Today I had the opportunity to testify before the Senate Budget Committee about CBO’s most recent analysis of the long-term budget outlook.

Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy.

The current recession and policy responses have little effect on long-term projections of noninterest spending and revenues. But CBO estimates that in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the federal government will record its largest budget deficits as a share of GDP since shortly after World War II. As a result of those deficits, federal debt held by the public will soar from 41 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2008 to 60 percent at the end of fiscal year 2010. This higher debt results in permanently higher spending to pay interest on that debt. Federal interest payments already amount to more than 1 percent of GDP; unless current law changes, that share would rise to 2.5 percent by 2020.

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 16th, 2009 at 4:43 pm and is filed under Budget Projections, Long-Term Budgetary Issues.

I would like to see everyone able to receive good care; but in reforming the system, first things first.  Instead of trying to provide our outrageously expensive health care to everyone, I think the focus should be to identify and attack the causes of the ridiculous costs in our system.  It will be easier to provide affordable health care to everyone.

We could have affordable health care in this country if "Health Care" really meant caring for people’s health rather than making millions for corporate execs.

Health care should be a basic human right for the citizens of this county; not a privilege and certainly not a commodity.

But then, the "powers that be" in this country (the corporate wealthy) don’t give a damn about basic human rights. To them it’s all about the "wealth".They can afford any health care they want so why should they worry about all the millions of people they put out jobs and health care benefits in order to build their "wealth"?

The corporatized "health business" we have now is just another slip further down the slide into a fascio-feudalistic society in this country.The "American dream" of a good, comfortable living for all Americans has become a "survival of the richest nightmare". 

Read this in the Spokane Review:

• share
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Newsvine
  • reddit
• email
• print

Close [X]

Sorry, but you need to be logged in to share stories via e-mail. This helps us prevent abuse of our e-mail system.

Don’t have a Spokesman.com account? Create one here for free.

Wendell Potter is the health-insurance industry’s worst nightmare. He’s a whistle-blower. Potter, the former chief spokesperson for insurance giant CIGNA, recently testified before Congress, “I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick – all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors.”

Potter was deeply involved in CIGNA and industrywide strategies for maintaining their profitable grip on U.S. health care. He told me: “The thing they fear most is a single-payer plan. They fear even the public insurance option being proposed; they’ll pull out all the stops they can to defeat that to try to scare people into thinking that embracing a public health-insurance option would lead down the slippery slope toward socialism … putting a government bureaucrat between you and your doctor. They’ve used those talking points for years, and they’ve always worked.”

In 2007, CIGNA denied a California teenager, Nataline Sarkisyan, coverage for a liver transplant. Her family went to the media. The California Nurses Association joined in. Under mounting pressure, CIGNA finally granted coverage for the procedure. But it was too late. Two hours later, Nataline died.

While visiting family in Tennessee, Potter stopped at a “medical expedition” in Wise, Va. People drove hours for free care from temporary clinics set up in animal stalls at the local fairground. Potter told me that weeks later, flying on a CIGNA corporate jet with the CEO: “I realized that someone’s premiums were helping me to travel that way … paying for my lunch on gold-trimmed china. I thought about those men and women I had seen in Wise County … not having any idea (how) insurance executives lived.” He decided he couldn’t be an industry PR hack anymore.

Insurance executives and their Wall Street investors are addicted to massive profits and double-digit annual rate increases. To squeeze more profit, Potter says, if a person makes a major claim for coverage, the insurer will often scrutinize the person’s original application, looking for any error that would allow it to cancel the policy. Likewise, if a small company’s employees make too many claims, the insurer, Potter says, “very likely will jack up the rates so much that your employer has no alternative but to leave you and your co-workers without insurance.”

This week, as the House and Senate introduced their health care bills, Potter warns, “One thing to remember is that the health-insurance industry has been anticipating this debate on health care for many years … they’ve been positioning themselves to get very close to influential members of Congress in both parties.” Montana Sen. Max Baucus chairs the Senate Finance Committee, key for health care reform. Potter went on, “(T)he insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry and others in health care have donated … millions of dollars to his campaigns over the past few years. But aside from money, it’s relationships that count; … the insurance industry has hired scores and scores of lobbyists, many of whom have worked for members of Congress, and some who are former members of Congress.”

The insurance industry and other health care interests are lobbying hard against a government-sponsored, nonprofit, public health-insurance option, spending, according to the Washington Post, up to $1.4 million per day to sway Congress and public opinion.

Don’t be fooled. Profit-driven insurance-claim denials actually kill people, and Wendell Potter knows where the bodies are buried. His whistle-blowing may be just what’s needed to dump what’s sick in our health care system.

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 750 stations in North America. Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

Makes one stop and think!

I prepared the following handout for a class I am taking this summer. The current healthcare system is for sure not designed from a woman’s perspective, and it creates inequities in healthcare access and services..

WOMEN AND THE HEALTHCARE DEBATE: WOMEN SHOULD BE INVOLVED 

 ·                      Women’s healthcare needs are generally greater than men’s, particularly during their reproductive year 

·                      Our current system makes it more difficult for women to obtain and afford the healthcare services they need

 ·                      Our healthcare system is designed to rely heavily on employer-provided healthcare insurance

 o          This does not work well overall for women as a gender

 o         Approximately 40% of all women are employed full-time, whereas 60% of men are employed full-time 

o         Many of those women employed full-time work in smaller companies which do not provide health insurance to their employees 

o         The remaining 6 out of 10 women – those who are either employed part-time or not employed at all –  have little access to employer-provided insurance on their own behalf 

o         That majority of women (60%) must generally rely on private insurance, public programs, or insurance provided by a spouse (in some instances a significant other). 

·                      Private insurance which is available for purchase is likewise biased against women. 

o          Many companies charge as much as 1 ½ times more in premiums for women during their reproductive years than for men. (H.R. 2635, currently pending in the U.S. House of Representatives, would rectify this disparity).

 o         The majority of insurance companies exclude coverage for childbearing, and many exclude pap smears and mammograms, major reasons women need healthcare coverage.

 o         Over 10 states permit insurance companies to exclude coverage for FDA-approved contraceptives.

 o         At least 9 states allow insurance companies to deny applications from victims of domestic violence (while numbers vary, women are the vast majority of victims of convicted domestic violence offenders).

 ·                      Women overall make less in income than men and therefore cannot afford healthcare to the same extent. 

o         Women employed full-time make approximately 80% that of men working full-time. 

o          More working women work part-time, which is generally paid less than full-time work. 

o         Women as a group work fewer hours than men. 

o          In a recent survey, more than 50% of all women reported delaying or avoiding health care services as opposed to 39% of men.

 ·                      President Obama and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, have pledged to address the disadvantage women experience in obtaining access to the healthcare arena.

 o          The U.S. Congress is in the midst of intense debate this summer regarding healthcare reform. 

o         All women - and men who have a mother, wife, daughter, sister, or friend - should inform themselves about these issues and express their opinion regarding them to each of their elected U.S. Senators and Representatives.     

As a retired health care professional (1976-96) I have said for years that the Powers-That-Be in Washington, along with the rest of us don’t have the balls to do what needs to be done.  A good first step is for them to remember that their purpose up there is to serve us, and not be obsessed with their damned re-elections.  Then, they need to face facts and get the lobbyists and the pundits to shut up, work together for a constructive new vision (vision requires imagination, folks!), and come up with something that is for the greater good of this nation.  And, to support them, we are going to have to realize that we need a whole new approach, do our homework and get the correct facts and also come together, work together and hope together. 

And, the fact is, it ain’tgonnabe ez…

If we’re struggling to afford health care now, how will we make ends meet at all once we’re stuck paying 50% of our income out in taxes to pay for this reformed health care package. That’s the Canadian way that so many people are holding up as the ideal for us to look at.

My friends in Canada talk about ‘free health care.’  I point out to them that out of a $50K a year job, they get to bring home $25K. That’s not free.

Even assuming that we’d pay 25% income tax as it is for the ‘services’ our taxes currently pay for, and then tacking an additional 25% on top of that for this reform package, then that’s the equalivant of paying over $1000 per month for health insurance ‘premiums’ to the government per person.

That’s a lot more expensive than if everyone purchased our own health insurance from a private company.