...