Why can't Americans have the same health care coverage as Congress?

August 18, 2003

> No Sauce for the Gander

> Why can't Americans have the same health care coverage as Congress?

>

> BY ROBERT L. BARTLEY

> Monday, August 18, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

>

> Our solons are just now scattered around the country far from the Beltway

> conventional wisdom, so they may be in an educable mood. If you have the

> opportunity, dear reader, sidle up to a Congressperson and ask: On this

> health care business, why not give the rest of us the same choices you've

> given yourself?

>

> For the biggest thing Congressfolk will face back in Washington is the

> proposal for prescription drug benefits under Medicare, and it's galling

> that none of them rely on Medicare. Instead they've given themselves,

their

> employees and the bureaucrats an entirely different system, now and in

> retirement. It's called the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Lo

> and behold, it looks a lot like the Medicare proposals Sen. Edward Kennedy

> and other Democratic millionaires say would destroy Medicare.

>

> Indeed, the FEHBP is the model for the reform proposals framed by scholars

> at places such as the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise

> Institute. It's also the choice of the Healthcare Leadership Council, a

> coalition of chief executives of health care providers ranging from the

> Mayo Clinic to Abbott Labs. It's also a model for the Bush administration,

> at least in its better days.

>

> Medicare is a top-down system. Congress legislates a one-size-fits-all

> package of benefits. Then it sets up an agency--CMS, formerly HCFA--to

> decide what prices to pay. This is central planning like GOSPLAN, which

ran

> the Soviet economy by dictating quantities and prices. So it's no surprise

> that Medicare is wracked by inefficiency and confusion.

>

> It suffers a lag in designing appropriate benefits, for starters, with the

> prescription drug benefit debate being the latest example. Doctors drop

out

> of the system, refusing new Medicare patients. Seniors find themselves

> unable to choose the physicians they want. Costs burgeon beyond control.

> And with the retirement of the baby-boom generation, the number of

> Americans in this creaking system will double by the year 2030.

>

> For themselves and their retainers, by contrast, our Congressfolk designed

> a plan based on consumer choice and competition. Each spring, the Office

of

> Personnel Management, which administers the federal employee plan, sends a

> " call letter " to health insurance providers outlining goals and asking

each

> company to propose a benefits package. All plans that meet minimum

> standards are offered as a choice to federal employees.

>

> 114b4f1.jpg

>

> Thus federal employees and retirees can choose among a dozen or more

> options. They can strike their own trade-off between coverage and cost,

> with the government paying part of the premium according to a formula

which

> typically works out at 72% to 75%. Enrollees can change plans once a year,

> and competition produces innovations in coverage. Prescription drug

> benefits are already routine, for example.

>

> Competition, not so incidentally, also controls costs. As in other

> businesses, participating plans have to set premiums that cover their

> costs, but will lose customers if their price is too high. The GAO found

> that the costs of FEHBP essentially mirror those of other large purchasers

> of health care. This means its premiums have increased rapidly in the last

> three years, but over 28 years its costs have been about the same as

> Medicare, but its benefits have been richer. The system records high

> patient satisfaction, and it's accepted by physicians almost universally.

> Unlike Medicare, the FEHBP is not in crisis.

>

> The Bush administration planned to use the prescription drug debate to

> introduce choice and consumer sovereignty into the broader Medicare

system.

> It declared victory when both the House and Senate passed bills, now to be

> reconciled by a conference committee. But in fact the Senate bill merely

> adds prescription drug coverage as a new entitlement with no choice

> element, while the House bill has one lonely provision, introducing choice

> and competition starting in 2010. Some 75 House Republicans joined a

letter

> suggesting they won't vote for a conference bill without this provision,

> but Sen. Kennedy is adamant about stripping away President Bush's last fig

> leaf.

>

> The idea of waiting until 2010 is ludicrous enough; we now see reports of

a

> " compromise " of a " pilot program " to test competition. Yet the FEHBP has

> operated successfully for more than 40 years, and as of July 2002 covered

> 2.2 million federal workers plus 1.9 million retirees and 4.2 million

> dependents. Some pilot program.

>

> The Bush administration's inclination, at least when heading to the

> Crawford ranch, seemed to be to surrender to Sen. Kennedy and call it

> victory. Probably even to pressure GOP members into going along, as it did

> in passing the current House bill by one vote. In Beltway conventional

> wisdom, this is skillful triangulation.

>

> But how in fact will this play politically? Three-fourths of seniors

> already have prescription drug coverage either as retired employees or

from

> supplemental insurance; how will they feel about having this taken away in

> return for more government promises? And in longer-run political

> calculation the economic merits can't be cavalierly dismissed. On present

> course, Mr. Bush is likely to spend his second term trying to straighten

> out the prescription drug benefit, not pressing for further reforms such

as

> salvaging Social Security.

>

> 114b50b.jpg

>

> So perhaps the solons out in the hustings can be educated; those who

signed

> the line-in-the-sand letter could always use a jolt of courage. Come to

> think of it, maybe some old-timer down in Crawford can whisper some wisdom

> into Karl Rove's ear. George W. Bush's ear, even.

>

> Mr. Bartley is editor emeritus of The Wall Street Journal. His column

> appears Mondays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.

> http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rbartley/?id=110003905

August 18, 2003

The congresspeople should not, NOT, have a

health care system that relies on others to pay the costs, and NEITHER should

we. I only rely on myself to decide how I will care for myself. When “THEY”

tell me how I should care for myself, and what means there shall be to care for

myself, I can no longer take care of myself. And when you can’t take

care of yourself, do your REALLY think that THEY are going to take care of

you? WE don’t need for them to be making decisions for us that should be

our own. And when I make a decision for myself, I am the one who should pay

for it. I don’t hold anybody else responsible. But if I seek out a

medical procedure and it goes awry, the practitioner of that medical procedure

should be responsible for his mistake. If I need my big toenail removed and

the doctor screws up and takes off my big toe, he has broken a contract about

what he said needed to be done and what I agreed to permit him to do. He is

then liable and the government should see that he pays for his liability,

mistake, what he was responsible for. That is ALL we need out of government.

It is the commonest attitude in the world to not take care of yourself and then

expect others to pick up the cost of one’s own irresponsibility.

ed

luckypig

[luckypig]

Monday, August 18, 2003

10:13 AM

@ TheMultiD

Why

can't Americans have the same health care coverage as Congress?

> No Sauce for the Gander

> Why can't Americans have the same health care

coverage as Congress?

>

> BY ROBERT L. BARTLEY

> Monday, August 18, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

>

> Our solons are just now scattered around the

country far from the Beltway

> conventional wisdom, so they may be in an

educable mood. If you have the

> opportunity, dear reader, sidle up to a

Congressperson and ask: On this

> health care business, why not give the rest

of us the same choices you've

> given yourself?

>

> For the biggest thing Congressfolk will face

back in Washington is the

> proposal for prescription drug benefits under

Medicare, and it's galling

> that none of them rely on Medicare. Instead

they've given themselves,

their

> employees and the bureaucrats an entirely

different system, now and in

> retirement. It's called the Federal Employees

Health Benefits Program. Lo

> and behold, it looks a lot like the Medicare

proposals Sen. Edward Kennedy

> and other Democratic millionaires say would

destroy Medicare.

>

> Indeed, the FEHBP is the model for the reform

proposals framed by scholars

> at places such as the Heritage Foundation and

American Enterprise

> Institute. It's also the choice of the

Healthcare Leadership Council, a

> coalition of chief executives of health care

providers ranging from the

> Mayo Clinic to Abbott Labs. It's also a model

for the Bush administration,

> at least in its better days.

>

> Medicare is a top-down system. Congress

legislates a one-size-fits-all

> package of benefits. Then it sets up an

agency--CMS, formerly HCFA--to

> decide what prices to pay. This is central

planning like GOSPLAN, which

ran

> the Soviet economy by dictating quantities

and prices. So it's no surprise

> that Medicare is wracked by inefficiency and

confusion.

>

> It suffers a lag in designing appropriate

benefits, for starters, with the

> prescription drug benefit debate being the

latest example. Doctors drop

out

> of the system, refusing new Medicare

patients. Seniors find themselves

> unable to choose the physicians they want.

Costs burgeon beyond control.

> And with the retirement of the baby-boom

generation, the number of

> Americans in this creaking system will double

by the year 2030.

>

> For themselves and their retainers, by

contrast, our Congressfolk designed

> a plan based on consumer choice and

competition. Each spring, the Office

of

> Personnel Management, which administers the

federal employee plan, sends a

> " call letter " to health insurance

providers outlining goals and asking

each

> company to propose a benefits package. All

plans that meet minimum

> standards are offered as a choice to federal

employees.

>

> 114b4f1.jpg

>

> Thus federal employees and retirees can

choose among a dozen or more

> options. They can strike their own trade-off

between coverage and cost,

> with the government paying part of the

premium according to a formula

which

> typically works out at 72% to 75%. Enrollees

can change plans once a year,

> and competition produces innovations in

coverage. Prescription drug

> benefits are already routine, for example.

>

> Competition, not so incidentally, also

controls costs. As in other

> businesses, participating plans have to set

premiums that cover their

> costs, but will lose customers if their price

is too high. The GAO found

> that the costs of FEHBP essentially mirror

those of other large purchasers

> of health care. This means its premiums have

increased rapidly in the last

> three years, but over 28 years its costs have

been about the same as

> Medicare, but its benefits have been richer.

The system records high

> patient satisfaction, and it's accepted by

physicians almost universally.

> Unlike Medicare, the FEHBP is not in crisis.

>

> The Bush administration planned to use the

prescription drug debate to

> introduce choice and consumer sovereignty

into the broader Medicare

system.

> It declared victory when both the House and

Senate passed bills, now to be

> reconciled by a conference committee. But in

fact the Senate bill merely

> adds prescription drug coverage as a new

entitlement with no choice

> element, while the House bill has one lonely

provision, introducing choice

> and competition starting in 2010. Some 75

House Republicans joined a

letter

> suggesting they won't vote for a conference

bill without this provision,

> but Sen. Kennedy is adamant about stripping

away President Bush's last fig

> leaf.

>

> The idea of waiting until 2010 is ludicrous

enough; we now see reports of

a

> " compromise " of a " pilot

program " to test competition. Yet the FEHBP has

> operated successfully for more than 40 years,

and as of July 2002 covered

> 2.2 million federal workers plus 1.9 million

retirees and 4.2 million

> dependents. Some pilot program.

>

> The Bush administration's inclination, at

least when heading to the

> Crawford ranch, seemed to be to surrender to

Sen. Kennedy and call it

> victory. Probably even to pressure GOP

members into going along, as it did

> in passing the current House bill by one

vote. In Beltway conventional

> wisdom, this is skillful triangulation.

>

> But how in fact will this play politically?

Three-fourths of seniors

> already have prescription drug coverage

either as retired employees or

from

> supplemental insurance; how will they feel

about having this taken away in

> return for more government promises? And in

longer-run political

> calculation the economic merits can't be

cavalierly dismissed. On present

> course, Mr. Bush is likely to spend his

second term trying to straighten

> out the prescription drug benefit, not

pressing for further reforms such

as

> salvaging Social Security.

>

> 114b50b.jpg

>

> So perhaps the solons out in the hustings can

be educated; those who

signed

> the line-in-the-sand letter could always use

a jolt of courage. Come to

> think of it, maybe some old-timer down in

Crawford can whisper some wisdom

> into Karl Rove's ear. George W. Bush's ear,

even.

>

> Mr. Bartley is editor emeritus of The Wall

Street Journal. His column

> appears Mondays in the Journal and on

OpinionJournal.com.

> http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rbartley/?id=110003905

«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»

NATIONWIDE DENTAL BENEFITS PACKAGE PLUS

SAVE UP TO 80% on DENTAL, PRESCRIPTIONS DRUGS,

GLASSES, CONTACTS, VISION CARE, &

CHIROPRACTIC.

$11.95 For Single or

$19.95 For an entire household per month!

Immediate Coverage * No Waiting

Period

Pre-existing Covered * No Limit on Benefits

http://www.mybenefitsplus.com/MMerrill/

Email: MEM121

«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»

§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH

CONSPIRACIES! §

Subscribe:.........

-

To :....

-

Any information here in is for educational purpose

only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always

consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of

treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.

**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,

any copyrighted work in this message is

distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have

expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit

research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

August 18, 2003

I agree with everything you said. I think the author of the post was trying to point out the in balance of the health system in this country.

Lucky

-

Ed Siceloff

Monday, August 18, 2003 11:29 AM

RE: Why can't Americans have the same health care coverage as Congress?

The congresspeople should not, NOT, have a health care system that relies on others to pay the costs, and NEITHER should we. I only rely on myself to decide how I will care for myself. When “THEY” tell me how I should care for myself, and what means there shall be to care for myself, I can no longer take care of myself. And when you can’t take care of yourself, do your REALLY think that THEY are going to take care of you? WE don’t need for them to be making decisions for us that should be our own. And when I make a decision for myself, I am the one who should pay for it. I don’t hold anybody else responsible. But if I seek out a medical procedure and it goes awry, the practitioner of that medical procedure should be responsible for his mistake. If I need my big toenail removed and the doctor screws up and takes off my big toe, he has broken a contract about what he said needed to be done and what I agreed to permit him to do. He is then liable and the government should see that he pays for his liability, mistake, what he was responsible for. That is ALL we need out of government. It is the commonest attitude in the world to not take care of yourself and then expect others to pick up the cost of one’s own irresponsibility.

ed

luckypig [luckypig] Monday, August 18, 2003 10:13 AM@ TheMultiD Why can't Americans have the same health care coverage as Congress?

> No Sauce for the Gander> Why can't Americans have the same health care coverage as Congress?>> BY ROBERT L. BARTLEY> Monday, August 18, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT>> Our solons are just now scattered around the country far from the Beltway> conventional wisdom, so they may be in an educable mood. If you have the> opportunity, dear reader, sidle up to a Congressperson and ask: On this> health care business, why not give the rest of us the same choices you've> given yourself?>> For the biggest thing Congressfolk will face back in Washington is the> proposal for prescription drug benefits under Medicare, and it's galling> that none of them rely on Medicare. Instead they've given themselves,their> employees and the bureaucrats an entirely different system, now and in> retirement. It's called the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Lo> and behold, it looks a lot like the Medicare proposals Sen. Edward Kennedy> and other Democratic millionaires say would destroy Medicare.>> Indeed, the FEHBP is the model for the reform proposals framed by scholars> at places such as the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise> Institute. It's also the choice of the Healthcare Leadership Council, a> coalition of chief executives of health care providers ranging from the> Mayo Clinic to Abbott Labs. It's also a model for the Bush administration,> at least in its better days.>> Medicare is a top-down system. Congress legislates a one-size-fits-all> package of benefits. Then it sets up an agency--CMS, formerly HCFA--to> decide what prices to pay. This is central planning like GOSPLAN, whichran> the Soviet economy by dictating quantities and prices. So it's no surprise> that Medicare is wracked by inefficiency and confusion.>> It suffers a lag in designing appropriate benefits, for starters, with the> prescription drug benefit debate being the latest example. Doctors dropout> of the system, refusing new Medicare patients. Seniors find themselves> unable to choose the physicians they want. Costs burgeon beyond control.> And with the retirement of the baby-boom generation, the number of> Americans in this creaking system will double by the year 2030.>> For themselves and their retainers, by contrast, our Congressfolk designed> a plan based on consumer choice and competition. Each spring, the Officeof> Personnel Management, which administers the federal employee plan, sends a> "call letter" to health insurance providers outlining goals and askingeach> company to propose a benefits package. All plans that meet minimum> standards are offered as a choice to federal employees.>> 114b4f1.jpg>> Thus federal employees and retirees can choose among a dozen or more> options. They can strike their own trade-off between coverage and cost,> with the government paying part of the premium according to a formulawhich> typically works out at 72% to 75%. Enrollees can change plans once a year,> and competition produces innovations in coverage. Prescription drug> benefits are already routine, for example.>> Competition, not so incidentally, also controls costs. As in other> businesses, participating plans have to set premiums that cover their> costs, but will lose customers if their price is too high. The GAO found> that the costs of FEHBP essentially mirror those of other large purchasers> of health care. This means its premiums have increased rapidly in the last> three years, but over 28 years its costs have been about the same as> Medicare, but its benefits have been richer. The system records high> patient satisfaction, and it's accepted by physicians almost universally.> Unlike Medicare, the FEHBP is not in crisis.>> The Bush administration planned to use the prescription drug debate to> introduce choice and consumer sovereignty into the broader Medicaresystem.> It declared victory when both the House and Senate passed bills, now to be> reconciled by a conference committee. But in fact the Senate bill merely> adds prescription drug coverage as a new entitlement with no choice> element, while the House bill has one lonely provision, introducing choice> and competition starting in 2010. Some 75 House Republicans joined aletter> suggesting they won't vote for a conference bill without this provision,> but Sen. Kennedy is adamant about stripping away President Bush's last fig> leaf.>> The idea of waiting until 2010 is ludicrous enough; we now see reports ofa> "compromise" of a "pilot program" to test competition. Yet the FEHBP has> operated successfully for more than 40 years, and as of July 2002 covered> 2.2 million federal workers plus 1.9 million retirees and 4.2 million> dependents. Some pilot program.>> The Bush administration's inclination, at least when heading to the> Crawford ranch, seemed to be to surrender to Sen. Kennedy and call it> victory. Probably even to pressure GOP members into going along, as it did> in passing the current House bill by one vote. In Beltway conventional> wisdom, this is skillful triangulation.>> But how in fact will this play politically? Three-fourths of seniors> already have prescription drug coverage either as retired employees orfrom> supplemental insurance; how will they feel about having this taken away in> return for more government promises? And in longer-run political> calculation the economic merits can't be cavalierly dismissed. On present> course, Mr. Bush is likely to spend his second term trying to straighten> out the prescription drug benefit, not pressing for further reforms suchas> salvaging Social Security.>> 114b50b.jpg>> So perhaps the solons out in the hustings can be educated; those whosigned> the line-in-the-sand letter could always use a jolt of courage. Come to> think of it, maybe some old-timer down in Crawford can whisper some wisdom> into Karl Rove's ear. George W. Bush's ear, even.>> Mr. Bartley is editor emeritus of The Wall Street Journal. His column> appears Mondays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.> http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rbartley/?id=110003905«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»NATIONWIDE DENTAL BENEFITS PACKAGE PLUSSAVE UP TO 80% on DENTAL, PRESCRIPTIONS DRUGS,GLASSES, CONTACTS, VISION CARE, & CHIROPRACTIC.$11.95 For Single or$19.95 For an entire household per month!Immediate Coverage * No Waiting Period Pre-existing Covered * No Limit on Benefits http://www.mybenefitsplus.com/MMerrill/ Email: MEM121«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §Subscribe:......... - To :.... - Any information here in is for educational purpose only, it may be news related, purely speculation or someone's opinion. Always consult with a qualified health practitioner before deciding on any course of treatment, especially for serious or life-threatening illnesses.**COPYRIGHT NOTICE**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml