I am confused.....if the government can't control the costs of medicare and medicaid and are claiming it is driving the deficit.....then how can they afford a "free" health care plan which includes illegals? No it won't be free as they would have us believe but hey, promise a kid an ice cream cone and they don't give a damn who pays for it as long as they get it and they don't have to pay for it. If someone has an explanation of why we can afford national health care and cannot afford medicaid and medicare, other than to use it all as another excuse to further raise our taxes and make us like it, then please offer it. If the government is going to do it so much better than the private sector then why can't they do it now with medicare? hmmmm. Doublespeak?
President Obama blamed health care costs for the mounting federal deficit, saying Tuesday the country will spend $1 out of every $5 on health care within the next 10 years if the government does not mandate reform.
Describing the need to control costs as the administration's "top priority," the president said health costs as the "primary driver" of the federal deficit.
"The U.S. government is not going to be able to afford Medicare and Medicaid on its current trajectory," Obama told reporters during his fourth solo news conference Tuesday. "The notion that we can somehow keep on doing what we're doing and that's somehow OK, that's just not true."
"If any bill arrives from Congress that is not controlling costs, that is not a bill I can support," he said, adding that coverage for uninsured and underinsured Americans should be a right, not a privilege.
Despite sharp differences between Democrats and Republicans over the extent of the government's role in the new health care system, Obama said he was "very optimistic" about the prospects of his legislation -- though he added that "there's going to some legitimate debates to be had over how this private plan takes shape."
Obama also addressed attacks from health insurers who claim the president's legislation will drive them out of business. In a joint letter to senators, the two largest industry groups warned in stark terms that a proposed government insurance plan would dismantle the employer coverage Americans have relied on for a half century and overtake the system.
America's Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association also said they don't believe it's possible to design a government plan that can compete fairly with private companies in a revamped health care market. That particular statement seemed to be aimed at lawmakers of both parties who are seeking a compromise on the contentious issue.
"If private insurers say that the market place provides the best quality healthcare, then why is it that the government is suddenly going to drive them out?" Obama said.
The insurers have suggested a government plan would run counter to Obama's promise that Americans can keep the coverage they have.
"A government-run plan no matter how it is initially structured would dismantle employer-based coverage, significantly increase costs for those who remain in private coverage, and add additional liabilities to the federal budget," said the letter from AHIP chief Karen Ignagni and Scott Serota, the head of Blue Cross.
Deliberations on both sides of the Capitol are continuing with lawmakers mindful of next week's July 4 congressional recess. Most will return home to face constituents with plenty of questions about their plans to overhaul the nation's costly health care system.
A sweeping bill unveiled in the Democratic-controlled House last week is being weighed in hearings that got under way Tuesday. The draft legislation, written without Republican help, would require all Americans to purchase health insurance and would put new requirements on employers, too.
Obama's goal for signing a bill in October appears in doubt.
But Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is doggedly pursuing a compromise. "We will get a bipartisan agreement," he insisted Monday.
Of the five House and Senate committees working on health care, the finance panel is the only one that appears to have a chance at a bipartisan agreement. Baucus planned to huddle behind closed doors Tuesday with a group of senators he's dubbed the "coalition of the willing."
Others involved are top committee Republican Charles Grassley of Iowa; Republicans Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Orrin Hatch of Utah and Olympia Snowe of Maine; and Democrats Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico.
Looming large is the question of cost. Initial estimates had Senate plans topping $1.6 trillion over 10 years, and senators are working to scale back. Curbs on Medicare and Medicaid spending are assured, and a range of taxes are under consideration, along with the possibility of fees on employers who don't cover their employees.
I'm confused
There are 6 replies to this message
