Obama Administration's Healthcare Plan

Yesterday the administration that ran on a platform of universal healthcare announced that a group of insurance companies will cut healthcare costs 1.5 percent.

Does anyone else besides me feel.. underwhelmed?

Small businesses need decent healthcare packages, they're really unbelivably expensive to buy for the small group configurations - and god forbid if one of your members should not fit the actuarial profile. The whole concept of the extension of the Federal Employees Health Benefit plan was that these individuals can join a larger group and keep their premiums down.

• A weak, and unviable public option - in terms of cost to public.This is a hugely telling sign that the lobbyists have been at work. The majority of the problems our economy has faced have related to price fixing. They're at it again, this time rigging the price that would be offered - so that there is no real difference between what would be proposed and what you would buy on the street. Joe Six Pack is rich enough to pay for a trillion dollars in taxes but poor enough for the bank to take his home from him.
• No end to discrimination because of health conditions No mention of drug costs , continuing the bizarre policy direction set forth by the Bush Administration when they purposefully cut out the ability of the Federal Government to negotiate for bulk purchase of medication at lower than retail cost
• No end to linking insurance to jobs, so that the unemployed have to pay much more than the employed. Did anyone tell them that there are people who are laid off, that are trying to get coverage?
• No reduction in the now blatant cost shifting from insurers to patients - despite the "1.5%" reduction overall
• No end to health rationing by making healthcare unaffordable to most Americans
• No elimination of the 31% of every healthcare dollar spent on the administrators
• No possibility of saving that money for actual care through the current financial structures proposed - shifting costs, instead of saving costs.

Under the proposed new plan which was created "with the involvement of industry" , there will be no link from Government healthcare to the GAO, FDA or EPA - a link that if the Government were to be offering a healthcare plan -would provide invaluable food, drug and environmental feedback and result in better regulations for everyone (as soon as an EPA policy , for example, lapses - and starts causing, lets say - increased respiratory claims in a certain zone, the EPA would tighten down air quality in that area - this is a realtime mechanism, not the static, layered process at present).

Obama promised on the campaign trail in 2007 , a sort of middle road approach.

The Obama plan does some other things to get people insurance. It allows adults up to age 25 to stay on their parents' insurance even if they aren't in school. And it attempts to lower the cost of insurance overall through a reinsurance plan, whereby the federal government would cover some expenses of some of the most costly patients.

.. Mr. Obama uses some of (approx. 110 billion proposed funding for medical care) to pay for the reinsurance plan -- an initiative that could cost tens of billions of dollars. That should help lower premiums across the board, but it means there would be less available for direct subsidies.

Mr. Obama promised in his bid for the presidency - that his Administration would implement a healthcare solution in the following way.

• Establishing a new public program that would look a lot like Medicare for those under age-65 that would be available to those who do not have access to an employer plan or qualify for existing government programs like Medicaid or SCHIP. This would also be open to small employers who do not offer a private plan.
• Creating a “National Health Insurance Exchange.” This would be a government-run marketing organization that would sell insurance plans directly to those who did not have an employer plan or public coverage.
• An employer “pay or play” provision that would require an employer to either provide health insurance or contribute toward the cost of a public plan.
• Mandating that families cover all children through either a private or public health insurance plan.
• Expanding eligibility for government programs, like Medicaid and SCHIP.
• Allow flexibility in embracing state health reform initiatives.

What is telling are the differences between the plan offered to, and debated for - the public during campaign - and the middle-road approach that has been proposed. I do not see how an industry promise to save 1.5 percent in costs will make any difference whatsoever to the ever growing number of laid off, and uninsured. I believe that Obama's drive to "lower costs" first before implementing universal healthcare is a lobbyist written, lobbyist driven attempt to continue the very broken status quo. I am not surprised it goes over a 10 year period to get results. The lobbyists just wanted to stop Universal Healthcare in its tracks. This plan, as announced, is not strong enough to make a serious impact on the real issues of a broken American healthcare system.

If you want to fix this situation, if you have a small business, or are facing layoff and want decent coverage if you lose your job - please click here to get involved. Also, you can call Sen. Baucus: 202 224-2651 (office), 202 224-9412 (fax) - and express your interest in adding single payer, public option to the plan. Bear in mind that this is the same Sen. Baucus who just had five protestors arrested on the hill for protesting the current form of the legislation.

The key to getting this done, is to get a strong public option - a strong single payer option - written into the legislation. Do that, and the rest will fall into place.