Details of President Obama’s health care plan have been released, and generally it looks pretty good. The “crip tax” of being screened out, or lumped into a group that’s charged more, for “pre-existing conditions” seems like it might be a thing of the past, if the plan goes through in its present form. By the way, if the above link doesn't work for you, shoot me an e-mail and I'll send you a copy of the plan.

This first stage of the health care plan is focused on expanding coverage to people who currently have none, as well as getting more for those deemed “underinsured.” In addition, there will be tax credits for small businesses, which are very much needed, especially in today’s economic climate.

It’s remarkable how Obama keeps ticking off his campaign promises. He campaigned on a promise of ending the types of groups health insurance companies lump us in, and instead broadening the groups to be more representative of age, employment, disability status and so on. This means, generally, lower and more uniform rates for everyone. This is good news.

Speaking of campaign promises, Obama’s disability point person, Jeff Crowley, seems to have politely told ADAPT it can go pound salt where the Community Choice Act is concerned. Don’t look for long term care services to be included as part of any health care reform, outside of the same types of incremental Medicaid/Medicare improvements we saw under the Bush administration. Yes, I said Jeff Crowley, not Kareem Dale. Dale was cited in a make-nice letter by Crowley to ADAPT, but Dale himself hasn’t been heard from. Curious and curiouser.

To be clear, ADAPT’s demand that the Community Choice Act be included in health care reform is new. Obama never made a campaign promise to include CCA in health care reform, but Obama did pledge to support CCA.

Also troubling is Crowley’s recent reported statement at a disability organization’s board meeting that the Community Choice Act may not be a priority of Obama’s, although some similar type of reform seems to still be on the table. I’m told Crowley has cautioned us against “high hopes.” I’m not sure this would be troubling if Obama was Bush, but fair or not we expect much more from Obama. Although, again, to give Bush his due, Bush’ long term care reform was top-notch and enabled more Americans with disabilities than ever before to live in their homes. Obama’s would have to be spectacular indeed to surpass Bush’. And this is me, a left-leaning true-blue blogger, admitting that.

I thought about that, e-doc, and I hope this comment serves as a clarification. Yes, you're correct, the paper is from the Senate Finance Committee, but I received the paper from a policy person in the government as an answer to an earlier blog entry, and it was presented as Obama's position, too. We know the president can't actually introduce any bills, and so it seemed reasonable to accept this is Obama's vehicle in the Congress, as was presented to me (although it's not a bill). I'll post more as I get it, since it's still all very fluid, but it sure would help if Obama's disability "team" got its act together and released a cohesive policy of some sort. Even Bush had the "New Freedom Initiative." e-doc, if you're in the gov't, drop me an e-mail: Josie@newmobility.com

No one denies that health care needs some improvemen; but NOT this way. 75% of the people are happy with the health care they are now getting, so we are changing the entire system for the 25% who ewither don't have any or just want to turn their lives over to the government (cradle to grave). SF

"He campaigned on a promise of ending the types of groups health insurance companies lump us in, and instead broadening the groups to be more representative of age, employment, disability status and so on. This means, generally, lower and more uniform rates for everyone. This is good news." This definitely means more uniform rates for everyone, but it does not mean lower rates for everyone. The majority who haven't been classified as having a "pre-existing condition" would see, on average, an increase in their rates. Although most would likely agree that a small increase for the many to eliminate the exorbitant cost for the few would be preferable (especially when the many can become the few if they themselves develop such a condition), the claim of "lower costs for all" is contraindicative. In fact, there is little in this plan to lower the overall costs of healthcare. Malpractice tort reform is the essential first step in controlling cost,and it is missing from Obama's plan.

YOU LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS ARE DESTROYING THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH. YOU ARE ALL A BUNCH OF IDIOTS!

Actually, the report you're referring to is the 3rd "White Paper" released by the Senate Finance Committee on health care reform. The most recent "White Paper" expands on the basic principles proposed by Senate Finance Committee just prior to the 2008 elections, and therefore will serve as the template for the Senate version of the health care bolus bill. It does contain some of Obama's campaign promises, but is different than the proposal launched by the White House OMB two months ago.