Robert J. Samuelson of the Washington Post writes in his column - “What we need from the next president is somebody who will not just tell you what they think you want to hear but will tell you what you need to hear.” — Barack Obama, Feb. 27, 2008

One job of presidents is to educate Americans about crucial national problems. On health care, Barack Obama has failed. Almost everything you think you know about health care is probably wrong or, at least, half wrong. Great simplicities and distortions have been peddled in the name of achieving “universal health coverage.” The miseducation has worsened as the debate approaches its climax.

There’s a parallel here: housing. Most Americans favor homeownership, but uncritical pro-homeownership policies (lax lending standards, puny down payments, hefty housing subsidies) helped cause the financial crisis. The same thing is happening with health care. The appeal of universal insurance — who, by the way, wants to be uninsured? — justifies half-truths and dubious policies. That the process is repeating itself suggests that our political leaders don’t learn even from proximate calamities.”

To read the rest of the column click here.

Carl Campanile of the New York Post writes - “As the health-care debate comes to a head in Washington, a new political war over medical coverage is about to erupt in Albany, where Gov. Paterson is seeking authority to curb “excessive” rate hikes imposed by insurers.

Tucked in Paterson’s budget plan is a proposal to give the state’s superintendent of insurance “prior approval” over rate hikes in medical premiums, which would end a 10-year experiment with deregulation. President Obama has recommended something similar on the national level…

Paterson estimates the state will save $70 million in the upcoming fiscal year and $150 million by 2012 by restoring state authority over rate hikes. Fewer residents would be forced to go on the public dole by keeping rates lower in the private insurance market, officials said.

He also wants to limit insurer profits by requiring that 85 percent of their revenues go toward customer service.
But insurance companies said giving the state control over insurance premiums would backfire.
“It’s tantamount to price fixing. It will create havoc in the marketplace,” said Leslie Moran, spokeswoman for the NY Health Plan Association.

“There will be political pressure for the executive and the Legislature to keep rates artificially low. You’re not doing anything to control medical costs. You will have plans leave the state and go out of business.”

To read the entire story click here.

Brian Tumulty writes on Pressconnects.com - “Gov. David Paterson said Tuesday he will call a special election “as soon as possible” to fill the 29th Congressional District seat.

That means Southern Tier and Western New York residents of the eight-county district could have a new congressional representative to succeed former Rep. Eric Massa of Corning as soon next month.

A short election timetable could benefit Republican candidate Tom Reed, a former mayor of Corning who has been campaigning for the seat since last July.”

To read more click here.

Mark Weiner of the Syracuse Post-Standard writes - “Central New York’s three congressmen, who voted for health care reform in November, are now undecided as President Barack Obama tries to push his top legislative priority across the finish line.

As a result of their concerns about a final bill, Democratic Reps. Dan Maffei, Michael Arcuri and Bill Owens are emerging as a key block of swing votes that could make or break the historic legislation.
“Their support is important because this thing is going to win or lose by one or two votes,” said Robert Crittenden, executive director of the Herndon Alliance, a nonpartisan group based in Seattle that supports health care reform.

The House passed its health care reform bill by a slim margin, 220 to 215, with the support of all three Central New York congressmen. The Senate passed a different version, back when it had a super-majority of 60 votes.

Now, in a legislative maneuver to avoid Republican opposition, Obama and Democratic leaders are pushing for a House vote as early as March 18 on the Senate-passed bill with a package of changes that would be signed by the president.”

To read the rest of the story click here.

New York Times reporter Robert Pear writes - ” At the heart of President Obama’s drive to rein in health costs is a proposal for federal review and regulation of health insurance premiums, with a new agency empowered to block excessive rate increases.

Obama Turns Up the Volume in Bid for Health Measure (March 9, 2010)
State officials are leery of the proposal, which raises a host of questions: How would Congress define “excessive”? How would the new federal power relate to state insurance regulation?

The proposal has great political appeal. But experts see a serious potential problem: Federal officials will focus on holding down premiums while state officials focus on the solvency of insurers, the ultimate consumer protection.”

To read more click here.

Fortune Magazine’s 2009 analysis of industry profits showed that health plans’ profit margin was 2.2 percent, ranking it far below other health care industries. Yahoo! Finance’s latest analysis of quarterly financial data shows the average profit margin in the health insurance industry is 3.4 percent, compared to 11 percent for the entire health care sector.

What Experts Say About Health Plan Profits

Alwyn Cassil, Center for Studying Health System Change: “‘…this idea that (taking) this $12billion that they have in profits … would fix our health-care spending problems is just a pipe dream.’” (Louisville Courier-Journal, Health insurers defend profits, 02/21/10)

Uwe Reinhardt, Economist, Princeton University: “‘Everyone is beating up on the insurance companies, but you may be shooting at the wrong target…’” (AOLNews, Who’s the Bad Guy in Insurance Premium Hikes?, 02/21/10)

Ezra Klein: “…it’s hard to see how [health plan profit margins of 3.3%] are a primary driver of health-care spending, much less the growth in health-care spending.”

Henry Aaron, Brookings Institution: “Insurance company profits in the large picture have very little to do with the overall rising cost of health care.”

Dr. Peter Kongstvedt: “The insurance companies are not the major drivers of cost inflation…”

Kaiser Health News: “With the nation’s health care spending estimated at $2.5 trillion this year, even the elimination of insurers’ profits and executive compensation would lower health care spending by just 0.5 percent.”

Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch writes in a Washington Post op-ed that President Obama’s threatened use of the “reconcilliation” process to pass the Senate’s health care bill undermines democracy.

He writes: “America’s Founders gave us a system of governance designed to limit government power and maximize liberty. The legislative branch is different from the executive, and the Senate is different from the House. No single branch has all the power. That can be frustrating for those with ambitious agendas, but everyone benefits by respecting those checks and balances even as we fight over policies.

The Wall Street Journal posted on their opinion page a piece that shows how the current health care reforms in Massachusetts may shine a light as to what maybe ahead for the nation if the Obama plan is passed.

“Natural experiments are rare in politics, but few are as instructive as the prototype for ObamaCare that Massachusetts set in motion in 2006. The bills for “universal coverage” are now coming due, and it appears the state political class is prepared to do lasting damage to one of America’s top-flight health-care systems.

Last month, Democratic Governor Deval Patrick landed a neutron bomb, proposing hard price controls across almost all Massachusetts health care. State regulators already have the power to cap insurance premiums, which Mr. Patrick is activating. He also filed a bill that would give state regulators the power to review the rates of hospitals, physician groups and some specialty providers. Those that are deemed too high “shall be presumptively disapproved.”

Mr. Patrick ad-libbed that he had “a whole bunch of pals here who are in the health-care field, and I saw the color drain out of their faces.” Little wonder. The administered prices of Medicare and Medicaid already shift costs to private patients while below-cost reimbursement creates balance-sheet havoc among providers. Now the governor wants to import these distortions to save the state’s heavily subsidized insurance program as costs explode.

It doesn’t even count as an irony that former Governor Mitt Romney (like President Obama) sold this plan as a way to control spending. As with all new entitlements, the rolling cost crisis began almost immediately. For fiscal 2010 taxpayer costs are $47 million over budget, in part due to the recession, and while the $913 million Mr. Patrick requested for 2011 is a 5% increase over 2010, spending has grown on average 6.7% per year…”

To read more click here.

Terry Keenan of the New York Post writes - “Here’s one number that wasn’t mentioned during last week’s Presidential Health Care Summit — the Democrats want to levy a new income tax to fund ObamaCare and the residents of New York and New Jersey will likely end up paying about 25 percent of it.

How so?

Well, the new tax would slap the 2.9 percent Medicare tax on “interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents” for the first time ever, for those households earning $250,000 and above. A similar scheme to add this additional tax on capital gains is said to be close behind. And according to the Manhattan Institute, New Yorkers are, once again, in line to bear the brunt of the proposed tax hike.”

To read more click here.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform provides the following op-ed to Politico.com.

“Now that his yearlong partisan push for government-run health care has so far failed to produce legislative results, President Barack Obama wants Republicans to join him for another White House summit to see if he can salvage his proposals. But unless the president and congressional Democrats address the need for tort reform as a critical component of cutting health care costs, a bipartisan solution seems unlikely.

The unsustainable path of rising costs is a serious national problem. Currently, health care spending exceeds $2.5 trillion per year. By 2019, it is expected to top $4.7 trillion per year. Any hope for cost containment would involve comprehensive medical malpractice reform to end the practice of defensive medicine, close the loopholes that allow frivolous lawsuits to clog up the system, and set reasonable limits on jury awards.

The president seems to think that eliminating wasteful spending alone would get Americans on track to more affordable coverage. But the government’s track record of recouping its losses from waste, fraud and abuse leaves something to be desired. In 2008, for example, the government recovered a meager $35 million from criminal prosecution of fraud once enforcement costs were factored in. Real savings would start when Congress tackles the billion-dollar problem of defensive medicine.

Defensive medicine — when doctors order unnecessary and usually expensive tests and procedures in order to avoid lawsuits — is a major contributor to skyrocketing health care costs. As much as $210 billion is spent on defensive medicine annually — equal to $700 for every U.S. man, woman and child. This helps drive up insurance premiums that are already too high for many Americans. And the excessive malpractice litigation inevitably leads to physician shortages — especially among obstetricians, neurosurgeons and emergency room physicians. ”

To read more click here.