Reply #104: Well, I believe the fact that is not in dispute is once the mandate kicks in

[laughingliberal]

hospitals will face almost no uncompensated care. Having worked for the vulturous industry for over 2 decades and hearing the excuse for their outrageous rates as 'non-paying patients,' it is a matter of simple economics. Almost no non paying patients mean a big increase in revenue for them. In 1991, the odious HCA cut their nurses' benefits to the bone and ratcheted down our raises because, "If Clinton is elected he will reform health care." Three months later a story on the nation's top ten paid CEO's appeared in the Houston Chronicle and our CEO, Thomas Frist, Jr (Bill's dad) was on the list with a compensation package of over $129,000,000 that year. They didn't reform health care but HCA never restored the previous benefits or compensation levels to the employees. The President, as many others did during the debate, cited uncompensated care as one of the major factors driving up health care costs. Remember? They would say hospitals have to raise their rates on those who have coverage because of this and the average insured patient was paying an extra $1000 per year to cover that. It was said by him and others many times. It would have been hard to miss that. It was one of the primary reasons given for needing the mandate. Reason would tell me and anyone who is thinking about it that eliminating almost all uncompensated care (due to the mandate in 2014) that they have made out like bandits. Hospitals, although they do provide more value than insurance companies, are as villanous in the issue of rising health care costs as any the insurance industry. Nothing in the bill, so far, forces any changes out of them. I hope your statement indicates you are working to pressure legislators to correct this. The public option would have been the most effective way to get hospital costs down but I'd go with the proposals, at this point, that require them to eat it if patients are re-hospitalized within a certain period of time. That would certainly discourage the current practice of shoving people out the door as soon as they can say they're 'stable,' and I hope to see Medicare adopt these rules. It will improve patient care, I'm sure. But it won't rein costs in as much as a PO would have.

As for the 50 votes, the liberal groups who were working to whip the vote in the Senate always had it well over 50. In fact, for the Medicare expansion, it was widely thought we had at least 58 and, possibly, 59. I'm also pretty sure Reid would not have promised Sanders he would work on getting it in a bill to bring to the floor if he had not thought the votes were there. And he did promise him that. I do remember back in Aug/Sept we (those of us working for a PO) were pressuring the Senate to do the PO under reconciliation. No one, at that point, ever suggested there weren't 50 votes. The excuse in those days was still the 'needing a bipartisan' bill. It was only after they were forced to drop the 'bipartisan' excuse that anyone ever suggested there might not be 50 votes. My count has it at between 53 and 56 right now. I'm glad we had this discussion. I need to remember to call Harry's office to remind him I expect his promise to Sanders to be honored. He said he would try to get in done 'in the next few months.' It's been a few weeks, now. He could use a reminder. Maybe you could call him, too. I mean, if you are a supporter of the Public Option that would be something to try.