Sebelius: Congress Must Pay for Health Care Reform

Romney flat out lied when said Massachusetts covered 98% of its residents without a public option. His state has one of the most lenient Medicaid eligibility requirements of all states. Here is Georgia Medicaid is pretty much restricted to those who are on disability or are extremely poor pregnant women. In Massachusetts Medicaid is open to any poor person and a lot of middle income folks too. That’s why there should be a federal public option – because of the wide disparities between they way states cover those who slip though the cracks in the current system. Romney knows this – he continues to be a toady for the insurance industry.

we are the only industrialized nation that doesnt have health care for all..sad iraq had helath care for all iran does many third world nations do..but according to rethuglicans here in america people should go without and not be able to go to hospital..so sad that republicans are so evil.

The only serious issue is; do we continue to pay for over costly pills and medical bills for the private sector Drug Stores and Doctors? Or helping them to continue Wall Street expenses and expensive vacations, disregarding Main Street needs? It will take strong government to say for its people. Enough is enough. This is draining our countries finances and it must be stopped at all cost. A move to reduce health care cost could be a dangerous plan when going up against big business. They will not be happy at all to anyone mudding their waters, if you value life.

Health care is the one agenda item that is worth borrowing for. There are lots of projects in the Obama budget that can wait until later. It seems that we have all these bailouts - some necessary (perhaps), many not - and Obama has all these new projects that cost a fortune (alternative energy, energy efficient cars, lowering pollution emissions, etc.).

Why are our President's priorities to fund health care reform last? The money for that has to come out of savings - which means rationing and denying care. But we will deal with fuels and energy digging deep into our pockets. Its not about saving for all these projects. They just cost money and we spend it.

Why are the Presidents priorities so backwards? Is this all about what we want (the American people) or about what the President wants?

If its about him, then he is not listening to us. Or perhaps he is listening to us and doing what he wants anyway.

"Is this all about what we want (the American people) or about what the President wants?" - Actually Obama was very open about his public option to support healthcare choice during the election. A majority of the American people voted for him. Thats democracy. So the real question is: Is this all about what the American people want or what the insurance corporations want?

I ask where in the Constitution is the Legislative branch or the Executive branch given the power to provide health care to the citizens.

What makes any sane person think that the government can manage health care. Look at what the government has done to Social Security, Medicare, Public Housing, and now AIG. With this kind of a track record they have proven that they aren’t even capable of successfully operating the local burger stand. To start with where will the money come from and not cause an increase to the government debt any more than it is? In his first 132 days in office Obama has increased the debt of the government by 694.2 Billion dollars. At this rate he will increase the debt of the Government by 1.9 Trillion dollars in his first year alone and 7.6 Trillion dollars by the end of his 4 year term in office. If he is elected for a second term with the same rate of spending then the government debt will increase by 15.3 Trillion dollars. Since the debt owed by the Government was 10.6 Trillion dollars when he took office an additional 7.6 Trillion will almost double the debt in just 4 years to 18.3 Trillion dollars and at the end of his second term it will have increased to an unthought-of 26 Trillion dollars. The interest alone on this amount of debt will consume more than half of the entire federal budget. This does not even include what Obama wants to put into healthcare which has been estimated may actually cost upwards of 1.6 Billion dollars. This is money that the Government does not have and cannot conceivably have without raising taxes to the point where everyone in the country will be paying a much higher tax rate than they are currently paying. No matter how you want to put it any healthcare reform will require government involvement which will lead to required government spending so the money is an important issue, if it’s not there then healthcare will have to wait until such time as it is available. Obama promised change but this is ridiculous he makes all who came before him look minor on their spending while in office. Time to stop spending and do what should have been done long ago, cut spending which is not specifically authorized in article 1 of the constitution.
There is NO money for healthcare, there is NO money for education reform or any other dreams in the upcoming budget. Look at what the government has done to Social Security, Medicare, Public Housing, and now AIG.

As far as the federal government cost of health care to its own employees you can Google FEHB and see what the different plans available to federal employees are. It should be noted that these are the same exact plans which are available to our elected federal officials. The government does not pay 100% of the employee health insurance and the portion they pay is considered a benefit in lieu of wages just like most major employers who provide a health benefit to their employees. Usually the larger the company (more employees) the more likely is that they provide the health insurance rather than paying the larger wage as most employees would rather have access to the health insurance instead of the small increase in wages. For an employee in California with a family looking at an HMO (California Health Net, High Option) this amounts to roughly $4.40 an hour. For the same family in California looking at a FFS (Blue Cross Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan, Standard Family) this also amounts to $4.40 an hour. Small business's which have fewer employees cannot afford to offer this type of benefit to their employees without having to make drastic cuts (layoffs) or drastically raise the price of their finished product/service both of which will probably cause the business to fail in time due to lack of profit. The federal employee still has to pay to participate in the insurance ($292 a month for the HMO and $357 a month for the FFS) so the government does not provide 100% of the insurance to the government employee. Probably the best that the government could do for health care would be to somehow expand the FEHB type of insurance for the general public to participate in but with no government funding for the general public. You have to remember that the federal employee is receiving his government share of the insurance funding as part of his wage and benefit package and performing labor in return, the general public would provide no benefit to the government for any government funding of their health care. Perhaps another question you may want to ask yourself is how much would I pay for healthcare insurance? Would you pay $1055.00 per month to be able to partake of the HMO I used as an example? Would you be willing to pay $1120.00 per month to be able to participate in the FFS I used as an example? If yes then maybe the answer is not government paid healthcare but the government allowing all citizens to participate in their healthcare programs at their own expense (they would have to pay the total of what the government pays for their employee plus what the employee pays). I would imagine that there are some plans which would be cheaper but they might not offer the same level of health care as a more costly one. If this was the way they go then it would be up to each individual to carefully compare costs and benefits between plans before making possibly a wrong choice.

When Medicare was created in 1965, benefits were relatively limited and retirees paid a substantial percentage of the costs of their own care. In 1965, Congressional actuaries expected Medicare to cost $3.1 billion by 1970. In 1969, that estimate was revised to $5 billion, and it actually came in at $6.8 billion. Things have gotten worse since, and Medicare today costs $455 billion and rising. Medicaid was intended as a last resort for the poor but now covers one-third of all long-term care expenses in the U.S. -- that is, it has become a middle-class subsidy for aging parents of the Baby Boomers. Its annual bill is $227 billion, and so far this fiscal year is rising by 17%. Schip was pitched a decade ago as a safety net for poor kids, Schip is now open to families that earn up to 300% of the poverty level, or $63,081 for a family of four. Any new federal health plan will inevitably follow the same trajectory, no matter how much Senators might claim they've guaranteed otherwise. The Lewin Group consultants estimate that 119 million people who now have private insurance could potentially be captured by the government under the Obama public option. This is on top of the 90 million already in Medicare or Medicaid. This would guarantee a spending explosion that would over time lift federal outlays as a share of GDP into the upper 20% range or higher. This health-care debate isn't like the "stimulus" bill, which was largely about short-term spending and deficits. This one is about whether to turn 17% of the U.S. economy entirely and permanently into the arms of the government.

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, during the phase-in period of Social Security, Congress was able to grant generous benefit increases because the system had perpetual short-run surpluses. Congressional amendments to Social Security took place in even numbered years (election years) because the bills were politically popular, but by the late 1970s, this era was over. For the next three decades, projections of Social Security's finances would show large, long-term deficits, and in the early 1980s, the program flirted with immediate insolvency. From this point on, amendments to Social Security would take place in odd numbered years (years that were not election years) because Social Security reform now meant tax increases and benefit reductions. When revenues exceed expenditures, as they have in most years, the excess is invested in special series, non-marketable U.S. Government bonds, thus the Social Security Trust Fund indirectly finances the federal government's general purpose deficit spending. It is also interesting to note that the Supreme Court has established that no one has any legal right to Social Security benefits. The Court decided, in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), that "entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right". In simple terms, the decision means that since no one has any legal right to Social Security benefits, Congress can cut or eliminate benefits at any time.

The Trust Fund is regarded by some as an accounting trick which holds no economic significance. Others argue that it has specific legal significance because the Treasury securities it holds are backed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government, which has an obligation to repay its debt. It is important to note, however, that while the Treasury guarantees the interest and principal payments it makes to the Social Security Trust Fund, the benefit payments made from the Social Security Trust Fund to American retirees have no guarantee at all. The Social Security Administration's authority to make benefit payments as granted by Congress extends only to its current revenues and existing Trust Fund balance, i.e., redemption of its holdings of Treasury securities. Therefore, Social Security's ability to make full payments once annual benefits exceed revenues depends in part on the federal government's ability to make good on the bonds that it has issued to the Social Security trust funds. The federal government's ability to repay Social Security, in turn, is contingent on fiscal policies taken today (which have tended to increase deficits and the percent of the budget spent on interest and principal payments) and in the future. Once again in simple terms if you want Social Security then the government is going to have to reduce its debt (lower spending to pay off debt) or raise the FICA taxes to ensure that there is enough coming in during the current year to cover the benefits which are to be paid. Raising the FICA taxes is probably not the way to go as in the coming years there are more people who will be receiving Social Security than there will be people paying the taxes which means that the government has to stop spending on all of their dream programs that they are now trying to pass. Bottom line is the Government does not have this kind of money and there is no way they can get this kind of money without a large tax increases on the entire population.

Additionally the debt of the US Government is a large number and with the spending of the current administration growing rapidly larger. Although the yearly budget does not usually require the pay down of the debt there is a requirement to pay the interest on the debt each year. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the U.S. Treasury Department have warned that debt levels will increase dramatically relative to historical levels if entitlement programs are not reformed. For example, projected expenditures for Medicare and Social Security programs exceed tax revenues by over $40 trillion over the next 75 years. Mandatory expenditures are projected to exceed federal tax revenues sometime between 2030 and 2040 if reforms are not undertaken. The severity of the measures necessary to address this challenge increases the longer such changes are delayed. These organizations have stated that the government's current fiscal path is "unsustainable." Each year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than its income. The Treasury Department has to borrow money to meet Congress's appropriations. We CANNOT continue down this path.

"I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."
-- -- Thomas Jefferson

"Until the National Debt is paid off, the other problems facing our country will remain unsolved. Compound Interest is the 'Eighth Wonder Of The World' and it can bring a nation to its knees."
-- -- C. Morgan Cofer

How short sited some of these comments are on healthcare. What is even more alarming is that doctors are left out of major discussions when it comes to healthcare.

All I know, is that I do not want a healthcare systems like England or Canada. Rationed care with high taxes.

In California we spend billions on healthcare for people who are not citizens, and prisoners too. Just in Sacramento county alone they spend 2.4 million a year on healthcare for illegal immigrants...this is only one county ! They need to bill Mexico for this.

In addition, what should be asked is this: Is it a right or a privilege to have free healthcare ? If it's a right (including illegal immigrants), then who is going to pay for it ?

Finally, Why do Democrats think it's wrong for providers to make profits ? If providers don't have profits, then why be in the industry in the 1st place ? Senator Dodd (A Democrat) from Connecticut has a wife who is on the board of 4 healthcare providers...or at least that's my understanding. He said they hired a lawyer to insure there is no conflict of interest. So what !!

You will not get reform I'm sorry to say, but the end product will be shafting the middle class who are satisfied with their healthcare, who will now get it rationed, with higher premiums because they will have to pay for the have nots. Wait, now that I think of it, we are already doing that.

Congress does not pay for anything, lets get that straight. The middle class pays for everything. We need health care in the country. If we say we love our country, we say we love our government, because we the American people are the government! If congress does not pass a bill this year, they won't have to worry about next year because they won't be in CONGRESS!

Hundreds of billions of dollars of annual savings could be realized for Americans, while eliminating debilitating financial burdens for individuals and businesses by using these health care reforms. This would also be the best economic stimulus package ever. Ask OMB.

1. Set up a civilian, VA style, public health care system for delivering all government funded health care and medications free to everyone choosing to use it, no restrictions, rich, and poor, Medicare, Medicaid, etc everybody who wants public care has it free, all services, all medications, free period.
2. Pay for it with a national sales tax.
3. Let private insurers and care providers compete for everyone who wants private care, unfettered by government mandates, dictating who must be served, at what level, for what price, and totally unregulated but for safety.
4. Businesses that choose public care for their employees will have no financial obligations or any other responsibilities concerning health care.
5. Dispensing health care efficiently, and collecting the money to pay for it cheaply, that's the purpose of the exercise, and no one can compete with the government at these two tasks.

Bill Watson - I would not look at the VA healthcare for our veterans, just remember Walter Reed Hospital a couple of years ago and the scandal when the conditions our veterans were living in came to light.

Obama himself has said that the government cannot go into debt any further as we have overspent and it will take generations to pay it off now. Read my earlier post to see how far in debt we really are. The governments number one spending priority needs to be pay down of the federal debt, we are at the point now where the interest alone is $1,000,000,000 per day and the interest has to be paid from the budget each year. You don’t run your household by borrowing more and more money and spending more than you have for income, why should the government not show the same fiscal responsibility that the citizens do?

I'm just guessing here but given their mindset, it sounds like they think they're going to cover some of those who have no coverage by cutting back on benefits for those on Medicaid and Medicare (something which cost Missouri's repub ex-governor his job, by the way). Those on medicaid who are unable to find a doctor who will agree to see them at medicaid rates are flat out of luck. They'll be covered but in name and emergency room only. In real world terms, they won't have coverage. Soundslike the start of a disaster to me.

Single payer is the only thing that will work. I'd worry more about the insurance industry jobs, but heck, no one seems to be worried about all the automotive jobs we're losing. It looks remarkably like if you ain't white collar, you don't matter irregardless of which party is in power.

Has Dubya written a textbook on how to turn a first world nation into a third world banana republic in 8 years or less? He should. It's probably the only thing he was ever successful at.

Hey Sandcrab, what kind of health insurance do you have? I trust from what you are saying you will turn down Medicare when you hit 65. Right? You don't want to be part of a "one payer" system, do you! You would rather go out and pay, say $20-30,000 a year right!

This new healthcare idea will put us all in sync with the current welfare generation. We will be treated as such. We that have worked all of our lives will never let this happen!

Sebelius knows nothing about health care. All she knows is abortion. Government will pay for abortions now I guess. What are her qualifications for the office she is holding. She was governor of Kansas--whoooaaa wait a minute--she did attend the Bilderberg conference though.

Obama says he wants a government plan to provide competition in health care. There are hundreds of insurance carriers competing now. What he wants is to start a universal health care plan run by the government. It will happen not because the government does a better job or runs it more efficently; but because the government will set their reimbursement level so that private plans continue to subsidies the government plan. In short order we will have only one health care plan run by the government.

The government has a poor track record of running anything and especially health care. Just look at Medicare and Medicaid that are both essentially bankrupt. In additon, some bureaucrat will be deciding what treatment you receive, rather than your doctor, just like occurs with Medicare now!

Dear Bill Watson:
Obviously you have never been to the Bronx, New York V.A. for medical care. I guarantee you would never suggest that again. (especially in light of today's news that over 500 patients at several different V.A.'s were infected with aids, hep.B etc. from improperly/incorrectly sterilized colonoscopy equipment). I'd put a grenade in my ### first...it be safer.

If congress wants Gov't Health Care. Then maybe they should be the ginny pigs and try it out before they shove it down our throats.

Regarding health insurance: the prevailing opposition to public option seems to be that it will criple competition in the private sector.
My husband has leukemia and will be losing his HIPAA mandated policy on July 1st because we cannot afford the $1,200/month premium.
If you have never had the pleasure of calling insurance companies to ask about plans they offer for people with pre-existing conditions, you're missing out on some real fun.
Every call ends with, "I'm sorry ma'am, we have nothing for you."...even the calls to his current insurer, BlueCross/BlueShield of Tennessee.
So, I ask, where is this competition everybody keeps squalking about?
There was a time that competitive Capitalism in America did produce the best goods/services at the best possible price. Today American Capitalism is defined by how much money a company/stockholder made by the final bell.
Prove me wrong. Find a health insurer who will provide coverage for a 45 year old man who had the bad luck to get leukemia. Give us a public option and my husband gets to live.

Less then 10 yrs ago US election so muddled by pros we swept it under the rug & embraced debacles. Hey McCain, You got a plank in Your eye!

Sandcrab,

Nice post. Right on.

If Congress passes a multi-TRILLION dollar Nationalized Health Care fiasco, they know their butts will be mud next year. The MAJORITY of the people in this country now put Health Care near the bottom of the list of important projects. Number ONE is reducing the deficit!!! These idiots are willing to make our great-grandchildren SLAVES of the government for several generations. NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Congress doesn't pay for anything. It's our money we're talking about here, not Congress'. I'd like to have the freedom to choose how to spend my money, not have the government spend it for me.

Our Congressmen have already tested a single-payer govenment system of healthcare.They have used it for years. It's one of their job benefits. Never heard any of them complain about it. Never heard any of them say they had to wait, or that their healthcare was rationed.
But if they truly believe that the private sector can do a better job, let them prove it by giving up their government healthcare benefits, and buy private insurance on the open market, like so many of us have to do.

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW IF ANY HEALTH CARE REFORM WILL HAPPEN IN THIS COUNTRY YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ASK THE LOBBYIST. LOBBYIST MAKE OUR LAWS ON MEDICAL CARE NOT CONGRESS!