©
ANNANDALE
President Barack Obama hugged a cancer patient Wednesday at an emotional forum before a supportive audience and vowed to bring greater efficiency and accessibility to the nation's health care system.
Debby Smith, 53, of Appalachia, Va., a volunteer for Obama's political operation, fought tears as she told the president of her kidney cancer and her inability to obtain health insurance or hold a job. Obama embraced her and called her "exhibit A" in what he said was an unsustainable system that is too expensive and complex for millions of Americans.
"We are going to try to find ways to help you immediately," he told Smith as hundreds looked on at a community college forum — and countless others watched on television. But the nation's long-term needs require a greater emphasis on preventive care and "cost-effective care," he said.
Smith obtained her ticket through the White House. Aides said she was a volunteer for Organizing for America, Obama's political operation within the Democratic National Committee. Among the other questioners were a member of the Service Employees International Union and a person with Health Care for America Now, which recently organized a Capitol Hill rally for overhauling health care.
Also questioning the president — via the Internet — was Republican Rep. Michael Burgess of Texas, an obstetrician.
Obama aides said half the tickets were distributed through the community college, with the balance handled through the White House.
The president said the best way to drive down health care costs is to persuade doctors and hospitals to emphasize quality of care over the quantity of procedures.
Health experts have long criticized formulas that tie Medicare payments to tests and other services that may not always be the best way to treat a patient. Obama said the formulas must change as part of his bid to overhaul U.S. health care delivery.
"The biggest thing we can do to hold down costs is to change the incentives of a health care system that automatically equates expensive care with better care," the president said. He said the formula system drives up costs "but doesn't make you better."
Obama did not make specific recommendations for changing the incentive formulas. Nor did he offer new proposals or details for other tough issues, such as whether to limit medical malpractice awards or to tax employer-subsidized health care benefits.
He repeatedly said the current health care system is not acceptable and must be overhauled this year. He urged the audience, which included people following on Facebook and YouTube, to reject critics who say his plans are too costly or a step toward socialized medicine.
Obama gave a nearly 20-minute introduction and answered seven questions.
Obama said a government-run "single-payer" health care system works well in some countries. But it is not appropriate in the United States, he said, because so many people get insurance through their employers working with private companies.
But he again called for a government-run "public option" to compete with private insurers, a plan that many Republicans oppose.
Obama said the public option would provide "competition and choice" and "keep insurers honest."
Obama also said his health care plan would benefit small businesses and people who are self-employed, by giving them more leverage in dealing with insurance companies. He would do it through a health care exchange for employers who have too few workers to get a good health insurance package, and for people who are self-employed.
Obama said they would be able to look at the plans available and join with others in the same situation. They would become part of a "big pool" with the leverage to drive down costs, he said.
When a man from Texas said limits on awards from medical malpractice lawsuits would bring down health care costs, the president replied, "I don't like the idea of an artificial cap" on such awards for injuries suffered. He also said there is little evidence that various states' efforts to limit such awards have uniformly brought down costs.
Obama said, however, that he is working with the American Medical Association to explore ways to reduce liability for doctors and hospitals "when they've done nothing wrong." He offered no specifics.
Congress will return to debating health care when it returns Monday from a one-week recess. Obama's agenda calls for reducing delivery costs even as insurance coverage is extended to virtually all Americans.
Obama says the government will not borrow money to carry out the plans, but many Republicans are dubious if not outright hostile to his proposals.

Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo

guyfrom, we already have rationing
and there will be more, whether we have a public plan, private plan or no plan.
If you are dependent upon a third party payer, they will decide who and how much to pay. Private insurance does that all the time. Now if you are wealthy enough to cover your own expenses, even if they reach into the hundreds of thousands, as many diseases now do cost, there will be no rationing because you will pay whatever it costs.
So for 95% of the population, rationing is real, and will get more so as the population ages and either the public plans run low on money, or the private plans become unaffordable.
And if you are in need of expensive, life saving care, either a "crat" or an accountant will often decide your fate.
Like transplants, if you are old or have other problems, you might not even get on a waiting list.
And that's my fear, Len....
if what we have now is so bad according to some, why would what the govt will bring to bear be seen as an improvement, based on their record of inefficiency and ineptitude in may of the endeavors they're part of now?
There is an organization
called Commonwealth Fund which has been studying and working on health care issues for decades (originally founded in 1918).
They have an extensive study, last update in 2007 and available on the site under "Mirror, mirror".
The look at health care quality, availability, efficiency, results, etc.
The US doesn't do well in most categories.
There are some highlights, but for the most part, including safety, we are last or next to last.
And we do spend considerably more than anyone else. So even if we do get better ratings, we do so at a cost that is well beyond what is available in other nations.
And, again, we do not have to emulate Canada, UK or any other system. We can do our own. Don Tabor has some worthwhile ideas on his site, Tidewater Liberty, and is worthy of a look for those who are interested. I read all of it, and I disagree with some, but that does not make me a bad person.
The key for me is still universal coverage. The devil, as always, is in the details
I believe terminally ill patients..
should have the right to access a Dr. Kervorkian's services to end their suffering. However, I have a major fear that Dr. Kervorkian may be forced on many patients against their will, as a result of some 'crat's decision about that patient's condition, and the inherent rationing of services that this initiative will impose. As Longshanks said in the flick "Braveheart", "the dead...cost nothing...".
Be careful what you wish for Obama proponents, you just may get what you ask for!
good to see Obama not swatting the hand that feeds him
Telling comment in there about The One not supporting caps on malpractice awards -- of course not -- he is bought and paid for by the millionaires in the plaintiff's bar.
Why do we want to toss out a medical system that is the envy of the world? Because "The American people overwhelmingly favor reform?" Yea, as long as it doesn't change. But when The One talks about "controlling health care costs", the only way to do that is to intrude into the doctor-patient relationship and block treatements. Because "The cost of treating the uninsured is shifted to the rest of us?" On one hand, The One harangues us about the 45 million people lacking medical care, then says we already pay for that care. Does he think we are too stupid to see the contradiction? "If you like your current plan you can keep it?" Yea, look at how well the Post Office or the lottery like competition.
Compassion
It's obvious there are lots of compassionate folks among us, especially when it comes to the ailments & suffering of our fellow human beings. Thank God for that.
But I wonder where is the compassion of many of these same people when it comes to those who went before us - those who froze & starved at Valley Forge while trying to throw off an oppressor to stand up this nation; those who returned maimed or in caskets from service at Gettysburg in trying to keep our Union intact; the draftees who, although they might have disagreed with our involvement, nevertheless went to the 'Nam because that was what our elected officials deemed necessary? The list goes on & the sacrifices span all generations.
Where's the compassion for their supreme efforts & suffering?
IMHO, for us to adopt radical changes of any sort - health care, Cap & Trade, Stimulus, whatever, without adequate debate & research by those we've elected to represent us (not the Lobbyists & special interests as is usually the case) is a great disservice to the aforementioned & anyone else who's put our country before themselves; a kick in the teeth in fact to their memory & glorious efforts.
nOW, BACK TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND...
"Debby Smith, 53, of Appalachia, Va., a volunteer for Obama's political operation, fought tears as she told the president of her kidney cancer and her inability to obtain health insurance or hold a job."
Shame they didn't print the entire exchange when she told the president she didn't have time to be properly treated initially because of her father. And the temporary treatment she opted for exacerbated her condition to her current situation. Granted it sounded like a terrible situation, but self-preservation of self should come first.
So, her poor decision put her in this predicament, yet it's the "evil" insurance company's fault? Or is it that she didn't get the treatment originally necessary?
I've seen Broadway productions that were less staged than this sham...
What's Your Status
From comments posted it's hard to believe this many people are happy with the current healthcare system. Apparently these people are covered under Medicare, Medicaid, retired military paying four hundred dollars a year for family health coverage, or maybe they're part of the fifty million who don't have health insurance and just don’t care anymore.
My family coverage out of pocket expense bi-weekly premium is just under $200.00 (over five thousand annually in premiums). That's for a healthy family with no pre-existing conditions. This is a plan with deductibles, co-pays, and all kinds of other fine print allowing the Insurance Company to deny payment. No dental or vision coverage. This company, as with most plans today requires you to go to medical care providers who are part of their network or they won’t pay. And this is a company that reported 2008 earnings of $61.6 billion to shareholders. Are you sure you like the current system?
Not happy, but not excited
I'm not "happy" with my current plan, but history and experience show that a government sponsored program is not the answer. Look at Social Security... it is neither social or secure. MediCare? a joke under the guise of healthcare. The proposed health care reform is like a teenager with a credit card... they think they get whatever they want and don't have to pay for anything.
We are mortgaging our children's future and our freedom because we abused, neglected and otherwise failed to be responsible for ourselves. Be it health care or the economy we want someone to bail us out.
I love it All these ditto
I love it
All these ditto heads who still claim that private enterprise can do it better. Wall street: utter failure ( we are still bailing them out), Northrop grumman cannot do the computer privatization on budget and on time (see todays pilotonline) and they have the nerve to say private health care is better.
Here a quote from
George Will:
"Assurances that the government plan would play by the rules that private insurers play by are implausible. Government is incapable of behaving like market-disciplined private insurers. Competition from the public option must be unfair because government does not need to make a profit and has enormous pricing and negotiating powers. Besides, unless the point of a government plan is to be cheaper, it is pointless: If the public option conforms to the imperatives that regulations and competition impose on private insurers, there is no reason for it."
so:
The government does not need to make a profit and will have greater leverage with providers; therefore it will deliver the same service for less money. That's unfair!
In addition: the life expectancy in Canada is higher than in the US. So much for the comment about waiting and dy