iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Rep. Jim McDermott

Rep. Jim McDermott

Posted: September 23, 2010 09:49 AM

Six months ago today, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, one of the most important pieces of health care legislation in more than a generation. Six months later and the sky is still there, grandma hasn't been euthanized, and the dreaded death panels have ceased to materialize. Six months later and insurance companies have begun to be held accountable, small businesses have begun to receive important tax breaks to provide health benefits, and premiums for seniors on Medicare Advantage plans are lower and enrollment is higher. And today, just six months after becoming law, even more benefits of reform take effect.

Not long ago, I explained how in this short span of time, the health care reform law has begun to tackle the very serious problem of rising health care costs for small businesses. Before reform, the stifling effect of double digit premium increases left small businesses with two poor choices of either shifting more of the cost onto employees or not offering health coverage altogether. But right now, according to the non partisan consumer group Families USA, over 83 percent of small businesses are eligible to receive a substantial tax credit towards their health care premiums, putting them on a path to financial security and allowing them to create more jobs.

Today, Americans all across the country can enjoy new benefits as a result of the Affordable Care Act that some have termed the new "Patient's Bill of Rights." I think that is an apt title for these important and long overdue reforms. Provisions such as prohibiting the denial of children based on pre-existing conditions and making the reprehensible practice of rescissions illegal represent a major shift in making America's health care system more equitable and fair for consumers. Additional provisions such as free preventive care for all indicate a move toward making our system give priority to "health care" rather than "sick care." This will increase quality and reduce out-of-control costs from chronic disease which accounts for two-thirds of every health care dollar spent.

Six months later and there is no sign of abatement in the misinformation campaign which continues to paint provisions in the health reform law as an abomination, bad for American consumers and a complete government takeover. But beyond the hysteria of phantom death panels, where is the abomination? Show me the provisions that will hurt consumers, because if you think a $110 billion a year tax break for working class Americans to buy private health insurance is a government takeover, I welcome the debate.

Former President Bill Clinton recently observed that he miscalculated how popular the health reform law would be for two reasons: it took several years to completely take effect and the detractors have used a very effective scare campaign. The misinformation campaign is so rampant that even those fully aware of reform's benefits to the American people, are instead choosing to downplay their support for fear of an angry electorate. This is not a winning strategy in my opinion.

Rather than capitulate to the politics of fear, the administration, the Congress, and the media have an obligation to accurately explain the Affordable Care Act, even if it means going provision by provision, and line by line. I have stood on the front lines of the health care system as a doctor, patient and concerned parent. Those experiences have served as my guideposts throughout the struggle to reform America's health care system. And it's those same experiences that tell me that fear and election hysteria should not overshadow the reality of reform.

 

Follow Rep. Jim McDermott on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RepJimMcDermott

 
 
  • Comments
  • 234
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
08:08 AM on 09/24/2010
President Obama campaigned on making health care affordable and competitive.

But the health industry continues to lobby for its profits instead of competing for or earning those profits like the rest of Americans. And that is why Americans pay rigged prices and are overcharged more than twice the going rate which is raised many times the rate of inflation.

I've heard from people who buy their own health insurance that their rates are going way up, yet again (notices came this month). My insurance comes from an employer, but even though those additional charges are more hidden, they will mean employers pass on the cost in the way of lower salaries and stagnant wages.

Some will be covered under the new plan who could not afford it otherwise. That's good, but I don't want to pay over twice the going rate for that coverage and I doubt other Americans do, either.

The key problem is cost for all struggling Americans. It hasn't been addressed.

Let's not forget the biggest health killer of all: stress. And when many are paying a huge portion of their income for rigged prices, that means less time and money to take care of their health in the first place.

It's outrageous that Congress has not put an end to the monopolies and rigged prices for something as basic and essential as health care.

The health industry should have to compete just like everybody else.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
PatrickJ08
02:29 PM on 09/24/2010
Many will see price decreases when the exchanges come into play.
11:14 PM on 09/26/2010
Believe it when you see it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
PCMartin
Bullish on cat food and refrigerator boxes
06:30 PM on 09/28/2010
As in Massachussetts?
11:45 PM on 09/23/2010
There are politics in healthcare reform?
10:23 PM on 09/23/2010
McDermott, your left of Comrade Lenin. Your an embarassment to the State of Washington. You represent the only area of Washington that could possibly elect a Marxist. You have never said no to a tax increase or a spending bill. You are part of the problem in this country. Term limits couldnt fit a politician like you any better than a suit.
10:35 PM on 09/23/2010
Name calling is so easy, a caveman could do it. We have come to expect no better from some quarters.. Grow up, dude..
10:54 PM on 09/23/2010
Actually the system the GOP/teapartiers propose where the government is weak, and the rich/corporations have the power sounds more like what you are describing mr.gogogadget.

And kudos to Zhivago for not joining in on the discussion killing name calling.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
2garen
02:59 PM on 09/24/2010
This is the normal tactic Zhivago.
Most of us ignore them as much as possible.
08:12 PM on 09/23/2010
This health reform is good for the middle and good for children

http://themiddleamericanvoice.blogspot.com/
04:26 PM on 09/23/2010
» Obamacare imposes a huge nonmedical tax compliance burden on small business. It will require them to mail IRS 1099 tax forms to every vendor from whom they make purchases of more than $600 in a year, with duplicate forms going to the Internal Revenue Service. Like so much else in the 2,500-page bill, our senators and representatives were apparently unaware of this when they passed the measure.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
midwestgirl1960
05:35 PM on 09/23/2010
It is not called "OBAMACARE' if you are gonna make a statement then state it right it is called the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 not Obamacare
photo
RickM1969
speling is sow fundimental
06:47 PM on 09/23/2010
I like to think of it as Obama cares.
09:45 PM on 09/23/2010
Just thinking the same thing!!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
BeVeryAfraid
Epistemophobia is treatable my little 0 fan poster
06:58 PM on 09/23/2010
The IRS has always had businesses send 1099s for purchases of $600 or more.  Where have you people been?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wespenn56
Progressives = progress.
08:15 AM on 09/24/2010
Watching Fox PAC, obviously
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
veritas aequitas
03:48 PM on 09/23/2010
"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking is freedom."
Dwight D, Eisenhower.
10:49 PM on 09/23/2010
I see you have handily won the debate over your own "strawman" argument, Aequitas. Bravo, that's always a winning strategy..
11:15 PM on 09/23/2010
Eisenhower was right, he also supported a top income tax rate of 91% which is what we should all be pushing for.

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2008/04/its_time_for_a.htm
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ProudLiberalDan
Standing up an fighting conservatives since 1987
03:26 PM on 09/23/2010
Congressman,

If the Democrats problem is a demoralized base that is withholding its time and money...

Instead of trying to sell a corporate welfare bill that requires people to buy private insurance under tax penalty if they don't...

Why don't you and the other Democrats campaign on keeping Democrats in the majority so they can pass a Medicare buy in using the budget reconciliation process if necessary?

You are NEVER going to convince the base that passing a mandate without a public option was the right or even moral thing to do.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michmod
Made in Detroit.
10:38 PM on 09/23/2010
Look. I've read the bill. I work in healthcare and understand the barriers. It was the right and the moral thing to do. If you don't believe me, check out the insurer response. They HATE the bill and are deliberately trying to undercut it with premium increases and removing the rarely necessary, actuarally insignifcant but politically big time .....we can't offer solo kid insurance mantra. People. This is important to the USA. Get your facts straight..
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
PCMartin
Bullish on cat food and refrigerator boxes
06:39 PM on 09/28/2010
Yup, they *hate* the way it made their stock prices go up.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
PatrickJ08
02:32 PM on 09/24/2010
You make the mistake of over-valuing the public option.
As written, it would have affected less than 5% of the population.

The trouble is, simple minds got stuck on the term "public option".
The professional left has a big hand in that - pushing the public option as the magic silver bullet, while ignoring the actual legislation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michmod
Made in Detroit.
03:21 PM on 09/23/2010
Thank you Congressman McDermott.
04:30 PM on 09/23/2010
» Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.
08:00 PM on 09/23/2010
Citation?
03:05 PM on 09/23/2010
I love all the armchair quarterbacks below who know without doubt that healthcare reform is not going to work. This Congress would have never passed a program with a single payer system. What we have is a start of what I hope will be more comprehensive reform. Unfortunately, so many of our citizens are just as spineless as many of the politicians, and are scared of change. I just stopped going to see one of my physicians because he had anti-Obama posters and tea-shirts all over his offfice. If the posters had been anti-Bush I would have stopped being his patient, also. What is he afraid of? I am sure he is afraid that his huge salary will be reduced. Where I live the multi-million dollar homes continue to be bought by physicians. Where I live, I see an increasing number of bumperstickers that say "Repeal Obamacare." Where are those drivers' guts? Why don't they say "Healthcare." We are allowing the haters of any kind of progress to win!
photo
shothot
same, same, but different
04:42 PM on 09/23/2010
If democrats advocate against healthcare, the nay sayers will undoubtedly become pro-healthcare advocates.
Anti-healthcare advoates preference for emotional engagement over reasonable arguement has allowed rethugs/tea partiers/wealthy to blind them to their own interest. They appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: the fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortuante.
To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:03 PM on 09/23/2010
You are absolutely right when you say, "the administration, the Congress, and the media have an obligation to accurately explain the Affordable Care Act."

Absolutely.

Some might suspect that the Administration is not doing so because they have a disdain for democracy and know that some of the provisions are not in our best interest.

Some saw the value of medical insurance stocks immediately rise during and after the passage of the bill.

How many politicians acquired health insurance company stock before voting for the mandatory-purcase provision? How many family members and other related parties? It's something that we will never know.
photo
shothot
same, same, but different
04:56 PM on 09/23/2010
Much of this information is available, but given we are a lazy society, and with all the research technology available for our scrutiny, we passively sat and wait for the clouds to appear. When others spoke about lack of information for healthcare reform, I received constant emails from the Obama adminstration detailing the benefits for children, women, veterans, pre-existing conditions, etc.
There is a constant flow of information from the adminstration if one desires to be informed. We need to get off our butts!!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
PatrickJ08
02:33 PM on 09/24/2010
well said
02:57 PM on 09/23/2010
PLEASE ANSWER: What are we doing wrong? What do we need to do - SPECIFICALLY - to bring about real reform (this question is not just limited to the need for legitimate health care reform, which on a whole I believe we did not ultimately receive)?

What outside-the-box (legal, of course) strategies are we not thinking of?

I think we really need to have this discussion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lisa Shields
Poet & Advocate For Special Needs Children
07:58 PM on 09/23/2010
I would settle for the law making health insurance actually LIVE to its obligations. No denying coverage, or stalling treatment because the "code was wrong" (Forgetting that they changed the codes almost monthly...strictly accidental, I am sure.) But since the Insurance companies have been getting away with that nonsense for a decade, I am assuming that nothing less than a MAJOR piece of legislation will make them play fairly.

A family who is trying to care for someone who is sick, even dying doesn't have the time to sue. And if a patient dies because some "insurance manager" wanted a bonus? Well, that sound like murder to me.

No, no one will take this as seriously as it deserves. Health Insurers made money even when they PAID THEIR CLAIMS. Allowing them to rip off the consumer is simply wrong. But nothing...not one single THING was done to make Health Insurers toe the line between the Clinton and Obama administration. Ignore a problem,and it will grow. This isn't perfect. Not by a long shot---but it beats the hell out of pretending that the companies will play fair, unless they are FORCED to.
storeysound
Zippy the Patriot?
02:22 AM on 09/24/2010
Lisa, I am totally with you. Insurance in all its forms has been a scam and blight upon America for many decades.We are required to buy auto and homeowners' policies that we pay into for years, and if we make a claim, we are dropped or the rate goes up to recoup the payout . Where did all the money go for all those years we paid in? Wasn't that to build up a reserve in case of a claim? And of course health insurance has been the worst offender of all.
Republicans cried "death panels if this bill passes!" A total lie. The death panels already existed in the form of the actuaries who denied coverage, or put annual or lifetime limits on coverage. The bill ends that. And I agree with you that this comes very close to murder, or at least negligent homicide. Democrats and the Administration need to trumpet the truth about the reforms, and call B.S. on the fear-mongers and nay-sayers who denigrate this legislation solely in order to protect and further ingratiate themselves with the insurance industry - and industry that makes obscene amounts of money for mostly doing nothing but collect money from the masses.

Oh, yeah. Fanned.
02:53 PM on 09/23/2010
This guy only addresses the right wing spin. It's pretty easy to knock down meaningless concerns such as "death panels." He could try responding to intelligent criticisms of the bill, but he's not going to do that.

Here's a big problem with this new bill: it's not going to cut costs, it's going to increase them. Our already "most expensive health care system in the world" is going to get considerably more expensive. You've got already existing health insurers and their profiteers, and now you're adding a slew of regulators and a slew of health care employees to fight with the regulators. It's complicated, it's messy, and it's senseless. It's a joke: it's like trying to fight cancer by putting a pretty hat on a giant tumor.

Go ahead, I double dare you: don't read a sales pitch for this bill, read about what it actually does. Then educate yourself about the real problems in our health care. The thing is a giant, embarassing mess. It's the Iraq War of health reform. It's a joke.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michmod
Made in Detroit.
03:37 PM on 09/23/2010
I have read the bill. And I don't know where you are coming from. It addresses the real and inhumane issues: people with pre-existing conditions not being able to afford care and the ability of insurance companies to rescind policies that people had faithfully paid on for years when someone became to expensive. It eliminates lifetime and annual caps, which ruined, ruined the lives of many families, but which is not that expensive when the risk is spread across all. It will limit the ability of insurance companies to slap people with huge increases out of the blue and removes all incentive because it limits the amount insurance companies can gouge by placing caps on the medical loss ratio. It creates real consumer power to shop for the best value. Let me ask you, what if Congress had voted for a single payer, (which couldn't have happened politically but let's say they did)....what would have happened to the economy? Unemployment? Taxes? Healthcare providers - wouldn't have been able to make payroll. Payments from insurers would have stopped. There would have been massive chaos. Healthcare is too big. The steps have to be incremental. The short term will be rocky but in the long run there is a level playing field and rules of engagement that protect the consumers for once. And our most vulnerable won't have to worry day to day if they will have to go without coverage.
03:47 PM on 09/23/2010
You're right. Prior to the bill we had tow huge issues with healthcare: out of control costs and access. They've improved coverage by adding 30+ million people to a broken system and done nothing to control costs. Economics 101 says when demand shifts up and supply (docs) stays constant there will either be increased prices or shortage of supply.
02:41 PM on 09/23/2010
Many of us seem to be missing the point. Sure a single payer system would be ideal, but there was not enough support in the senate to accomplish that. Instead we have an imperfect alternative that is still better than what we started with.

All this talk about how there is "nothing good in this bill" is typical right wing rhetoric. Try reading the blog before you post your nonsense, then explain to me what exactly is bad about this?

"Provisions such as prohibiting the denial of children based on pre-existing conditions and making the reprehensible practice of rescissions illegal represent a major shift in making America's health care system more equitable and fair for consumers. Additional provisions such as free preventive care for all indicate a move toward making our system give priority to "health care" rather than "sick care.""!
03:26 PM on 09/23/2010
Let me explain how business works. A company charges enough money to pay its bills, such as payroll, buildings, office supplies, etc. It also charges a premium on that to pay its investors, i.e. the people who own stock in the company. This is called a dividend. When a company's costs rise, let's say because they now have to cover children who were previously denied, they have to offset the cost rise by a) raising prices, b) laying off employees (cutting expenses), or c) reducing dividends.

Which of those three things do you suggest insurers do in order to accomodate the new health insurance requirements? And if you say cut dividends, think about this. If a company cannot attract stockholders because they can't pay reasonable dividends, the company loses the ability to finance expansion, hire employees, research alternative medicines, and the like.

So what's it gonna be?
04:07 PM on 09/23/2010
Businesses always cry about how they'll go out of business everytime a law is made to keep them from exploiting something or someone. I could care less what their choice is on how to deal with the new laws.

I have no sympathy for an entity that feels it's fine to take my money when I'm healthy and then fight me with my own money to avoid paying my medical bills which they agreed to pay to begin with. Like I said at the beginnning of my post, single payer is the better option... but there wasn't enough support for that.
storeysound
Zippy the Patriot?
02:54 AM on 09/24/2010
You forgot option d) do away with seven-figure bonuses and stock option packages. Major insurance company execs who are already making seven- or eight-figure salaries can probably survive quite nicely without the bonus.
03:54 PM on 09/23/2010
You are pathetic and i knew after reading just a few of your words that you probably haven't read a word of this bill...disgustingly un- american ..i challenge every liberal on hear to read some of this bill what a disgrace!
04:18 PM on 09/23/2010
Sad that your point of view is only name calling and assumptions of who has read what. Grow up then discuss your point... if you even have one.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
PatrickJ08
02:36 PM on 09/24/2010
we've read it, bagger
02:41 PM on 09/23/2010
You have not fixed the underlying problem - there is no competition in the system (public option) and our health is in the hands of private, solely profit-driven entities with no interest in our physical or emotional well-being. The health care system is still not sustainable: if there is a major leak, you don't simply bandage it but you stop it at its source. We did not do that, so the blood will keep flowing.
09:57 PM on 09/23/2010
A public option does not offer competition. A competitor who can steal funds from the competition is not a real competitor. There are already more than one insurer in existence (read competition), it is the laws already around before the HC bill which alter the market making it unfriendly to competition. Get the gov't out of health care and we'll all be better off. Well, not all, I'm sure the bottom 2% will still be as out of luck as they always have been.
10:28 PM on 09/23/2010
Get the greed out of health care and we will ALL be better off.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Linda from Pahrump
Moderation in ALL things
02:36 PM on 09/23/2010
The true solution to the health-care problem, is to regulate the COST of said care. Regulate what a doctor/hospital/care-giver can charge ie: the same cost for ALL services, across-the -board, in every state. Allowing a doctor to charge $200 for a simple visit to his/her office, is obscene. I was in Europe, when I had to go to the doctor, and a simple visit cost me 27 Euros(cash, no insurance!). A visit to the emergency room in India (to a very modern hospital) cost me $50, including the taxi, doctor and lab work. The entire visit took 20 minutes. Also, without insurance.

Because these costs are low to begin with, they are affordable. With insurance, my visit in Europe would have been free. The insurance costs about $125 per month, per person. The wait was about ten minutes.

Believe what you want about socialized medicine, but it is cheaper and more efficient than anything we have here!
02:39 PM on 09/23/2010
Socialized medicine would take the insurance companies out of the equation saving billions. That would make every Republican's head explode. What better thing to exploit than people's health
03:55 PM on 09/23/2010
they also should get free food from the grocery store because it is essential to there health.
09:59 PM on 09/23/2010
Do you understand the word free? HC is paid for via third parties, it isn't free. Just because you can't see the cost after it's absorbed into your larger tax burden does not make something free.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
PatrickJ08
02:38 PM on 09/24/2010
Reform is paid for.

Glad you get it.
So many righties whine about the deficit without a single clue what they are referring to.