White House chief economist Christina Romer kicked off President Obama’s push to reform the nation’s health care system Tuesday, saying there are “billion-dollar bills lying on the sidewalk” if the nation can find a way to make the system more efficient.
The UC Berkeley economist, who chairs the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, said in a 51-page report that the broken U.S. health care system is ruinous to workers’ wages, living standards and the federal budget, and the payoff from fixing it could be huge. At the White House, she called health care reform a potential “game changer” for the U.S. economy, if it is done right.
But that’s a big if, given the increasingly vexing budget, logistical and political problems standing in the way of the president’s top domestic campaign promise.
Congressional Democrats hope to have legislation ready by August, and key leaders have been meeting privately to hash out issues.
[…]
The cost of expanding coverage to the nation’s 46 million uninsured is the biggest hurdle. Romer’s 51-page report focuses on making the stupendous price tag – an estimated $1.5 trillion over 10 years – look more affordable by highlighting the enormous waste in the current system.
[…]
Harvard economist David Cutler, who praised Romer’s report for its academic integrity, said the health care industry employs more people simply to pull patient records than it does nurses.Romer said such phenomenal waste makes it incumbent that officials reform the system.
HAH! The government can save money?!?!
Somebody’s been doing some good ‘shrooms.
The biggest problem in cutting waste in the Healthcare system is the army of republican scumbags that are preventing this from even happening.
Follow the money. If the objective is to cut wasteful spending, there is another person on the other end that is losing. You know who they are.
#92, SL,
Yup. Cow-Patty argued in #28
I’m asking Cow-Patty to back up his argument. Of course since we know he is wrong and he won’t post the answer.
Typically Cow-Patty just trolls, looking for someone to buy his crap. He loses more arguments that way. It must suck to be him.
There’s almost 100 posts and nobody has mentioned that there is a shortage of doctors in the U.S. The A.M.A. has done their job on you.
I suspect we’ll start hearing about a VAT soon too.
#86:
“So where in the Constitution does it ban public health?”
Well, a lot of us believe that’s in the 10th Amendment.
If a state wants to offer public health care, well, that’s their business.
#96, looking at the stupidity of your quote I listed, I don’t believe I was agreeing with you. And judging by your follow up, you clearly don’t know the difference between a power granted to the government and rights held by the people.
Paddy is absolutely correct, there is no right, identified in the Constitution for explicit protection, of people to be able to seize the property of others in order to provide themselves with things they otherwise cannot.
Now, there could very well be a power of the government to provide a service. But your persistent stance that, if such a power isn’t banned then it must exist, shows a complete lack of understanding about how the General Government gets its powers in our system.
The General Government has NO powers except those granted, and the state governments have all powers unless explicitly denied or superseded by a power of the General Government. If you don’t like how that works, then amend the Constitution. Don’t keep pulling new broad federal powers out of your ass and then act indignant when somebody says you are full of shit.
So you fail in both aspects.
#100:
“Remember, when the Constitution was written, medical practices were on a par with most witch doctors, so it was probably not seriously considered. Time to step into the 21st Century.”
Well, that’s what the 10th Amendment is for. Everything not in the Constitution is up to the states. They left us a lot of leeway.
If you think everyone believes health care is a fundamental right, you’re free to amend the Constitution to reflect that. Until then, I’d like to see us operate within the law, and leave public health care a matter for the states.
I mean, if it’s so fundamental, why hasn’t any state come up with a health care plan?
101, SL,
of people to be able to seize the property of others in order to provide themselves with things they otherwise cannot.
Since you are going off on a tangent, I’ll bite.
There is no right to seize the property of others to buy a B bomber.
There is no right to seize the property of others to buy, build, and maintain a park.
There is no right to seize the property of others to benefit private corporations.
There is no right to seize the property of others in order to build a road.
BUT, when the Constitution states,
It seems to me, that the government has the authority to initiate a health care program. It also seems the citizens have the right to look to their government to promote their general welfare.
AND, it also appears that you, as well as Cow-Patty have failed to show where in the Constitution health care is NOT a right.
BUT, judging from the tenor and vapidity of your comment, you are just pulling the Liebertarian card out in order to suggest that no government has the right to tax you.
#102, I mean, if it’s so fundamental, why hasn’t any state come up with a health care plan?
Hawaii tried it a few years ago and everyone dropped their normal insurance and promptly bankrupted the program (why pay the taxes AND the insurance premiums?).
The state canceled the program less than a year after it started.
# 103 Mr. Fusion said, “There is no right to seize the property of others to buy a B bomber.”
Wrong again. ROFL.
#103,
There is no right to seize the property of others to buy a B bomber.
From Section 8 of the US Constitution:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
There is no right to seize the property of others to buy, build, and maintain a park.
You are correct here. This is also another travesty. What is the difference between this and the building of the pyramids? Both took from the worker to produce something for the state.
There is no right to seize the property of others to benefit private corporations.
There is no right to seize the property of others in order to build a road.
Again, correct. The former is plain theft and the latter is a state function.
Your examples show that you still don’t understand the proper roll of government (state or federal). Two (or many wrongs) do not make a right.
#106 – Don’t bother. Mr. conFusion refuses to read the US Constitution as evidenced by his insane questions about it.
I blame it all on an education system…one that allows – encourages – children to grow up thinking that there is no right or wrong answers, just different opinions, which are all valid.
And if a child believes, really really believes that 2 + 2 = 5, then what “right” does the teacher have to destroy that child’s self-esteem by telling them they are wrong.
I have never figured out if it’s the “I” or the “S” that I don’t understand the meaning of:))
#106 and all Liebertarians,
If that is the case, then please explain how the government is able to build B-1 bombers, parks, roads, etc. Could it be that you assholes can’t see the forest for the trees?
None of you can explain how the government can do any of this yet it is accepted law that the government not only may, but does.
Promoting the General Welfare of the country easily includes the public’s health. Even though offensive weapons such as an ICBM or B-1 bomber is generally considered for the defense of the nation, they are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Yet who argues it is unconstitutional for the government to buy one?
You guys get so hung up on what you wish the Constitution said you forget everything it does say.
Cow-Patty, as with almost everything you comment on, you don’t know shit. Try looking at the Ninth Amendment.
#109, Again, you fail to grasp the problem.
Sad, really. How many murders go unsolved in the country each year? Just because they do go unsolved, does that mean it’s right to murder someone, even though the law says otherwise?
Just because they do it, doesn’t mean it is right. And just because they are doing A (and getting away with it) doesn’t mean they can do B.
None of you can explain how the government can do any of this yet it is accepted law that the government not only may, but does.
It’s called guns. Already discussed ad nauseum.
Promoting the General Welfare of the country easily includes the public’s health.
Opinion. Not fact.
If you truly want to ensure everyone gets healthcare, there are other ways to do it instead of robbing the hard-working people of the country even more.
Here are three things that would solve the healthcare crisis in the country.
• Create a tax credit for health insurance: Instead of encouraging people to participate in the government health insurance program, qualifying individuals and families could receive a refundable tax credit to purchase health insurance. This would give them the freedom to choose a plan that makes the most sense for their individual needs.
• Reform the tax treatment of health insurance: Currently our tax code is biased in favor of employer-provided health insurance and against those who purchase healthcare from the individual market. Congress should extend the tax treatment of employer-provided health insurance to individual health insurance. This would make individual insurance more affordable.
• Enable individuals to purchase health insurance from any state: State regulations can greatly raise the cost of health insurance. Instead of being limited to policies issued in their state, individuals should be able to purchase insurance from anywhere in the country.
I do not envision any of these working, though. The government wants the money and giving tax credits to people doesn’t fill that want.
#102:”I mean, if it’s so fundamental, why hasn’t any state come up with a health care plan?”
Voila: mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/
It is mandatory for all residents of Massachusetts to carry health insurance. If you can afford it, you pay for it. If you can’t afford it, you get premium assistance, including free coverage if you qualify.
There’s a budget shortfall right about now because of drastically lower reveues and increased unemployment thanks to the recession, but the fact remains Massachusetts does have a state policy on health care.
I’ve worked at a job that audited medicaid claims. 99.9% of the fraud, waste and abuse is at the provider level (doctors, hospitals, DME suppliers, etc..).
Fraud at the actual recipient level is almost nonexistent.
It always pissed me off that hospitals would try to claim for 31 days in a 30 or even 28 day month, and doctors would double bill using slightly differnet claim codes.
So you republicans that claim medical costs are due to recipient fraud can suck me. I’ve been in the trenches, all the fraud happens with the rich people in the medical industry who think they can defraud the taxpayer.
There are lots of ways to get know something about this topic. People will simply go to freelance writing to receive the facts that used to be required!