I am amazed that more people are not revolting against this bill. Some concerns:

1. The “public plan” option sounds nice on paper, but people should recognize that this will quickly result in a single payer system. The public plan, subsidized by taxpayers, will essentially create a price point which private insurance companies cannot match. Insurance companies will go out of business (which will eliminate a lot of jobs – not good for the economy) and we’re left with a single payer system.

2. Decreased competition will drive up prices. This is a simple law of economics which many doctors and members of congress don’t seem to understand. We need MORE competition when it comes to health care, not less. That is exactly why out-of-pocket procedures like lasik eye surgery and plastic surgery have come down in price.

3. People like Bob Doherty keep saying that people will still be able to have private insurance, but that is misleading. According to the bill, an individual can keep their private insurance if they have it when the public plan option is put in place. But if they do not have insurance at that time, they will be part of the public plan. Once you are part of the public plan, you cannot buy your own private insurance. Guess what? This will also serve to eliminate private insurance, leaving us with a socialized system.

4. Have doctors thought about what this means for them? If a doctor does not want to participate in the public plan, then they can only opt out if they agree to take Medicare patients. “Comparative effectiveness” sounds evidence-based and everything, but what if it is used to dictate exactly what doctors can and cannot do? Will they be able to make their own decisions, based on the years they spent being trained? Or will the government be telling them what to do? More importantly, how will this type of doctor be able to provide the care patients deserve? Moreover, there is no guarantee that the doctors on the front line (internists, family physicians, and pediatricians) will be making more money or working fewer hours than they are now. And if they don’t like the working conditions under this new system, how will they improve them (answer: they won’t).

5. In this push for more government control, have the “experts” even looked at how systems with more government influence work? Have they seen how inefficient they are? Have they realized how the doctor-patient relationship is threatened under such a system? We can look to Massachusetts to see how it might work on a national scale. Costs have risen, and many people are not getting the care they were promised. All of this makes me wonder: is this push for more government control over health care truly about health care, or is it about control?

6. Originally, house members were not even going to get ample time to read this bill before voting. Pages that nobody knew about were added to it. This goes against what Obama promised during his campaign about people having at least five days to read a bill before having to vote on it. That’s not right, and should cause everyone to question the motives behind this bill.

7. Reform needs to happen, for sure. But this isn’t the solution. The health care in our country is the best in the world with regard to the quality of the physicians and technological advances. It isn’t perfect, but I think the foundation is already there. Let’s focus on that and take small steps toward improving it, instead of ramming through drastic changes without thinking about the consequences. Despite all the whining about how bad things are, they could be a LOT worse.

As long as there are government mandates or programs (EMTALA, SCHIP, Medicare, Medicaid), it is unlikely there will ever be a true ‘free market’ in health care. JDS, who do you think pays for these programs? (Hint: we taxpayers pay for them now.)

Botox, Lasik, tooth-whitening and similar cash-only procedures act like ‘free market’ goods and services because no insurance company, public or private, pays for these procedures. Many physicians (who are neither dermatologists or plastic surgeons)take “seminars” so they can offer Botox and liposuction in their offices to augment their incomes. After a friend of mine received a glossy brochure about Botox and similar procedures offered by her gynecologist, she changed practices posthaste.
JDS channels the zombies Shadowfax speaks of in this post:

It’s over 1,000 pages long. On the 16th page, it says whatever health care you have now, it’s going to be gone within five years. So your current health care plan, you’re not going to have in five years. What you’re going to have is a government plan and a federal bureau is going to decide what you get or if you get anything at all…

The provision they are referring to, by the way, is this… So what does this mean in the real world? 1. Individual health insurance policies already in effect may continue but may not be altered.2. Employer-sponsored plans have five years to get in compliance with the new regulations. 3. New individual health insurance policies will only be available through the National Insurance Exchange (NIE).Remember, the NIE is where the private insurers will be competing against one another as well as against a possible public plan, if it survives.  It is not synonymous with a “government plan,” though I hope that consumers will have the choice of a government-sponsored insurance policy.  The new regulations referred to are simply those I’ve outlined many times before — community rating, guaranteed issue, and a minimum benefits floor.

Countries like the Netherlands and France have hybrid health care programs, in which both the government and insurance companies play a role. No matter what statistics are used, these – and other – countries cover all their citizens, with better outcomes, at lower costs than the US. We might have the tools and technology, but many Americans, including those with health insurance, are one illness or accident away from bankruptcy.

RVRBS and CPT need to be thrown out – physicians are now paid for piecework, which overvalues procedures and undervalues cognitive services, hence the dearth of primary care physicians.

WRT health courts – there is no way a physician can get a ‘jury of peers’, unless the sole criterion is that the 12 selected are also members of the human race. My experiences of jury duty (served on an eminent domain case, was in pools for – but got excused from – civil and criminal DUI lawsuits) are that lawyers do their best to exclude people of color, older people, younger people, anyone working in or studying technical/engineering disciplines, and anyone who appears to make decisions based on logic and reasoning rather than emotion. Why not use health courts or something like the vaccine court, and lose the ridiculous jury awards and hyperinflated malpractice premiums ?

Being a Utah health insurance underwriter for http://www.BenefitsManager.net and http://www.DentalInsuranceUtah.net I have the opportunity to consult within many state insurance committee meetings. Some interesting changes took place in Utah with the passage of House Bill 188 that other states should pay attention to and perhaps the federal legislation. The bill created a state insurance pool requiring private health insurance carriers to come together and underwrite risk. Through governmental guidelines (which I have traditionally opposed in the past) they created a arena of underwriting rules that essentially guarantees the participating insurance carriers a ?no loss? or ?no gain? over each other. What this essentially means is that they pool the underwriting medical risk and spread it evenly among each carrier. All the sudden, we see guaranteed issued policies. We see rates drop by as much as 13% In Utah, our average monthly family rate is $867 for a $500 deductible plan. Some of the family rates within the ?Utah Insurance Exchange Portal? are approaching $700.00 now. To see more of HB 188 and see how Utah wrangled change without increasing taxes or rationing go to: http://www.prweb.com/releases/utah_health_insurance/health_care_reform/prweb2614544.htm
The private insurance sector can be corralled into cooperation where they can meet their goals. You have to understand that health insurance carriers are only looking for a 4-5% administration fee. That is it and they are more efficient as compared to a governmental portal that will cost more money. Take a look at Utah folks!