- NEWS
- SPORTS
- BUSINESS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
O.C. health-care rally pushes for more coverage
November 12th, 2009, 2:14 pm · 46 Comments · posted by Martin Wisckol, Politics reporter
Congressional approval health-care reform may seem increasingly likely, but that didn’t stop nearly 100 demonstrators - and a dozen counter-demonstrators - from hitting the streets at Fashion Island today.
“The concern now is with the Senate,” said Irvine’s Bruce Tierney, 47, who markets software. He said he was participating in one of 120 MoveOn.org demonstrations nationwide because he wanted to make sure the public option for health insurance approved by the House of Representatives remained in the final bill.
The 83 percent of Americans now covered by health care would increase to 96 percent by 2019 under the House bill. Tierney and many others on hand today said they ultimately would like to see 100-percent coverage from a single-payer, government-run plan like Medicare.
“Nobody ever considers this done,” Tierney said. “But we’re on the brink of taking a major step forward. A public option, even if it doesn’t cover everyone, would be a major step forward.”
Those on the other side of the street had a far different view. Some said they wouldn’t mind if Medicare and MediCal went away altogether, and let the private sector go it alone.
“We don’t want the government in health care,” said Sandy Nichols, a 70-year-old retiree from Corona del Mar. “We don’t want government in our lives. If the government stayed out of people’s lives, we’d have more money to spend on health care and other things too.”
The rally was quieter and sparser than a similar event in the same location on Aug. 31, when about 300 demonstrators and 100 counter-demonstrators were on hand. Click here for the story on that.
“There’s already something on the table, so a lot of people feel were already on the way,” said Irvine’s Felicity Figueroa, a 54-year-old Spanish tutor.
More on health reform:
Reader Comments
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement.- Keep it civil and stay on topic.
- No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks.
- People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
46 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
DENA BUNIS, Washington bureau chief, 202-628-6381 or dbunis@ocregister.com
BRIAN JOSEPH, Sacramento correspondent, 916-449-6046 or bjoseph@ocregister.com
JENNIFER MUIR, County government reporter, 714-796-7813 or jmuir@ocregister.com
JOEL WALSH, Washington bureau intern, 202-628-6381 or jwalsh@ocregister.com
MARTIN WISCKOL, Politics reporter, 714-285-2867 or mwisckol@ocregister.com twitter.com/MartinWisckol
Click here for bloggers' biographies
-
-
-
-
-
ADVERTISEMENT
There are two stances in this debate. We, as society, either…
1.) Accept that some people will die due to lack of medical coverage or will be forced to endure tremendous amounts of suffering for the rest of their lives because they can’t get insurance due a pre-existing condition
OR
2.) Believe that basic health care is a right and necessity and that having a Public Option, which will force insurance companies to lower costs, is essential, even if hurts insurers bottom line and comes with some additional taxes
I vote for #2.
There use to be a thing called charity, but today, the left wants big government to be that charity.
OR
3.) Work hard for what you want, including a decent healthcare program.
I vote for #3.
How does “working hard” prevent being declined health insurance, because you have a pre-existing condition???
… and if you ‘THINK’ you will never have a pre-existing condition in your lifetime, I have some tropical swamp land in Iceland to sell you.
Hi Bobby,
I DO have a pre-existing condition . . . not every health insurance provider is Satan.
If you do your homework, you can find what you need. It’s just that nobody wants to put a little work into their own healthcare.
Lastly, I love Iceland. Been twice. Have a nice day.
How does an 8-year old “work hard” for a decent health care, or ANY health care at all? You are a selfish, Godless individual.
There is a basic flaw in #2. The government CANNOT force the insurance companies to lower costs. The insurance companies are a conduit only. If the basic cost of healthcare delivery does not go down the premiums will not go down either. Be ready to get a sticker shock when the price of a policy that has no exclusions and is universal is revealed. Most employers will simply walk away from providing healthcare. Something that is serving more than 80% of the population will be out of reach for many Americans.
The only Public Option that will work is where the whole healthcare deliver system is nationalized. The government sets the price of pharmaceuticals, doctor services, and hospitalization based on what it can afford. We are no where near that. What we are proposing is a system which has no cost controls and that is a prescription for disaster.
Wrong, Wrong, WRONG!!!!
A free market is only as good as the set price! If let’s say Blue Cross decides that making a 500% profit per year isn’t something they are willing to give up, and so they decide to close shop, there will be hundreds of others MORE than willing to accept a FAR lower profit, just to get into the health insurance business (trust me, it is like this in Japan and Switzerland ALREADY).
Yes, I know we are a greedy pathetic country, however, we are NOT that much worse than both Japan and Switzerland, and it is working for them just fine!
Your point is completely wrong. Unless we change TORT laws in this country no one is going to jump into the insurance pool.
In Japan, Switzerland and as with most Socialist countries you can’t sue for damages for medical malpractice. Get your facts in order before you start quoting what other countries are doing.
Japan and Switzerland both choose option #2 many years ago, and not only do they both have FAR superior private health care compared to ours, there are many PRIVATE insurance companies to choose from, thousands of PRIVATE clinics, doctors, and hospitals, and the overall cost for health care services is 1/8 the cost of ours!
In addition, both Japan and Switzerland’s health care systems are run completely by the government (whom control cost, and regulate the quality).
Thus to say we can’t do the same, if not better, is to say both Japan and Switzerland are FAR more superior countries compared to ours, and if that is what you believe, than maybe it time to either embrace the ‘change’, or leave!
I for ONE, believe we can do it better, and will choose to stay in the country I still believe in!
And their overall tax rate is?
And the percentage of the unemployed is?
And the number of the illegal aliens living off the public benefits is?
And you know how to judge quality of health care because of your degrees in Economics from what University?
I’ve had people tell me how great the health care is in the UK too. Then I explain that my wife is a British citizen (to this day) and they are full of bunk
I am just going off of simple economics 101, and that basic rule that if someone can do it properly, so can a someone similar . Remember we fall 37th on the list of countries with quality health care (that REALLY bad, and within the realms of third-world nations!!!)
Please look into both Japan and Switzerland’s health care systems, before you buy into the multi-billion dollar health insurance company propaganda!!!
And he forgot to mention you can’t sue for Medical Malpractive in those countries.
And their overall economy is? Not any worse than ours.
Several years ago, I spent a couple of days in Sweden on business. Sweden has one of the highest tax rates of any western nation. The streets of Stockholm were clean, there were no homeless people hanging out, I didn’t see one cop the entire time I was there, although I did hear a siren one night. I did see cop cars on a regular basis.
No one I worked with felt any type of intimidation from their government. People walked around downtown Stockholm at night.
Oh I forgot, Sweden has universal healthcare and consistently ranks well above the US in healthcare quality.
alterego58 says:
Oh I forgot, Sweden has universal healthcare and consistently ranks well above the US in healthcare quality.
You don’t have a clue about their “QUALITY” of healthcare in that country, which taxes their “SHEEPLE” 54%….
A stomach pain in the hospital will get you a rubber glove and a seppository from the nurse. Yes, their welfare “healthcare” is really great!
**I’m voting with you, Ted.
Wow…. “Health-care reform now seems likely to be approved by Congress”
That should read “Health-care takeover by the democrats is DOA in the Senate”.
By the way, moveon cracks me up.
Ted, the uninsured will have to PURCHASE health insurance coverage….it won’t be free like so many people think. If you have a job you must purchase insurance or be subject to a fine.
Some analysts are predicting that the fine will be a lot less than the cost of premiums. Many families will have to choose between putting food on the table or buying health insurance. Most sensible Americans will put food on the table and pay the fine. Some will go hungry but will pay the premiums. I see some of them in the demonstration today.
Many families RIGHT NOW choose to NOT pay their doctor and hospital bills, so they can put food on the table. Guess who is currently picking up those millions of dollars in unpaid medical bills?…..
YOU ARE!!!!
If we are already paying the unpaid millions then why are we spending another 1.2Triion dollars?
What troubles me is I have friends that are wanting this socialist healthcare plan because “they can’t afford health coverage” yet they are the first in line to purchase the latest iphone, pay $70 + a month for coverage, or buy latest TV, or what ever is the status rage. How about taking responsibility for ones self?
Ted, you are wrong, basic healthcare is not a right. This is about peoples misconception about entitlement, and wanting handouts, and not working for it
UGH!!!!!
Again, how does “working for it”, prevent being denied health insurance????
I probably make FAR more than you do for a living, yet, not one health insurance company in California will accept me, no matter how many thousands $$$$$ I offer them!
Oh, and BTW… I am likely still FAR healthier than you are, and likely take FAR less risk than 80% of the residents of California who do have health insurance!
You’re right Chad…get a load of this Non-Answer from Nancy Pelosi.
This shows the contempt she has for the American people
At Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Oct. 29 press conference, a CNS News reporter asked, “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Speaker Pelosi responded, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” The reporter said, “Yes, yes, I am.” Not responding further, Pelosi shook her head and took a question from another reporter.
Later on, Pelosi’s press spokesman Nadeam Elshami told CNSNews.com about its question regarding constitutional authority mandating that individual Americans buy health insurance. “You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”
UNBELIEVABLE ARROGANCE “OUR LEADERS” HAVE!!!
I would have answered the same way, except I would have told her to take a flyin … BTW, I am not a Pilosi fan.
Obviously there wasn’t a “health insurance” industry when the Constitution was written so your question needs to be restated fairly. Healthcare is one of the most basic forms of welfare. Here is a fair restatement of the question taking into account the non-existence of the health insurance industry:
“where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact a mandate for welfare?”
The answer is Article 1, Section 8.1:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”
This statement says “Congress shall have the power to provide for the common welfare”. You could argue that every citizen should be charged uniformly which is a topic separate from the mandate issue…otherwise, this statement grants Congress the power to provide as we the people (through our elected representatives) see fit.
See what happens when you allow women to vote!!!
I agree, women tend to be FAR less EVIL GREEDY FOOLS, than men.
bobbyc…………………dude……………………….you missed my point COMPLETELY!!!!
It is the Left in our country that is pushing “universal” health care, not health care insurance reform which is what we need.
Remember these are the same folks who believe in Global Warming and we should be sending billions to third world nations to make up for our sins!
Freakin loons
Marc960 ~ I couldn’t agree w/you more!!! You are my new best friend!!!!
If the proposition by the European Left to send Billions of Euros to third world countries for the past sins of global warming emissions by the industrialized countries is not a sign of mental sickness, what is?
The Democrats are buying votes for the next election with this Insurance scam. That will keep them in power, this is a political move.
The government runs the post office, medicare, social security and they are all FAILING MISERABLY. What makes you think they could possibly run our health care? Have you been to a DMV lately?
Do you think the Democrats believe this plan will help the public? No, this is about power.
And do you think they will take this new plan? NO, they would continue to keep their great coverage. Do you honestly think that Senator Kennedy (God rest his soul) would have taken this new option. No way, he choose to see the best Doctors and go to the best Hospitals in the world, which are in the United States, not Japan or the UK.
We need tort reform and the option to shop state to state.
I for one, am not willing to give up anymore of my freedoms, they have taken enough already..
You did a GREAT JOB Randy! You and your wife came and stood for what you believe in, you kept a smile on your face even when some of the Move On people were rude to you.
Even though our group was small (the people we know were working to pay for the ones across the street:) we were respectful of others view points.
I appreciated John Campbells NO VOTE on this bill, I don’t believe most people realize what will happen if the Government takes control of our health care… as Randy was quoted “I don’t think he’s looking at the long term ramifications. The federal government can’t manage anything effectively.”
When the President and his family, the House, the Senate and all other Government employees must be covered under this “change” than maybe we will trust them.
As John Campbell wrote: “It has the word “SHALL” 3,425 times. Therefore it compels someone to do or not do something at least 3,425 times. That doesn’t include the several hundred “musts” and “requires”. Yet there is one time it poignantly says “MAY”. Members of Congress “MAY” join the government-run program. But the members of Congress are not compelled to do so like everyone else under the plan.”
Here are some of the hard facts on the bill. I suggest that those that want it take the time to understand what is actually written in it.
• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a “qualified plan.” If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a “grace period” to switch you to a “qualified plan,” meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there’s no grace period. You’ll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a “qualified plan” covers and how much you’ll be legally required to pay for it. That’s like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the “qualified plan” is not yet designed, it will be of the “one size fits all” variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars.
Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement, and ineligible for subsidies.
• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a “qualified plan” for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.
: If you are single and pay annually over $8,500 for health care insurance you will be taxed on that amount.
In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.
• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what’s called a “medical home.”
The medical home is this decade’s version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to “disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis.”
A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that “medical homes” were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.
• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.
• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.
• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.
• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of “medical items and services.”
Questionable Priorities:
While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.
• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community “entities” with no required qualifications except having “documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers” to “educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities” aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. “Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program.”
These programs will “enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits” including transportation and translation services.
• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their “right” to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.
• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should “give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population.” And secondary-school grants should go to schools “graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities.”
• Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.
The current healthcare proposal is just a profit windfall for the fat insurance and medical delivery industries. It’s got nothing to do with containing costs or increasing access (other than by extortion - that is FORCING citizens to buy an insurance policy from a pigman insurance company under threat of a huge excise tax and jail).
Single payor is the answer. The euros like germany, france, austria, denmark, netherlands, etc…. spend LESS than HALF of what we do, per patient per capita, and deliver BETTER medical outcomes that we do.
But the insurance companies would get cut out and the pharma companies would be forced to give AMERICAN citizens the same 75% discounts given to the euros for american made products. That would mean the politicians would no longer get their bribes from the corporatocrisy. Therefore, single-payor won’t fly in a system that is built on greed (corporatocrisy over the citizens).
ocobserver: That is because US pharma and medical appliance companies charge them less for identical products and services. They control our markets, but not those of other countries.
you sure have changed your tune of late. what is up with that.
Huh? I’m on the the side of universal healcare, always have been.
Mr. Nospin: Currently, any medical expenses over 7% are tax deductable. You didn’t factor that in to your calculations.
We can all work harder but if you leave it to the Insurance corporations to manage helathcare on their own and not have a public option, their proemiums will be increasing as they have said themselves and will make up about 20 of our GDP, and in certain states their will not be any competition and if we let them sell insurance over state lines, they will then go out headquarters in the most lenient states such as credit card companies due and have no restrictions, my friends that state government should step out of the way they are the onl ones that you can hold accountable and need to get corporate money out of the government and make it government by the people and not the corporation.
What’s the avg profit margin of Cal insurers?
sharona , your tale is so ripe, right off the dnc printing press.
“make it government by the people and not the corporation”
That’s classic.
The fact that healthcare now represents 17% of our GDP should be a wake up call to everyone. Soon, we will be a country of megabanks and megahealthcare companies. No other business will be able to exist because these two industries will suck all the money out of all of them.
Looks like some of those “parents” from San Francisco, who like to tell others what to do and how to live are visiting.
I say tax the rich to pay for health care. here is why. I don’t have health care. So if i get sick I go to the hospital, get fixed up and i’m gone. The hospital wants money from someone, so they charge the ins. co. more. well the ins. co. hike up your premiums to pay for it. now premiums are higher, More people without health ins. that have to go to the hospital for health care…… repeat. In the end only the rich will be able to get health care do to the high premuims. so they will end up paying for health care in the end anyway. so why not just do it now.