Health care reform debate in the United States

Health care reform debate in the United States
Health care in the United States
Public health care

Private health coverage

Health care reform law

State level reform
Municipal health coverage

This box: view · talk · edit
Health care reform in the United States
Enacted legislation
of late

This box: view · talk · edit

The health care reform debate in the United States has been a political issue for many years, focusing upon increasing coverage, decreasing the cost and social burden of healthcare, insurance reform, and the philosophy of its provision, funding, and government involvement.

Following the election of Barack Obama, whose election included a promise to accomplish reform, legislation passed both houses of the U.S. Congress in late 2009. The House passed the Senate bill and a package of fixes in a Reconciliation bill in March 2010.

The U.S. has the highest healthcare costs relative to the size of the economy (GDP) in the world, with an estimated 50.2 million citizens (approximately 15.6% of the September 2011 estimated population of 312 million) without insurance coverage. Further, an estimated 77 million Baby Boomers are reaching retirement age, which combined with significant annual increases in healthcare costs per person will place enormous budgetary strain on U.S. state and federal governments.[1] The long-term fiscal health of the U.S. federal government is primarily related to whether healthcare costs can be brought under control.[2]

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the primary House and Senate bills would reduce the total deficit during the 2010-2019 period by $138 billion and $132 billion, respectively.[3][4] However, whether reforms will reduce costs remains a matter of contention by experts.[5]

Various general and specific reform strategies are under debate in the Congress and media. Examples include comparative effectiveness research, independent review panels, doctor incentives (paying for quality rather than quantity of healthcare), tax reform, reducing defensive medicine, insurance regulation, prevention and wellness, incentives for more doctors and nurses, expanded use of technology, rationing of care, single-payer systems, etc.[6][7]

Both advocates and critics of reform have mobilized citizens to support their views, with particularly visible demonstrations occurring as congressional leaders returned to their districts during August, 2009.[8][9][10]


Quality of care

There is significant debate regarding the quality of the U.S. healthcare system relative to those of other countries. One political advocacy group has claimed that a free market solution to health care provides a lower quality of care, with higher mortality rates, than publicly funded systems.[11] The quality of health maintenance organizations and managed care have also been criticized by this same political advocacy group.[12]

According to a 2000 study of the World Health Organization, publicly funded systems of industrial nations spend less on health care, both as a percentage of their GDP and per capita, and enjoy superior population-based health care outcomes.[13] However, conservative commentator David Gratzer and the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, have both criticized the WHO's comparison method for being biased; the WHO study marked down countries for having private or fee-paying health treatment and rated countries by comparison to their expected health care performance, rather than objectively comparing quality of care.[14][15]

Some medical researchers say that patient satisfaction surveys are a poor way to evaluate medical care. Researchers at the RAND Corporation and the Department of Veterans Affairs asked 236 elderly patients in two different managed care plans to rate their care, then examined care in medical records, as reported in Annals of Internal Medicine. There was no correlation. "Patient ratings of health care are easy to obtain and report, but do not accurately measure the technical quality of medical care," said John T. Chang, UCLA, lead author.[16][17][18]

There are health losses from insufficient health insurance. A 2009 Harvard study published in the American Journal of Public Health found more than 44,800 excess deaths annually in the United States due to Americans lacking health insurance.[19][20] More broadly, estimates of the total number of people in the United States, whether insured or uninsured, who die because of lack of medical care were estimated in a 1997 analysis to be nearly 100,000 per year.[21]

Cost and efficiency

Health spending per capita, in U.S. dollars PPP-adjusted, compared amongst various first world nations.

The United States spends a higher proportion of its GDP on health care (19.3% in ref cited, but now 16%, lagging other rich countries) than any other country in the world, except for East Timor (Timor-Leste).[22] The number of employers who offer health insurance is declining. Costs for employer-paid health insurance are rising rapidly: since 2001, premiums for family coverage have increased 78%, while wages have risen 19% and prices have risen 17%, according to a 2007 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation.[23]

Private insurance in the US varies greatly in its coverage; one study by the Commonwealth Fund published in Health Affairs estimated that 16 million U.S. adults were underinsured in 2003. The underinsured were significantly more likely than those with adequate insurance to forgo health care, report financial stress because of medical bills, and experience coverage gaps for such items as prescription drugs. The study found that underinsurance disproportionately affects those with lower incomes — 73% of the underinsured in the study population had annual incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level.[24]

However, a study published by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2008 found that the typical large employer Preferred provider organization (PPO) plan in 2007 was more generous than either Medicare or the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Standard Option.[25] One indicator of the consequences of Americans' inconsistent health care coverage is a study in Health Affairs that concluded that half of personal bankruptcies involved medical bills,[26] although other sources dispute this.[27]

Proponents of health care reforms involving expansion of government involvement to achieve universal health care argue that the need to provide profits to investors in a predominantly free market health system, and the additional administrative spending, tends to drive up costs, leading to more expensive health care provision.[11]

According to economist and former US Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, only a "big, national, public option" can force insurance companies to cooperate, share information, and reduce costs. Scattered, localized, "insurance cooperatives" are too small to do that and are "designed to fail" by the moneyed forces opposing Democratic health care reform.[28][29]

Impact on U.S. economic productivity

On March 1, 2010, billionaire Warren Buffett (who is considered one of the world’s most savvy investors[30]) said that the high costs paid by U.S. companies for their employees’ health care put them at a competitive disadvantage. He compared the roughly 17% of GDP spent by the U.S. on health care with the 9% of GDP spent by much of the rest of the world, noted that the U.S. has fewer doctors and nurses per person, and said, “[t]hat kind of a cost, compared with the rest of the world, is like a tapeworm eating at our economic body.”[31]

Proposed strategies for reform

During a June 2009 speech, President Barack Obama outlined his strategy for reform. He mentioned electronic record-keeping, preventing expensive conditions, reducing obesity, refocusing doctor incentives from quantity of care to quality, bundling payments for treatment of conditions rather than specific services, better identifying and communicating the most cost-effective treatments, and reducing defensive medicine.[32]

President Obama further described his plan in a September 2009 speech to a joint session of Congress. His plan mentions: deficit neutrality; not allowing insurance companies to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions; capping out of pocket expenses; creation of an insurance exchange for individuals and small businesses; tax credits for individuals and small companies; independent commissions to identify fraud, waste and abuse; and malpractice reform projects, among other topics.[6][7]

OMB Director Peter Orszag described aspects of the Obama administration's strategy during an interview in November 2009: "In order to help contain [Medicare and Medicaid] cost growth over the long term, we need a new health care system that has digitized information... in which that information is used to assess what’s working and what’s not more intelligently, and in which we’re paying for quality rather than quantity while also encouraging prevention and wellness." He also argued for bundling payments and accountable care organizations, which reward doctors for teamwork and patient outcomes.[33]

Mayo Clinic President and CEO Denis Cortese has advocated an overall strategy to guide reform efforts. He argued that the U.S. has an opportunity to redesign its healthcare system and that there is a wide consensus that reform is necessary. He articulated four "pillars" of such a strategy:[34]

  • Focus on value, which he defined as the ratio of quality of service provided relative to cost;
  • Pay for and align incentives with value;
  • Cover everyone;
  • Establish mechanisms for improving the healthcare service delivery system over the long-term, which is the primary means through which value would be improved.

Writing in The New Yorker, surgeon Atul Gawande further distinguished between the delivery system, which refers to how medical services are provided to patients, and the payment system, which refers to how payments for services are processed. He argued that reform of the delivery system is critical to getting costs under control, but that payment system reform (e.g., whether the government or private insurers process payments) is considerably less important yet gathers a disproportionate share of attention. Gawande argued that dramatic improvements and savings in the delivery system will take "at least a decade." He recommended changes that address the overutilization of healthcare; the refocusing of incentives on value rather than profits; and comparative analysis of the cost of treatment across various healthcare providers to identify best practices. He argued this would be an iterative, empirical process and should be administered by a "national institute for healthcare delivery" to analyze and communicate improvement opportunities.[35]

Use of comparative effectiveness research

Medicare spending per person varied significantly across states in 2006

Several treatment alternatives may be available for a given medical condition, with significantly different costs yet no statistical difference in outcome. Such scenarios offer the opportunity to maintain or improve the quality of care, while significantly reducing costs, through comparative effectiveness research. Writing in the New York Times, David Leonhardt described how the cost of treating the most common form of early-stage, slow-growing prostate cancer ranges from an average of $2,400 (watchful waiting to see if the condition deteriorates) to as high as $100,000 (radiation beam therapy):[36]

Some doctors swear by one treatment, others by another. But no one really knows which is best. Rigorous research has been scant. Above all, no serious study has found that the high-technology treatments do better at keeping men healthy and alive. Most die of something else before prostate cancer becomes a problem.

According to economist Peter A. Diamond and research cited by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the cost of healthcare per person in the U.S. also varies significantly by geography and medical center, with little or no statistical difference in outcome.[37]

Although the Mayo Clinic scores above the other two in terms of quality of outcome, its cost per beneficiary for Medicare clients in the last six months of life ($26,330) is nearly half that at the UCLA Medical Center ($50,522) and significantly lower than the cost at Massachusetts General Hospital ($40,181)... The American taxpayer is financing these large differences in costs, but we have little evidence of what benefit we receive in exchange.

Comparative effectiveness research has shown that significant cost reductions are possible. OMB Director Peter Orszag stated: "Nearly thirty percent of Medicare's costs could be saved without negatively affecting health outcomes if spending in high- and medium-cost areas could be reduced to the level of low-cost areas."[38]

Reform of doctor's incentives

Critics have argued that the healthcare system has several incentives that drive costly behavior. Two of these include:[39]

  1. Doctors are typically paid for services provided rather than with a salary. This provides a financial incentive to increase the costs of treatment provided.
  2. Patients that are fully insured have no financial incentive to minimize the cost when choosing from among alternatives. The overall effect is to increase insurance premiums for all.

Atul Gawande quoted one surgeon who stated: "We took a wrong turn when doctors stopped being doctors and became businessmen." Gawande identified various revenue-enhancing approaches and profit-based incentives that doctors were using in high-cost areas that may have caused the over-utilization of healthcare. He contrasted this with lower-cost areas that used salaried doctors and other techniques to reward value, referring to this as a "battle for the soul of American medicine."[35]

Insurance reforms

The debate has involved certain insurance industry practices such as the placing of caps on coverage, the high level of co-pays even for essential services such as preventative procedures, the refusal of many insurers to cover pre-existing conditions or adding premium loading for these conditions, and practices which some people regard as egregious such as the additional loading of premiums for women, the regarding of having previously been assaulted by a partner as having a pre-existing condition, and even the cancellation of insurance policies on very flimsy grounds when a claimant who had paid in many premiums presents with a potentially expensive medical condition.

Various legislative proposals under serious consideration propose fining larger employers who do not provide a minimum standard of health care insurance and mandating that people purchase private health care insurance. This is the first time that the Federal government has mandated people to buy insurance, although nearly all states in the union currently mandate the purchase of auto insurance. The legislation also taxes certain very high payout insurance policies (so-called "Cadillac policies") to help finance subsidies for poorer citizens. These will be offered on a sliding scale to people earning less than four times the federal poverty level to enable them to buy health insurance if they are not otherwise covered by their employer.

The issue of concentration of power by the insurance industry has also been a focus of debate as in many states very few large insurers dominate the market. Legislation which would provide a choice of a not-for-profit insurer modeled on Medicare but funded by insurance premiums has been a contentious issue. Much play has been made to changes to the Medicare Advantage scheme which will reduce public subsidies given to private insurance plans selling such plans by forcing insurers to compete and which it is estimated has increased the profitability of private insurance companies selling these products.[40] No cuts are made to guaranteed coverage benefits in the bills before congress.

Certain proposals include a choice of a not-for-profit insurer modeled on Medicare (sometimes called the "government option"). Democratic legislators have largely supported the proposed reform efforts, while Republicans have criticized the government option or expanded regulation of healthcare.

The GAO reported in 2002 (using 2000 data) that: "The median number of licensed carriers in the small group market per state was 28, with a range from 4 in Hawaii to 77 in Indiana. The median market share of the largest carrier was about 33 percent, with a range from about 14 percent in Texas to about 89 percent in North Dakota."[41]

The GAO reported in 2008 (using 2007 data for the most part) that: "The median number of licensed carriers in the small group market per state was 27. The median market share of the largest carrier in the small group market was about 47 percent, with a range from about 21 percent in Arizona to about 96 percent in Alabama. In 31 of the 39 states supplying market share information, the top carrier had a market share of a third or more. The five largest carriers in the small group market, when combined, represented three quarters or more of the market in 34 of the 39 states supplying this information, and they represented 90 percent or more in 23 of these states....the median market share of all the BCBS carriers in 38 states reporting this information in 2008 was about 51 percent, compared to the 44 percent reported in 2005 and the 34 percent reported in 2002 for the 34 states supplying information in each of these years."[42]

Tax reform

Health insurance premiums paid on behalf of workers are increasingly offsetting compensation

The Congressional Budget Office has also described how the tax treatment of insurance premiums may affect behavior:[43]

One factor perpetuating inefficiencies in health care is a lack of clarity regarding the cost of health insurance and who bears that cost, especially employment-based health insurance. Employers’ payments for employment-based health insurance and nearly all payments by employees for that insurance are excluded from individual income and payroll taxes. Although both theory and evidence suggest that workers ultimately finance their employment-based insurance through lower take-home pay, the cost is not evident to many workers.... If transparency increases and workers see how much their income is being reduced for employers’ contributions and what those contributions are paying for, there might be a broader change in cost-consciousness that shifts demand.

In November 2009, The Economist estimated that taxing employer-provided health insurance (which is presently exempt from tax) would add $215 billion per year to federal tax revenue during the 2013-2014 periods.[44] Peter Singer wrote in the New York Times that the current exclusion of insurance premiums from compensation represents a $200 billion subsidy for the private insurance industry and that it would likely not exist without it.[45] In other words, taxpayers might be more inclined to change behavior or the system itself if they were paying $200 billion more in taxes each year related to health insurance. To put this amount in perspective, the federal government collected $1,146 billion in income taxes in 2008,[46] so $200 billion represents a 17.5% increase in the effective tax rate.

Independent advisory panels

President Obama has proposed an "Independent Medicare Advisory Panel" (IMAC) to make recommendations on Medicare reimbursement policy and other reforms. Comparative effectiveness research would be one of many tools used by the IMAC. The IMAC concept was endorsed in a letter from several prominent healthcare policy experts, as summarized by OMB Director Peter Orszag:[47]

Their support of the IMAC proposal underscores what most serious health analysts have recognized for some time: that moving toward a health system emphasizing quality rather than quantity will require continual effort, and that a key objective of legislation should be to put in place structures (like the IMAC) that facilitate such change over time. And ultimately, without a structure in place to help contain health care costs over the long term as the health market evolves, nothing else we do in fiscal policy will matter much, because eventually rising health care costs will overwhelm the federal budget.

Both Mayo Clinic CEO Dr. Denis Cortese and Surgeon/Author Atul Gawande have argued that such panel(s) will be critical to reform of the delivery system and improving value. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius has also recommended that President Obama engage someone like Cortese to have a more active role in driving reform efforts.[48]

Lowering obesity

Preventing obesity and overweight conditions presents a significant opportunity to reduce costs. The Centers for Disease Control reported that approximately 9% of healthcare costs in 1998 were attributable to overweight and obesity, or as much as $92.6 billion in 2002 dollars. Nearly half of these costs were paid for by the government via Medicare or Medicaid.[49] However, by 2008 the CDC estimated these costs had nearly doubled to $147 billion.[50] The CDC identified a series of expensive conditions more likely to occur due to obesity.[51] The CDC released a series of strategies to prevent obesity and overweight, including: making healthy foods and beverages more available; supporting healthy food choices; encouraging kids to be more active; and creating safe communities to support physical activity.[52][53] An estimated 25.6% of U.S. adults in 2007 were obese, versus 23.9% in 2005. State obesity rates ranged from 18.7% to 30%. Obesity rates were roughly equal among men and women.[54] Some have proposed a so-called "fat tax" to provide incentives for healthier behavior, either by levying the tax on products (such as soft drinks) that are thought to contribute to obesity,[55] or to individuals based on body measures, as is done in Japan.[56]

Rationing of care

Healthcare rationing may refer to the restriction of medical care service delivery based on any number of objective or subjective criteria. Republican Newt Gingrich argued that the reform plans supported by President Obama expand the control of government over healthcare decisions, which he referred to as a type of healthcare rationing.[57] President Barack Obama has argued that U.S. healthcare is already rationed, based on income, type of employment, and medical pre-existing conditions, with nearly 46 million uninsured. He argued that millions of Americans are denied coverage or face higher premiums as a result of medical pre-existing conditions.[58]

Peter Singer wrote in the New York Times in July 2009 that healthcare is rationed in the United States and argued for improved rationing processes:[59]

Health care is a scarce resource, and all scarce resources are rationed in one way or another. In the United States, most health care is privately financed, and so most rationing is by price: you get what you, or your employer, can afford to insure you for...Rationing health care means getting value for the billions we are spending by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse. If we ration we won’t be writing blank checks to pharmaceutical companies for their patented drugs, nor paying for whatever procedures doctors choose to recommend. When public funds subsidize health care or provide it directly, it is crazy not to try to get value for money. The debate over health care reform in the United States should start from the premise that some form of health care rationing is both inescapable and desirable. Then we can ask, What is the best way to do it?"

According to PolitiFact, private health insurance companies already ration health care by income, by denying health insurance to those with pre-existing conditions and by caps on health insurance payments. Rationing exists now, and will continue to exist with or without health care reform.[60] David Leonhardt also wrote in the New York Times in June 2009 that rationing is a part of economic reality: "The choice isn’t between rationing and not rationing. It’s between rationing well and rationing badly. Given that the United States devotes far more of its economy to health care than other rich countries, and gets worse results by many measures, it’s hard to argue that we are now rationing very rationally."[61]

Palin's death panel remarks were based on the ideas of Betsy McCaughey.[62][63] During 2009, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin wrote against alleged rationing, referring to what by her interpretation was a "downright evil" "death panel" in current reform legislation known as H.R. 3200 Section 1233.[63] However, Palin supported similar end of life discussion and advance directives for patients in 2008.[64] Defenders of the plan indicated that the proposed legislation H.R. 3200 would allow Medicare for the first time to cover patient-doctor consultations about end-of-life planning, including discussions about drawing up a living will or planning hospice treatment. Patients could seek out such advice on their own, but would not be required to. The provision would limit Medicare coverage to one consultation every five years.[65] Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., who sponsored the H.R. 3200 end of life counseling provision, said the measure would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option, and called references to death panels or euthanasia "mind-numbing".[66] Republican Senator Johnny Isakson, who co-sponsored a 2007 end-of-life counseling provision, called the euthanasia claim "nuts".[67] Analysts who examined the end-of-life provision Palin cited agree that Palin's claim is incorrect.[68][69][70][71][72] According to TIME and ABC, Palin and Betsy McCaughey made false euthanasia claims.[63][73][74]

The federal requirement that hospitals help patients with things like living wills began when Republican George H. W. Bush was President. Section 1233 merely allows doctors to be paid for their time.[75] However, an NBC poll indicates that as of August, 2009, 45% of Americans believed in the death panel story.[76]

Slate columnist Christopher Beam used the term "deathers" to refer to those who believed rationing and euthanasia would become likely for senior citizens. The Rachel Maddow Show aired a program called "Obama and the Deathers" in which Maddow discussed conspiracy theories that included "a secret plot to kill old people." Daily Kos and other web sites had used the term for about a week before Hari Sevugan, national spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, sent out an email with the subject line "Murkowski: Deathers 'Lying' 'Inciting Fear.'" The message included an article about a town hall statement by Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, that no version of health care reform included "death panels".

Sevugan explained the term "deathers" to Patricia Murphy, who writes a Politics Daily column called "The Capitolist":

By "deather," I mean an opponent of change who is knowingly spreading false information regarding the existence of an alleged "death panel" in health insurance reform plans despite the fact the claim has been repeatedly and unequivocally debunked by independent fact-checking organizations. Like "birthers," "deathers" are shamefully lying and trafficking in scurrilous rumors to incite fear and achieve their stated political objective of derailing the president of the United States.[77]

Others, such as former Republican Secretary of Commerce Peter G. Peterson, have indicated that some form of rationing is inevitable and desirable considering the state of U.S. finances and the trillions of dollars of unfunded Medicare liabilities. He estimated that 25-33% of healthcare services are provided to those in the last months or year of life and advocated restrictions in cases where quality of life cannot be improved. He also recommended that a budget be established for government healthcare expenses, through establishing spending caps and pay-as-you-go rules that require tax increases for any incremental spending. He has indicated that a combination of tax increases and spending cuts will be required. All of these issues would be addressed under the aegis of a fiscal reform commission.[78]

Medical malpractice costs and limits on redress (tort)

Critics have argued that medical malpractice costs are significant and should be addressed via tort reform.[79] At the same time, a Hearst Newspapers investigation concluded that up to 200,000 people per year die from medical errors and infections in the United States.[80] None of the three major bills under consideration lower recoverable damages in tort suits. Medical malpractice, such as doctor errors resulting in harm to patients, has several direct and indirect costs:

  • jury awards to injured;
  • workers' compensation;
  • reduced worker productivity as a result of injury;
  • pain and suffering of the injured;

How much these costs are is a matter of debate. Some have argued that malpractice lawsuits are a major driver of medical costs.[81] However, the direct cost of malpractice suits amounts to only about 0.5% of all healthcare spending, and a 2006 Harvard study showed that over 90% of the malpractice suits examined contained evidence of injury to the patient and that frivolous suits were generally readily dismissed by the courts.[82] A 2005 study estimated the cost around 0.2%, and in 2009 insurer WellPoint Inc. said "liability wasn’t driving premiums."[83] Counting both direct and indirect costs, other studies estimate the total cost of malpractice "is linked to" between 5% and 10% of total U.S. medical costs.[84] A 2004 report by the Congressional Budget Office put medical malpractice costs at 2% of U.S. health spending and "even significant reductions" would do little to reduce the growth of health-care expenses.[84]

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer argued that between $60–200 billion per year could be saved through tort reform. Physician and former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean explained why tort reform is not part of the bills under consideration: "When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that, the more stuff you put it in it, the more enemies you make, right?...And the reason tort reform is not on the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on. That is the plain and simple truth."[85]

However, even successful tort reform might not lead to lower aggregate liability: for example, medical commentators have argued that the current contingent fee system skews litigation towards high-value cases while ignoring meritorious small cases; aligning litigation more closely with merit might thus increase the number of small awards, offsetting any reduction in large awards.[86] A New York study found that only 1.5% of hospital negligence led to claims; moreover, the CBO observed that "health care providers are generally not exposed to the financial cost of their own malpractice risk because they carry liability insurance, and the premiums for that insurance do not reflect the records or practice styles of individual providers but more-general factors such as location and medical specialty."[87] Given that total liability is small relative to the amount doctors pay in malpractice insurance premiums, alternative mechanisms have been proposed to reform malpractice insurance.[88]

Addressing the shortage of doctors, nurses and hospital capacity

The U.S. is facing shortages of doctors and nurses that are projected to grow worse as America ages, which may drive up the price of these services. Writing in the Washington Post, cardiologist Arthur Feldman cited various studies that indicate the U.S. is facing a "critical" shortage of doctors, including an estimated 1,300 general surgeons by 2010.[89]

The American Academy of Family Physicians predicts a shortage of 40,000 primary care doctors (including family practice, internal medicine, pediatrics and obstetrics/gynecology) by 2020. The number of medical students choosing the primary care specialty has dropped by 52% since 1997. Currently, only 2% of medical school graduates choose primary care as a career. An amendment to the Senate health bill includes $2 billion in funds over 10 years to create 2,000 new residency training slots geared toward primary care medicine and general surgery. Writing in Forbes, a physician argued that this is a "tiny band-aid at best," advocating full loan repayments and guaranteed positions upon graduation.[90]

The U.S. had 2.3 doctors per 1,000 people in 2002, ranking 52nd. Germany and France had approximately 3.4 and ranked in the top 25.[91] The OECD average in 2008 was 3.1 doctors per 1,000 people, while the U.S. had 2.4.[92]

The American Association of Colleges of Nurses cited studies estimating that a shortage of registered nurses would reach 230,000 by 2025 as America ages, with over 135,000 open positions during 2007. An additional 30% more nurses would have to graduate annually to keep up with demand. A study by Price Waterhouse advanced several strategies for addressing the nursing shortage, including developing more public-private partnerships, federal and state-level grants for nursing students and educators, creating healthy work environments, using technology as a training tool, and designing more flexible roles for advanced practice nurses given their increased use as primary care providers.[93]

In addition, the U.S. also does not measure favorably vs. OECD countries in terms of acute care hospital beds. Only four OECD countries have fewer acute care hospital beds per capita than the U.S, which has 2.7 per 1,000 population versus an OECD average of 3.8. Japan has 8.2 acute care beds per 1,000 population.[92]

Addressing Medicare fraud

The Office of Management and Budget reported that $54 billion in "improper payments" were made to Medicare ($24B), Medicaid ($18B) and Medicaid Advantage ($12B) during FY 2009. This was 9.4% of the $573 billion spent in these categories.[94] The Government Accountability Office lists Medicare as a "high-risk" government program due to its vulnerability to improper payments.[95][96][97] Fewer than 5% of Medicare claims are audited.[98] Medicare fraud accounts for an estimated $60 billion in Medicare payments each year, and "has become one of, if not the most profitable, crimes in America."[99] Criminals set up phony companies, then invoice Medicare for fraudulent services provided to valid Medicare patients who never receive the services. These costs appear on the Medicare statements provided to Medicare card holders. The program pays out over $430 billion per year via over 1 billion claims, making enforcement challenging.[99] Its enforcement budget is "extremely limited" according to one Medicare official. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in an interview: "Clearly more auditing needs to be done and it needs to be done in real time."[99] The Obama administration is providing Medicare with an additional $200 million to fight fraud as part of its stimulus package, and billions of dollars to computerize medical records and upgrade networks, which should assist Medicare in identifying fraudulent claims.[99]

Single-payer payment system

Costumed supporter of single-payer at an April 2009 protest in New York City.

Although studies indicate that Democrats tend to be more supportive of a single-payer health care system than are Republicans, none of the reform bills that were debated in the US Congress when it had a Democratic party majority from 2007 to 2010 included any proposals to implement a single payer health care system. In a single payer system the government or a government regulated non-profit agency channels health care payments to collect premiums and settle the bills of medical providers instead of for-profit insurance companies. Many countries use single-payer systems to cover all their citizens.

The over 1,300 U.S. health insurance companies have different forms and processes for billing and reimbursement, requiring enormous costs on the part of service providers (mainly doctors and hospitals) to process payments. For example, the Cleveland Clinic, considered a low-cost, best-practices hospital system, has 1,400 billing clerks to support 2,000 doctors.[100] Further, the insurance companies have their own overhead functions and profit margins, much of which could be eliminated with a single payer system. Economist Paul Krugman estimated in 2005 that converting from the current private insurance system to a single-payer system would enable $200 billion per year in cost savings, primarily via insurance company overhead.[101] One advocacy group estimated savings as high as $400 billion annually for 2009 and beyond.[102]

The US system is often compared with that of its northern neighbor, Canada (see Canadian and American health care systems compared). Canada's system is largely publicly funded. In 2006, Americans spent an estimated US$6,714 per capita on health care, while Canadians spent US$3,678.[103] This amounted to 15.3% of US GDP in that year, while Canada spent 10.0% of GDP on health care. A study by Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information determined that some 31% of US health care dollars, or more than $1,000 per person per year, went to health care administrative costs.[104]

Advocates argue that shifting the US to a single-payer health care system would provide universal coverage, give patients free choice of providers and hospitals, and guarantee comprehensive coverage and equal access for all medically necessary procedures, without increasing overall spending. Shifting to a single-payer system would also eliminate oversight by managed care reviewers, restoring the traditional doctor-patient relationship.[105]

Advocates argue that the largest obstacle to single-payer, universal system in the U.S. is a lack of political will.[106]

Privatize Medicare with a voucher system

Rep. Paul Ryan (R) has proposed the Roadmap for America's Future, which is a series of budgetary reforms. His January 2010 version of the plan includes the transition of Medicare to a voucher system, meaning individuals would receive a voucher which could be used to purchase health insurance in the private market. This would not affect those near retirement or currently enrolled.[107] A series of graphs and charts summarizing the impact of the plan are included.[108] Economists have both praised and criticized particular features of the plan.[109][110] The CBO also partially scored the bill.[111]

Congressional Proposals for Health Care Reform

Currently, there are two major proposals being considered in Congress.

On November 7, 2009, the House passed their version of a health insurance reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, 220-215.

On December 24, 2009 the Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.[112][113]

Republicans continue to claim that they had a workable bill to extend coverage to all Americans and not cost the taxpayer a singe penny.[114] The Empowering Patients First Act which was proposed as a replacing amendment to the Senate Bill during the bill mark-up. However, this alternative bill was rejected by the Senate Finance Committee. The Congressional Budget Office said that it would not reduce the percentage of working age people who do not have insurance over the next 10 years, and that it estimated it would encourage health insurers to reduce rather than increase insurance coverage as it would remove mandated coverage rules that currently apply in some states. This bill would have given the insurance industry greater access to government funds through new insurance subsidies.[115] It does not have any taxation provisions and though it would reduce the deficit over 10 years by $18 billion, this is a considerably smaller deficit reduction than either the House or the Senate bills.

Summary of differences between proposed Health Reform Bills
H.R. 3962, Affordable Health Care for America Act, "House Bill" H.R. 3590, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, "Senate Bill"
Financing Places a 5.4% surtax on incomes over $500,000 for individuals and $1,000,000 for families.[116] Increases the Medicare payroll tax from 1.45% to 2.35% on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for families.[116]
Abortion Insurance companies that accept federal subsidies will not be allowed to cover abortion.[116] Insurance companies that participate in the newly-created exchanges will be permitted to include abortion coverage, but a separate check must be written to the participating insurance company.[116] Each state will have the option to prevent federal money from funding abortions in their insurance exchanges.[117]
Public Option yes[116] No. Instead, the federal government will mandate that newly-created State insurance exchanges include at least two national plans that are created by the Office of Personnel Management. Of these two national plans, at least one will have to be a private non-profit plan.[118][119]
Insurance Exchanges A single national insurance exchange will be created to house private insurance plans as well as a public option. Individual states could run their own exchanges under federal guidelines.[117][118] Each state will create its own insurance exchange under federal guidelines.[117]
Medicaid Eligibility Expanded to 150% of the federal poverty level[116] Expanded to 133% of the federal poverty level[116]
Illegal Immigrants They are allowed to participate in the insurance exchanges, but cannot receive federal subsidies. They cannot participate in the exchange or receive subsidies.
CBO Cost Estimate $1,050 billion dollars over 10 years.[120] Deficit would be reduced a total of $138 billion 2010-2019 after tax receipts and cost reductions.[121] $871 billion dollars over 10 years.[118] Deficit would be reduced a total of $132 billion 2010-2019 after tax receipts and cost reductions.[122]
Takes effect 2013 2014

Similarities between the House and Senate Bills

The two bills are similar in a number of ways. In particular, both bills:[123][124]

  • Mandate minimum health insurance benefits for most Americans
  • Remove insurer set annual and lifetime caps on coverage and limit co-pay amounts
  • Remove co-pays on certain services such as health screenings and some vaccinations
  • Impose a new excise tax on medical devices and drugs, including vaccines[125][126] (the federal government began taxing vaccines in 1987[127]).
  • Establish health insurance exchanges making easier price and coverage comparisons and purchasing for people and small businesses buying health care coverage
  • Prevent insurers selling in the exchange insurance policies that do not meet minimum coverage standards
  • Prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions
  • Prevent sex discrimination by insurers (especially the current discrimination against women) in setting premiums
  • Limit age discrimination by insurers when setting policy premiums
  • Restrict the ability of insurers to rescind policies they have been collecting premiums on
  • Require insurers to cover adult children up to their mid twenties as part of family coverage
  • Expand Medicaid eligibility up the income ladder (to 133% of the poverty line in the Senate bill and 150% in the House bill)
  • Offer tax credits to certain small businesses (under 25 workers) who provide employees with health insurance
  • Impose a penalty on employers who do not offer health insurance to their workers
  • Impose a penalty on individuals who do not have health insurance (except American Indians (currently covered by the Indian Health Service), people with religious objections and people who can show financial hardship)
  • Provide health insurance assistance subsidies for those earning up to 400% of the federal poverty level that must buy insurance for themselves
  • Offer a new voluntary long-term care insurance program
  • Pay for new spending, in part, through cutting over-generous funding (under existing law) given to private insurers that sell privatised health care plans to seniors (so called Medicare Advantage plans), slowing the growth of Medicare provider payments[citation needed], reducing Medicare and Medicaid drug prices[citation needed], cutting other Medicare and Medicaid spending through better reward structures, and raising taxes on very generous health care packages (typically offered to senior executives) and penalties on larger firms not providing their employees with health care coverage and certain persons who do not buy health insurance.
  • Impose a $2,500 limit on contributions to a flexible spending account (FSAs), pre-tax health benefits, to pay for health care reform costs.

Differences in the House and Senate Bills

The biggest difference between the bills, currently, is in how they are financed. In addition to the items listed in the above bullet point, the House relies mainly on a surtax on income above $500,000 ($1 million for families). The Senate, meanwhile, relies largely on an "excise tax" for high cost 'Cadillac' insurance plans, as well as an increase in the Medicare payroll tax for high earners.[128][129]

Most economists believe the excise tax to be best of the three revenue raisers above, since (due to health care cost growth) it would grow fast enough to more than keep up with new coverage costs, and it would help to put downward pressure on overall health care cost growth.[130][131] In contrast, the House bill's insurance mandate has been described as "an economic assault on the young" by, for example, Robert J. Samuelson for The Washington Post.[132]

Unlike the House bill, the Senate bill would also include a Medicare Commission which could modify Medicare payments in order to keep down cost growth.

Services marketed as preventive care are a subject of continuing debate. Years of study have shown that most common services provide no benefit to patients.[133][134] The House and Senate bills would mandate the purchase of policies that pay 100% of the cost of certain services, with no co-pay; when the Senate bill was amended to mandate paying for tests that a federal panel and U.S. News & World Report said "do more harm than good,"[135] The New York Times wrote, "This sorry episode does not bode well for reform efforts to rein in spending on other procedures based on sound scientific evidence of their potential benefits and risks for patients."[136]

Differences in how each chamber determines subsidies

A graphic that demonstrates how the subsidies are more generous for those closer to the poverty line and drop off as a family's distance from the poverty line increases. The rate at which the subsidy falls off decreases with increased distance from the poverty line. The curve representative of the "house bill" is concave and has a negative second derivative. The curve representative of the "senate bill" is linear from 100% FPL to 300% FPL and then flattens out at 9.8% of annual income until 400% FPL.
The relationship between a family's poverty level and the percentage of their income that is allotted to pay for health insurance. Note that the Senate Bill provides for Medicaid coverage up to 133% of the federal poverty level while the House Bill provides for Medicaid coverage up to 150% of the federal poverty level. Adapted from the texts of the House Bill and Senate Bill.

How each bill determines subsidies also differs. Each bill subsidizes the cost of the premium and the out-of-pocket costs but are more or less generous based on the relationship of the family's income to the federal poverty level.

The amount of the subsidy given to a family to cover the cost of a premium is calculated using a formula that includes the family's income relative to the federal poverty level. The federal poverty level is related to a determined percentage that defines how much of that family's income can be put towards a health insurance premium. For instance, under the House Bill, a family at 200% of the federal poverty level will spend no more than 5.5% of its annual income on health insurance premiums. Under the Senate Bill, the same family would spend no more than 6.3% of its annual income on health insurance premiums. The difference between the family's maximum contribution to health insurance premiums and the cost of the health insurance premium is paid for by the federal government. To understand how each bill can affect different poverty levels and incomes, see the Kaiser Family Foundation's subsidy calculator

Subsidies Under House Bill

The House plan subsidizes the cost of the plan and out-of-pocket expenses. The cost of the plan is subsidized according to the family's poverty level, decreasing the subsidy as the poverty level approaches 400%. The out-of-pocket expenses are also subsidized according to the poverty level at the following rates. The out-of-pocket expenses are subsidized initially and are not allowed to exceed a particular amount that will rise with the premiums for basic insurance.

For those making between This much of the out-of-pocket expenses are covered And no more than this much will be spent by the individual (family) on out-of-pocket expenses.
up to 150% of the FPL 97% $500 ($1,000)
150% and 200% of the FPL 93% $1,000 ($2,000)
200% and 250% of the FPL 85% $2,000 ($4,000)
250% and 300% of the FPL 78% $4,000 ($8,000)
300% and 350% of the FPL 72% $4,500 ($9,000)
350% and 400% of the FPL 70% $5,000 ($10,000)
Subsidies Under Senate Bill

The Senate plan subsidizes the cost of the plan and out-of-pocket expenses. The cost of the plan is subsidized according to the family's poverty level, decreasing the subsidy as the poverty level approaches 400%. The out-of-pocket expenses are also subsidized according to the poverty level at the following rates. The out-of-pocket expenses are subsidized initially and are not allowed to exceed a particular amount that will rise with the premiums for basic insurance.

For those making between This much of the out of the out-of-pocket expenses are covered
up to 200% of the FPL 66%
200% and 300% of the FPL 50%
300% and 400% of the FPL 33%

The Senate Bill also seeks to reduce out-of-pocket costs by setting guidelines for how much of the health costs can be shifted to a family within 200% of the poverty line. A family within 150% of the FPL cannot have more than 10% of their health costs incurred as out-of-pocket expenses. A family between 150% and 200% of the FPL cannot have more than 20% of their health costs incurred as out-of-pocket expenses.

The House and Senate bill would differ, somewhat, in their overall impact. The Senate bill would cover an additional 31 million people, at a federal budget cost of nearly $850 billion (not counting unfunded mandates) over ten years, reduce the ten year deficit by $130 billion, and reduce the deficit in the second decade by around 0.25% of GDP. The House bill, meanwhile, would cover an additional 36 million people, cost roughly $1050 billion in coverage provisions, reduce the ten year deficit by $138 billion, and slightly reduce the deficit in the second decade.[137]

Commentary on the cost analysis

It is worth noting that both bills rely on a number of "gimmicks" to get their favorable deficit reduction numbers. For example, both institute a public long-term care insurance known as the CLASS Act - because this insurance has a 5-year vesting period, it will appear to raise revenue in the first decade, even though all the money will need to be paid back. If the CLASS Act is subtracted from the bills, the Senate bill would reduce the deficit by $57 billion over ten years, and the House by $37 billion. In addition to the CLASS Act, neither bill accounts for the costs of updating Medicare physician payments, even though the House did so on a deficit-financed basis shortly after passing their health care bill.[138]

The Senate bill also begins most provisions a year later than the House bill in order to make costs seem smaller:

Surgeon Atul Gawande wrote in The New Yorker that the Senate and House bills passed contain a variety of pilot programs that may have a significant impact on cost and quality over the long-run, although these have not been factored into CBO cost estimates. He stated these pilot programs cover nearly every idea healthcare experts advocate, except malpractice/tort reform. He argued that a trial and error strategy, combined with industry and government partnership, is how the U.S. overcame a similar challenge in the agriculture industry in the early 20th century.[139]


U.S. insurance health, life, property, and car insurance industry related political contributions from 1990 to 2010

The health and insurance sectors gave nearly $170 million to House and Senate members in 2007 and 2008, with 54% going to Democrats, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. The shift in parties was even more pronounced during the first three months of 2009, when Democrats collected 60% of the $5.4 million donated by health-care companies and their employees, the data show. Lawmakers that chair key committees have been leading recipients, some of whom received over $1.0 million in contributions.[140]

Matt Taibbi wrote in Rolling Stone that President Obama and key senators who have advocated single-payer systems in the past are unwilling to face the insurance companies and their powerful lobbying efforts. Key politicians on the Senate Finance Committee involved in crafting legislation have received over $2 million in campaign contributions from the healthcare industry. Several of the firms invited to testify at the hearings sent lobbyists that had formerly worked for Senator Max Baucus, the chair of the committee. Mr. Baucus stated in February 2009 that: "There may come a time when we can push for single-payer. At this time, it's not going to get to first base in Congress."[141]

George McGovern wrote that significant campaign funds were given to the chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over health-care legislation: "Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, a Democrat, and his political action committee have received nearly $4 million from the health-care lobby since 2003. The ranking Republican, Charles Grassley of Iowa, has received more than $2 million. It's a mistake for one politician to judge the personal motives of another. But Sens. Baucus and Grassley are firm opponents of the single-payer system, as are other highly placed members of Congress who have been generously rewarded by the insurance lobby."[142]

Debate about political organizing methods

Much of the coverage of the debate has involved how the different sides are competing to express their views, rather than the specific reform proposals. The health care reform debate in the United States has been influenced by the Tea Party protest phenomenon, with reporters and politicians spending time reacting to it.[8][9][10] Supporters of a greater government role in healthcare, such as former insurance PR executive Wendell Potter of the Center for Media and Democracy- whose funding comes from groups such as the Tides Foundation-[143] argue that the hyperbole generated by this phenomenon is a form of corporate astroturfing, which he says that he used to write for CIGNA.[144] Opponents of more government involvement, such as Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity- whose funding comes mainly from the Koch Industries corporation-[145] counter-argue that those corporations oppose a public-plan, but some try to push for government actions that will unfairly benefit them, such as forcing private companies to buy health insurance for their employees.[146] Journalist Ben Smith has referred to mid-2009 as "The Summer of Astroturf" given the organizing and co-ordinating efforts made by various groups on both pro- and anti-reform sides.[10]

Arguments concerning health care reform

Liberal arguments

Some have argued that health care is a fundamental human right. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services."[147] Similarly, Franklin D. Roosevelt advocated a right to medical care in his 1944 proposal for a Second Bill of Rights.[148]

Liberals were the primary advocates of both Social Security and Medicare, which are often targeted as significant expansions of government that has overwhelming satisfaction among beneficiaries.[149] President Obama argued during a September 2009 joint session of Congress that the government has a moral responsibility to ensure quality healthcare is available to all citizens. He also referred to a letter from the late Senator Ted Kennedy.[150]

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has argued that Republican and conservative strategies in opposing healthcare are based on spite: "At this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America." He argued that Republican opposition to Medicare savings proposed by the President is "utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe. Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan — and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare’s creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs."[151] More recently he urged the House of representatives to pass the Senate's bill, which he called "centrist."[152]

Conservative arguments

Conservatives have historically argued for a lesser role of government in healthcare. For example, Conservative GOP columnist Bill Kristol advocated several free-market reforms instead of the Clinton plan during the 1993-1994 period.[153] He also argued that the results of the debate would have important ideological and political ramifications:

"...[T]he long-term political effects of a successful... health care bill will be even worse — much worse... It will revive the reputation of... Democrats as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class..."[154][155]

During the 2009 reform debate, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. opined in July, 2009:

"If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."[156]

Investigative reporter and columnist John Stossel has remarked that "Insurance invites waste. That's a reason health care costs so much, and is often so consumer-unfriendly. In the few areas where there are free markets in health care -- such as cosmetic medicine and Lasik eye surgery -- customer service is great, and prices continue to drop."[157] Republican Senator and medical doctor Tom Coburn has stated that the healthcare system in Switzerland should serve as a model for U.S. reform. He wrote for New York Sun that reform should involve a market-based method transferring health care tax benefits to individuals rather than employers as well as giving individuals extra tax credits to afford more coverage.[158]

Some critics of the bills passed in 2009 call them a "government take over of health care."[159] FactCheck called the phrase an unjustified "mantra."[160] (Factcheck has also criticized a number of other assertions made during 2009 by advocates on both sides of the debate).[161] CBS News described it as a myth "mixed in with some real causes for concern."[162] President Obama disputes the notion of a government takeover and says he no more wants government bureaucrats meddling than he wants insurance company bureaucrats doing so.[163][unreliable source?] However, other sources contend the bills do amount to either a government takeover or a corporate takeover, or both.[164][165][166][167][168] This debate occurs in the context of a "revolution...transforming how medical care is delivered:" from 2002–2008, the percentage of medical practices owned by doctors fell from more than 70% to below 50%; in contrast to the traditional practice in which most doctors cared for patients in small, privately owned clinics, by 2008 most doctors had become employees of hospitals, nearly all of which are owned by corporations or government.[169]

Republicans also argue the proposed excise tax on medical devices and drugs would increase the tax burden on vaccine makers.[126][170]

Some conservatives argue that forcing people to buy private insurance is unconstitutional;[171] legislators in 38 states have introduced bills opposing the new law,[172] and 18 states have filed suit in federal court challenging the unfunded mandates on individuals and states.[173][174][175][176]

Senator Judd Gregg (R) said in an interview regarding the passage of healthcare reform: "Well, in my judgment we’re moving down a path towards...Europeanization of our nation. And our great uniqueness, what surrounds American exceptionalism, what really drives it is that entrepreneurial individualistic spirit which goes out and takes a risk when nobody else is willing to do it or comes up with an idea that nobody else comes up with and that all gets dampened down the larger and more intrusive government becomes, especially if you follow a European model."[177]

Changes in Support and Opposition to the current leading proposals

Though in 2008 then-Senators Obama and Biden campaigned against requiring adults to buy insurance,[178] in July 2009 President Obama reportedly changed his mind and announced that he was "now in favor of some sort of individual mandate as long as there's a hardship exemption."[179] Also, in contrast to earlier advocacy of a publicly-funded health care program, in August 2009 Obama administration officials announced they would support a health insurance cooperative, reportedly in response to deep political unrest amongst Congressional Republicans and Democrats, and citizens in town hall meetings held across America.[180][181] Public approval of President Obama's handling of healthcare dropped from 57% to 49% between April and July 2009,[182] and fell to 36% by January 2010.[183]

After Massachusetts voters replaced a Senator who had voted for the Senate bill with a candidate who promised to vote against it, Senator Jim Webb called on Senate leaders to suspend any further votes on the bill until the new Senator is sworn into office.[184] In addition, members of the United States House of Representatives reportedly "indicated they would not quickly pass the bill the Senate approved last month."[184]

Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, who had earlier voted for the Senate Finance Committee bill, in December 2009 announced she would oppose the revised bill: "Here we are today with a bill that's dramatically different and more expansive than the Finance Committee -- in fact it's 1,200 pages more -- it was placed on the floor just short of three weeks ago."[185][186]

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, whom the White House had brought much attention to as a Republican supporter, said in his State of the State address, "Health care reform, which started as noble and needed legislation, has become a trough of bribes, deals and loopholes."[187] Schwarzenegger added, "California's congressional delegation should either vote against this bill that is a disaster for California or get in there and fight for the same sweetheart deal Senator [Ben] Nelson of Nebraska got for the Cornhusker State."[187]

Polling data has been somewhat conflicting and results can depend on how the question is asked.[188] Rasmussen Reports in January 2010, found that 10% of the American public have withdrawn their support from leading Congressional proposals compared with June 2009, and reported a majority opposing them since November 2009.[189] Other polls in December 2009 and January 2010 found opposition slightly higher at 57%.[190][191] However, when asked generically whether Congress should vote for or against "a healthcare bill" (rather than the specific bills passed in each chamber), Gallup poll results show opinion has remained more evenly divided, fluctuating mostly within the margin of error since September 2009.[192]

In 2010, 82% of Obama voters who voted for Brown in Massachusetts support the public option.[193]

Debate after passage of Senate and House bills

The Senate bill was passed with 60 senators voting in favor during December 2009.[194] The House bill was passed in November 2009 by a vote of 220-215.[195] The next legislative step is for a reconciled bill to be voted on in both chambers, or either chamber could pass the other's bill as-is.[196]

Arguments against passing the current bills

New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote that passing the bills "would be political suicide. It would be the act of a party so arrogant, elitist and contemptuous of popular wisdom that it would not deserve to govern."[197]

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote, "No one in his or her right mind could have believed that a workable, efficient, cost-effective system could come out of the monstrously ugly plan that finally emerged from the Senate after long months of shady alliances, disgraceful back-room deals, outlandish payoffs and abject capitulation to the insurance companies and giant pharmaceutical outfits."[198] Some "say the health care bill has been gutted to appease insurance companies;" for example, Howard Dean called the Senate bill "an insurance company's dream" and said that "at this point, the bill does more harm than good."[199]

Some advocates of single-payer healthcare, likewise argue against the current bills. Writing in the Huffington Post, Michael Moore called the current bills a "massive government bailout for the insurance industry."[200] Opposing the House bill, Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich called it "the wrong approach" and a subsidy rewarding "the wrong people" including the insurance companies.[201][202] Dr. Marcia Angell, past editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote "Kucinich was right" to vote against the House bill, and warned that if it becomes law:

"First, health costs will continue to skyrocket, even faster than they are now, as taxpayer dollars are pumped into the private sector. The response of payers -- government and employers -- will be to shrink benefits and increase deductibles and co-payments...people will conclude that we've tried health reform and it didn't work. But the real problem will be that we didn't really try it. I would rather see us do nothing now, and have a better chance of trying again later and then doing it right."[203]

After voting to take up the Senate bill, Bernie Sanders emphasized that his support for the final bill hinges on whether the Senate makes the measure "stronger and more effective for working families and taxpayers in Vermont and America."[204]

Arianna Huffington wrote, in recommending George Mason University Professor Janine Wedel's The Shadow Elite, that "what may well have started out as a push for real reform ended up as an industry windfall. After all, the final Senate bill (which looks like it will be the base for the final bill sent to Obama), is essentially the same bill that was drawn up months ago in Max Baucus' office by Baucus staffers who used to be health care executives, and by health care lobbyists who used to be Baucus staffers."[205] The Huffington Post has published many articles saying the current proposals would be counterproductive.[206][207][208] (Randall Amster, "The Road to Healthcare is Paved with Bad Intentions"</ref>[209]

Arguments for passing the current bills

A letter from 47 health policy experts from various universities and think tanks was sent to Congressional leaders on January 22, 2010 arguing that the House should pass the Senate bill as-is. Thereafter, only Presidential signature would be required.[210]

President Barack Obama argued for passing healthcare reform in his State of the Union Address in January 2010: "[W]e are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care.... Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office -– the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress –- our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades."[211]

Both the AARP and the American Medical Association have endorsed the House bill.[212]

Consequences of not controlling healthcare costs

Medicare and Medicaid Spending as % GDP (data from the CBO)

The Congressional Budget Office reported in June 2008 that:[213]

"Future growth in spending per beneficiary for Medicare and Medicaid—the federal government’s major health care programs—will be the most important determinant of long-term trends in federal spending. Changing those programs in ways that reduce the growth of costs—which will be difficult, in part because of the complexity of health policy choices—is ultimately the nation’s central long-term challenge in setting federal fiscal federal Medicare and Medicaid outlays will rise from 4% of GDP in 2007 to 12% in 2050 and 19% in 2082—which, as a share of the economy, is roughly equivalent to the total amount that the federal government spends today. The bulk of that projected increase in health care spending reflects higher costs per beneficiary rather than an increase in the number of beneficiaries associated with an aging population."

In other words, all other federal spending categories (e.g., Social Security, Defense, Education, and Transportation) would require borrowing in order to be to be funded, which is not feasible.

President Obama stated in May 2009: "But we know that our families, our economy, and our nation itself will not succeed in the 21st century if we continue to be held down by the weight of rapidly rising health care costs and a broken health care system...Our businesses will not be able to compete; our families will not be able to save or spend; our budgets will remain unsustainable unless we get health care costs under control."[214]

The Senate bill (without including amendments) would increase the share of GDP consumed by medical spending from the current 17% to 20.9% by 2019, compared to 20.8% under current law, according to the Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.[215]

The final CBO cost estimates indicated that the ultimate passage of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 would yield a net reduction in the federal deficit of $143 billion over the 2010–2019 period.[216]

Elements of the reform signed in March 2010

A Reuters article summarized the key reforms that were later passed in March 2010; the following list is taken nearly verbatim from that article.[217]

Within one year of enactment (2010-2011)

  • Insurance companies barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits eliminated and annual limits restricted.
  • Insurers barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
  • Young adults able to stay on their parents' health plans until age 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.
  • Uninsured adults with a pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.
  • A temporary reinsurance program is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.
  • Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the "doughnut hole" coverage gap will get a $250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $6,154 is spent.
  • A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.
  • A 10% tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.

During 2011

  • Medicare provides 10% bonus payments to primary care physicians and general surgeons.
  • Medicare beneficiaries will be able to get a free annual wellness visit and personalized prevention plan service. New health plans will be required to cover preventive services with little or no cost to patients.
  • A new program under the Medicaid plan for the poor goes into effect in October that allows states to offer home and community based care for the disabled that might otherwise require institutional care.
  • Payments to insurers offering Medicare Advantage services are frozen at 2010 levels. These payments are to be gradually reduced to bring them more in line with traditional Medicare.
  • Employers are required to disclose the value of health benefits on employees' W-2 tax forms. [218]
  • An annual fee is imposed on pharmaceutical companies according to market share. The fee does not apply to companies with sales of $5 million or less.

During 2012

  • Physician payment reforms are implemented in Medicare to enhance primary care services and encourage doctors to form "accountable care organizations" to improve quality and efficiency of care.
  • An incentive program is established in Medicare for acute care hospitals to improve quality outcomes.
  • The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the government programs, begin tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions.

During 2013

  • A national pilot program is established for Medicare on payment bundling to encourage doctors, hospitals and other care providers to better coordinate patient care.
  • The threshold for claiming medical expenses on itemized tax returns is raised to 10% from 7.5% of income. The threshold remains at 7.5% for the elderly through 2016.
  • The Medicare payroll tax is raised to 2.35% from 1.45% for individuals earning more than $200,000 and married couples with incomes over $250,000. At a rate of 3.8%, the tax is imposed on some investment income for that income group.
  • A 2.9% excise tax is imposed on the sale of medical devices. Anything generally purchased at the retail level by the public is excluded from the tax.

During 2014

  • State health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals open.
  • Individuals with income up to 133% of the federal poverty level qualify for Medicaid coverage.
  • Healthcare tax credits become available to help people with incomes up to 400 percent of poverty purchase coverage on the exchange.
  • Premium cap for maximum "out-of-pocket" pay will be established for people with incomes up to 400 percent of FPL.[219][220] Section 1401 of PPACA explains that the subsidy will be provided as an advanceble, refundable tax credit[221] and gives a formula for it calculation.[222] Refundable tax credit is a way to provide government benefit to people even with no tax liability[223](example: Child Tax Credit). According to White House and Congressional Budget Office the maximum share of income that enrollees would have to pay for the "silver" healthcare plan would vary depending on their income relative to the federal poverty level, as follows:[224][225] for families with income 133–150% of FPL will be 4-4.7% of income, for families with income 150–200% of FPL will be 4.7-6.5% of income, for families with income 200–250% of FPL will be 6.5-8.4% of income, for families with income 250-300% of FPL will be 8.4-10.2% of income, for families with income from 300-400% of FPL will be 10.2% of income. In 2016,the FPL is projected to equal about $11,800 for a single person and about $24,000 for family of four.[224] See Subsidy Calculator for specific dollar amount.[226]
  • Most people required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fine if they don't.
  • Health plans no longer can exclude people from coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
  • Employers with 50 or more workers who do not offer coverage face a fine of $2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees aren't counted for the fine.
  • Health insurance companies begin paying a fee based on their market share.

During 2015

  • Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.

During 2018

  • An excise tax on high cost employer-provided plans is imposed. The first $27,500 of a family plan and $10,200 for individual coverage is exempt from the tax. Higher levels are set for plans covering retirees and people in high risk professions.

Debate since passage of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

Since the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), debate has surrounded a particular provision within the bill regarding new tax reporting requirements. Known as the 1099 provision, it requires businesses to file 1099 forms for every transaction (both goods and services) of $600 and above. Several business groups have come out in strong opposition to the provision, including the small business lobby organization the National Federation of Independent Business, which states that the provision creates a new paperwork compliance burden for small business. The group details several reasons how small business owners will be affected.[227] Another prominent business group, the Chamber of Commerce has also expressed opposition to the provision, and advocates for full repeal.[228] Since the election, Republicans and Democrats have acknowledged that the provision will prove to be costly and burdensome for small businesses, and President Obama has publicly expressed willingness to roll back the new tax reporting requirements.[229]

Both parties have introduced legislation to address the provision, yet they differ over how to pay for the $17 billion in revenue the provision was expected to raise. The most recent legislative action occurred on November 29, 2010, when the Senate voted on two amendments offered to S. 510, the Food Safety bill. S.A. 4702, offered by Senator Johanns, fully repeals the new 1099 requirement, and offsets the bill with unused stimulus funds. SA 4713, offered by Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, also fully repeals the new 1099 requirement and does not have an offset. Both amendments failed to pass. The Republican Party has expressly stated that the repeal of the 1099 Form provision will be a top healthcare legislative priority in the 112th Congress as they gain control of the House [230]

See also


  1. ^ Kotlikoff and Burns-The Coming Generational Storm 2005 Edition-Book Summary
  2. ^ Charlie Rose-Peter Orszag Interview Transcript-November 3, 2009
  3. ^ CBO Letter to Rep. John Dingle-November 20, 2009
  4. ^ CBO-Letter to Senator Harry Reid-Corrected-December 19 2009
  5. ^ Bloomberg-Obama Health Overhaul May Fail to Cut Care Spending-December 2009
  6. ^ a b Summary of Obama Plan
  7. ^ a b Remarks by the President to a Joint Session of Congress-September 2009
  8. ^ a b Bowser, Andre (August 22, 2009). "TEA Party protests health care reform plan". East Valley Tribune. Retrieved August 26, 2009. [dead link]
  9. ^ a b Copeland, Mike (August 15, 2009). "Local Tea Party members protest Obama health care plan at Chet Edwards' Waco office". Waco Tribune. Retrieved August 26, 2009. [dead link]
  10. ^ a b c Ben Smith (August 21, 2009). "The Summer of Astroturf". Politico. Retrieved August 28, 2009. 
  11. ^ a b For-Profit Hospitals Cost More and Have Higher Death Rates, Physicians for a National Health Program
  12. ^ For-Profit HMOs Provide Worse Quality Care, Physicians for a National Health Program
  13. ^ "Prelims i-ixx/E" (PDF). 
  14. ^ David Gratzer, Why Is not Government Health Care The Answer?, Free Market Cure, 16 July 2007
  15. ^ Glen Whitman, "WHO’s Fooling Who? The World Health Organization’s Problematic Ranking of Health Care Systems," Cato Institute, February 28, 2008
  16. ^ Capital: In health care, consumer theory falls flat David Wessel, Wall Street Journal, September 7, 2006.
  17. ^ "Rand study finds patients' ratings of their medical care do not reflect the technical quality of their care" (Press release). RAND Corporation. 2006-05-01. Retrieved 2007-08-27. 
  18. ^ Chang JT, Hays RD, Shekelle PG, et al. (May 2006). "Patients' global ratings of their health care are not associated with the technical quality of their care". Ann. Intern. Med. 144 (9): 665–72. PMID 16670136. 
  19. ^ "American Journal of Public Health" (PDF). 
  20. ^ "State-by-state breakout of excess deaths from lack of insurance" (PDF). 
  21. ^ A 1997 study carried out by Professors David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler (New England Journal of Medicine 336, no. 11 1997) "concluded that almost 100,000 people died in the United States each year because of lack of needed care—three times the number of people who died of AIDs." The Inhuman State of U.S. Health Care, Monthly Review, Vicente Navarro, September 2003. Retrieved 2009-09-10
  22. ^ WHO (May 2009). "World Health Statistics 2009". World Health Organization. Retrieved 2009-08-02. 
  23. ^ "Health Insurance Premiums Rise 6.1% In 2007, Less Rapidly Than In Recent Years But Still Faster Than Wages And Inflation" (Press release). Kaiser Family Foundation. 2007-09-11. Retrieved 2007-09-13. 
  24. ^ Schoen, C.; Cathy Schoen, M.S., Michelle M. Doty, Ph.D., Sara R. Collins, Ph.D., and Alyssa L. Holmgren (2005-06-14). "Insured But Not Protected: How Many Adults Are Underinsured?". Health Affairs Web Exclusive Suppl Web Exclusives: W5–289–W5–302. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.w5.289. PMID 15956055. Retrieved 2007-08-11. 
  25. ^ Dale Yamamoto, Tricia Neuman and Michelle Kitchman Strollo, How Does the Benefit Value of Medicare Compare to the Benefit Value of Typical Large Employer Plans?, Kaiser Family Foundation, September 2008
  26. ^ Himmelstein DU, Warren E, Thorne D, Woolhandler S (2005). "Illness and injury as contributors to bankruptcy". Health Aff (Millwood) Suppl Web Exclusives: W5–63–W5–73. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.w5.63. PMID 15689369. 
  27. ^ Todd Zywicki, "An Economic Analysis of the Consumer Bankruptcy Crisis", 99 NWU L. Rev. 1463 (2005)
  28. ^ "Robert Reich Public Option Video". 
  29. ^ "How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option, And What Obama and the Rest of Us Must Do". 
  30. ^ "The Greatest Investors: Warren Buffett". Retrieved March 5, 2010. 
  31. ^ Funk, Josh (Mar. 1, 2010). "Buffett says economy recovering but at slow rate". San Francisco Chronicle ( Retrieved Apr. 3, 2010. 
  32. ^ Remarks by the President to the AMA-June 15, 2009
  33. ^ Charlie Rose-Peter Orszag Interview-November 3, 2009
  34. ^ "Denis Cortese Interview on Charlie Rose Show-July 2009". 
  35. ^ a b "The New Yorker-The Cost Conundrum-June 2009". 
  36. ^ "NYT-Leonhardt-In Health Reform, A Cancer Offers and Acid Test". The New York Times. July 8, 2009. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  37. ^ "Peter Diamond-Healthcare and Behavioral Economics-May 2008" (PDF). 
  38. ^ "The New Yorker-Gawande-The Cost Conundrum-June 2009". 
  39. ^ "NYT-Leonhardt-In Health Reform, A Cancer Offers and Acid Test-July 2009". The New York Times. July 8, 2009. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  40. ^ "Humana's third-quarter earnings rose 65% amid improved margins at its government segment and prior-year investment losses" Wall Street Journal
  41. ^ GAO-Letter to Honorable Christopher "Kit" Bond-March 2002 The letter states "A carrier is generally an entity (either an insurer or managed health care plan) that bears the risk for and administers a range of health benefit offerings."
  42. ^ GAO-Private Health Insurance-2008 Survey-February 27, 2009
  43. ^ "CBO-Testimony to Senate Finance Committee-June 2008" (PDF). 
  44. ^ The Economist-Stemming the Tide-November 2009
  45. ^ "NYT-Singer-Why We Must Ration Healthcare-July 15, 2009". The New York Times. July 19, 2009. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  46. ^ "CBO Historical Tables" (PDF). 
  47. ^ "OMB Director Orszag-IMAC". 
  48. ^ Ignatius, David (August 20, 2009). "Washington Post-Paging Dr. Reform-August 2009". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  49. ^ CDC Home Page-Economic Consequences of Overweight and Obesity-Retrieved October 6 2009
  50. ^ WSJ-Cost of Treating Obesity Soars-July 28, 2009
  51. ^ CDC Home Page-Health Consequences of Obesity and Overweight-Retrieved October 6 2009
  52. ^ WebMD-Retrieved October 6, 2009-Obesity Costs U.S. $147 billion per year
  53. ^ CDC-Recommended Community Strategies and Measurements to Prevent Obesity in the U.S.- July 24, 2009
  54. ^ Washington Post-U.S. Obesity Epidemic Continues to Grow-July 17, 2008
  55. ^ NYT-Leonhardt-The Way We Live-Fat Tax-Aug 09
  56. ^ WSJ-Another Thing Big in Japan-Measuring Waistlines-June 2008
  57. ^ "LA Times-Gingrich-Healthcare Rationing-Real Scary". Los Angeles Times. August 16, 2009.,0,3301006.story. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  58. ^ "NYT-President Obama-Why We Need Healthcare Reform-August 15, 2009". The New York Times. August 16, 2009. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  59. ^ "NYT-Singer-Why We Must Ration Healthcare-July 2009". The New York Times. July 19, 2009. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  60. ^ PolitiFact, There's rationing in health care now, and there still would be under reform bill
  61. ^ "NYT-Leonhardt-Healthcare Rationing Rhetoric Overlooks Reality-June 2009". The New York Times. June 17, 2009. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  62. ^ Jim Dwyer, August 25, 2009, Distortions on Health Bill, Homegrown, The New York Times, Distortions on Health Bill, Homegrown
  63. ^ a b c Angie Drobnic Holan, PolitiFact, PolitiFact's Lie of the Year. Accessed August 5, 2010.
  64. ^ "Office of the Governor of Alaska-Healthcare Decisions Day". 
  65. ^ Farber, Dan (August 8, 2009). "CBS News-Palin Weighs In On Healthcare Reform-August 2009". 
  66. ^ Matthew Daly, August 14, 2009, The Chicago Tribune, AP story, Palin stands by 'death panel claim
  67. ^ Ezra Klein, August 10, 2009, The Washington Post, Is the Government Going to Euthanize your Grandmother? An Interview With Sen. Johnny Isakson.
  68. ^ Alonso-Zaldivar, Ricardo (August 15, 2009). "Palin is wrong: There's no 'death panel' in health care bill". Alaska Journal of Commerce. 
  69. ^ Connolly, Ceci (August 1, 2009). "Talk Radio Campaign Frightening Seniors". The Washington Post. 
  70. ^ Farber, Daniel (August 8, 2009). "Palin Weighs In on Health Care Reform". CBS News. Retrieved 2009-08-11. 
  71. ^ Holan, Angie Drobnic (August 10, 2009). "Palin 'death panel' claim sets Truth-O-Meter ablaze". Retrieved 2009-08-27. 
  72. ^ PolitiFact, August 7, 2009, Sarah Palin falsely claims Barack Obama runs a 'death panel'
  73. ^ TIME, August 12, 2009, Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's 'Deadly Doctor,' Strikes Back
  74. ^ ABC News, Jake Tapper, August 7, 2009, Palin Paints Picture of 'Obama Death Panel' Giving Thumbs Down to Trig
  75. ^ Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, August 15, 2009, AP, Palin is wrong: There's no 'death panel' in health care bill, Palin is wrong: There's no 'death panel' in health care bill
  76. ^ Mark Murray, August 18, 2009, NBC, Americans still skeptical about Obama’s plans
  77. ^ Murphy, Patricia (2009-08-13). "Democrats Shift Criticism From 'Birthers' to 'Deathers'". Politics Daily. Retrieved 2009-10-01. 
  78. ^ "Peter G. Peterson on Charlie Rose-July 3, 2009-About 17 min in". 
  79. ^ "RCP-Roth-The High Cost of Medical Malpractice-August 2009". 
  80. ^
  81. ^ Philip K. Howard (Friday, July 31, 2009). "Health Reform's Taboo Topic". The Washington Post. 
  82. ^ "The Medical Malpractice Myth". 
  83. ^ "Bloomberg-Malpractice Lawsuits are Red Herring in Obama Plan". 
  84. ^ a b Ibid, Bloomberg.
  85. ^ "RCP-Roundtable on Health Reform Costs-August 2009". 
  86. ^ "Log in". 
  87. ^ "CBO - Limiting Tort Liability for Medical Malpractice". 
  88. ^ "Alternative malpractice insurance mechanisms". 
  89. ^ "Feldman-Washington Post-Ten Things I Hate About Healthcare Reform-Sept 09". The Washington Post. September 6, 2009. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  90. ^ Forbes-The Doctor Drought-Marc Siegel-December 2009
  91. ^ December 4 2009
  92. ^ a b Forbes-Bruce Bartlett-Health Care Costs & Reform-July 2009
  93. ^ "American Association of Colleges of Nurses-Fact Sheet-Retrieved September 7, 2009". 
  94. ^ ""White House Reports Billions of Improper Payments in 2009" CNN, November 2009" (URL). November 18, 2009. Retrieved November 18, 2009. 
  95. ^ ""High-Risk Series: An Update" U.S. Government Accountability Office, January 2009 (PDF)" (PDF). Retrieved November 13, 2009. 
  96. ^ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Medicare: More Effective Screening and Stronger Enrollment Standards Needed for Medical Equipment Suppliers, GAO-05-656 September 22, 2005
  97. ^ Medicare Fraud and Abuse: DOJ Continues to Promote Compliance with False Claims Act Guidance, GAO Report to Congressional Committees, April 2002
  98. ^ Carrie Johnson, "Medical Fraud a Growing Problem: Medicare Pays Most Claims Without Review," The Washington Post, June 13, 2008
  99. ^ a b c d Ira Rosen and Joel Bach, producers, CBS-60 Minutes-Medicare Fraud-A $60 Trillion Business, CBS News, October 25, 2009
  100. ^ Newsweek-The Hospital That Could Cure Healthcare-December 7, 2009
  101. ^ Krugman-One Nation, Uninsured-June 2005
  102. ^ PNHP-Single Payer
  103. ^ "OECD Health Data 2008: How Does Canada Compare" (PDF). 
  104. ^ Costs of Health Administration in the U.S. and Canada Woolhandler, et al., NEJM 349(8) Sept. 21, 2003
  105. ^ Physicians for a National Health Program. "What is Single Payer?"
  106. ^ Timid ideas will not fix health mess. By Marie Cocco, Sacramento Bee, February 10, 2007
  107. ^ Republican Website-Roadmap for America's Future
  108. ^ Roadmap for America's Future-Charts & Graphs-February 2010
  109. ^ Washington Post-Robert Samuelson-Paul Ryan's Lonely Challenge-February 2010
  110. ^ Forbes-Bartlett-Paul Ryan's Budgetary Holy Grail-February 2010
  111. ^ CBO-Ryan Roadmap Letter-January 2010
  112. ^ Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
  113. ^ CNN-Senate Passes Healthcare Bill-December 24, 2009
  114. ^ Herszenhorn, David M. (January 29, 2010). "Searching for Some Light Amid the Heat". The New York Times. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  115. ^
  116. ^ a b c d e f g Accessed 24 December 2009
  117. ^ a b c Accessed 24 December 2009
  118. ^ a b c Accessed 24 December 2009
  119. ^ Section 1322 of H.R. 3590
  120. ^ Accessed 24 December 2009
  121. ^ CBO Letter to John Dingle-November 20, 2009
  122. ^ CBO Letter to Harry Reid-Corrected-December 19, 2009
  123. ^
  124. ^
  125. ^ Mundy, Alicia (October 30, 2009). "Drug Makers Face Tougher Measures". The Wall Street Journal. 
  126. ^ a b
  127. ^ Klott, Gary (December 19, 1987). "Conferees Complete Bill For $23 Billion Tax Rise". The New York Times. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  128. ^ Wallstreet Journal online
  129. ^
  130. ^
  131. ^
  132. ^ "Robert J. Samuelson on the health bill's burdens for the young". The Washington Post. November 23, 2009. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  133. ^
  134. ^ Kolata, Gina (August 12, 2003). "Annual Physical Checkup May Be an Empty Ritual". The New York Times. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  135. ^
  136. ^ "Senate Health Care Follies". The New York Times. December 6, 2009. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  137. ^
  138. ^
  139. ^ Gawande-Testing, Testing-New Yorker-December 2009
  140. ^ "Washington Post-Dan Eggen-Industry Cash Flowed to Drafters of Reform-July 2009". The Washington Post. July 21, 2009. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  141. ^ "Taibbi-Rolling Stone-Sick and Wrong-September 2009". 
  142. ^ McGovern, George S. (September 13, 2009). "McGovern Op Ed-Washington Post-September 2009". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  143. ^ "Financial Supporters". Center for Media and Democracy. Retrieved 2008-06-03. 
  144. ^ Wendell Potter. "Commentary: How insurance firms drive debate". CNN. Retrieved August 26, 2009. 
  145. ^ Secret Money Project. By Will Evans. National Public Radio. Published October 6, 2008. Accessed September 1, 2009.
  146. ^ "The Grass Is AstroTurf-er on the Other Side". Fox News. August 12, 2009. Retrieved August 26, 2009. 
  147. ^ Judith Asher, "Chapter 2 What is meant by the right to health?" The Right to Health: A Resource Manual for NGOs, AAAS Science and Human Rights Program, 1200 New York Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20005, site updated 04/25/2005.
  148. ^ Franklin D. Roosevelt, “"The Economic Bill of Rights” Excerpt from 11 January 1944 message to Congress on the State of the Union.
  149. ^ Adler GS.. "Medicare beneficiaries rate their medical care: new data from the MCBS (Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey)". Health Care Financ Rev.. 
  150. ^ Lee, Jesse (September 9, 2009). "President Obama Healthcare Speech of September 9, 2009". 
  151. ^ "NYT-Krugman-The Politics of Spite-October 2009". The New York Times. October 5, 2009. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  152. ^ Krugman-NYT-Do The Right Thing-January 21, 2010
  153. ^ "WSJ-William Kristol-How to Oppose the Health Plan and Why-January 1994". 
  154. ^ "William Kristol Memo-Defeating President Clinton's Healthcare Proposal-December 1993". 
  155. ^ "a second copy". 
  156. ^ "White House Plans to Use DeMint's "Waterloo" Quote to Rally the Troops". 
  157. ^ John Stossel (October 16, 2006). "Health Insurance Isn't All It's Cracked Up to Be". ABC News. 
  158. ^ Tom Coburn (March 10, 2008). "Competition Solves Health Care". New York Sun. 
  159. ^
  160. ^
  161. ^
  162. ^ "Fighting Myths of Health Care "Takeover"". CBS News. August 27, 2009. 
  163. ^ Jackson, David (August 11, 2009). "Obama: No government bureaucrats -- or insurance bureaucrats". USA Today. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  164. ^ Douthat, Ross (December 17, 2009). "Obamanomics and Health Care". The New York Times. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  165. ^
  166. ^
  167. ^ blog
  168. ^
  169. ^ Harris, Gardiner (March 25, 2010). "More Doctors Giving Up Private Practices". The New York Times. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  170. ^
  171. ^ Seelye, Katharine Q. (September 26, 2009). "A Constitutional Debate Over a Health Care Mandate". The New York Times. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  172. ^
  173. ^ Fletcher, Pascal (April 7, 2010). "UPDATE 3-Florida says challenge to healthcare reform widens". Reuters. 
  174. ^
  175. ^ "14 states sue to block health care law -". CNN. March 23, 2010. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  176. ^ Pierog, Karen (March 22, 2010). "UPDATE 3-U.S. states plan lawsuits against health reforms". Reuters. 
  177. ^ Charlie Rose-Senator Judd Gregg Interview-March 2010
  178. ^
  179. ^ "Obama backs health insurance mandate, with waivers". Reuters. July 15, 2009. 
  180. ^
  181. ^
  182. ^ Balz, Dan; Cohen, Jon (July 20, 2009). "Approval Ratings Drop for Obama on Health Care, Other Issues". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  183. ^ Condon, Stephanie (January 11, 2010). "Poll: Obama Health Care Marks Hit New Low". CBS News. 
  184. ^ a b Cooper, Michael (January 21, 2010). "G.O.P. Senate Victory Stuns Democrats". The New York Times. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  185. ^
  186. ^
  187. ^ a b Condon, Stephanie (January 6, 2010). "Schwarzenegger Rails Against Health Care Bill". CBS News. 
  188. ^ A Public Plan: It Depends On How You Ask the Question (Time Magazine Online edition
  189. ^
  190. ^
  191. ^
  192. ^ Healthcare Bill Support Ticks Up; Public Still Divided, January 2010
  193. ^ Suzy Khimm, "Grijalva: Use Reconciliation to Pass Reform" The New Republic January 20, 2010.
  194. ^ Senate Bill H.R. 3590 - Voting Score
  195. ^ HR3962-Vote Results
  196. ^ CNN-Democrats Consider Backup Plan for Healthcare Reform-January 17, 2010
  197. ^ Brooks, David (January 19, 2010). "The Pragmatic Leviathan". The New York Times. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  198. ^ Herbert, Bob (January 23, 2010). "They Still Don't Get It". The New York Times. Retrieved May 4, 2010. 
  199. ^
  200. ^
  201. ^
  202. ^
  203. ^
  204. ^
  205. ^
  206. ^ Additional examples include:
  207. ^
  208. ^
  209. ^
  210. ^ Pollack-The New Republic-January 22, 2010
  211. ^ President Obama-State of the Union Address-January 2010
  212. ^ President Obama Announces AARP and AMA Endorsements-NYT-Nov 5, 2009
  213. ^ "CBO Testimony" (PDF). 
  214. ^ "President Obama-Weekly Radio Address - May 16, 2009". 
  215. ^
  216. ^
  217. ^ Reuters-Factbox-U.S. Healthcare Bill Would Provide Immediate Benefits-March 19, 2010
  218. ^ Michael Best & Friedrich LLP. "IRS Provides Guidance on W-2 Reporting of Employer-Sponsored Group Health Plan Coverage". The National Law Review. Retrieved August 8, 2011. 
  219. ^ "Health Care Reform Bill 101". The Christian Science Monitor. 
  220. ^ "5 key things to remember about health care reform". CNN. March 25, 2010. 
  221. ^ "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/Title I/Subtitle E/Part I/Subpart A". 
  222. ^ "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/Title I/Subtitle E/Part I/Subpart A:Premium Calculation". 
  223. ^ "Refundable tax credit". 
  224. ^ a b "An Analysis of Health Insurance Premiums Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". 
  225. ^ "Policies to Improve Affordability and Accountability". The White House. 
  226. ^ "Kaiser Family Foundation:Health Reform Subsidy Calculator -- Premium Assistance for Coverage in Exchanges/Gateways". 
  227. ^ "New 1099 Tax Reporting Requirements: An Expensive New Burden on Small Business Owners". Retrieved 2010-12-06. 
  228. ^ "1099 Reporting Issues - U.S. Chamber of Commerce". Retrieved 2010-12-06. 
  229. ^ "No Rx for health care compromise". Politico. 2010-11-03. Retrieved 2010-12-06. 
  230. ^ "Senate Democrats float health tax repeal". Politico. 2010-11-12. Retrieved 2010-12-06. 

External links

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Нужен реферат?

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Health care reform in the United States — ] Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 16% of GDP. [ NHE Fact Sheet.asp#TopOfPage National Health Expenditure Data: NHE Fact Sheet, ] Centers for Medicare and Medicaid… …   Wikipedia

  • Health insurance in the United States — The term health insurance is commonly used in the United States to describe any program that helps pay for medical expenses, whether through privately purchased insurance, social insurance or a non insurance social welfare program funded by the… …   Wikipedia

  • Health care in the United States — ] Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 15.2% of GDP, second only to the tiny Marshall Islands among all United Nations member nations. The health share of GDP is expected to continue its historical upward trend,… …   Wikipedia

  • Prescription drug prices in the United States — are the highest in the world. The prices Americans pay for prescription drugs, which are far higher than those paid by citizens of any other developed country, help explain why the pharmaceutical industry is and has been for years the most… …   Wikipedia

  • Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States — Health spending per capita, in U.S. dollars PPP adjusted, with the U.S. and Canada compared amongst other first world nations. Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States are often made by government, public health and… …   Wikipedia

  • Health care reform — This article is about political movements affecting the delivery of health care and health care systems. For more information about movements to improve health, see Health reform. Health care reform is a general rubric used for discussing major… …   Wikipedia

  • Massachusetts health care reform — Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority Connector Logo Agency overview Formed April 12, 2006 Headquarters …   Wikipedia

  • Progressivism in the United States — Part of the Politics series on Progressivism Schools American Progressivism Modern liberalism Progressive education Ideas Anti racism Civil liberties …   Wikipedia

  • United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs — The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs is a committee of the United States Senate charged with oversight in matters related to the American Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native peoples. A Committee on Indian Affairs existed from 1820 to… …   Wikipedia

  • Policies promoting wireless broadband in the United States — Policies promoting wireless broadband are policies, rules, and regulations supporting the National Wireless Initiative , a plan to bring wireless broadband Internet access to 98% of Americans.[1] Spectrum is limited and much of it already in use …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”