THE HILL
 

Building a house of health (Rep. Jim McDermott)

By Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) - 10/22/09 12:41 PM ET

President Obama is trying to bring about the largest change in social policy in more than 75 years. To do that, he has to get consensus among 300 million Americans who fall into two basic categories: those worried that change will not go far enough, and those worried they will be worse off when the process is done.

The President tried to allay the fears of those who already have health insurance by assuring them that they could stay where they were. At the same time he promised to create a health insurance system for all 300 million. It would be as though you were living in a house and the president came and said he was going to build a new one that would house everyone on your block, perhaps even you.

The President is trying to build a house of health in which all Americans can live without fear of losing their coverage or being threatened by bankruptcy. In the process of building this house he is promising the American people that it will be a better place to live and will not cost more than it presently does.

Congress has shaped the president's vision into legislation that includes major provisions like a public option, prevention and wellness, increased competition and assistance for small business. Together, the president and the Congress have started to pour the foundation and build the structural supports. Much of the argument that is going on today is over the details of what the house will look like, what will be included, and at what cost.

From the beginning, the President clearly understood that not every detail could be worked out before construction started. This house of health is a work in progress that will be created over the next three years. There are those who feel that if we can't know all the details of the construction then we should not begin to build the house. Their plan is to do nothing until everything is decided in final form. People who feel this way don't want a house of health.

The President has succeeded in convincing the majority of the Congress that the most effective way to provide both access to health care and control the cost of health care is to have everyone living in the same house that is universal coverage. No one can be excluded from the house because of where they lived before (pre-existing condition) and no one can be thrown out of the house because of problems they develop while living in a house. Today in the United States some 50 million people do not have a roof over their head and another equal number have a leaky roof that does not protect them when the storms come. Every other industrialized nation in the world has built a house of health for their people. It is inconceivable that the richest democracy on earth cannot provide a house of health to cover everyone.

When one builds a house there is not unlimited money available, so choices have to be made. None of these decisions are simple or easy, but they will be made over the course of the next three years as we build the house of health. Cost estimates will be made, but anyone who has done home construction knows that unexpected things come up which require decisions.

In 1965 when we built the house of health for senior citizens called Medicare, we could not anticipate all the changes that would occur in health care delivery since then. Congress has changed Medicare many times since it was created to keep up with the times and the needs of older Americans. This compassionate flexibility is at the heart of Medicare's popularity and success. The same process will go on as we build the house of health for the American people.

The President and the Congress are about to lay the foundation so that all Americans can live securely in the house of health, unafraid of the consequences of an illness or injury. This house will protect the American people from the weather they cannot predict. We must begin now.

Cross-posted from The Huffington Post.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/64329-building-a-house-of-health-rep-jim-mcdermott

Comments (19)

Amen. May those naysayers that want to obstruct the creation of health care system that will work for our nation and not just the chosen few need to be sent to the asylum now. The insanity needs to stop and rational and sane behavior must prevail.The insurance companies and lobbyists need to realize that this train has left the station and the days of no competition and the perpetual raising of health premiums for coverage that when they get ill may or won't be there. The canard of preexisting conditions (especially what the insurers are trying to categorize as preexisting conditions for women—rape, pregnancy and domestic violence) is insanity. The Republicans and some Democrats are afraid of this because it will work far better than what the insurers are offering now and this will stop the campaign contributions from these robbers. The concern needs to be for their true employers the American people.The American people are waking up from their comatose state where they were fed misinformation and lies. The American people are starting to realize the public option is exactly what they need and the fear mongering is beginning not to work. Hurray and full steam ahead.BY Dianne J. Vidugiris on 10/22/2009 at 15:29
The garbage bill that is tying to get passed is not what was promised, i go by what the bills say not by what i am told they say.BY ANN on 10/22/2009 at 18:16
Granted we need change, but we're talking about a large elephant…what do you do with large elephants? We should take small bites, such as tort reform first and fix medicare along the way. We are not ready to implement a hurried and ad-hoc medical plan produced by clueless politicians. We will never truely realize the outrageous costs that will probably force people to work until they are six-feet under. Our future taxation rates will probably exceed 50% within the next 5-6 years. If you live in New York, your possibly already there. WE WILL ALL end up paying for the healthcare plan —- nothing is free. Everyone conveniently forgets that our current healthcare infrastructure cannot support the entire US popluation. If your lucky enough to be diagnosed with cancer, guess what, take a number and get in line and hope you get treated before it's too late. Take a look at the VA system…they provide veterans with limited healthcare with limited resources. The VA is a great example of a "public healthcare option" that is currently over-taxed, requiring more resources and human capital. A better idea would be to implment a methodical approach of pilot programs in a few select states. Work out the bugs and progressively roll it to other states over time. This would ease the inevidible financial pain over time instead of up front. Gives the Federal government time to build the necessary infrastructure and develop the required human capital…just a thought.BY Terry Patterson on 10/22/2009 at 18:23
We need health care reform. WRONG:We do not need health care reform. We have the best health care system in the world. We need health insurance reform.BY Savant Noir on 10/22/2009 at 19:19
Free market health insurance has caused our current problem. WRONG:It is the government that has caused the current problem. We have not had free market health insurance in this country since 1965. It is not possible to consider our system of medical payment free market when the government controls $.60 of every dollar spent on health care.BY Savant Noir on 10/22/2009 at 19:20
A government option will lower costs and improve quality of care. WRONG: A government option will increase costs and reduce quality of care. In every instance so far government involvement in medical services has caused prices to increase. Medicare spending has increased at a rate greater than 10 times that which was projected. Medicare and Medicaid will be broke in less than nine years. Adding another entitlement program will cause economic disaster. The Congressional Office of Management and Budget has stated that the president's plan is unaffordable. Further, the necessary rationing in order to even begin the program will reduce quality of care.BY Savant Noir on 10/22/2009 at 19:21
Government medical insurance is more cost efficient. WRONG: Government medical insurance is less efficient. The government, by force of law, transfers administrative costs to the private sector. Hospitals and doctors' offices must assume the burden of administration under threat of criminal penalty. This unfunded administrative burden transferred to private individuals and private insurance is then added to the cost of the supposedly free-market healthcare system.BY Savant Noir on 10/22/2009 at 19:22
The government option is necessary in order to prevent loss of insurance by individuals with medical problems. WRONG: Government regulations make it mandatory for hospitals to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay. The government can certainly pass a simple regulation making it illegal for medical insurance plans to be canceled due to illness on the part of the insured. This would be a simple solution but of course would not increase government control over our lives.BY savant noir on 10/22/2009 at 19:23
The government option would ensure treatment for sick individuals who would otherwise have lost health care insurance. It would prevent lifetime limits on medical care. WRONG: This is blatantly untrue. There are definitive limits to Medicare that are not being publicized. For example, a review of Medicare regulations shows it will pay up to a maximum of 90 days in the hospital for each medical incident. After that, a patient must be in a rehabilitation facility for 60 days in a row in order for Medicare to begin another cycle of payment. Similarly, there are limits on most other Medicare services. While private medical insurance may have a total lifetime limit on the amount that can be spent, there is almost never a limit on the number of days in the hospital.BY Savant Noir on 10/22/2009 at 19:24
A government option will not result in rationing. WRONG: The major government options already in existence employ rationing every day. Prohibitively difficult preauthorizatio n, statements of medical necessity, convoluted and complicated paperwork, and often impossible to meet requirements result in rationing on a huge scale. Furthermore, delay in payment, denial of payment for services already rendered and other tactics reduce access to medical care on a widespread basis. The government may not call this rationing but it is an insidious form of rationing that will be an integral part of any government plan. Medicare misuses and abuses its funding and is guilty of literally stealing from hospitals and physicians.As an example of this thievery, due to a change in the corporate status of my practice I was required to apply for a new national provider identification number (NPI) in March of this year. Within several weeks, without exception, all of the private insurance companies had registered the number and were paying on claims. After five months and exhaustive work of over 140 hours by my office staff Medicare and Medicaid had still not paid on a single claim. Finally, on August 14, Medicare made their first payment on claims that were five months old. Yet, if we do not bill Medicare within three months of the date of service, Medicare will not pay us at all. Government regulation and control permeates the entire medical system.BY Savant Noir on 10/22/2009 at 19:25

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.