Elizabeth Williamson and August Cole of the Wall Street Journal reported today that the Obama administration, alongside Democrats, is close to throwing in the towel on the most controversial piece of the proposed legislation for health care reform: a public insurance option.  Yesterday, Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, said that this provision is not the most “essential” part of a reform bill.  President Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, also said Sunday that while the President believes a public option would be the best way to increase choice and competition in the insurance marketplace, there are alternatives that can accomplish the same goal.

On Saturday, Obama held a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, CO.  Towards the end of the meeting, he said, “Whether we have it [public insurance option] or we don’t have it, is not the entirety of health care reform”. 

Opponents have formed on all sides of this key issue in the health care reform debate.  Angry protesters have turned out in many numbers across the country.  Fearing an eventual governmental overhaul of the system, Americans who have never been involved in politics have become ensconced in the debate. 

Health care reform could be devastating for private insurance company owners, who have been demonized in the past couple of weeks for posting record profits year after year.  The fear is justified because if a public plan is put in place, hospitals and doctors would begin charging private insurers more per claim to make up for the expected losses from reduced reimbursement by the government.  Americans are worried that these businesses would be driven out as private insurers already pay more per claim due to Medicare and Medicaid. 

To read the entire Wall Street Journal article, click here: Chances Dim for a Public Plan

Janet Adamy, of the Wall Street Journal, wrote that a controversial section of the health care reform bill is losing favorability in an article yesterday.  The provision, as it stands right now in the House bill, states that Medicare would provide end-of-life counseling to patients once every 5 years.  Even though the consultation is optional, the public isn’t going for it.

During the proposed sessions with patients, doctors could discuss matters such as living wills or getting hospice care.  This part of the bill adds about $3 billion to the cost of health care overhaul over the next 10 years.  Proponents of the provision claim that in the long run, money will be saved by reducing end-of-life care that patients do not want. 

Critics of the provision claim that health care rationing would occur under these conditions.  A bipartisan group composed of three democrats and three republicans in the Senate Finance Committee are working through a bill that excludes the provision.  As of yesterday, however, it is still in the House bill. 

Iowa Senator Charles Grassley was quoted in the article saying, “You shouldn’t have counseling at the end of life.  You ought to have counseling 20 years before you’re going to die.” Many people are concerned with how end-of-life care is often discussed in conjunction with cost savings. 

According to a 2001 study published in Health Affairs, 5% of people on Medicare die every year while about 28% of total Medicare spending comes during the last year of life.  Meanwhile, the Urban Institute estimated that the government could save about $91 billion over 10 years by better managing end-of-life care.  The nonpartisan research center says that there are two ways to save money with Medicare: by discouraging doctors from providing care just because they would get paid for it and having teams at hospitals assisting people to manage their pain who decide to stop treatment.

Robert Berenson, a former Medicare official in the Clinton administration and a fellow at the Urban Institute, was quoted in the article saying, “People are getting overtreated at the end of life.  This would save money and improve the fidelity to people’s wishes.”

However, according to Adamy, reducing overtreatment is not easy.  It is difficult for doctors to tell whether a patient is near death and most patients want to avoid death at all costs.

Question: What do you think about this provision?

To read the entire Wall Street Journal Article, click here: End-of-Life Provision Loses Favor

Bernadine Healy, M.D., health editor of U.S. News and World Report, wrote an article back in June detailing doctors’ concerns about President Obama’s proposed health care plan. 

Obama spoke to the American Medical Association (AMA) in June and outlined one of his concerns with doctors: their common over treatment of patients.  Indeed, many doctors across the country admit to giving patients additional tests that may not be absolutely necessary.  What’s more, these tests accounts for 20-30 cents of every health care dollar.  However, the doctors’ reason for administering these tests is hardly monetary; instead they are protecting themselves from frivolous lawsuits. 

While some of these suits are just and reasonable, a majority of them are frivolous and end doctors’ careers.  For example, Healy said she ran into a physician who told her he had recently won a case involving a stroke patient.  The doctor decided not to use risky therapy, and the patient died.  The doctor said he also would have been sued had he administered the treatment and the patient died.  Either way, the doctor loses.

For the moment, Healy explains that President Obama and democratic leadership have ignored the problem of defensive medicine.  Also, she claims that Medicaid reimburses doctors at such a low price that some end up losing money treating patients.  How will a bigger government entity with more people under their plan be able to properly reimburse doctors for patient care so that they don’t lose money?

A Gallup Poll released 2 days after the AMA meeting showed that when it comes to health reform, Americans trust their doctors more than they trust their political leaders. 

To read the entire U.S. News and World Report article, click here: Why Doctors Take Issue With Obama’s Health Reform Plan

Yesterday, President Obama spoke at a high school in New Hampshire, a state known for being independent on many issues.  Obama iterated that the government would not be in control of individuals’ health insurance.  Critics on the right have questioned the public option piece of the reform that they say will ultimately lead to a single-payer system. 

Obama encouraged critics of his plan to ask questions at the forum; however a majority of the inquiries came from proponents of the plan.  At one point, the President had to request that skeptics of his plan step up to the microphone. 

Obama said, “I don’t think government bureaucrats should be meddling but I don’t think insurance company bureaucrats should be meddling.” Obama also reiterated the “wild misrepresentations” that he claims have been floating around. 

Yesterday throughout the country, many senators and members of congress held town hall meetings of their own.  Senator Arlen Specter had a meeting in Mount Lebanon, PA, which was highlighted by a member in the audience who got boisterous while asking his question. 

It is clear that health care reform is rising on the list of important issues to Americans.  People on both sides are very passionate and want to make sure that this bill is either passed or completely destroyed.  In fact, a recently published Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows support of the plan declining.  Only 42% of Americans now support the plan and 53% oppose it.

To read the entire article from FoxNews.com, click here: Obama to Critics: Health Reform Not About Government Takeover

FoxNews.com reported today that the number two Senate Democrat, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, has somewhat conceded Democrats’ efforts to include a public plan in the health care reform bill.  The Illinois Senator said Sunday he is “open” to a bill that does not include a government-run option. 

This comes in response to the countless protests at town hall meetings throughout the country by Americans who are trying to combat a government overhaul of health care.  The Senate Finance Committee is trying to complete a bipartisan bill by mid-September.

Democrats are worried that liberals in the Senate and Congress may not vote to pass the bill in mid-October if it does not include a public plan. 

As September approaches, we will soon have a concrete plan in place that will surely change health care in the future.

Click here to read the entire FoxNews.com article: No. 2 Senate Democrat ‘Open’ to Health Care Bill With No Public Option

Stephanie Condon, a blogger for the Political Hotsheet of CBS News, said the White House is not living up to some of their promises made during the campaign.  Specifically, at a town hall meeting in August 2008, Obama said, “I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table.  We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators… Insurance companies, drug companies…we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies…that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in the process.” In fact, the President has held private meetings in the White House with several representatives about the reform bill.

There has been misinformation on both sides of the aisle.  Many Americans, whether they generally agree or oppose the reform proposals, don’t really have all the facts to make an educated decision.  The White House’s effort to correct ‘fishy’ information is generating anger from the Republicans.  They say that this will discourage Americans from voicing their opinions on the issue for fear of it being reported directly to the White House.  The Obama administration says the reason why it is in place is to shoot down misinformation and tell the American people the facts. 

There have been ongoing secret meeting within the Senate Finance Committee between three Republicans and three Democrats vying for a bipartisan bill.  Democrats across the board complain that these three Democrats are conceding too much to the Republicans, including scrapping the controversial government-run insurance option, even though it is the Democrats who have the majority in both the House and the Senate. 

Ms. Condon contends that if there were more C-SPAN broadcasts on health care legislation, there would be room for more understanding and make for real debate.

Click here to read the entire post: Transparency Lacking in Health Care Reform Battle