know who is speaking for you... and who else they're speaking for, too.

[lagilman]

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — As President Obama and Congress intensify the push to overhaul health care in the coming week, the political and economic force of that industry is well represented in the financial holdings of many lawmakers and others with a say on the legislation, according to new disclosure forms.

The personal financial reports, due late last week from members of Congress, show that many lawmakers hold investments in insurance, pharmaceutical and prescription-benefit companies and in hospital interests, all of which would be affected by the administration’s overhaul of health care.

You might want to read the article, and then find out if your local C'ritter sees health care as a priority -- or a profit center....

also: Following the Money in the Health Care Debate What kills me is this line: Medicare pays doctors 80 percent of what an insurance company pays,” he said. “If you get a public plan, the doctors are going to get a 20 percent pay cut.” Because dog forbid that, in this economy, when people can barely afford the basics, doctors should not be able to afford a new performance vehicle, or vacation in the tropics.

(yes, I know not all doctors make six figures. But I don't see many in their ranks applying for unemployment benefits or foods stamps, do you?).

Comments

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

All this really says is that most national-grade politicians are rich. Pretty difficult to have diversified investments *without* owning some healthcare. Even in a blind trust, you know it's there.

The rich are different from you and me . . .

[lagilman]

A lot depends on how invested they are (hell, I own some health care stock!) and how those investments are handled. If you're on the Board, for example, that's quite different from a blind trust....

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Well, they wouldn't be national-grade politicians if they didn't hunger and thirst after power . . .

[terri-osborne.livejournal.com]

Actually, my doctor informed me the last time I was in to see her that at that point she was among the uninsured. She was on her boyfriend's insurance, and he was laid off, and she's in private practice so any insurance she has to buy for herself now. So, even in this day and age, it's possible for doctors to be without insurance.

[lagilman]

Except we weren't talking about insurance, but the ability to _afford_ insurance (i.e. she still has employment). Speaking as someone who is also in "private practice" and has to buy her own as well, my sympathy is limited, especially when you factor in the professional courtesy discounts she can probably negotiate.

If she's seriously concerned, she could start by talking to the AMA about their stance against public insurance, since they're allegedly speaking for her, after all.

[(Anonymous)]

Having a public plan and having a robust public plan are two very different things. It isn't something that can be done in a half-a$$ed way (which from the latest draft is not comprehensive in any way.) Unless there is a way to ensure that any public plan has appropriate minimum standards, there'll be people with poor insurance coverage (which some might argue is better than none) with no one willing to take them as a patient.


Medicare pays 80% and actually about 80% of hospitals accept Medicare. Medicaid is closer to 68%. NO ONE wants to take on Medicaid clients and they get terrible access and terrible quality of services.

And for all the talk of prevention, if you take a close look at what will be covered for prevention in the Kennedy draft...that section has been completely gutted.

It has been one frustrating thing after another and with mark-up scheduled for the 16th (although I've heard rumours of moving it back) this is going to be rushed and poorly planned.

Sorry for the mini-rant.

Best,
Day
www.DayInWashington.com

[lagilman]

I'm fortunate -- I have an expensive plan but I can manage it, and I live somewhere there are a number of options. But I know healthy people who are paying $300+ a month for basic [catastrophic] health care for just themselves, with a crap prescription plan -- who can only find a handful of doctors willing to take them, and it's a half hour drive to get there. And that's a private plan. And forget about dental or vision care. For a family? Fuggedaboutit.

I'm not sure people who get their insurance via their employer [private or Federal] understand exactly how badly broken the system is. A public plan isn't the perfect answer -- but bankrupting people even further, or making them do without essential/needed care? That's an even worse answer.

[fakefrenchie.livejournal.com]

I'm all for a public plan. I pay approximately $2317 (1564€)for 2009. The amount that I pay depends on my income. When I first opened my translation/editing business, I used $980 (700€)/year. Then I have complementary health insurance that costs me about $700 (500€) /year. For that, I get all my meds covered at 100%, all my hospitalization covered at 100%, dental covered 100% except for orthodontics and appliances like bridges. For optical, I have the right one pair of glasses per year, and I have to pay something if I want new frames and fancy smancy additives. Doctors visits are covered 100%, and I can go to any doctor. Sometimes the doctors take the pay rate of 22€ per consultation. Sometimes, they charge more, and you don't get everything back. But there are enough doctors that you can choose one to be your GP without any problem. For emergencies, the hospitals are quick. For non-emergencies, they are a bit slow. But when I have pre cervical cancer, they operated within 6 weeks of the detection. The only hick is your have to pay and you get reimbursed, usually in 2 weeks. What's not to like?

[fakefrenchie.livejournal.com]

This comment has multiple errors in it, due to being too tired. Please forgive my lack of coherency. ;-)