Latest Drugwonks' Blog
Opposition to Health Care Plan Hits New High of 56%
Friday, September 18, 2009
Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition yet measured and includes 44% who are Strongly Opposed.
Just 43% now favor the proposal, including 24% who Strongly Favor it.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition yet measured and includes 44% who are Strongly Opposed.
Just 43% now favor the proposal, including 24% who Strongly Favor it.
Date | Approve | Disapprove |
Sep 16-17 | 43% | 56% |
44% | 53% | |
42% | 55% | |
45% | 52% | |
51% | 46% | |
48% | 48% | |
47% | 49% | |
46% | 51% | |
44% | 53% | |
43% | 53% | |
42% | 53% | |
47% | 49% | |
44% | 53% | |
46% | 49% | |
50% | 45% |
But the overall picture remains one of stability. While the numbers have bounced a bit following nationally televised appearances by the president to promote the plan, opposition has generally stayed above 50% since early July. Support has been in the low to mid 40s.
The number who Strongly Oppose the plan has remained above 40% and the Strongly Favor totals have been in the mid-20s. This suggests public opinion is hardening when it comes to the plan that is currently working its way through Congress.
However, now just 48% say that health care reform plan is at least somewhat likely to pass this year, a figure that has been trending down in recent days. That figure includes 17% who say passage is Very Likely.
Rasmussen Reports has been tracking support for the health care plan on a daily basis since the president's speech to Congress last week intended to revitalize the troubled initiative.
From the pages of Washington Monthly:
RUMBLINGS ABOUT A BLUE DOG BETRAYAL.... Rep. Bill Cassidy (R) of Louisiana told a conservative talk-show host this morning that Blue Dogs Democrats have been quietly reaching out to conservative Republicans about a GOP-friendly health care reform plan.
"I'm having Democrats come to me, to speak to me as to what House Republicans are putting up," Cassidy told a conservative news radio program. "And when I mention our patient-centered plan...they want to have more conversations regarding that."
Cassidy was referencing the bill H.R. 3400, introduced by some House GOP lawmakers as an alternative to the bill favored by most Democrats.
"Some of my Democratic colleagues are approaching me now, saying we are not going to vote for H.R. 3200, can we talk about some of our ideas," Cassidy explained. "I'm very encouraged by this."
This isn't the first time this has come up, but it's gone almost entirely overlooked, in part because it seems hard to believe.
Last week, The Hill had a report, citing "GOP sources," claiming that Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the leading Blue Dog on health care policy, has been "keeping a back channel open" to Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) about a possible reform deal. The sources said Ross and Boustany have "secretively ... been in talks for weeks."
And as far back as July, Boustany claimed that Blue Dogs and conservative Republicans were having "conversations" about a center-right compromise that would effectively reject everything Democrats had proposed.
At this point, the only people talking about this publicly seem to be conservative Republicans. Whether there's anything to this is entirely unclear. Maybe this has to do with a negotiating ploy. It might even be little more than a psych-out.
But if Cassidy's comments this morning were accurate, Blue Dogs could be part of a rather massive betrayal. If the conservative Democrats decide, en masse, that they'll support a conservative Republican approach to reform -- premised on the notion that American families already have too much insurance -- but not a Democratic package, the consequences would be devastating.
RUMBLINGS ABOUT A BLUE DOG BETRAYAL.... Rep. Bill Cassidy (R) of Louisiana told a conservative talk-show host this morning that Blue Dogs Democrats have been quietly reaching out to conservative Republicans about a GOP-friendly health care reform plan.
"I'm having Democrats come to me, to speak to me as to what House Republicans are putting up," Cassidy told a conservative news radio program. "And when I mention our patient-centered plan...they want to have more conversations regarding that."
Cassidy was referencing the bill H.R. 3400, introduced by some House GOP lawmakers as an alternative to the bill favored by most Democrats.
"Some of my Democratic colleagues are approaching me now, saying we are not going to vote for H.R. 3200, can we talk about some of our ideas," Cassidy explained. "I'm very encouraged by this."
This isn't the first time this has come up, but it's gone almost entirely overlooked, in part because it seems hard to believe.
Last week, The Hill had a report, citing "GOP sources," claiming that Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the leading Blue Dog on health care policy, has been "keeping a back channel open" to Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) about a possible reform deal. The sources said Ross and Boustany have "secretively ... been in talks for weeks."
And as far back as July, Boustany claimed that Blue Dogs and conservative Republicans were having "conversations" about a center-right compromise that would effectively reject everything Democrats had proposed.
At this point, the only people talking about this publicly seem to be conservative Republicans. Whether there's anything to this is entirely unclear. Maybe this has to do with a negotiating ploy. It might even be little more than a psych-out.
But if Cassidy's comments this morning were accurate, Blue Dogs could be part of a rather massive betrayal. If the conservative Democrats decide, en masse, that they'll support a conservative Republican approach to reform -- premised on the notion that American families already have too much insurance -- but not a Democratic package, the consequences would be devastating.
Ceci Connolly's piece on the marvels of the Baucus bill captures the complete disengagement of the political process and parasite class involved in health care reform from the essential fabric of representative government. As long as "stakeholders" are numb and happy, all is well. Screw the people who will be forced to pay more money for a small number of health plan choices that are more expensive yet demonstrate no greater benefit than less costly forms of coverage, accept cuts in Medicare and Medicaid without regard to individual need.
It seems that since Obama became President, Washington has become more detached from public sentiment... Ceci just channels the delusion such disregard is not only acceptable but essential to being politically effective...
Read the article here.
It seems that since Obama became President, Washington has become more detached from public sentiment... Ceci just channels the delusion such disregard is not only acceptable but essential to being politically effective...
Read the article here.
Check out the video below.
Peter Pitts Discusses economic incentives for healthy living.
Peter Pitts Discusses economic incentives for healthy living.
My favorite quote about liberalism is from Lionel Trilling: (“We must be aware of the dangers which lie in our most generous wishes. Some paradox of our nature leads us, when once we have made our fellow men the objects of our enlightened interest, to go on to make them the objects of our pity, then of our wisdom, ultimately of our coercion.”)
Thus stands the clueless observation of Drew Altman who maintains that by such time in the future the annual cost of health care will be $30k a year:
For the worker share of the premium alone, the average amount paid by families increased from $1,543 in 1999 to $3,354 in 2008.
But that's according to the Book of Kaiser which believes that all health care coverage should include all the benefits and first dollar amounts that the Kaiser Foundation social engineers deem ok. Which is why the Baucus bill eliminates choice of any coverage other than the most expensive Kaiser model
Meanwhile, consumer expenditure data shows that Americans on average spent $945 a year on health insurance premiums in 1999 or two percent of the average pretax income. In 2007 the average was $1545 a person or a whopping 3 percent of pretax income. In both cases, that amount was less than what a person spent, on average, for dining out or entertainment.
Drew tells us that... the average cost of a family health insurance policy in 2009: $13,375....premiums in 2019 will average a whopping $30,803, a very scary number.
Let's set aside the mythical nature of that number, how it reflects pretax wage increases on the one hand and a one size fits all benefit package replete with mandated services on the other. Let's set aside the fact that the average yearly family premium in the individual health market with a $2000 deductible with the same benefits Drew drools for is $4500. SOURCE: eHealth, Inc.
Instead, let's focus on Drew's solution for making the scary number go away:
"One obvious implication is that we need to get more serious about reaching agreement on ways to slow the rate of increase in health care costs. But consensus on measures that would put a real dent in the health cost trajectory has been hard to achieve. Even simple first steps, such as comparative effectiveness research to collect data on what works and what does not in medical practice, have proven controversial, requiring language in draft legislation disavowing that they will ever be linked to payment."
www.kff.org/pullingittogether/091509_altman.cfm
Poor Drew. America lacks the will to require government to ration care explicitly. But he should take heart that much of Congress has bought into to the element of the liberal vision: a one size fits all, overpriced health plan that will be hard to pay for and three times as expensive as what most of us would choose if we actually had the choice.
It's not about cost. It is about coercion.
Thus stands the clueless observation of Drew Altman who maintains that by such time in the future the annual cost of health care will be $30k a year:
For the worker share of the premium alone, the average amount paid by families increased from $1,543 in 1999 to $3,354 in 2008.
But that's according to the Book of Kaiser which believes that all health care coverage should include all the benefits and first dollar amounts that the Kaiser Foundation social engineers deem ok. Which is why the Baucus bill eliminates choice of any coverage other than the most expensive Kaiser model
Meanwhile, consumer expenditure data shows that Americans on average spent $945 a year on health insurance premiums in 1999 or two percent of the average pretax income. In 2007 the average was $1545 a person or a whopping 3 percent of pretax income. In both cases, that amount was less than what a person spent, on average, for dining out or entertainment.
Drew tells us that... the average cost of a family health insurance policy in 2009: $13,375....premiums in 2019 will average a whopping $30,803, a very scary number.
Let's set aside the mythical nature of that number, how it reflects pretax wage increases on the one hand and a one size fits all benefit package replete with mandated services on the other. Let's set aside the fact that the average yearly family premium in the individual health market with a $2000 deductible with the same benefits Drew drools for is $4500. SOURCE: eHealth, Inc.
Instead, let's focus on Drew's solution for making the scary number go away:
"One obvious implication is that we need to get more serious about reaching agreement on ways to slow the rate of increase in health care costs. But consensus on measures that would put a real dent in the health cost trajectory has been hard to achieve. Even simple first steps, such as comparative effectiveness research to collect data on what works and what does not in medical practice, have proven controversial, requiring language in draft legislation disavowing that they will ever be linked to payment."
www.kff.org/pullingittogether/091509_altman.cfm
Poor Drew. America lacks the will to require government to ration care explicitly. But he should take heart that much of Congress has bought into to the element of the liberal vision: a one size fits all, overpriced health plan that will be hard to pay for and three times as expensive as what most of us would choose if we actually had the choice.
It's not about cost. It is about coercion.
What were the town hall meetings and tea parties all about? Healthcare reform? Sure. But the anger exhibited by our fellow citizens was clearly grounded in a much broader frustration over the continuing growth of government. The current debate over healthcare reform was a lightening rod -- and the results have been explosive.
And that's not surprising when you consider that healthcare reform, as positioned by the President and many senior members of Congress, would represent the biggest increase in the size and expense of government in our lifetime.
Many who favor such programs point to Great Britain and their National Health Service (the NHS) as a desirable model of single-payer delivery. But small government it ain't. Consider this: the NHS is the single largest employer in Great Britain. In fact, it's the world's fourth largest employer -- only the Chinese People's Liberation Army, Wal-Mart, and the Indian Railways directly employ more people.
Americans believe that the healthcare reform packages being considered by Congress would result in ever bigger government. They're right. Whether or not that's the right thing to do is another matter.
And that's not surprising when you consider that healthcare reform, as positioned by the President and many senior members of Congress, would represent the biggest increase in the size and expense of government in our lifetime.
Many who favor such programs point to Great Britain and their National Health Service (the NHS) as a desirable model of single-payer delivery. But small government it ain't. Consider this: the NHS is the single largest employer in Great Britain. In fact, it's the world's fourth largest employer -- only the Chinese People's Liberation Army, Wal-Mart, and the Indian Railways directly employ more people.
Americans believe that the healthcare reform packages being considered by Congress would result in ever bigger government. They're right. Whether or not that's the right thing to do is another matter.
In May, I opined on giving Americans a tax deduction based on a healthy BMI (Body Mass Index).
My article can be found here.
Yesterday, Brian Sullivan of Fox Business News blogged on a similar idea. His blog can be found here.
Today, Brian and Degan McDowell and I discussed the idea on air. My point is that, when it comes to healthcare reform, we seem to be discussing everything except diet and exercise ... and personal responsibility.
We talked about tax incentives (the "carrot") as well as the political time bomb of a fat VAT (the "stick").
All things considered -- a very timely conversation.
The complete video interview can be found here.
As Julia Child would say: "Bon Appetit!"
My article can be found here.
Yesterday, Brian Sullivan of Fox Business News blogged on a similar idea. His blog can be found here.
Today, Brian and Degan McDowell and I discussed the idea on air. My point is that, when it comes to healthcare reform, we seem to be discussing everything except diet and exercise ... and personal responsibility.
We talked about tax incentives (the "carrot") as well as the political time bomb of a fat VAT (the "stick").
All things considered -- a very timely conversation.
The complete video interview can be found here.
As Julia Child would say: "Bon Appetit!"
My guess is that this story below about how imperfectly the HER2 test for breast cancer is used captures the “real world” experience of personalized medicine: Even when a predictive tool is available, many doctors will not use it. The reasons can vary. Not trusting the accuracy of the test itself (of which there are different types) unwillingness or hassle in getting the test paid for by insurance companies. Prior studies have found that access to HER2 test varies with type of insurance coverage. They key to consistent and effective use of predictive tests is analysis of real world application to improve validity and impact on outcome. To demand large scale clinical trials prior to use in real world settings will only delay the ability of people to find out how to use next generation medicine wisely and well.
LONDON, Sept 14 (Reuters) - A genetic test to determine if women should receive Roche's (ROG.VX) breast cancer drug is frequently not given, U.S. researchers said on Monday.
Up to two thirds of patients with aggressive breast cancer had no documentation of the test in their health insurance records, according to a study published online by the journal Cancer.
The research also found that one in five genetic test results may be incorrect.
Herceptin, a blockbuster product for Roche, can save lives. But it only works for about 20 percent of women whose tumours overproduce a protein called HER2, and identifying these HER2-positive patients requires a genetic test.
The researchers said their findings suggested many breast cancer patients who might benefit from Herceptin, also known as trastuzumab, were not receiving it, while some women on the drug had never been properly tested.
"Our review of the literature suggests that there are important knowledge gaps regarding the real world use of HER2 testing and trastuzumab," Elena Elkin, a researcher at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York and one of the study's authors, said in a statement.
"Filling these gaps may help optimise limited healthcare resources and improve care for women with breast cancer."
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK.L) also has a newer medicine for HER2-positive breast cancer called Tykerb.
Read full article here.
Read full article here.
Sure looks that way:
"Section 3105 of the Kennedy bill says American health Benefit Gateways would be created in every state, serving as a health insurance exchange. A "Navigators" program would award grants to public and private entities to "conduct public education; distribute fair and impartial information regarding health plans; [and] assist with enrollment and provide information that is culturally and linguistically appropriate for the population." The bill stipulates that both health insurance issuers and current independent insurance agents would be prohibited from participating in the Navigators program."
Read more here.
And here is what ACORN is already doing:
"Moving toward maximum eligible participation in federal and state benefits programs is one of ACORN’s key national priorities. ACORN will begin transitioning many of its offices to the Nets2Ladders screening platform (Nets2Ladders is also a key strategic partner with H&R Block). Nets2Ladders offers a powerful, automated benefits enrollment platform that will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of enrolling low-income families in federal and state benefits programs. This software integrates tax return and benefit information so that the information that is collected while filing the tax return is automatically updated into the benefits screening tools, reducing the amount of time needed to add a benefit screening component. Beginning in January 2008, ACORN will conduct benefits screening and enrollment in approximately 26 states, meaning that anyone visiting an ACORN Tax and Benefits Access Center in these states can also quickly be screened for up to 15 federal, state, and local assistance programs, including:
Insurance Program (SCHIP)
ACORN’s new screening platform will generate complete applications that are then printed out for clients, saving them countless hours of trouble and heartache and more importantly dramatically increasing their chances for actually qualifying for these important programs. By January 2010, all 50 states will be covered by the ACORN screening and enrollment platform"
Read more here
Will Congress ban ACORN and other politically-motivated groups from grabbing control of health care at the grass roots level with federal funding?
Exchanges we can believe in....
"Section 3105 of the Kennedy bill says American health Benefit Gateways would be created in every state, serving as a health insurance exchange. A "Navigators" program would award grants to public and private entities to "conduct public education; distribute fair and impartial information regarding health plans; [and] assist with enrollment and provide information that is culturally and linguistically appropriate for the population." The bill stipulates that both health insurance issuers and current independent insurance agents would be prohibited from participating in the Navigators program."
Read more here.
And here is what ACORN is already doing:
"Moving toward maximum eligible participation in federal and state benefits programs is one of ACORN’s key national priorities. ACORN will begin transitioning many of its offices to the Nets2Ladders screening platform (Nets2Ladders is also a key strategic partner with H&R Block). Nets2Ladders offers a powerful, automated benefits enrollment platform that will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of enrolling low-income families in federal and state benefits programs. This software integrates tax return and benefit information so that the information that is collected while filing the tax return is automatically updated into the benefits screening tools, reducing the amount of time needed to add a benefit screening component. Beginning in January 2008, ACORN will conduct benefits screening and enrollment in approximately 26 states, meaning that anyone visiting an ACORN Tax and Benefits Access Center in these states can also quickly be screened for up to 15 federal, state, and local assistance programs, including:
• Food Stamps
• Medicaid
Insurance Program (SCHIP)
ACORN’s new screening platform will generate complete applications that are then printed out for clients, saving them countless hours of trouble and heartache and more importantly dramatically increasing their chances for actually qualifying for these important programs. By January 2010, all 50 states will be covered by the ACORN screening and enrollment platform"
Read more here
Will Congress ban ACORN and other politically-motivated groups from grabbing control of health care at the grass roots level with federal funding?
Exchanges we can believe in....
Health reform, that is. Or it could be.
President Obama's effots to sell lawmakers and the American public on the merits of his proposals have been hamstrung by his preference for a big-government solution to the nation’s healthcare woes. While it’s true that reform is needed, there’s no need to completely remake the health sector. Instead, the president should borrow from more hands-off reforms, like Medicare Part D, which have been both successful and popular in the past.
A recent survey revealed that 92 percent of beneficiaries were satisfied with their drug coverage in 2008. And, at last tally, Part D was costing about 30 percent less than initial budget projections. The program’s popularity as well as its cost-effectiveness can be attributed in large part to its use of the private-sector competition.
Part D allows Medicare participants to choose from a variety of government-subsidized yet privately-administered drug plans. Seniors get to choose from a number of plans and decide for themselves which one best suits them. Meanwhile, insurers must compete to offer high-quality plans at reasonable prices.
But does Part D really work? The numbers speak for themselves: in 2004 nearly one in four seniors lacked drug coverage. By 2006, when Part D took effect, that statistic dropped to seven percent.
Democratic lawmakers could use this success as a roadmap for expanding coverage while avoiding the kind of drastic government intervention that inspired such rancor in opponents of the public option.
In other words, create a program that allows insurers to compete to offer those 8-16 million chronically uninsured Americans the best plan. The government could then provide subsidies to make that plan even more affordable. This would by no means be easy to implement. But it wouldn’t be revolutionary either, since the policy’s basic framework has already proven to work well.
President Obama is in desperate need of fiscally responsible healthcare reform ideas. A Part D-like insurance program might be exactly what he’s looking for.
For more on this, see a new article in Reuters' "Great Debate" series here.
President Obama's effots to sell lawmakers and the American public on the merits of his proposals have been hamstrung by his preference for a big-government solution to the nation’s healthcare woes. While it’s true that reform is needed, there’s no need to completely remake the health sector. Instead, the president should borrow from more hands-off reforms, like Medicare Part D, which have been both successful and popular in the past.
A recent survey revealed that 92 percent of beneficiaries were satisfied with their drug coverage in 2008. And, at last tally, Part D was costing about 30 percent less than initial budget projections. The program’s popularity as well as its cost-effectiveness can be attributed in large part to its use of the private-sector competition.
Part D allows Medicare participants to choose from a variety of government-subsidized yet privately-administered drug plans. Seniors get to choose from a number of plans and decide for themselves which one best suits them. Meanwhile, insurers must compete to offer high-quality plans at reasonable prices.
But does Part D really work? The numbers speak for themselves: in 2004 nearly one in four seniors lacked drug coverage. By 2006, when Part D took effect, that statistic dropped to seven percent.
Democratic lawmakers could use this success as a roadmap for expanding coverage while avoiding the kind of drastic government intervention that inspired such rancor in opponents of the public option.
In other words, create a program that allows insurers to compete to offer those 8-16 million chronically uninsured Americans the best plan. The government could then provide subsidies to make that plan even more affordable. This would by no means be easy to implement. But it wouldn’t be revolutionary either, since the policy’s basic framework has already proven to work well.
President Obama is in desperate need of fiscally responsible healthcare reform ideas. A Part D-like insurance program might be exactly what he’s looking for.
For more on this, see a new article in Reuters' "Great Debate" series here.
Center for Medicine in the Public Interest is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization promoting innovative solutions that advance medical progress, reduce health disparities, extend life and make health care more affordable, preventive and patient-centered. CMPI also provides the public, policymakers and the media a reliable source of independent scientific analysis on issues ranging from personalized medicine, food and drug safety, health care reform and comparative effectiveness.
