…Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats can seem to agree on a cost-cutting middle ground. Regardless of whether the solution is a public option or something similar, the public needs a solution now, not a year or two from now.
— Editorial in The Advocate, Mt. Hood Community College, Gresham, Oregon
The comprehensive health care bill passed by the U.S. House is momentous because it grants nearly all American citizens access to health care. About 96 percent under the age of 65 would have insurance, and insurers could not discriminate against policyholders who have the misfortune of becoming seriously ill.
But the House bill falls short of meeting a second essential goal of health reform — controlling the skyrocketing costs of medical care.
— The Kansas City Star Editorial Board
With the House’s passage of a health care bill and the Senate legislation possibly moving to the floor for debate next week, many analysts are saying that neither bill goes far enough to slow rising health care costs — an issue that President Obama has made central to his reform agenda.
We asked some experts what are one or two provisions not in the bills that could help contain health care costs going forward?
— Editors of the New York Times
Democrats in the House get their way, but what we need is real debate. If only the Republicans would oblige.
Los Angeles Times Editorial
November 9, 2009
The House passed a sweeping healthcare reform bill Saturday despite the opposition of as well as 39 mainly centrist Democrats. This illustrates both the success and the failure of the Obama administration and [Read More →]
… Where the House Democrats’ bill would expand coverage to an estimated 36 million of the uninsured, the Republican alternative would cover only 3 million, leaving the same proportion of the population uninsured as now. And while it’s fair to criticize House Democrats’ legislation for not doing enough to control the growth of health costs, the Republicans’ version does even less and takes some steps in the wrong direction. For example, it would repeal a new entity, created by the stimulus bill, to coordinate comparative effectiveness research. And it would do nothing to address the runaway costs of Medicare; indeed, the bill trumpets the fact that Medicare benefits would be untouched.
— Washington Post Editorial
Passage of the most significant expansion of health care coverage since Medicare was established in 1964 was an enormous first-year milestone for President Obama and a tribute to the blend of persuasion and steel in the leadership of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco Democrat who had to bring along a legion of balking moderates to secure the votes needed for passage.
One of the regrettable concessions required to win over moderates was an amendment that further tightened restrictions on federal funding for abortions. Federal law already prohibits direct government funding of abortions. The amendment added to the health care reform bill would prohibit abortion coverage on any insurance plan that is purchased with government subsidies.
— Editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle
The putative reason we’re going through the health care reform debate of 2009 is that
15 percent of our citizens have no health care insurance.
That’s true, and the fact that 15 percent of our citizenry — and, maybe just as important, countless underinsured citizens, the number of which we have no good handle on — remain a single major health care crisis away from bankruptcy is sufficient reason to address the issue.
But that’s not the only reason to address this issue.
An equally and perhaps more pressing issue is the fact that the current system can’t be sustained in the long term.
— LaCrosse Tribune Editorial, Wisconsin
On Thursday, John Boehner, leader of the House Republicans, proved what I have suspected for quite awhile: he spends more time in the tanning salon as a congressman than he spent in civics class as a student. Boehner, along with the rest of his Republican colleagues, stood on the steps of the Capitol waving “his” copy of [Read More →]
House Republican leaders have produced their own health care reform bill. Here is the first thing you need to know: It would do almost nothing to reduce the scandalously high number of Americans who have no insurance. And it makes only a token stab at slowing the relentlessly rising costs of medical care.
Despite that, the Republicans are pitching their bill as far more affordable than the Democrats’ approach. And you are sure to hear a lot in coming days about how it could reduce health insurance premiums. How it compares in that respect with the Democratic proposal is not yet clear. But a lot of the Republicans’ savings on premiums come from reduced coverage. Pay less and get less.
— New York Times Editorial
The most important number in health delivery system reform is 6.9%, and it is also the number that causes the most consternation. This percentage is the rate at which health care expenditures grew in the United States during fiscal year 2008,1 and in fact, health care expenditures have grown by an average rate of 6.2% for the past decade.2 In addition, 2008 was one of the worst economic years in the past half century and finished the fourth quarter with negative 5.4% growth in gross domestic product (GDP).3 Most markets responded to the economy, and prices fell. Unfortunately, health care costs did not follow suit. In fact, premiums paid by businesses for health insurance rose 7% in 2008.4 Predictions for the rise in health care spending in 2009 range from 7.1% to 7.4%,5 but whatever the number, it will be substantially greater than the concurrent rise in GDP. And this is the crux of the problem. The rise in our health care costs is not sustainable and has not been for some time.
— Michael Halasy, MS, PA-C — Journal of the American Academy of Physician Assistants