• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Live Blogging Pelosi's Press Conference

    Majority Leader Steny Hoyer discusses the liberal plans for health care reform, assuring Americans that they will be able to keep their current health plan. If you believe that, then you believe Speaker Pelosi never knew about enhanced interrogation.

    With a public plan, the federal government would create the rules for the “game” in which it plans to compete. But the government would not just be a neutral umpire in the game. It would also own one of the competing teams, namely the public plan.

    It’s impossible to believe that Congress and the Administration could resist setting rules—and interpreting those rules—in favor of their own public plan. Independent estimates show that as many as 119 million Americans would no longer be in private coverage.

    As Congresswoman Schakowsky will tell you, the end goal is definitely a single-payer system. That’s why many supporters of a single-payer system, where the government runs the whole health system, are suddenly converts to choice and private competition as long as there is a public plan.

    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to Live Blogging Pelosi's Press Conference

    1. Zack says:

      We must move to single-payer health NOW. Slowing health care costs doesn't stop them from rising. It only stops them from rising as fast. Instead of 7-8% a year they are suggesting that 5-6% a year is progress. When my insurance premiums are 40% of my income, any increase (even 1%) is too much. Single Payer would issue a 2% payroll tax increase. "Tax increase?? Oh no… I won't pay more taxes!!" Although, then my health insurance cost would be 2% of my income. Thats 38% more money in my pocket. And I would have choice of doctor, no deductable, no or lower copay, no in network/out of network confusion. no primary care or specialist worries, no perferred perscriptions vs. nonperferred. I would probably save more than 38% in the end. If Health Insurance costs are less than 2% of your income, you can tell me no. But for the vast vast vast majority of you, that isn't so.

    2. Brian Rawlings, Utah says:

      There are too many problems with a federal single payer system.

      1) It is a socialist answer. I don't want the federal government owning the healthcare. I don't want them backing car warranties. I don't want them owning banks. The government is to protect the country and provide an environment where citizens can exercise their own agency in business and in charity to meet their own needs and the needs of others. America was built on capitalism and a small, limited federal government. That is what made it great! That is what made it different.

      2) A single payer system presupposes entitlement to healthcare. The constitution doesn't entitle everyone to healthcare. It doesn't force everyone to pay for my healthcare. Yet we are in the middle of an entitlement mindset in america has to provide everything to everyone.

      3) Since when has the government been an efficient administrator of any program? In a market system, there are additional reasons to try to increase efficiency, lower costs, and provide excellent care. A government system will just multiply paperwork and lower efficiency. Medicare, medicaid and social security are an increasing cost on the gdp, and are stark examples of inefficient government programs. They are a foreshadowing of a single payer system.

      4) Costs will increase dramatically because of utilization. The present increase in healthcare costs is mostly due to utilization. People go to the doctor more. People want an MRI rather than just an x-ray — or the doctor sends them to get an MRI because they don't want a malpractice lawsuit if they only ordered an x-ray. So what will happen to taxes when a hip replacement costs any patient about $100, as it does now to a medicaid/medicare patient (my aunt just had one), or when open heart surgery costs any patient $100 (she just had that one too). The combined surgeries cost well over a million dollars to tax payers. What happens then, when utilization starts raising the costs of taxes – except there is now way to opt out of taxes the same way people opt out of insurance.

    3. Shiu says:

      The current health care crisis is a direct result of the Clinton era so-called reform which fundamentally solidified the for profit health insurance monopoly. The idea of managed care that Clinton promoted has been an utter failure. Be aware, that the same forces are at work now in pursuit of a public option which continues to keep the status quo, just like the managed care has done. Without removing the insurance/HMOs from the equation there will be no cost containment, or genuine health care reform. We need to get rid of the parasitic health insurance monopoly, and not make this another bailout for the corporations. Single Payer is the only real solution. The time is NOW!

    4. Zack says:

      I would like to respond to all points made by Brian.

      1)For Profit health insurance is a type of socialism. A group of people are being subsadized by one entity. The difference between this entity is either A)A for-profit insurance company that is looking to make money on the participants or B)The government which is set up to not turn a profit. Government wouldn't advertise for its health care. Private insurers do. I don't want my money for my health care going to advertising. Does anyone?

      2)Our country was founded on the principle of "Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness". Have you ever had to go without health care? So much for that American dream. How about if we have a single payer health care and if you don't want it, fine, you don't have to have health care. How is not being able to afford health care the freedom of choice? I have a guess that if the founding fathers had this issue, they would have determined that health IS a basic right of all people.

      3)Are you implying that private insurers ARE efficient administrators? 31 cents to the dollar are spent on administrative costs. Compare that with the 3 cents on the dollar that Goverment spends on Medicare administration. If everyone had the same plan, no one would have to guess what is and what isn't covered and would save nearly all that wasted 31 cents on the dollar. This market that you are worried about losing would exist in choice of doctor. The better doctors would get the business and would be compensated more than the doctors that no one went to because they weren't good. Sounds like a great competitive free market to me.

      4)You aren't looking at the savings that preventative medicine will have. People that can't afford health insurance now wait until they have to go to the emergency room. Guess who picks up the bill? The tax payer. If they went to a doctor to get treated in advance those extra tax dollars could go to the increasing of diagnosis accuracy through tools like MRI.

    5. Zack says:

      Just double checked by the way. The Preamble to the Constitution clearly states:

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      So yes, the Constitution does provide for the health and well being of every American, rich or poor. THAT is what this country was built on. I don't recall seeing the word Capitalism in the constitution, do you? We were set up as a government by the people, for the people. That means we can elect to have whatever economic style we as voters want.

    6. Barb -mn says:

      We the people promote the general welfare of our own existence, individually, Zack. Welfare under the 1st definition of the word. Any other definitions show government pity, using racism and bias and to inspire weakness of the people and self pity is alright. Come to the government teat, we'll nurse you with everyone elses money as long as you refuse to do for yourself. Government doesn't promote personal strength or personal freedom or personal liberty, they promote weakness.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.