Heritage experts talk health care with members
December 11, 2009| By Amanda Reinecker
On Thursday, December 10, The Heritage Foundation hosted a members-only teleconference to discuss the health care plans currently being debated in Congress -- and what we are doing to fight back with effective conservative solutions.
Over 7,500 of our members heard from Nina Owcharenko, a Heritage health care policy expert, and Mike Franc, our vice president of government relations. And a number of them had the opportunity to ask questions and raise the issues that matter most to them. Here are few of the questions our members asked us, plus our experts' answers:
What are we going to do with this shortage of doctors?
This is a challenge that they face. In our current system, doctors make up the low reimbursements they get through the private sector. The Medicaid program is a classic example of what happens when you do not pay the physicians. Doctors say they would rather care for poor people and write it off as charity, rather than getting reimbursed.
Is this really about health care or is it more about government control?
Thank you for your comments. I could not agree more with you. Thus far, there have been several consequential votes. If you take them all together you would have an agenda. We have the Cap and Trade bill, health care legislation, and we had the stimulus plan. The amount of federal control becomes the default of a government-run health care system.
How do legislators see government as a true competitor for those over 65?
I think that is a really good point. That highlights the fact that the federal government already has a monopoly in many areas. The Medicare system is really the lead payment system. That becomes the guide for how others pay their providers. When Congress created Medicare, it was designed to be voluntary. Over time the federal subsidies kept growing and there were no private plans that could ever compete. Now seniors choose the heavily subsidized coverage through Medicare.
Why are these bills so lengthy? What happened to all the transparency?
When you are a liberal, they tend to legislate by addition and multiplication. They say, if you add this I'll vote for your bill. So they keep adding and adding to the legislation until they get enough votes. They also tend to take pride in their micromanagement of processes. This bill is double the size of the Clinton health care plan from the 90's.
Why can't this bill include tort reform?
We would largely agree that it is a state issue. Malpractice related issues are the province of the state. Having said that, a lot of lawmakers hide behind that argument to not address those issues. If we took away the fear of lawsuits, that would save anywhere from $70-200 billion on health care costs annually. Senator Ensign introduced an amendment to put a limitation on the amount of attorney fees and it was rejected. There may be people who believe it is a state issue, but most people just don't want to do anything.
How is this bill going to get passed? If the Senate passes it, doesn't it go to the House conference and then back to Senate?
There are two ways to do it: They can do it the way you've indicated. Or they do pin-ponging back and forth, where they just pass it back and forth with amendments. Conference agreements are actually protected.