obama care questions

I thought this online attempt to list key questions regarding President Obama's Health Care plan was interesting. Some of these strike me as not so important and some seem redundant but as I listen to pundits rail against emotionalism, distortions, etc..., it seems this is a pretty fair list to try to deal with specifics. Some of my online network friends have decried the right as being parrots or big insurance, as being racist and simply against anything from Obama, as being manipulated by the Republican Party machine, etc... Alright then, he's a few concerns, can you address these?

I'd much rather hear thoughts centered on these or other concerns than read the overwhelming number of disparaging remarks flying back and forth between the camps. It seems to me that it is the people engaged in that rhetoric that has us stuck with no forward progress.

• The health care reform bill currently pending before the Senate Finance Committee includes over $100 billion in cuts to Medicare. The Administration promises that the cuts to Medicare will not reduce health care benefits to seniors. The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently told senators that the cuts in the bill WILL reduce health care benefits to seniors. Why should seniors trust the Administration more than the nonpartisan C.B.O. on this point? Related Article
• Mississippi has adopted lawsuit abuse reform (tort) in their state and has reduced their healthcare premiums by 92% in the last year due to this reform. Gov. Barbour estimates America can save almost 100-200 billion dollars a year implementing just this one reform. Other than the fact that Tort Attorneys and their groups donate heavily to the DNC and did to the Obama campaign, is there a good reason or explanation you can give the American people as to why you have put the Tort attorneys' interests ahead of the healthcare interests of the citizens of this country?
• The Administration has repeatedly represented to the American people that the proposed health care reform plan will be deficit-neutral. Referring to the Administration's plan, the Congressional Budget Office Director recently said "We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount." Official CBO estimates for the Administration's proposals have, in fact, indicated additional deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years. Why should the American people trust the Administration's numbers rather than those of the C.B.O. on this point? Related Article
• You have said you will pay for healthcare by savings through "waste and fraud". By this statement then you are indicating that if you are able to quantify the amount in order to turn it into savings, you must be able to identify where it is. If that is true, why aren't you stopping the waste and fraud now since you can identify it instead of waiting until some unknown deadline? Don't you think this would engender some trust from the American people that you are making an effort to save money or that you know how to?
• The Administration has repeatedly claimed that its health care reform plan will not cover illegal aliens. The Congressional Research Service recently issued a report contradicting the Administration's position, stating "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently participating in the Exchange." Is the Congressional Research Service in error? If so, where is the error? Related Article
• Why won't government employees and elected officials be covered under a nationwide health care plan? Your employer, the American taxpayers, would like to drop your family's existing coverage and force you into the public option that you so energetically endorse.
• The Administration's health care reform plan relies heavily on the idea of generating health care savings by means of increased preventative care including mammograms and colonoscopies. On this point, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently wrote "The evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall." Why should Americans trust the Administration's representations more than those of the nonpartisan C.B.O. on this point? Related Article
• You have accused the opponents of this Healthcare plan of using "lies" and "scare tactics" and spreading "disinformation." During your speech on Sept 9, you state that "One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hand't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, AND HE DIED BECAUSE OF IT". In truth, the man, Otto Raddatz, began chemo and was preparing for a stem cell transplant. During a routine review by the insurer, it was found that he had not disclosed having gallstones and an anuerysm. Mr. Raddatz had never been told about the gallstones or been urged to treat them. His sister, appealed to the Attorney General, who reversed the decision within two weeks and Mr. Raddatz had the transplant and lived another 3 and half years. -an indication that the company's decision to rescind his treatment didn't cause his death. Mr. Raddatz didn't die from being denied treatment, but your speech stated so. How can you accuse critics of creating lies about the healthcare proposal when on several occasions your own words have been found to be untruthful?
• The Administration argues for a government-funded health insurance plan on the grounds that more competition is necessary in order to reduce health care costs. In response to a question from CNN's Wolf Blitzer as to why the Administration's health care reform plan does not include also interstate competition as a means to reduce costs, David Axelrod responded that "[Interstate competition] is not endemic to the kind of reforms that we're proposing" At least one study has concluded that interstate competition would be likely to reduce health care costs and reduce the number of uninsured. If competition can be expected to reduce costs and increase coverage, why is interstate competition not 'endemic' to the Administration's proposed reforms? Related Article Related Article
• You indicated in your interview with George Stephanpolus that if people did not buy insurance that they would be fined a penalty fee but you insisted that it is not a tax. However, on page 29 of the Senate bill that Mr. Stephanopoulus refers to, it states that the fee will be an "excise TAX." How do you expect Americans to believe you have a grasp and knowlege of the healthcare legislation and are able to run it, when it is apparent that you had not even read the bill? Not even 29 pages of it.
• A WhiteHouse.gov hypothetical question on health care rationing states the following : "What if I want [certain] tests and what if they detect something that could save my life?" The White House response states, in relevant part : "We want reform that rewards quality of care not quantity of procedures. Having dozens of procedures doesn't necessarily make you better. In fact they can make you worse." Q: Which procedures or tests would be reduced or eliminated under the proposed health care reform plan, and what evidence is available that the quality of care would not be impaired by their reduction or elimination? Related Article
• At one time, the Administration claimed that there are as many as 47 million uninsured Americans. More recently, the Administration has claimed that there are closer to 30 million uninsured Americans. What are the sources for these numbers, and how many of the 30 million are unable to purchase health insurance because of the cost of health care insurance? Related Article
• On September 23, 2009, the head of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that, if implemented, the legislation will lead to $100 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage services. Specifically what services will be cut under your legislation?
• At a town hall meeting in Raleigh, North Carolina on July 29 you said " I will be available to answer any question that members of Congress have. If they want to come over to the White House and go over line by line what's going on, I will be happy to do that." A month ago, Congressman Phil Roe sent you two letters asking you for a time and place to conduct this line by line review. You've not responded to him. Do you intend to honor your promise and sit down with Congressman Roe and hold a serious line by line review of proposed health care legislation or was your July 29 statement merely an insincere political gesture ?
• During the debate on the so-called stimulus package, your estimates on future unemployment and economic recovery proved to be wildly off-base. Why should Americans now believe you that they will not be forced out of the private coverage they enjoy, as basic economics would dictate?
• Despite your assertions that health care reform will save money, the reality is that plans proposed by Democrats would cost taxpayers between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. How does this save money and how will you pay for this?
• If, as you claim, a government-run option is essential to maintaining honest competition in the health insurance market, why is it not also true that we need a government-run competitor in the fast food industry, neighborhood babysitting, or Major League Baseball?
• Proponents of a government-run option, you included, claim that it will compete on a level playing field with private insurance providers. In that case, will your government-run plan operate as a for-profit model and be forced to pay all applicable state, federal, and local taxes?
• How do you expect to meet the growing need for physicians and medical professionals if the government-run plan pays lower than market rates to physicians while forcing them to participate or lose a majority of their patients and their livelihood?
• If the government mandates that all Americans purchase health insurance, it must also define what qualifies as health insurance. Can you provide us your definition (with details please) and explain how this definition will not limit innovation and choice in health care?
• According to the House Democrats. plan, a family of four with an income of $88,200 (four times the federal poverty level) would qualify for health insurance subsidies. In your view, is this a subsidy for low-income Americans or an effort to use taxpayers to put more health care under the purview of the federal government?
• The new Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research is charged with determining what treatments should be offered to patients. Do you believe that these personal medical decisions should be made by patients in consultation with their doctors, or by unaccountable bureaucrats?
• Why are there no actively practicing physicians included in the membership of the Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research?
• If the final reform proposal is controversial enough that it will not receive the necessary 60 votes in the Senate, Democrats have left open the possibility of using a procedural move to pass it with only 51 votes. Do you believe massive changes to such a vital area of American life should be pushed through in this manner with only 51 votes?
• Pro-choice groups NARAL and Planned Parenthood are demanding that the healthcare reform bill cover abortion, paid for by the TAXPAYER. Will you sign a healthcare reform bill that uses taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions?
• HR3200 requires 500 billion in cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. How can these cuts be made without limiting access to healthcare or medicines recommended by my doctor?
• According to Politifact.com, Obama's budget represents 11 trillion in debt in five years and 17 trillion in 10 years. Specifics for paying for the program are outlined as: $544 billion from a new income tax surcharge on single people making $280,000 a year and households making $350,000 and above; $37 billion in other tax adjustments. About $500 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. About $200 billion from penalties paid by individuals (2.5% of income) and employers (8% of payroll) who don't obtain coverage. [Note: These penalties are not in existence now, why should the American public impose a penalty upon themselves?] How will the $500 billion in Medicare cuts affect the elderly? Shouldn't we be reducing the budget instead of inflating it?
• In a recent New York Post column, Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York and health care expert, wrote: "One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and 'the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.' This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care." Will you sign a healthcare reform bill that in any way promotes euthanasia.
• According to the plan, every new insurance policy will have to comply with government mandates, and any policy changes . "altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug" . invalidates your previous coverage and forces you to choose a government "qualified" plan. In addition, the House plan mandates coverage for every individual. If you are self-employed or choose not buy insurance for whatever reason, the bill imposes a "healthcare tax" of 2.5% of your income. Why do you believe bureaucrats can make better decisions than me about what kind of health insurance I should have? And will you guarantee that any healthcare reform bill passed by Congress will always allow me to choose my own doctor?
• A number of experts have opined that insured individuals will end up having their health insurance plan changed under the Administration plan as proposed. Employers pick health plans, not employees, and if the new law puts forward a cheap 'government option/public plan,' employers will dump employees into it and pocket the savings as smart business people will do when given such a choice. Do you guarantee that I get to keep the plan I have and the doctor I have? If so, how are the experts wrong?
• Will the law require Members of Congress and federal employees to be enrolled in the "government option/public plan," and if not, why not?
• Will seniors be guaranteed joint replacements, stents, and the chemotherapy they need, or will they be forced to accept less-costly and less-effective alternatives?
• If seniors will be allowed the expensive but most effective treatments, how will costs be controlled?
• Will seniors have to wait longer for their treatments than they do now?
• Will doctors see their payment schedules drop?
• If their payments fall and they make less money, won't there be fewer doctors practicing medicine?
• Doesn't Canada have long lines for important surgeries? How will making our system more like Canada's not mean longer lines and longer waits here?
• Have you read the bill well enough to be interviewed about it on the radio by a conservative talk show host? ("C'mon. Of course I haven't and of course I won't. Have you seen even one extended interview with even one Member of Congress about the specifics of the bill with even a moderately skeptical journalist?").
• Your plan includes a reduction of $500 billion in Medicare. Why should Medicare recipients believe that $500 billion can be cut from Medicare without affecting the level of care they will receive? Has such a thing ever been accomplished previously?
• Your plan includes savings of $500 billion in Medicare by the elimination of 'waste, fraud and abuse.' What portion of the $500 billion figure is specifically attributable to fraud? How many new federal investigators and prosecutors will need to be hired in order to investigate the doctors and hospitals accepting Medicare reimbursements? Won't this new round of investigations interfere substantially with the operations of ongoing practices and their ability to treat their patients?
• In your speeches, you have repeatedly emphasized that you that you are there to listen, that your door is always open and that you continue to seek common ground. Which ideas, if any, have you incorporated into your health care plan in order to find common ground with Blue Dog Democrats and/or Republicans?
• You have repeatedly accused the critics of your plan of engaging in 'lies" and 'scare tactics.' Do you believe that none of the criticisms of your plan are good faith criticisms? If any of the criticisms are good faith criticisms, which ones?
• In earlier speeches, you promised the American people that they would be able to keep their health insurance under your plan. More recently, you have chenged the rhetoric to express only that nothing explicitly in the plan will force Americans to change their health insurance. Is it not true that, according to objective third-party analyses, millions of Americans would likely be forced to change their health insurance under your plan? Is there an objective third-party analysis showing that most Americans will continue to have the same options they have today? If so, which ones, and why are they more credible than the analyses coming to a contrary conclusion?
• You have promised that your plan will not expand the deficit. Certain objective third-party analyses, including the official analysis of the Congressional Budget Office, have indicated that your plan will expand the deficit considerably. Which objective third-party analyses, if any, have shown that your plan will not expand the deficit, and why should those analyses be trusted instead of the official estimate of the CBO?
• You claim that hundreds of billions of dollars of 'waste, fraud and abuse' can be cleared out of the Medicare system. Can you cite to a historical example wherein hundreds of billions of dollars of waste, fraud and abuse have ever been eliminated from a federal government program?
• Has a cleanup of Medicare waste, fraud and abuse ever been attempted before? If so, what were the results?
• Assuming that a crackdown on Medicare waste, fraud and abuse has been tried before and failed to generate hundreds of billions of dollars in savings, why should the American people believe that this Administration will be the first Administration to succeed where others have failed?

Technorati Tags: current events, politics