Public support for health-care reform is high, but some CFOs take a different view.
Kate O'Sullivan, CFO Magazine
December 1, 2009
You claim support is high. OK, if support is high, then opposition is what? ...extremely high?. Nice attempt at distortion of the facts. You say "It's hard for me to imagine how this reform is bad for business in the long run,"? Really, try imagining higher cost, lower quality higher taxes, rationing, long waiting lines, 2000 pages of new laws? You say ?bending the cost curve? Which way? UP? Countries with the most effective care are demonstrably successful where and to the extent that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost sharing, market prices, and consumer choice, not government control. You say "spreading the cost of caring for the uninsured over a broader base." (is good). So you think that Socialism is good for business? ..and state so in a magazine titled "CFO"? You state as if in disbelief, "Some people have a general skepticism about government.? Why not give us some examples to counteract that skepticism? AmTrak? USPS? You state, "Nobody is talking about making most companies do anything different than they're doing today. All of the proposed exchanges and new marketplaces are for people who don't have coverage, and small firms that don't have coverage." You must have found this in "Atlas Shrugged", perhaps out of a speech by the economic dictator, Wesley Mouch? You say: "Also, many young people are not covered [and tend to be] relatively healthy?? "If they were in the risk pool, it would reduce per-capita costs." Really, Costs will be reduced by forcing healthy people to buy coverage they do not want? I think what you mean is revenue will go up when it?s against the law to avoid paying for coverage. You say: it will take years for the impact to be fully understood; the major provisions included in the reform proposals won't take effect until 2013. Really, the truth is that you will pay NOW for benefits that you will not be fully in place until 2018. (if then) What a deceptive plan... If we can just get them to pay for 10 years without giving them full service until year 8. Pathetic, simply pathetic.
Posted by Brad Hobbs | January 27, 2010 12:27 pm
I just got my print copy and opened to page 3 and read that "public support for health-care reform is high". I had to stop right there and write which I never do. The "public" support with almost all of the people I know, granted not many, Is anything but "high". It quite frankly is viewed as a diaster being rammed down out thoats by politians who do not care one wit about health care all they want is control.
Posted by Ed Sutherland | December 17, 2009 03:56 pm
I agree with Mr. Leach's comments below. You lead off with the statement that "Public support for health-care reform is high, but some CFOs take a different view." I can't think of another publication that characterizes public support as "high". For example, the November 30, 2009 Rasmussen poll states: "The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Fifty-three percent (53%) are opposed to it." I scanned the Rasmussen health care polls, and in every poll since 9/13/09, the opposition has exceeded the support. At best, the public is divided on the health care reform issue, and many CFOs' views are quite consistent with those of most people who favor market solutions and fear large, wasteful government programs.
Posted by Dana Hermanson | December 03, 2009 09:35 pm
You state the CBO says it will reduce the deficit over 10 years. Sure - if I created a financial statement for my company that shows 10 years of revenue and 6 years of expenses, that would show a profit! But any CFO who did that would be in JAIL in a week. Only Congress is allowed to commit fraud like this and get away with it. You say there is a paradox that CFOs are concerned about rising health care costs and yet oppose this bill. There is NO PARADOX. The plain fact is this bill will end up RAISING our costs not lowering them! We are all for reforms that will reduce the companys health care costs. This bill does not do that.
Posted by GARY POKRASSA | December 03, 2009 01:59 pm
The Interstate Commerce Act was enacted in 1887. It created the Interstate Commerce Commission. From A Conservative History of the United States by Daniel J. Flynn (page 139): "The ICC had five times as many employees in 1909 as it had in 1890. After the Hepburn Act's passage , complaints grew exponentially as well. Bureaucratic regulations at the federal level...naturally expanded...Railroad prices had decreased as railroad profits increased prior to the Interstate Commerce Act. Railroad prices increaded and railroad profits decreased after the ICC became empowered during Theodore Roosevelt's administration. The federal government dictated to the railroads their prices, confiscated excess profits, and forced them to operate unprofitable lines. Private railroads could not long survive under such 'progressive' conditions. In 1917, the federal government took over operation of the formerly private railroads...the ICC raised freight rates by 28 percent and passenger rates by 18 percent...the nationalization of America's railroads did not lead to vast savings. Within two years of operation the Railroad Administration [Teddy's 'experts'] was $1.2 billion in the red." HOW WILL SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE BE AN DIFFERENT?
Posted by Leonard Porochnia | December 02, 2009 07:05 pm
Thanks to CFO editors for allowing a blatently political ad supporting the present health care reform efforts in Congress as an 'insight piece.' Don't confuse the reader with facts and instead rely on rhetoric. Some of the claims in this piece are, at best, nuanced, while others are bald-faced lies. To lead off a headline with no less than a claim for public support for heatlh-care reform and imply that the current legislation moving through Congress is deceitful. When deeper poll questions are asked about the necessary trade-offs in costs and services in order to make the current versions work, public support of those polled drops below 1/3, while opposition exceeds 45% consistently. The underlying premise that MA is on budget and that their model for universal coverage is working is so flawed that the author should have been laughed out of the editor's office. The system is hemorrhaging because of cost overruns, fraud and abuse. The opening of new medical practices has stagnated and signs are seen that doctors may seek to avoid or leave the state rather than accept the level of payments the state provides whiie receiving no additional protection from malpractice suits. Stick to the news, this is political hackery.
Posted by Jack Leach | December 02, 2009 10:58 am© CFO Publishing Corporation 2009. All rights reserved.