New Health Dialogue - logo
 

COST: Senate Finance Nears Its Trillion-Dollar Mark

Joanne Kenen - 
June 25, 2009 - 4:12pm

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said Thursday the panel was "much closer" to getting a health bill under $1 trillion. In a statement he said:

We have options the Congressional Budget Office tells us would cost under $1 trillion and are fully paid for. Based on these developments, I'm even more confident in our ability to move forward. And as I've said before, we will not put out a mark until we are sure we have it right. I'll continue to work with Senator Grassley and Senators on both sides of aisle to turn these options into a package that can pass the Senate and become law this year.

Baucus and other Finance members (Republicans Chuck Grassley, Olympia Snowe, Mike Enzi and Orrin Hatch and Democats Jeff Bingaman and Kent Conrad) put out a secong statement saying they've "made progress" and will continue working.

Congress Daily (subscription required) quoted Conrad as saying the goal of covering families with incomes of up to 300 percent of the poverty line—roughly $66,000 for a four-person household—could be preserved. 

Most of the savings come from within the health care system—which could be good news for those of us who believe we could make the system more effective (not just cost effective) by changing incentives and improving how we take care of people. Looks like some kind of strengthened MedPAC is in the mix; public plan still unresolved. But it's still evolving.

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Icerocket
Tags:

Comments

'PROTECTION' like anti-trust law rather than intervention

Submitted by hsr0601 (not verified) on June 27, 2009 - 10:25am.

I think, given the fact that health insurance premiums have doubled over the last decade at an unsustainable rate three times faster than wages, the status more than 97% of all Massachusetts residents,the highest in the U.S., are now covered could be touted as success model, which features 'mandating insurance' and an option to purchase coverage through the "Connector," a program in which private insurers are required to offer coverage to those who can't get other insurance, regardless of age or health status.
But the Massachusetts model has a problem with costs control, because it relies exclusively on private insurers as Massachusetts' insurers implemented average premium increases of 8% to 12% only in 2008. And it highlights the necessity of having a publicly financed insurance option
To be sure, in case the president's proposal with respect to the strong public option, medical IT, increased efforts in prevention, and a broader array of cost-saving plans and beyond adds to the Massachusetts Plan with the provision of employer mandate and an individual mandate, the cost containment does not matter at all. And most importantly, the promising stem cell research is making its way.

Human health, in a sense, may precede all the other basic human rights as everything means nothing for someone without it. As far as my common sense goes, the major role of government will be to protect basic rights of the public from any threat. That is why all of the industrialized countries have public policy in place, I guess.
Under this premise, the strong public option needs to be cited as a part of 'PROTECTION' like anti-trust law rather than intervention.
The intention to introduce the public choice would be to protect the uninsured, economy and keep the medical industry honest, not be to drive it out.
Hopefully, the health industry can provide reasonable,fair, competitive prices and quality service via tireless innovations like most of the EUROPE, instead of concerning about its monopoly prices, otherwise the forthcoming health start-ups will likely fill the blanks with competitive terms over time.