The human toll of delaying health care reform is shocking. Every day we delay health care reform:
- 6,821 more people lose their health insurance [pdf]
- 2,548 more people file for bankruptcy because they got sick
- 123 more people die because they don’t have the coverage they need
Yesterday, President Obama told Congress to continue their work:
Here’s what I ask of Congress, though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.
But as we know, it’ll take more than just words to finish health reform and finish it right. It’s going to take leadership by the President and leaders in Congress.
There is growing consensus on the way forward. The Senate bill needs to be improved before reform is finished in many ways. The way to improve the Senate bill is with majority rule, otherwise known as reconciliation.
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has a report on reconciliation, it’s history, and its process. Their conclusion is the same as ours:
…using the reconciliation process now for health care reform would not represent a dramatic break with the past. The sharp break with past practice occurred in 2001, when reconciliation was used for the first time to pass legislation that was not paid for and greatly worsened the nation’s fiscal position.
Prior to 2001, every major reconciliation bill enacted into law reduced the federal deficit. Until then, reconciliation had been reserved for legislation that met this standard of fiscal discipline. But the standard was tossed aside in 2001. In both 2001 and 2003, the reconciliation process was used to pass costly tax cuts that were not paid for and that have substantially increased deficits and debt.
In response, at the start of the new Congress in 2007, the House and Senate formally adopted rules to restore a fiscal discipline standard to the reconciliation process by barring the process from being used for bills that would increase deficits and debt. If the reconciliation process is used in coming weeks for health reform legislation, that legislation will need to adhere to this standard — rather than to continue the sharp departure from it that the 2001 and 2003 reconciliation bills made.
…
Because rising health care costs represent the single largest cause of the federal government’s long-term budget problems, fundamental health care reform must be part of any budget solution. The foregoing examples indicate that using the budget reconciliation process to enact health reform in 2010 would be consistent with the ways in which Congress has used reconciliation in the past. Many major policy changes, including welfare reform, large tax cuts, and new health programs, have been included in past reconciliation bills. Moreover, if health reform is pursued through the reconciliation process this year, the resulting legislation — unlike the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 — will need to be designed so it does not add to the deficit. Any legislation also is likely to include provisions, such as an independent Medicare Commission and demonstration projects to identify ways to deliver health care more efficiently, that could lead to further reforms that slow the growth of health-care costs and contribute to longer-term deficit reduction.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has predicted she could get the votes in the House to pass a health care bill if the Senate passes a reconciliation fix. Senators Reid, Baucus, and Conrad are open to the approach.
This is a way forward. The only question now is whether Congress will do it. Leadership is required to move both houses of Congress down this road together, the road to passing a real health care reform bill and passing it quickly.
The President asked Congress to finish reform. His call has been echoed, from Senator Al Franken to AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka. The human cost of health care is too high to not finish reform and finish it right.
(also posted at the NOW! blog)
I’m proud to work for Health Care for America Now



25 Comments







Hamsher or Dayden today quoted Pelosi effectively placing the public option off the table, and stating that abortion rights weren’t an issue to her. This was with reference to the “sidecar reconciliation” process ahead of the House. She indicated that there were votes in the House sufficient to insure that health care “reform” passed and that “you can’t do that” with respect to the public option and that abortion rights “were not going to be an issue”.
So, can you please tell us what “finish it right” can mean at this point when the Speaker of the House is telling us that we are going to get a law requiring us to pay tribute to Aetna with no public alternative and with no protection of womens’ rights.
Jason: I think you are probably a very honorable and amazingly dedicated person, but I think the leadership you have followed has sold you out, and left you with nothing to work with in advocating for their legislative agenda.
Finishing reform right means this, as per the link:
Sound good to you?
Jason: it sounds vague.
In what way? Perhaps I can be more specific for you.
Jason: I think you are an honorable and dedicated person. I think that, in your advocating for the Democratic Party’s legislative agenda on health care, however, the leadership you have followed has sold you out completely, and left you facing a crowd with nothing to work with.
Jason, I don’t know if whether they will do it is such an issue as if they do anything what will it be. Given the actors involved it is unlikely to be anything that will solve the dual issues of the unconscionable transfer of wealth from the American middle class to the health care and insurance industries and the lack of medical care for millions.
Instead we’ll get something that they can crow about and that will further exacerbate the problem. Until there are real losses among the most powerful dems they will not head the warning bells now ringing.
I’d agree, we not only need to get it done, but do it right.
Fact is, there are only a few scenarios that can credibly work or even improve the overall situation: Single Payer, Strong Hacker type PO, or some hybrid arrangement with Health Insurance co’s run like Non or Small-profit Public Utilities with Medicare expansion, plus PO etc.
None of these things is going to happen this time around. So everybody has, in effect, defaulted to what I have repeatedly called the “let it fester, Lester,” strategy. Simply put, things must get much, much worse in this country before any change is possible. It IS sad. It IS tragic. But that’s just the way it is.
No chaos, No change. Simple as that. Adios.
that’s not the toll of delaying obama’s health insurance reform. that’s the cost of not having something like hr 676 (single payer comprehensive universal health care).
none of the bills from congress would prevent all the tragedies you list here and it’s not right to imply otherwise.
please stop selling obama’s plan with single payer numbers. get your own numbers.
They’re not single payer numbers, they’re simply the statistics of what happens without reform. If folks are covered and covered well, as they would be if reform was finished right, then these numbers would drop or disappear.
i’ll walk you through an example:
if the number of people who die every year in the usa for lack of insurance is about 45,000, then with universal health insurance (aka something single payer does) that number would be 0.
the difference is the number that is due to the lack of reform. for single payer that number is 45,000 – 0 = 45,000. voila, the single payer number.
now let’s do the numbers for obama’s plan. oops. we can’t do that unless we know the number of people who would still be dying from lack of health insurance. we can be pretty sure it’s not 0 because with obama’s plan millions would still be without insurance. well, let’s call that number “x” for now.
the difference is the number that is due to the lack of reform, in this case: 45,000 – “x” is the number for obama’s plan. not 45,000.
this is not higher math. it’s just being honest about what obama’s plan will and will not do. you have to actually be able to estimate the number of deaths due to no insurance, the number of bankrupties and the number of people who would still be losing insurance under obama’s plan.
………………
and since you strangely didn’t link to the original reports/research for the number of deaths and the number of bankrupties, i’ll provide them here. after all the research was done by two of the founders of pnhp — single payer advocates.
from your third link:
here’s the pnhp release link:
http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/
and from your second link:
here’s the research paper, posted at pnhp:
http://pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf
(there was even a diary here on the topic)
Yeah, I’m just saying single payer isn’t the only way to get those numbers to zero.
except the plan you are advocating isn’t a plan to get those numbers to 0, as your post implies.
Where does it imply that?
The plan I’m advocating for might get some of those numbers to zero, I don’t know. It’s nearly impossible to tell. In a world with no denials of care, no cap on benefits, and affordable insurance, it’s pretty hard to tell how those numbers will change.
I’ll admit the plan isn’t the end of the fight for health care. I’m sure we’ll be pushing for more until the day this country ceases to exist.
with millions left without insurance, you do know the number is not 0.
clearly we don’t agree on what is “affordable” so i will temporarily put that one to the side.
…. btw, if it’s “pretty hard to tell” and you don’t know the numbers, then you don’t. tell that is.
His point seems to be that the private insurance model our Congress is about to impose on us with Obama’s help will be interchangeable in terms of effect with a single payer system. I hope he doesn’t believe that himself. Our Congress in no way is going to suggest a model that will do what a single payer system does. The Democrats have not lied to us about that yet. Instead, they present the “shortcomings” of their plan in comparison to single payer plans within an illusory frame of “political realities” – realities they themselves are creating so as to cater to their corporate sponsors before us.
I completely agree that when Jason presents numbers as facts, and those numbers are the differences between a baseline single payer system, and our current status quo, he needs to identify that fact to us. He should not present those numbers to us as if they are taken from a baseline corresponding to what our Congress is about to do to us. I am not sure that established studies have been done with respect to treating the Senate bill (which is what we’re going to get more or less) as a baseline from which to compare our status quo right now.
It’s a very good point you make.
Drop or disappear????
* 6,821 more people lose their health insurance [pdf]
* 2,548 more people file for bankruptcy because they got sick
* 123 more people die because they don’t have the coverage they need
What’s next, the govt outlawing auto accidents? Look at those numbers. Cry me a river won’t you.
You can’t wrap 300 million people in bubble wrap.
Wat?
I don’t think that there would be “numbers” in general. What you provided were numbers that amounted to a difference from a baseline. If that baseline is effectively a European/Canadian style single payer system, then you aren’t being accurate with us. If the baseline is that those numbers are derived from is the reality that would be created by the Senate bill, then you are.
Those numbers … what baseline model do they come from?
I don’t understand the question. Those numbers are what’s happening in America today.
The truth is that there will not be change in the US until the rich are frightened enough to allow it to happen. Every major economic and legal determination in the country is made by rich people through their primary instrument, the corporation, or through bought-off government officials. The Obama presidency is the last needed proof of this reality. Speaking truth to power is not about living within the “political realities” conjured up by corrupt officials and media PR for you.
Whoa! Lets get real here! The clock is not ticking, there is no urgency,[con artists will usually use the, Rush Ploy!] and your numbers ignore the fact that most Americans can not afford insurance to begin with! [This is why they are uninsured] I agree with the Single Payer System as a start to the problem and it is a, “life and death issue”. The house is, not on fire to get something, anything passed however.PhRMA would just love to have some piece of crap legislation, [Senate Bill] go through that they can, “loop hole” and make criminals out of Americans while paying off their CEOs.
Jason If Obama,Senate and Congress had worked for Health Care You would not be fighting for the insurance industry.Delayed Health Care will criple or Kill you.With Insurance Blue Cross,Kiser and Predincal Doctors told me I had to learn to live with my Cronic Diseases Did not do the proper test to know what was going on with my health.When I could no longer earn a liveing.I got away from health insurance.You see I’m a Veteran I started going to the Veterans Health Care.My quality of life has been improved with Veterans Health Care I’m alive today because of Veterans Health Care.The insurance industry told me I would have to learn to live with my condiation.Health insurance is not Health Care.
Jason Rosenbaum wrote:
So does this mean that we should not get it done if we cannot do it right?