CNN:
“Assuring health care is a shared social responsibility,” says the interim report of the Citizens’ Health Care Working Group, a committee that was created by Congress. The purpose was to discover what type of health care system that people want.
The report that was created offers the guidelines for a universal health care system,however, it does not go into the details of how such a system would be funded. Suggestions that have been made at different levels are an increase in the “sin taxes” (taxes on cigarettes and alcoholic beverages)
continued
The Health Care Working Group was not designed to suggest any type of funding mechanisms, rather, to just state what was/is needed in a health care system. Their report counters George W. Bush’s free market philosophy re: health care. The report has its other opponents, among them Health Care America as it supports the free market theory of health care.
“It implies massive new funding sources, massive new laws would be needed. We want universal access, but this report just pushes all the difficult problems onto somebody else’s plate. It says government needs to do it all.”
The legislation that created this group was passed in late 2003. Congress approved $5.5 million for funding, beginning in Febuary of last year. The working group claims its memeberhip is diverse as the members representing consumers, the disabled, business and labor, and health care providers.
Senators Orrin Hatch of Utah and Ron Wyden of Oregon claim credit for the creation of the Health Care Working Group. Wyden justifies this as follows:
“We decided, let’s try something else. Let’s go to the public and give them a chance, not in terms of writing a bill, but let them provide a kind of general roadmap where the country ought to head.”
Coincidentally, that same legislation also created Part D.
Another Part D suprise!
When I complained to my congresspeople about Part D I got a message back pointing to this committee as an important part of the legislation to eventually get at better coverage.
Maybe, but I’m not optimistic. The committee composition is pretty good, even though it has a striking lack of representation of mental health people other than an economist.
I didn’t and don’t think the creation of the committe was much of an excuse for voting for drug coverage travesty.
I was being sarcastic when I said suprise, sorry. If this committee’s recommendations are anything like the Part D legislation, the only ones who will benefit will be the insurance carriers.
Big business is (slowly) starting to realize that a national health plan would actually be better for them. Why this is taking so long is a mystery. Even after all the grief at GM and Ford they still are waffling. This at the same time when they acknowledge that they save money in Canada because of the government health policies.
I guess not being ostracized at the country club is more important that saving your business…
I think Part D will turn out the be the nose of the camel in the tent. Once the collection mechanisms are seen as routine, adding coverage or other adjustments can be slipped in without much notice. Costs may also be controlled as private insurers gain negotiating clout with the drug companies in place of such a role by the government.
If anything, the costs will be increased as opposed to controlled, IMO.
If the cost of the premiums are limited by government regulation then the private insurers have an incentive to squeeze the drug companies as the only way to increase their profits.
They could also, of course, lower their coverage (less drugs covered, etc), but then this would make them less competitive. Notice that non-medicare plans which offer drug coverage have made deals with the drug companies to limit what they have to pay (or reimburse), so why won’t the same thing happen with part D recipients?
Of course if they get rid of the donut hole and other foolish provisions the cost may have to go up, but that may be handled by raising the premiums.
If the importation of drugs from Canada was allowed, there would not be a need for a donut hole, as the prices of drugs in Canada are cheaper. The same goes for the negotiation of the best price.
As to altering the formularies so that less drugs are covered, that won’t accomplish a thing, other than further restricting access to medical treatment, depending on one’s income.
Just saw your diary, Street Kid. As you noticed, I posted on this as well not knowing you’d covered it. I have a few more links in mine, but I’ll be happy to delete it you wish. Just say the word.
Glad you caught the story, by the way. I think it could be pretty important, if the left decides to get behind it.
Don’t delete it, as you have more info than I do and that will be important when tracking this.
BTW, thanks.