Canadian health leader wants Private options

[Kelly the Dog]

I admit that I never read the phantom bill, but I have a hard time believing that this would be coming out of Dem committees, since the Safeway plan rewards healthier employees by lowering their premiums. Mayo & Cleveland have also implemented programs that are an anathema to the fairness (equal premiums/no denial of service & coverage) that Dems always fight for. The two are incongruous.

There are provisions in the bill that gives tax incentives to companies that do these programs. Opponents, like in this article, say they want companies to do this all voluntarily, without mandates, even though the bill says there are no mandates.

 

If enough companies did it voluntarily, there would be no need for tax incentives, but they don't.

(CNSNews.com) - A provision in the Senate version of the health-care reform bill would push private employers to create a “culture of health” for employees in the workplace.

 

While many employers already have wellness programs that include onsite clinics, and programs for reducing obesity and encouraging exercise as a means of lowering health care costs, these programs are private-sector initiatives—between an employers and workers—and the government is not involved.

 

That could change if the language in the version of the health care bill drafted by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is adopted. The bill would create tax incentives for employers to create worker “wellness” programs and directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to evaluate employers for the effectiveness of the wellness programs they offer. The findings from these evaluation will be reported to Congress.

 

Getting the government involved in pushing employers to promote “wellness” among their workers could undermine something that is already being done successfully by the private sector, said Devon Herrick, senior fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market think tank.

 

“Employers are free to offer plans now and experiment with what works,” Herrick told CNSNews.com. “This would stifle experimentation. An employer’s wellness plan may not be designed to meet the specifications of the bureaucrats at the CDC.”

 

The Affordable Health Choices Act, approved by the Senate HELP Committee, includes a “workplace wellness marketing campaign.” President Barack Obama and supporters believe this will lead to a healthier workforce thus lower costs for business. Critics argue it amounts to an unfunded mandate on businesses.

 

The bill expands the amount that employers can reward employees for participating in wellness programs from a 20-percent to 30-percent premium discount.

 

The legislation also says, “The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in coordination with relevant worksite health promotion organizations, state and local health departments, and academic institutions, shall conduct targeted educational campaigns to: 1) make employers, employers groups and other interested parties aware of the benefits of employer-based wellness, 2) establish a culture of health by emphasizing health promotion and disease prevention; 3) emphasize an integrated and coordinated approach to workplace wellness; and 4) ensure informed decisions through high quality information to organizational leaders.”

 

The provision can be found starting on page 417 of the Senate bill.

 

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a senior member of the Senate health panel, was a major advocate of numerous prevention measures in the bill, including the workplace wellness provision.

 

Chronic illness affects more than one-third of working Americans and the costs associated with chronic disease account for approximately 75 percent of the nation’s annual health care costs, Harkin spokeswoman Bergen Kenny told CNSNews.com. She added that employer medical costs jumped 72 percent from 2000 to 2006.

 

“Sen. Harkin’s workplace wellness program simply provides tax incentives for companies who offer programs to encourage their employees to adopt healthy lifestyles,” Kenny continued. “Businesses can receive the tax credit for 10 years for establishing new qualified wellness programs, which include nutrition, smoking cessation and stress management courses.”

 

Studies have reported a proven rate of return on investment within 12 to 18 months, ranging from $2 to $10 for each dollar invested, Kenny added. “Sen. Harkin believes that the federal government can and should use tax incentives to improve our public health and lower the cost of health care,” Kenny continued.

 

However, some of these provisions amounts to mandates on business, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) fears. Enzi, the ranking Republican on the HELP Committee would prefer to see wellness programs done voluntarily, similar to those enacted by the Safeway, a Washington, D.C. area grocery store chain.

 

“He wanted to avoid creating new mandates,” Enzi spokesman Craig Orfield told CNSNews.com. “It has been an issue and one that Sen. Enzi has tried to make more conducive and offer incentives for companies to do their own model, like Safeway.”

 

More than 74 percent of the 30,000 nonunion Safeway employees signed up for Safeway’s “Healthy Measures” program to undergo screenings for cholesterol, blood pressure and weight control to lower their health premiums. The company also offers gym membership discounts. The firm saw its health care costs go down by 13 percent in 2006, while employees have saved about 20 percent on individual premiums.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52318

[IDBillzFan]

Well, that's the fundamental difference between you and I. I like to help my fellow man, you like to leave them out in the cold and kill them. It's okay, that's what's great about America, it's a choice.

Actually, the fundamental difference between you and me is I like to help my fellow man and you want the government to help your fellow man. One makes a man stronger, and one makes a man weaker and dependent on government, stripping them of their freedom.

 

But making people weak and dependent on the government is okay, I guess, since it delivers the votes.

[Kelly the Dog]

Actually, the fundamental difference between you and me is I like to help my fellow man and you want the government to help your fellow man. One makes a man stronger, and one makes a man weaker and dependent on government, stripping them of their freedom.

 

But making people weak and dependent on the government is okay, I guess, since it delivers the votes.

The major misconception of conservatives about Democrats is that they just want to control people's lives. What they want is for people lives to be better or easier or helped, and if they aren't getting better or easier or helped, they think the government needs to step in because no one else is, and no one else will.

 

That is an enormous distinction.

 

If more of the general public were like you, there would be no need for Democrats and the government to step in, and they wouldn't, they would be off trying to fix something else like animals or trees.

 

I'm not saying in any way they are good or smart at getting the government to help people or fix things, that is a completely different topic and argument. In fact, they often suck at it. But it is a total fallacy that liberals just want control of your life as their motive or to take over. That's a symptom.

[DC Tom]

Well, that's the fundamental difference between you and I. I like to help my fellow man, you like to leave them out in the cold and kill them. It's okay, that's what's great about America, it's a choice.

 

Except that you're arguing that you like your government to help your fellow man.

 

 

WWJD...how incredibly ironic.

 

Yeah...I remember Mother Teresa spending all those years demanding that the Indian government provide health care to the masses.

 

I highly doubt Jesus would be lobbying Congress for single-payer universal coverage. "Render unto Caeser what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's" and all that...Jesus didn't exactly mix the good deeds with the government's work.

[Kelly the Dog]

Except that you're arguing that you like your government to help your fellow man.

As stated above, no, I want to help my fellow man. I do my part. LA does his part. You seem like the kind of guy who does his part. If the majority of the public did that, I and other liberals would be thrilled, and see no reason whatsoever for the government to do a damn thing. But that isn't the case or the real world. Not enough people do, not enough private sector businesses do. So therein lies the problem. It is then and only then that the liberals say, okay, if no one is doing this and no one is going to do this, and the private person isn't going to do this, and the private sector isn't going to do this, either the government is or it doesn't get done.

[Gene Frenkle]

J can heal the sick. Maybe that's the answer: prayer!

You can never have enough prayer!

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

If the private insurance companies are forced to compete with a leaner model or die

 

This is the fist time I've ever seen the Feds described as a "leaner model."

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

You can never have enough prayer!

 

Despite the sarcasm, probably the most correct thing you've eveer posted.

[Magox]

This is the fist time I've ever seen the Feds described as a "leaner model."

[Gene Frenkle]

Except that you're arguing that you like your government to help your fellow man.

 

 

 

 

Yeah...I remember Mother Teresa spending all those years demanding that the Indian government provide health care to the masses.

 

I highly doubt Jesus would be lobbying Congress for single-payer universal coverage. "Render unto Caeser what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's" and all that...Jesus didn't exactly mix the good deeds with the government's work.

I've read some things about Mother Teresa that make me think she is no saint.

 

As far as Jesus goes, well he wasn't real tight with the government of the time, but you think that he would avoid employing government help for the poor and sick based on 21st century political hang-ups that he probably never would have even thought of? I don't buy it.

 

The irony I was referring to, of course, is all of these Bible Belt Moral Majority Christians who claim that America is a Christian nation and all that crap. They are the first to spout the selfish ideals of the Right which directly contradicts their professed 'do unto others' creed. Then they come back with (as you did): Jesus was anti-big government. It's utterly fckuing ridiculous.

[Gene Frenkle]

Despite the sarcasm, probably the most correct thing you've eveer posted.

Despite your predictable anecdotal evidence to the contrary, prayer actually has no measurable affect on anything anywhere.

 

I'm sure you're convinced now. How many hours of your life have you wasted in this deeply selfish act?

[Magox]

The irony I was referring to, of course, is all of these Bible Belt Moral Majority Christians who claim that America is a Christian nation and all that crap. They are the first to spout the selfish ideals of the Right which directly contradicts their professed 'do unto others' creed. Then they come back with (as you did): Jesus was anti-big government. It's utterly fckuing ridiculous.

No, you've got it wrong, as usual.

 

What most Christian conservatives believe in is:

 

God helps those who help themselves

 

not

 

God helps those who sit on their ass, make babies and wait for government checks

 

Disclaimer: I am not a Christian conservative

[Gene Frenkle]

No, you've got it wrong, as usual.

 

What most Christian conservatives believe in is:

 

God helps those who help themselves

 

not

 

God helps those who sit on their ass, make babies and wait for government checks

 

Disclaimer: I am not a Christian conservative

Link?

 

Is it in the Bible Code? Improv?

[DC Tom]

I've read some things about Mother Teresa that make me think she is no saint.

 

As far as Jesus goes, well he wasn't real tight with the government of the time, but you think that he would avoid employing government help for the poor and sick based on 21st century political hang-ups that he probably never would have even thought of? I don't buy it.

 

Actually...yeah, I think he would. Aside from the practical matter than Jesus was fundamentally at odds with the contemporary rulers, the Gospels are for the most part about love and the genorosoty of the human spirit, at a very individualistic level (else the message of redemption doesn't work). I suspect Jesus would be one of the last people to turn to the faceless bureaucracy - which, let's face it, is rarely the path to redemption, no matter what the minority of rabidly insane Obama supporters think.

 

The irony I was referring to, of course, is all of these Bible Belt Moral Majority Christians who claim that America is a Christian nation and all that crap. They are the first to spout the selfish ideals of the Right which directly contradicts their professed 'do unto others' creed. Then they come back with (as you did): Jesus was anti-big government. It's utterly fckuing ridiculous.

 

The difference between the bible thumpers and me being that I've actually read the damned thing, and not just pounded the cover. We can both agree the Moral "Majority" [sic] are a bunch of hypocrites, I'm good with that.

[IDBillzFan]

As stated above, no, I want to help my fellow man. I do my part. LA does his part. You seem like the kind of guy who does his part. If the majority of the public did that, I and other liberals would be thrilled, and see no reason whatsoever for the government to do a damn thing. But that isn't the case or the real world. Not enough people do, not enough private sector businesses do. So therein lies the problem. It is then and only then that the liberals say, okay, if no one is doing this and no one is going to do this, and the private person isn't going to do this, and the private sector isn't going to do this, either the government is or it doesn't get done.

At the risk of going all stuckincincy on you, it wasn't too long ago that people did take care of each other. Individuals, community groups and churches all helped those less fortunate because that's what man inherently did. The best came out of us, as Americans, because so many people risked so much, and fought so much, to be here, that helping each other was only natural. The Great Depression changed a lot because two things happened: people were told that the free market was to blame and then were told, as we're told today, "only government can save you."

 

Once that gate of government dependency was opened, apathy set in. Suddenly, to paraphrase Dennis Miller again, you not only had to help the helpless, you suddenly now have to help the clueless who would quickly learn to suck dry the government handouts like there's no tomorrow. Next you relax the requirements for immigration, turn an eye to illegal immigration, and presto...too many to help, not enough people to help them, and only the government can save us now.

 

And who made most of this happen?

 

Exactly.

 

So spare me the tree-hugging hippie stuff. Liberals set this up to set themselves up, and we are now about to face yet another entitlement program to further increase individual dependency on the government, give handouts to the low income, point the blame at the rich and greedy corporate America while waiting for the rainbow-farting unicorns to spread the joyous news that we are successfully villifying -- once again -- a bunch of large, successful, profitable groups (Hey! Look everyone! 400% profit increase. Those bastards!!) to save a really small group that has been dubbed a crisis.

 

(Funny, isn't it, how the whole health care reform was about helping the 47 million uninsured, but suddenly it's about maybe only helping 10 million and reforming those greedy insurance companies. What a wicked turn of political events. Only government can save us now!)

 

And don't mistake me. Many Republicans, including Bush II, fkcued up plenty. But stop pretending like another government handout is the way to save people. It's not. Most people are awesome when they have to be. When they don't have to be, most people aren't.

 

That's that. Time for a beer.

[Dwight Drane]

I pray for DC Tom. He tries his best.

 

 

All this talk of Canada and prayer has me yearning for a Classic Caesar Clamato. I wish they bottled the good stuff down here. I think I may get away for the weekend and enjoy some.

[Kelly the Dog]

At the risk of going all stuckincincy on you, it wasn't too long ago that people did take care of each other. Individuals, community groups and churches all helped those less fortunate because that's what man inherently did. The best came out of us, as Americans, because so many people risked so much, and fought so much, to be here, that helping each other was only natural. The Great Depression changed a lot because two things happened: people were told that the free market was to blame and then were told, as we're told today, "only government can save you."

 

Once that gate of government dependency was opened, apathy set in. Suddenly, to paraphrase Dennis Miller again, you not only had to help the helpless, you suddenly now have to help the clueless who would quickly learn to suck dry the government handouts like there's no tomorrow. Next you relax the requirements for immigration, turn an eye to illegal immigration, and presto...too many to help, not enough people to help them, and only the government can save us now.

 

And who made most of this happen?

 

Exactly.

 

So spare me the tree-hugging hippie stuff. Liberals set this up to set themselves up, and we are now about to face yet another entitlement program to further increase individual dependency on the government, give handouts to the low income, point the blame at the rich and greedy corporate America while waiting for the rainbow-farting unicorns to spread the joyous news that we are successfully villifying -- once again -- a bunch of large, successful, profitable groups (Hey! Look everyone! 400% profit increase. Those bastards!!) to save a really small group that has been dubbed a crisis.

 

(Funny, isn't it, how the whole health care reform was about helping the 47 million uninsured, but suddenly it's about maybe only helping 10 million and reforming those greedy insurance companies. What a wicked turn of political events. Only government can save us now!)

 

And don't mistake me. Many Republicans, including Bush II, fkcued up plenty. But stop pretending like another government handout is the way to save people. It's not. Most people are awesome when they have to be. When they don't have to be, most people aren't.

 

That's that. Time for a beer.

Teddy Roosevelt, you know, the Republican, was the first President to call for universal health coverage and national health insurance.

 

Way to want to rip away other people's parents and grandparents health and health insurance til they die. Only half of the elderly had insurance when Medicare was enacted. But fukk those old people and their petty little ailments and diseases, either their neighbor will gladly take care of them or they are just slackers trying to steal hard working American's tax money.

 

And what do you mean by it was supposed to be 47 million but now it is 10 million?

[Gene Frenkle]

The difference between the bible thumpers and me being that I've actually read the damned thing, and not just pounded the cover.

Pretty fckued up isn't it? Old Testament God is a real a-hole! Thankfully Jesus softened things up a bit or there might be very little difference between Fundamentalist Christians and Islamic Jihadis. Organized religion sucks.

[DC Tom]

I pray for DC Tom. He tries his best.

 

The difference between you and me is that, while we both suffer from the sin of pride, I don't sin in God's name.

 

Keep your prayers. You need them more than I do.

[OCinBuffalo]

Two things first:

1. Kelly's "1% of the American people know what this is about" is wishful thinking, and tells us a lot about the psyche of people on the left. The truth is: that statement is utter BS. In fact there is a hell of a lot of people who know exactly what is going on. Health Care is 1/6 of the US economy. Are you trying to pretend that 1/6 of our people don't know what is going on "big picture" wise at their own jobs? Wishing this was 1933 doesn't mean that it is. Wishing does not make it so, just ask Nancy Pelosi how well her "wishes" have been accommodated.

 

2. Also, there appears to be this common theme from the left side here that says "the other guys are spreading fear". How do you know that you shouldn't touch a hot oven? For most people, they learned that because they got burned, once, and decided never to do it again.

 

Is it right to say that their "fear" of hot ovens can merely be reduced to "irrational, emoting" and that they shouldn't be on guard against hot ovens, or anything else they perceive to be hot? Of course it isn't.

 

So why then, when we have:

1. 50-60 year old entitlement programs that clearly were never reviewed properly by actuarial staff, and subjected to "what if" analysis, such as "what if there is a giant baby bust right after a giant baby boom"

2. with said programs accounting for 75% of the budget, and therefore the deficit

3. documented, terrible administration of said entitlement programs(see: over regulation in some areas, not enough in others, massive fraud, massive money spent on ineffective containment of that fraud) = most of this has been about government jobs, not effective management of money

4. an expectation that, due to #3, any further government spending will be more about creating government dependence(jobs/services) rather than actually helping people

are we being told that we are simply being "fearful", or "spreading fear"?

 

The left seems content to ask us to touch the hot oven again, and then tells us we are wackos when we say no. The fact is that most of us are at least as smart as they are, if not smarter. They are extremely pissed that this reality not only goes against their expectations, it goes against their self-image. It seems clear that most of America is done with taking instruction from people who haven't done a good enough job convincing us that they are right = that the oven is in fact not hot, and that we can trust them.

 

Lefties: the simple fact is this is not the 1930s and therefore your self-appointed position to do all the thinking for the masses simply does not exist anymore. Time to move on from that. The good news for you is that all the years of demanding education for the poor....has been successful. Now that most of this country has a much better education than back in the 30s, especially women, they can figure out if the oven is hot for themselves. You can't complain when they use the very skill set you demanded that they have, and, they use it to look at your ideas, and call them: stupid, because they are.