This November, as in all election years, there are important issues at stake. One of them is the issue of socialized medicine or, to use the Democrats' latest euphemism for it, "universal healthcare." Universal disaster is more like it. The Dems do their best to put a positive, humanitarian spin on the idea, but the long-term ramifications would be devastating. The Democrats would have you believe that conservatives who are against universal healthcare take this stance because they are mean-spirited and compassionless. Naturally, this isn't the case. And it's hardly how I feel. I am against universal healthcare because I believe it will create one of the most intrusive government bureaucracies since the Internal Revenue Service, and it will impinge heavily on the individual freedoms of all American citizens. Obama would attempt to achieve universal healthcare coverage by relying primarily on private insurance. That's right - he would look to solve our nation's health care problems by giving control of the system to the insurance companies. Wow. One of the key misconceptions among Obama supporters is that a universal healthcare system would make healthcare more affordable. What delusional planet is he from? Under socialized medicine, the healthcare system may be perceived as being more fair, but it certainly won't be any cheaper. A better way to describe the program would be to call it "universal heath insurance." The idea is that by compelling everyone in the nation to participate in the insurance market, you'd cut down on what's known as the "free rider" syndrome. As the term suggests, this would be people getting a "free ride" from the healthcare system by deciding not to get their own health insurance because they've been assured that in the case of an emergency or personal health catastrophe, inexpensive care will be guaranteed to them by the government. The theory is that mandated participation would help to drive down insurance costs. But any mandate requires an enforcement component. My fear is that a government branch with the kind of power to actually identify and penalize those seeking to avoid the insurance mandates of universal healthcare would be vast and all-powerful. The new healthcare arm of the government would likely have the same kind of power (and loathsome reputation) as the IRS. I'm all about personal freedom and the rights of individuals. Universal healthcare is not only impractical, but costly - and not just for your pocketbook. It's handing over yet another right to the government, and allowing the government to decide and rule your fate. I'm not compassionless-I'm just sensible. And universal healthcare as it's being proposed still doesn't make much sense to me. The disaster of the Massachusetts universal healthcare system should give you a preview of what life under a universal healthcare scheme could be like...
The universal healthcare dam springs a leak A program of mandated health insurance is already in effect in Massachusetts. Under that system, subsidized insurance is made available to individuals earning up to $30,636 annually, and families of four earning up to $61,956 per year. The state government has begun to impose stiff fines on residents who fail to purchase health insurance - and the penalties can amount to as much as $912 a year! And this place is already known as "Tax-achusetts!" Even though this system is in its infancy, it already has many vocal opponents. Devon Herrick, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis calls the Massachusetts universal coverage plan "overregulated and largely unworkable." Herrick explains that the least expensive health plan available through the program costs $196 a month, while the state fine for being uninsured is about half that cost -- $98 a month! After just two years, Massachusetts' universal coverage program is running at a staggering $147 million deficit, and the four insurance carriers who provide the state- subsidized insurance are estimating that costs will go up by 14 percent next year. Even more shocking is the manner in which Massachusetts state officials have decided to deal with the out-of-control costs of their broken system: they've ordered the insurance companies to cut payments to doctors and hospitals, reduce choices for payments, and possibly increase how much patients will have to pay. I only hope that Americans get a good, long look at the disaster that universal healthcare has wrought on the economy and people of Massachusetts before a similar catastrophe is unleashed on the whole country. The train wreck in New England is headed our way if the democrats get into the oval office. America: you have been warned. Giving you complete coverage on all the dangers of universal healthcare coverage,
Under socialized medicine, the healthcare system may be perceived as being more fair, but it certainly won't be any cheaper.
It won't be any cheaper and it won't be any fairer!!!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
IT WILL NEVER BE 'FAIR'......REMEMBER CELEBRITY'S AND THE 'BIG FISH' IN THE REGION WILL ALWAYS GO FIRST......$$$ talks,,,,,,always has and always will-------re-val issues/levy issues,,,,,all the same animal.......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
First published: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 Mary Anne Nolan's thoughtful article of Sept. 9 urges "make your own choices for your health," rather than "allow the government to make these decisions"; that we need "competition or market forces to keep the players in check and offer us options."
But what "decisions" or "options" are available? Market forces have yielded over 45 million totally uninsured, and ever-decreasing coverage for those "insured" who develop serious illness or are unable to pay ever-increasing premiums.
She's right that any health system should be "monitored" and carefully watched. That applies to any industry affecting the public: health care, hedge funds, banks, Enron, etc.
Health insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They maximize profit by refusing those needing care the most. Each pushes its bell curve of total insureds toward the most healthy, away from the least healthy. Each spends huge amounts on advertising. Only government can cover all citizens under a single bell curve, where lower costs of the most healthy would help offset higher costs of the least healthy — and without profits or advertising.
Politicians fear mentioning the huge waste inherent in private insurance because knee-jerk opponents cry "socialism," the way Ronald Reagan reviled Medicare as "the advance move of socialism." Providing health care to all would no more be "socialism" than providing the military, federal highways, social security or the postal system.
Let's not let verbal scare tactics prevent a tragically needed fix. Let's get on with a federal single-payer system for everyone, while agreeing to keep watching.
Without universal health care, America won’t get better
As a second-year medical student, I had my first experience working in a clinical setting this summer, and I was amazed at the number of patients for whom the basics of health care were out of reach. Before this summer, the issue of health care affordability was one that I had read about, but never seen firsthand. For many, the cost of their co-pay for an office visit was nearly budget-breaking, and the out-of-pocket costs for prescription medication were out of reach. In many cases, this meant that doctors had to compromise the quality of their treatment by prescribing medications that were affordable, but which were less than ideal for their conditions. For the doctors, it was a choice of some treatment vs. none. On one occasion, I was asked to call a drug company on behalf of a patient whose annual income was just over the limit to qualify for that company’s prescription assistance program. The limit was two times the poverty level, or $21,000. Even though her previous year’s tax return showed less than $22,000 in income, and despite the fact that she was providing both for her own mother and her children, she was denied access to prescription assistance. In addition, her insurance company would not pay for the medication because it was non-generic — even though no generic alternative was available. This amounts to the insurance company dictating to doctors how to practice medicine. In contrast, I should mention that I study overseas, in Hungary. Hungary is a country that is far poorer than the United States; its history as a free-market, democratic society dates to 1989, and it is still a developing economy. Yet every Hungarian citizen has access to health care through a nationally administered insurance program. Those who want more options and choices in their care are free to purchase additional private insurance, but every citizen is guaranteed access to care when he or she needs it. If Hungary can provide for its citizens, so should the United States. I, like many other medical students today, feel that basic health care is a human right, and that denying people proper care based upon their socioeconomic status is discrimination. Because of this, I support measures to provide universal coverage to all Americans, and urge everyone to do the same.
Mike neglected to mention all the countries where universal health-care isn't working and where people have to wait many months b4 anything is done for them.
Mike neglected to mention all the countries where universal health-care isn't working and where people have to wait many months b4 anything is done for them.
I always get a kick out of people who want to compare European nations to the USA. Just doesn't work. Look at the various nations with nationalized health care. Germany, with a population of aorund 40million (about 1/8th that of the USA), has a health care system on the verge of collapse. And that was with a booming economy. Britain, also often cited, is also facing huge shortages of doctors, nurses, and other qualified medical professionals. Ever heard of patient stacking? It's fast become a common practice over there in ERs. Sweden is another popular choice of comparison. Sweden's population is roughly 1/16th that of the USA, with 90% of its population conentrated in an area roughly the size of New Jersey. How does that make a realistic compariosn with the USA?
and keep in mind, that big centralized programs like this are one big factor in why the USSR collapsed.
Universal health insurance no answer, increased competition is
Recently there have been articles supporting the implementation of a universal health care plan in this country, which would allow the federal government to fully regulate our health care system. We should instead allow health care to operate in a free market, which it presently does not. Most people who are insured are done so through their employer in a managed care program, like an HMO [health maintenance organization] or PPO [preferred provider organization]. The private HMO is preferable to a government bureaucracy running health care, but it’s an inefficient bureaucracy nonetheless. This type of health care makes the third-party payer the insurance company, via the employer instead of the government (and taxpayers) Both the managed care program and the proposed universal health care plan lead to higher prices. The citizens of this country would be best served by a balanced health care system operating under a free market. To lower the cost of health care, we must begin by excluding routine medical office visits from the HMO. Primary care physicians would compete with each other based on price and quality of services, which would lower the price of routine medical care by taking out the third-party payer. .....................
Congress must act to expand kids’ health care E.J. Dionne E.J. Dionne is a nationally syndicated columnist.
When Bill Clinton’s health care proposal was foundering in the summer of 1994, a group of senators suggested that the administration put off trying to get universal coverage and insist instead on insuring all children. The idea was to make, at least, a down payment on reform. The White House said no and pressed on with its doomed effort to get a bigger bill. The Republicans won control of Congress in the fall. It wasn’t until 1997, thanks to the unlikely duo of Sens. Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, that a children’s health care program was finally passed. One of the clearest signals Presidentelect Barack Obama has sent is his determination to learn from the Clinton years, and particularly from the former president’s failures on health care. When Tom Daschle, Obama’s pick to be secretary of health and human services, returned to the Senate last week for his first round of confirmation hearings, he offered a long list of criticisms that others had directed at the original health care reform effort. This time, he said, would be different. And this week, the House of Representatives is determined to prove Daschle right. It is scheduled to take up an extension of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), as the Kennedy-Hatch initiative is called, so that 10 million kids can get health insurance. Getting more children covered before Congress starts wrangling over the larger health care bill is good politics, and the right thing to do. Congress needs to act anyway, since the program expires March 31. It might as well act fast, and act generously. The SCHIP bill is unfinished business from the Bush years, and Democrats have no better way to show, and quickly, how different their approach to government will be from the style and priorities that prevailed during the outgoing president’s term. President Bush twice vetoed an extension of SCHIP. He opposed the additional $35 billion the Democrats wanted to spend to cover more children and also disliked the tobacco tax they proposed using to pay for it. There are many big things people hold against Bush, but this one has always stuck in my craw. If “compassionate conservatism” — remember that phrase? — means anything, surely it should mean helping more kids go to the doctor when they need to. Some advocates of universal coverage have argued that an expansion of SCHIP should be delayed so that the issue of covering kids can be taken up as part of a larger health proposal. The worry is that passing the most popular part of reform now (is there a more sympathetic group to cover than children?) would make it easier to delay the broader effort. These are good faith concerns, but Congress would be right to ignore them. The economic downturn has made the expansion of SCHIP all the more urgent. It’s not just that sharp increases in unemployment add to the ranks of the uninsured. State governments are hurting, too, and they are responding to revenue shortfalls by shrinking health care programs. According to Families USA, a group that pushes for fundamental health care reform, states have enacted budget cuts that will leave some 275,000 people without health coverage, including 260,000 children in California. By the end of this year, if further proposed cuts go through, the number losing health coverage nationwide could rise to more than 1 million, almost half of them children. Other states have reduced benefits to those they still insure. All this makes the case for fiscal relief to the states in a stimulus bill more compelling. It also makes clear that universal health insurance coverage should be an urgent priority. But getting the children’s program done in the meantime could create momentum for the larger program and reduce the size of the problem that needs to be solved in a comprehensive bill — 10 million kids now, the rest later. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has not made any commitments as to when he would take up children’s health care, though he has listed it as a priority. It would do the new president and members of the Democrats’ expanded congressional majority no harm to..........http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....amp;EntityId=Ar00700
In November, a large majority of this country voted for change. All along, [Obama] talked about the sweeping changes he wanted to institute. He has tried to do what he told us he was going to do. With him, it wasn’t just election rhetoric. So now, one of these changes is being attempted. Insurance companies and drug manufacturers are running health care in the United States, and, as a result, our costs have gone spiraling out of sight. Hardly anyone can afford health insurance unless the tab is being picked up by their employers. There are millions of hard-working people who have no insurance and cannot afford it. They are open to infections and disease without any adequate medical attention because they cannot afford to pay for doctors, medication and hospital stays. As a matter of fact, one in six Americans is uninsured and millions more are underinsured for the coverage they need. Now we find that those in Washington are trying to [kill] the president’s health care plan. They are talking about “if certain conditions are met,” then “we can think about instituting a more comprehensive program in several years.” If Barack Obama’s health care plan gets changed to exclude a public option like Medicare, then it is not health care reform. A public option is the only way to guarantee health care for all Americans. Any legislation without it is just more of the same, broken system. America deserves a choice. Let people choose between keeping the for-profit insurance they already have — if they want it — or a public health care option like Medicare. Insurance companies and HMOs are afraid of a public health care option because competition will force them to provide better service at lower cost. I urge you to call, email or write to [your legislator] today, in support of comprehensive health care for all.
Be careful what you wish for you may get it. Take a close look at the countries who have government run health care and you'll find the death rate there is higher than ours is, an example is in the UK colon cancer death rate is 41% and the death rate here is 31% because the UK won't pay for the best chemo drug to fight the cancer due to it's high cost. Do your homework and check everything out for yourself b4 just believing what you're being told by the government as they have been known to bend the truth as much as 360 degrees.
Health care rationing is inevitable Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. Charles Krauthammer
Unified theory of Obamaism, final installment: In the service of his ultimate mission — the leveling of social inequalities — President Obama offers a tripartite social democratic agenda: nationalized health care, federalized education (ultimately guaranteed through college) and a cashcow carbon tax (or its equivalent) to subsidize the other two. Problem is, the math doesn’t add up. Not even a carbon tax would pay for Obama’s vastly expanded welfare state. Nor will Midwest Democrats stand for a tax that would devastate their already crumbling region. What is obviously required is entitlement reform, meaning Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. That’s where the real money is — trillions saved that could not only fund hugely expensive health and education programs but also restore budgetary balance. Except that Obama has offered no real entitlement reform. His universal health care proposal would increase costs by perhaps $1 trillion. Medicare/Medicaid reform is supposed to decrease costs. Obama’s own budget projections show staggering budget deficits going out to 2019. If he knows his social agenda is going to drown us in debt, what’s he up to? He has an idea. But he dare not speak of it yet. He has only hinted. When asked in his March 24 news conference about the huge debt he’s incurring, Obama spoke vaguely of “additional adjustments” that will be unfolding in future budgets. Rarely have two more anodyne words carried such import. “Additional adjustments” equals major cuts in Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Social Security is relatively easy. A bipartisan commission (like the 1983 Alan Greenspan commission) recommends some combination of means testing for richer people, increasing the retirement age, and a technical change in the infl ation measure (indexing benefits to prices instead of wages). The proposal is brought to Congress for a no-amendment up-ordown vote. Done. The hard part is Medicare and Medicaid. In an aging population, how do you keep them from blowing up the budget? There is only one answer: rationing. Why do you think the stimulus package pours $1.1 billion into medical “comparative effectiveness research”? It is the perfect setup for rationing. Once you establish what is “best practice” for expensive operations, medical tests and ...............http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....amp;EntityId=Ar00500
Obama, Democrats Eye Tactic to Shield Health Care Plan From GOP Opposition Republicans, who have been complaining furiously about the prospect of health care reform passing under fast-track rules, are not planning to go down without a fight.
FOXNews.com Saturday, April 25, 2009
The fast-track process would protect Obama's ambitious plan to overhaul the U.S. health care system from a potential GOP filibuster and limit the Republicans' ability to get concessions. It also would give Democrats far more control over the specifics of the health care legislation.
Under typical Senate rules, 60 votes are needed to advance a bill, but reconciliation would enable Democrats to enact the health care plan with just a simple majority and only 20 hours of debate.
Democrats hold 56 seats in the Senate, and two independents typically vote with the party. Republicans have 41 seats, and there is one vacancy.
Republicans have complained furiously about the prospect of health care reform passing under fast-track rules. But they're not planning to go down without a fight.
A GOP Senate committee aide told FOXNews.com that Republican lawmakers are considering offering amendments to the legislation that would be unpalatable to Democrats.
Senate Republicans made a similar move with the D.C. Voting Rights Bill, which would have given the city its first seat in the House, by adding a controversial amendment that would repeal most of the District's local gun-control regulations. That bill now is waiting for a vote in the House.
For the health care bill, Republicans would try to add amendments that require employers to provide a certain number of dollars for every employee and limit the ability of uninsured Americans to choose health care providers, "specific changes that Democrats have said will not be included in any comprehensive health care plan," the aide said.
"I would assume this is the only option left," the aide told FOXNews.com.
But Democrats aren't stopping at health care. Obama's plan to cut private banks and other lending institutions out of the market for student loans would also move on a filibuster-free path..............http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....plan-gop-opposition/
Logged
