LyrArc Article Gist
Senate Finance Committee chairman says Senate Democrats have found ways to reduce the cost of the health care plan from $1.6 trillion to $1 trillion. A tax on some employer provided health benefits, cuts in Medicare and Medicaid spending, employers helping to pay the cost of health insurance for low-income workers, and limiting the eligibility for subsidies to households with incomes at 3 times the poverty level or $66,150, instead of 4 times the poverty level. Also a reduction in the plan to give tax credits to small businesses to help them buy insurance. And expansion of Medicad would be delayed to 2013.

LyrArc Article Gist
Walmart comes out in favor of requiring employers to provide health insurance to all workers, a central feature of President Obama's effort to provide near universal coverage in the USA. As the country's largest private employer, employing 1.4 million Americans, this change is significant. In a letter to the President, Walmart CEO Mike Duke, joined by Andrew Stern of the Service Employees International Union, and John Podesta of the Center for American Progress, who also signed the letter, say they are for an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage. Walmart had a couple of reasons for doing this. For one Walmart needed to join the negotiations, as the Senate Finance Committee is considering other proposals that are less favorable to Walmart than employer mandate. Already Walmart is covering 52% of its employees, and has improved health benefits in recent years in response to criticism of the company. The industry average is 45%, according to a 2008 Kaiser Foundation study, and some companies do not provide the health benefits that Walmart does, so this helps level the playing field by requiring all large companies to share the burden. Walmart wants to see effective cost controls to keep costs down, and Rahm Emmanuel, the President's chief of staff, assured Walmart that "cost control and employer mandate are heads and tails of the same coin." Under the plans considered by the Senate Finance Committee under Max Baucus, small businesses are exempted from the employer mandate. Republicans have opposed employer mandate. And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has opposed it saying it would make companies lower wages and cut jobs. Walmart's shift has been gradual. From a company used to providing skimpy benefits, it has evolved as it improved benefits, and two years ago it joined the SEIU union to call for affordable health care for all Americans by 2012. It has Mr Dach as its governmental affairs vice president, and this is significant, as Dach is an advisor to Democratic party politicians....

LyrArc Article Gist
Providing health insurance to the roughly 50 million people that are uninsured costs some $120 billion ayear. This will hae to be paid for through limiting the tax deduction on employer provided health insurance (something Obama campaigned against), or cost reduction in the bloated cost structure for health care in the country. But the same health care providers who committed to cost reduction in arecent conference at the White House are lobbying against some measures that reduce cost.

LyrArc Article Gist
The basic outlines of new health care legislation takes shape as Senators Dodd and Kenedy come up with a plan that scales down subsidies to low-income people to buy insurance. Attached to their revised outline is a budget office analysis thatprojects the plan costing $611 billion over 10 years and with expected changes from the Senate Finance Committee would cover 97 percent of all Americans. And earlier plan received much criticism because the Congressional Budget Office estimated its cost at $1 trillion over 10 years and left 37 million Americans uninsured. In addition there is the revised Medicaid expansions for aid to the poor that would add a couple of humndred billion dollars to the total tab. The administration's goal is to keep the cost down to $1 trillion over 10 years. The legislation as it stands includes the public option which is designed to control insurance costs. Mr. Obama said this week that "the public option would keep insurance companies honest." Employer mandated insurance is part of the Kennedy-Dodd legislation proposal. Employers with 25 or more workerswould have to provide coverage or pay the government an annual fee of $750 for each full-time worker and $375 for each part-time worker. The government pays the startup costs for the public insurance option as a loan to be repaid, and premiums would make the option self-sufficient....

LyrArc Article Gist
The discussion on whether it is feasible to achieve any significant cost savings as long as middle class consumers are not cost conscious about their employer provided health insurance. This would be so as long as their health insurance benefits are not taxed as income. America suffers from a particularly strong case of not minding the price increases imposed by the health care industry as long as its not out of pocket cost. But Obama seems stuck on his insistence that the middle class not take on any burden, that there be no middle class tax in the form of this tax on health care benefits. Critics say even FDR did this by having the middle class pay with payroll contributions for Medicare and Social Security. And even if the 5% of Americans who make more than $280,000 are taxed it will not generate by itself the money to pay for the $1 trillion cost of the plan, as the prospects of cost reduction are uncertain- especially when the basic nature of America's health care system are not changed, like the lack of cost consciousness of consumers of health care when its perceived to be free and employer provided....

LyrArc Article Gist
The tough job President Obama faces as he faces opposition from politicians who have interests to protect, and healthcare businesses with interests to protect. The President has to come up with a plan that is deficit neutral, because financial markets could see a healthcare bill that further widens the deficit as a signal for higher interest rates that would deepen the recession. At the same time each of the three sources of revenue puts him at loggerheads with political leaders in Congress or groups with interests to protect. Limiting income tax deductions for high earners could raise $267 billion in 10 years. It would require taxpayers in the top tax brackets deduct their mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable donations, at the 28% tax rate instead of the 33% and 35% tax rates. The opposition is with democratic leaders that it would hurt charities, universities that depend on tax deductible donations, and taxpayers in high tax cities like New York city that are the home base of Democratic leaders. Yet only 1.4% of households would be affected says the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, says charitable giving would decrease by 2%. The other opposition on this comes from the preference of Senators Baucus and Grassley, who head the Senate Finance Committee, for tax increases or cost savings to come from the health sector. Specifically they want to see the value of workers' employer provided health benefits subject to income taxes. It is a situation in which every sensible person admits the need for healthcare reform and would see the current pace of healthcare costs as unsustainable and dangerous; and after that will just go back to his group and try to preserve as much of the status quo as possible, so as not to disturb by much the benefits or compensation they have secured from the system over the years. Then there are political leaders in Congress with their own preferences, and Congressmen who are the subject of heavy lobbying by these interests. The administration and the Presidents job is to navigate this stream with a workable deficit neutral plan, without any requirement for any group to make sacrifices, and in some situations even small sacrifices for the public interest. Would charitable institutions be hurt that much, what if charitable institutions were exempted, why would other interests the try to obtain the same exemption. Its like the unions trying to keep the old unsustainable goldplated healthcare and other benefits at GM even as the ship was going down. Taxing employer provided employee health benefits as income would raise $2.5 trillion over a decade. The opposition here is from unions which are a force in the Democratic party and which count tax free health benefits as a legacy of the labor movement. Employer provided health insurance covers 160 million American employed and their dependents under the age of 65, so it has a wide impact. Yet most economists favor ending the tax break. They say it mainly goes to upper income taxpayers, and discourages cost consciousness among consumers of health care, thus encouraging excessive spending and surging health care costs. Senior Obama advisors, Peter Orszag, the budget director, and economist Jason Furman favor this approach. So do Republicans in Congress. Senators Baucus and Grassley are not asking for the complete removal of the tax break, what they want to see is capping the value of benefits that go untaxed. If the tax-free limit is $13,000, a policy worth $15,000 would pay income taxes on $2000. A third spource is to spend less on Medicare. About two thirds of the $948 billion in savings Mr Obama has proposed over 10 years comes from a number of reductions in Medicare spending. $177 billion comes from insurance companies bidding for government reimbursements for offering private plans to seniors. $106 billion comes from cutting the subsidies to hospitals serving the uninsured as universal coverage should remove this need. And $110 billion in reduced payments to hospitals and doctors because of productivity gains. A range of industries insurance companies, hospitals, doctors drugmakers, nursing homes, home health care companies and medical device makers, all stand to lose from reduced payments from Medicare and Medicaid. And these groups with interests to protect are another factor in this process of working out a healthcare plan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
How companies like United Health are lobbying aggressively to shape the new helathcare legislation to their benefit. BW says the health insurers like United Health, Aetna and Wellpoint are already winning through clever and effective lobbying of Congress. Former Senator Tom Daschle works as aconsultant for United Health. Senator Conrad who has led aeffort to replace the public plan with nonprofit medical cooperatives, which would be a weaker competitive threat to insurers, is also influened by the insurers. United Health's CEO Helmsley and its person working with Congress on healthcare Simon Stevens met with Conrad on June 4. When lawmakers in Congress cite consulting group Lewin Group, that 88 million or 56% of those with employer provided coverage would desert private insurance for a government run program, they are quoting acompany owned by United Health. The Congressional Budget Ofice says these numbers are too high. United Health has used savy presentations on how to cut costs, and help Blue Dog and other Democrats articulate their positions, to gain influence in shaping the plan to their interests. United Health thus counts a lot with Matheson, and Mike Ross of Arkansas, who are prominent with the 52 Blue Dog Democrats. and with Senator Mark Warner of Virginia. And United Health put together an effective lobbbying group, even hiring the chief of staff of House Democratic leader Steny Hoyer. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The startling truth about health "reforms," - they won't control spending, and without that the whole system of health care will rapidly become unaffordable and unsustainable. Obama's Council of Economic Advisors points out in new report that since 1975 annual health spending per person, adjusted for inflation has grown 2.1 percentage points faster than overall economic growth per person. At this rate health spending which was 5% of the GDP in 1960, and is 18% of GDP today, would grow to 40% of GDP in 2040. Medicare and Medicaid would increase from 6% of GDP now to 15% in 2040, or equal to three fourths of federal spending. Employer paid insurance premiums for families which grew 85% in inflation adjusted terms from 1996 to $11,941 in 2006, would increase to $25,200 by 2025 and $45,000 in 2040. This would force employers to reduce take home pay. Samuelson says the uncontrolled health spending is singlehandedly determining national priorities, reducing discretionary income, raising taxes, widening budget deficits and squeezing other government programs, while it is producing large amount of waste in medical spending. See the link to Prof. Tyler Cowen of George Mason University in NYT, 6/14/ 2009, who cites the habit of doctors to write many expensive tests as one of the prime culprits in the wasteful spending. And in the process it delivers higher cost for lower overall quality of health for the American people. This at a time when many European countries provide live examples of doing it in a better way- lower cost, better health. The serious problem with the Obama health reforms says Samuelson is that it talks about restraining spending but may end up increasing spending. Its talk about controlling spending he says is good intentions, but based more on hopeful thinking, public realtions and risks becoming cosmetic reform. Because to really control spending will require coming to grips with its fundamental cause- hospitals and doctors are paid mostly on a fee-for-service basis and reimbursed by insurance, private or governmental. Such a system encourages doctors and hospitals to provide more services, expensive tests, favors heavy use of expensive medical technologies to increase profits, and for patients to expect them. Samuelson puts his finger on the root of the problem - there is no incentive and every disincentive for all the players in this game , doctors, hospitals and patients to seek reform of this system. For doctors and hospitals the hope would be that this cosmetic "reform" would leave the system basically unchanged, and patients to continue with a lifestyle and expectations that do not not acknowledge the fact that a lot of healthcare does not come from spending but from preventative care, education, good eating and exercize habits, and healthy lifestyles. And the uninsured are no exception, they would simply start consuming the expensive care for lower quality of overall health like everyone else. With this kind of situation confronting us, the views of Samuelson, and Professor Tyler Cowen of George Mason University, as welll as a growing chorus of informed public opinion on this subject, is that insuring the uninsured is a good idea, but doing it within the bounds of the present system, can only increase the costs. And too much is at risk, to rely on what Samuelson calls a scattershot of measures to control costs made up by Congress such as "evidence -based guidelines," "electronic record-keeping," "bundled payments to hospitals, to give the illusion of progress that won't make a serious difference. A sweeping restructuring of health care is needed, that would overhaul "fee-for-service" payment and reduce the fragmentation of care. It will also need what has not even be touched on adequately in the debate. This is the massive need for education in the schools about nutrition, eating, exercize, healthy lifestyles. It would also require opinion leaders in each field from sports and other fields to lead by example and with constant public presence, the media, and companies to form a partnership with private institutions to change existing eating habits and lifestyles that encourage obesity, smoking, fast food eating habits, large portions in restaurants....

LyrArc Article Gist
How the French health care system works. France comes in first and the USA 37th in aWHO health care ranking. THe difference in deaths from respiratory disease is half that in the USA, and lower rates of death from heart disease and diabetes. IT has more hospital beds and doctors per capita than the USA. 65% of French people are satisfied with their health system compared to 40% in the USA, and yet France spends 10.7% of GDP on health care and the USA spends 16% for poorer results. THe French system is more generous to its seniors. Unlike Medicare there are no deductibles, just modest co-payments that are often dismissed for chronically ill. And diabetes and critical surgeries are covered 100%. French also buy supplemental insurance like Medigap for extra expenses like dental and eyglasses. Cancer patients are treated free of charge. Avastin treatments costing $48,000 a year are provided at no charge. France's PMI or Protection Maternelle et Infantile, is rated highly. It is anetwork of thousands of healthcare facilities, that ensure that every mother and child in the country receives basic preventive care. Mothers even receive afinancial incentive for attending their pre and post natal visits. France makes this care affordable by reibursing doctors at a much lower rate. The average yearly net income for doctors is around $55,000, about athird of what doctors in the USA make. But French doctors don't have to pay back huge student loans as medical school is paid for by the state and malpractice insurance premiums are only a tiny fraction of that in the USA. And again the French government pays two thirds of the social security tax for most French physicians- which is typically 40% of income. So the $55,000, is more like $92,000 taking that into account and more like $110,000 when student loans and malpractice is taken into account at US levels. Specialists who have 4 or more years experience can charge what they want, but as one gastroenterologist says, there in an unspoken and undefined limit to what you can cahrge or what is socially acceptable. Yet even in France there is inflation in health care costs that the government deals with through price controls and more spending. The French national insurance system is running increased deficits each year and this is now $13.5 billion, and it has led to higher taxes for employers and workers. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
David Segal takes a detailed look inside Apple's retail stores in the U.S. and talks with employees at different stores to find out what its like working as an hourly employee at an Apple store. World wide Apple's 327 global stores sold $16 billion in Apple products. Per employee the sales are about $473,000, but at an hourly rate of about $12 the average employee makes about $25,000 per year. After recent wage raises this could be up to about $36,000. The National Retail Federation says electronics stores have about an average of $206,000 in sales per employee. Contrary to what most people may think most of Apple's employees are not engineers and other professionals, about 30,000 of the 43,000 Apple employees in the U.S. work as hourly employees in the retail stores. Most are young people in the early 20's, single, with health insurance provided by Apple not costing as much for that age group. There is no career path and most leave after a couple of years. Because of the Apple mystique and the drive to create new user friendly products there are many young people looking for this kind of temporary work, especially now with high unemployment. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Greg Ip of the WSJ provides this exceptional report offering readers remarkable clarity on what the Republican Tax Law does- its high and low points.  High Points 1. It reduces the corporate tax rate to bring it in line with other advanced industrialized countries. The corporate tax rate in Germany and Japan is 30%, in the UK it is 19%. For 5 years businesses can write off capital equipment immediately instead of depreciating over a couple of years. This could boost investment and growth. 2.  The law takes aim at deductions that led to distortions. It limits the mortgage interest deduction, and caps the deduction for state and local taxes. This removes the incentive to pay more for homes that exacerbated the housing crisis in 2008. The Alternative Minimum Tax is largely removed. The Low Points 1. The biggest drawback is that lawmakers did not properly fund the tax cuts. Of the 10 costliest tax breaks nine were not touched, including employer health insurance, retirement savings, capital gains. Only the state and local taxes deduction was reduced. And a new tax deduction  was created, a 20% tax deduction for small business (proprietors and partnerships) paying taxes on their individual tax returns. Taxes on the wealthy or value added taxes, reducing tax breaks, is how other advanced industrialized countries paid for the corporate tax cuts, but did not happen here. Additional economic growth  to generate added tax revenues is the way Republicans in Congress say this is funded. Yet this is a questionable assumption as Britain reduced the corporate tax rate to 19% without seeing a surge in economic growth, as Greg Ip pointed out in an earlier WSJ article. At best the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates $500 billion over a decade in added revenues from added growth leaving $1 trillion to be added to the deficit. The WhartonPenn Budget Model (WPBM) estimates only $140 to $367 bill from the additional economic growth resulting in added tax revenues. Under this model only 0.03 to 0.08 percent added U.S. economic growth per year is expected from the Republican Tax Cuts. Such a situation would be bad  for the U.S. as the gradual improvement in Debt to GDP ratio to 78% following the financial crisis of 2008 would be sharply reversed taking the ratio to 97% by 2027. An unsustainable trajectory which will require tax increases in a few years and hurt investment in education, health and infrastructure into the future. This is what worries many experts most on both sides of the political spectrum today about what the Republican Congress has pushed through for a legislative "victory." This is why experts believe this is not serious tax reform and will require a new effort after 2019.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In a new WSJ/NBC New poll, conducted July 24-27, 2009, 42% called the Obama health plan a bad idea, and 36% called it a good idea. In mid June the poll showed Americans evenly divided on this question. It reflects rising anxiety over the costs of the health plan and what it will do to the deficit, and also shows public anxiety about the ways in which Obama and Congress are reaching compromises to pay for it and to control costs. Added to this are the anxieties raised about government involvement in healthcare and medical decisions about care. Noteworthy are two differing pieces of evidence. In the WSJ/NBC News poll, only two in ten people thought the quality of their own care would improve, only 15% of those with private insurance thought that it would improve the quality of their care. And 4 in ten people thought quality of care would get worse, and 45% of those with private insurance thought quality of care would get worse. By focussing on the cost of health care, the administration seems to have ignored or missed the concerns of people about the quality of care if government focussed on cutting costs. These concerns are real as a vast majority of the public, or about 85% of the people, as Martin Feldstein points out in a recent Washington Post column, are insured. The question is what cost would they be willing to pay for the admittedly worthy cause of insuring the uninsured? And even with the unisured, it seems likely with the current Obama reform plan that immigrants and other people may still remain uninsured, at least for some time. Would a huge burden of $1 trillion make this worthwhile, and is there some better way to do this without the prospect of higher taxes further down the road to pay for this. These are points Feldstein makes. The other piece of evidence is that at the same time that there are reservations about what is coming out of Congress today, there is general support for making constructive changes to healthcare. The WSJ poll showed 56% of respondents favoring the basic ideas in the reforms being considered in Congress, with 38% opposing it....

LyrArc Article Gist
The stories of Dylan Roberts, 32 years, in Rockford, Illinois and Alfred Butt, 42 years,in Hohenlockenstedt, Germany. Roberts lost his job at aChrysler plant in Belvidere, near Rockford, Illinois, and Butt lost his job a German auto parts maker. Roberts gets a $64,000 severance package, and 59 weeks of unemployment insurance, with apossible additional 13 weeks, with monthly check of $1426 that is 27% of his income of $64,000 a year when employed. attribute 33 weeks of the 59 weeks to the stimulus measures of President Obama. Butt has 4 months as atransfer worker at full pay, which can be as long as 1 year, then he has till May 2010 at 80% of his pay when employed full time of 2700 euros amonth. The transfer company gives job training and job hunting advice. He continues getting his medical insurance benefits which are provided by the state. Roberts loses his health insurance with his job, and hopes to pay his expenses for a2 bedroom apartment with his girlfriend who makes close to $1500 as an elementary school teacher. He will take a2 year electronic engineering course with a local college using $6000 from Obama's Dislocated Worker's Program. But he isn't sure if he can do his studies after one year when his unemployment benefits expire. Butt can afford to take a vacation to Cyprus and his lifestyle is not much affected he says. His wife works as a nurse at a rheumatism clinic. Butt is like the 64% of Germans who say the crisis is not affecting them personally. Roberts is like the 87% of Americans who say this crisis id hurting them in their persdonal lives. To pay for the state funded benefits the total wage tax burdenas a percentage of labor costs for Butt is 52% in Germany. FOr Roberts it is 30% in the USA. France is at 49% Spain at 39% and the UK at 34%. Germany's public expenditures for these labor benefits are 2.97% of GDP in 2006, the USA's are 0.38%. Spain and France are at 2.32% and the UK at 0.61%. This also explains why the impact in countries like Germany and Spain is not felt so badly as in the USA. In SPain there is also the lower mobility and the safety net of family support helping people cope making it possible to cope with 20% unemployment without serious distress and hardships. See the link to Spain's unemployed....

LyrArc Article Gist
Dan Maffei won his Congressional seat from an incumbent Republican from Syracuse. Others of the 35 first term Congressmen represent a rural, small town and suburban areas like Maffei. And they are not about to lose their seats after tough congressional campaigns, they say, by voting the wrong way on health care reform. As one from Maryland put it he is not willing to foloow the lead just to follow the lead. These are the Congressmen that Steny Hoyer, Rep. from Maryland, who leads the Democrats in the House, wants to give more time as this is what they wanted. And these Congressmen are making themselves heard and making changes in the health care legislation where they disagreed.

LyrArc Article Gist
All sides joined the President at the White House, as part of his consensus building efforts, and to get aseat at the table in restructuring health care. The insurers and health care providers, including technology providers, all committed to cutting the cost of health care. New social insurance programs to cover 45 million uninsured Americans, and to make health care affordable for businesses and individuals, will be unworkable at currently projected rate of increase in health care costs of 6.2% a year for the next decade. The industry promised to reduce that by 1.5% through voluntary efforts, even though there is skepticism about whether they will deliver. The insurers are against a government sponsored health plan fearing it will drive them out of business. Insurers and health care providers are lobbying against the cuts in their Medicare payments, and insurers are fighting Obama's cuts to their private Medicare Advantage plans by a total of $176 billion over 10 years. Doctors are fighting a 21% cut in their Medicare fees scheduled to take place in January 2010. Pharmacuetical companies and makers of medical devices are concerned that new products will have to pass a cost-benefit test before being approved for coverage under Medicare. Its just that they all see the continued rise in costs as somehow unsustainable, especially in the current economic crisis, and share the feeling with business and the rest of the country that the system is broken. At the same time like the banks and bank executives, health care companies and their executives go on lobbying aggressively and doing things the old way, which raises questions about how well these systems that are broken can be put on the right path....

LyrArc Article Gist
Questions being addressed to get health care to the uninsured and to all Americans at an affordable level.

LyrArc Article Gist
The House Energy and Commerce Committee passes ahealthcare plan with 31 to 28 vote. The Senate version takes adifferent approach. The Senate version has moved away from the employer requirements in the House bills. The Senate committee is moving towards aproposal to require employers to contribute if their workers are getting government assisted insurance coverage. It has also moved away from the surtax on the wealthy in the House bills which is expected to raise $500 billion. Instead the Senate version proposes an excise tax on insurers for health plans that offer generous benefits. Under the current bill being considered in the Senate such a insurance policy tax could raise $180 billion. The Senate Finance Committee is also different in that instead of the public insurance option it offers nonprofit health insurance cooperatives as an alternative. There is agreement between the two parties on anumber of things so the debate will center on the public insurance option, surtax on the wealthy to pay for the plan, and the requirement for an employer mandated coverage for all employees....

LyrArc Article Gist
As health care markets are slowing in western countries and price pressures are increasing Phillips is moving aggressively in emerging market countries like Brazil and India. It s market share in emerging market countries is 18.5% and it wants to push this upto 25%. And health care is becoming more important to Phillips as it scales back from consumer electronics. To understand and meet the different needs of these countries Phillips is acquiring local companies and redesigning its products so that they meet basic functions at a much lower price than the same product sold in western countries.

LyrArc Article Gist
Mayo Clinics 18 month long effort with 400 health policy experts working on the panel has a set of recommendations for the Presidential candidates. It suggests a private system with private insurance companies offering many options and nobody can be turned down. Those least able to afford it would get government help, individuals would pay for the insurance with some help from employers. Since once insured its not dependent on employer its permanent, changing a job would make no difference at all. Interestingly most of the panel experts cited here from Verizon, the Heritage Foundation and others all agree that the present system is coming to a close and a new one has to replace it with coverage for all Americans and a privately based system with contributions made by society and government, by all individuals, and also by employers. Mayo's study, the breadth of the number of experts participating (400 experts), the length of time to understand and come up recommendations (18 months), the respect the institution has among all sectors and groups, should give the consensus view of experts in the US, so that any future health plans do not simply get derailed by partisan opinion, controversy and lobbying....

LyrArc Article Gist
Figures on costs for the uninsured and total spending on health care by researches at George Mason University.

LyrArc Article Gist
With 5.7 million jobs lost since December 2007 fewer people are paying payroll taxes to support Medicare and Social Security says Labor Secretary Solis. As aresult Medicare will run out of funds by 2017, 2 years earlier than predicted last year. Medicare and Social Security issued their annual report yesterday, suggesting the nation cannot afford the cost of Medicare at the rate of current expenditure growth. Social Security will run out of money by 2037 four years earlier than predicited before. The only way to keep Medicare solvent says Mr Geithner is to reduce the rate of growth of health care costs.

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman talks about the misunderstandings and the whole lot of misinformation that comes from advertising and political commentary. With one man telling a Congressman at a town hall meeting: "keep your government hands off my Medicare." In apolitically charged atmosphere this makes rational decisions in acalm thoughful environment difficult or impossible- when the influence of lobbying by the health care industry and the influence of interests on behalf of patients and other interests have already created a difficult situation.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Washington Post survey of 1200 readers on how the Republican healthcare plan of Speaker Ryan and the House of Representatives looks to them, how it affects them in their lives. Here Somasekhar of the Post gives the stories of 5 Americans. Some see the prospect of losing their insurance under the Republican plan even as they reach an older age, others a smaller segment says the Post, whose premiums jumped under the Affordable Care Act say they faced high premiums and high deductibles. The Post says the large majority of opinions have expressed anxiety over the proposed Republican Ryan House plan for healthcare. One of them is an uninsured poor farmer, Mr. Woosley,  income about $18000 who gained benefit from expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act,  one Mr. Smith, 32 years, a personal injury attorney who faces paying $10,000 if he did not take insurance and $10,000 if he took insurance because of high premiums so a wash either way deciding to do without it, one a tech worker Mrs. Powers, 62 years, income $22,000 on year and $4000 the next, from middle class during the tech boom but facing fewer opportunities and uncertain income from part time work, hit by the deep recession facing fewer opportunities as she gets older and now the prospect of losing insurance without government subsidies, one who is from the middle class who sees little benefit from the Affordable Care Act and is forgoing insurance because of the high premiums yet faces a penalty for not being insured under the ACA, another Mr. Blanchard, 52 years, is from the middle class, a computer programmer who lost his job in downsizing, earns $100,000 as a consultant self-employed, pays $767 in premium a month and relies on the Affordable Care Act which helps him gain freedom from working at a company that could downsize,  another is a middle class programmer Mr Riffle,age 44, and his wife, who does not qualify for a subsidy with a $71,000 family salary from working 4 jobs between himself and his wife- this person finds it too expensive for his salary to buy insurance $900 a month and $14,000 deductible under the Affordable Care Act. His views are worth listening to as they go to the crux of the problem- he says he may not be any better with the Republican plan. He sees the real problem as the high cost of health care in the U.S. and the only way this can be fixed is for members of Congress to be asked to use the insurance exchanges they create. If this sample is representative it shows that there are real problems with both the Affordable Care Act and the Republican plan, that the high cost of health care the problem lurking behind every plan that does not squarely address this, and till that happens and members of Congress experience what ordinary people face, this problem can never by fully solved.   Woosley, Smith, Powers, Blanchard, Riffle, and their personal experience is at the crux of what is right and wrong  with the Affordable Care Act, and also with the new Republican plan of Speaker Ryan and the House of Representatives. For every Woosley, Powers and Blanchard who benefit, there is a Smith and a Riffle who are indifferent or are affected by the high cost under Affordable Care Act and the current system of medical care with its high cost. The Affordable Care Act does not  tackle high cost, for that to happen the culture in America that makes it possible and acceptable to charge high prices must change. Another problem apart from bringing health care costs is that any solution needs to have the whole country behind it. If the notion that all people are entitled to basic health care is to stand, the whole country needs to believe it as they do in countries like France, Britain, Germany and Japan. If this has to be made a workable proposition health care has to be offered at a price that makes this possible to achieve, and that idea also needs the deep and broad sense of support from the culture in America similar to that in these other countries. Until that happens politicians in America will get elected and turned out of office in turns on issues such as health care, based on which side they take and which problems they choose not to face squarely and responsibly. ...