$825 Billion... With Band-Aids For Health Care?

The inherent problem, of course, when speaking about billions of dollars in economic stimulus is that it's hard for most of us to figure what each billion actually means -- I mean, geez, who can imagine it?

But even in a billion-dollar plan, one thing's always easy to spot -- zilch, zero, nada. That's what (it seems anyway) is going to be put toward reforming health care in this glittering package. Really? Is this happening? Perhaps the northeast winter turns the mind slow, so just wake me when it's all over, will you? Staring at these numbers, after all, is making me cross-eyed (and slightly ill).

When all kinds of companies (from corporations to mom-and-pop stores) find that health is the largest cost bogging them down day-to-day, it seems only sensible this would be the one area to fix in an economic stimulus, and fix fast, don't you think? I mean do we want companies, big and small, to raise themselves up from near-death scenarios? How much we want it is one way of asking, perhaps. Or maybe there's just a more palatable work-around.

It has been widely reported already that since US employers are struggling to compete with companies abroad, real efforts should be made to make health insurance lighter on the wallet (recognizing this prompted action by lawmakers last May when they created the "Healthy Americans Act," a promising proposal drafted by a handful of trusty senators). How big a deal is health insurance, really, for American employers? A study by McKinsey and Company, conducted in 2004, predicted it would outrun American employers' profits by -- yup, you guessed it -- 2008.

But the plan (which it seems many Dems and GOPs actually agree on) is somehow on hold. That's how it looks (though maybe they're hiding this little nugget of good news someplace). Just yesterday, a journalist, John Iglehart, writing for the New England Journal of Medicine (God bless this man) reported that, "[the] new administration's proposal for health care reform will not be part of the large stimulus package that Democratic legislators plan to enact in early January."

Jesus Christ. Dear Mr. Iglehart goes on to say how this message runs suspiciously counter to the president-elect's, when he spoke about health care back in December, after announcing he had picked Tom Daschle for HHS Secretary. At the time, the president-elect noted that a major health care initiative has, "to be intimately woven into our overall economic recovery plan." He further added that, "[i]t's not something that we can put off because we are in an emergency. This is part of the emergency."

In the new economic stimulus proposal, there are measures to deal with the health concerns of newly laid-off and disabled workers temporarily, by pouring money into COBRA and Medicaid to plug some gashed veins and prevent more spillage. (Incidentally, triage doesn't come cheap - $87 billion for Medicaid, $30 billion toward health for the unemployed and $20 billion for health technologies are all part of the stimulus proposal summary.) No line item, unfortunately, that identifies how the administration will help employers pay for American health.

The question becomes, of course, who in either houses of Congress is going to have the stomach for comprehensive health reform once we've injected $825 billion into the bleeding patient that is our economy? Will health be cited for the next four years as the greatest failure ever to hit the new administration's agenda? Where's Rahm Emanuel when you need him anyway? Why can't he set these guys straight?

Legislators believe they need more time to come to agreement. But when the money runs out, time will, needless to say, become rather irrelevant. Where's that change and accountability that was promised us? Show us the money and we'll believe you care, guys. The intent to reform becomes, after all, sadly unhelpful when you're dealing in increments of zero.

Comments

[IndependentMeans]

Having been in health care for 28 years, seeing a horrendous decline in cut backs and prices soaring (we pay $920 out of pocket for our insurance monthly for 2 healthy people), I maintain the ONLY answer is a Universal Health Care program. We need Medicare for everyone, not just the over 65 year olds. Conversely, this is the same group that is opposed to universal care, and fail to realize THEY are on a government program. Our current system is costing employers and taxpayers ridiculous amounts of money with quality of care at an astoundingly low level compared to other advanced nations. This is a national disgrace.

[Pia Sawhney - Huffpost Blogger]

A promising suggestion on how might begin allocating funds toward primary care. Posted to HuffPo by Senators Sanders and Clyburn. Sanders is a member of the Senate health committee and an independent from Vermont. Clyburn is House Majority Whip and a Democrat from South Carolina. Excellent idea, hope they follow through.

Provide Primary Health Care, Save Money
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-bernie-sanders-and-house-majority-whip-clyburn/provide-primary-health-ca_b_159819.html

[IndependentMeans]

A wonderful concept, and one in which my brother is a practicing physician. The second problem though, is doctor shortages. I believe we need to propose a program that pays for medical school by demanding "x" number of years of service for that education, much like the air force academy concept. These doctors would have to serve their payback years in situations where shortages are critical, such as the rural area where I live. Doctor shortages rurally is a huge problem.

[rad21]

I work in the health-care field. There is much waste and redundancies in the 2 trillion dollar health-care field. What we do not need more money is health-care. We need re-allocation of the current resources, which should follow re-incentives for care.

The new HHS secretary was right in his recent hearings when he said, "The health-care system is a pyramid. Most advanced countries have the pyramid on its base with basic and preventive care receiving the most attention and resources. In the US, the pyramid is reverse with most resources going to specialty and end-of-life care.

What US cannot afford are vested and un-knowledgeable sources, like Harry and Lois in their TV commercial, fear mongering in print and TV to keep us doing the same old ... same old.

[harriscrl3]

It is going towards healthcare we can't have universal healthcare until we REFORM healthcare and the way you start out is finding cost cutting measures such as electronic medical files where he plans on creating jobs. Obama said healthcare is going to take time. I think its naive of people to actually think he is going ot get Universal healthcare pass in his first 100 days when thats the most difficlut policy to get past. Dont people listen when he says these things arent going to happen over night. There is currently a healthcare bill for children going through Congress these are all parts of the puzzle you cant do eveything one time.

If you want a better stimulus you need to call your Congressman/woman and put pressure on them. Because some of us are not doing our part that Obama told us he needs us to do.

Also for smeone who listens to people many seem to fail to listen to him. Obama said that there is likely going to be another stimulus package within a couple of years.

Carol

[deminmo]

Two areas that have been cut at the national level and state
is SCHIP and elder care, such as Medicare. Kill off the two
most costly groups and save money. Now Pfeizer cuts jobs
not only for sales force but research. Who's next? And who
looks for new medicines?
The main drive is to bolster those banks who got bailout money
to buy up other banks, and then fell into bigger problems, and now
need more money, not the sweeping cost reduction of medical care
and the huge cost of staying alive. And no money for wellness
programs either.

[Pia Sawhney - Huffpost Blogger]

If the stimulus package passes in its current form, health care programs that already exist may be under threat. This piece in the LA Times describes how states are already limiting health care for poor citizens and seniors because, these states find, they can no longer afford to provide care to all residents, amidst the economic downturn.

Struggling states cut healthcare for poor before Obama can bolster coverage
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health14-2009jan14,0,3032028.story?page=1

[drock973]

The whole stimulus package is a band-aid.

[ouroborous]

Oh dear. The stimulus package might not actually go towards the things we were promised?

Oh dear.