Health Care and Shrub

[funjumper101 15]

As usual, Shrub is a hypocritical scumbag...

From sfgate.com -

begin quoted text

Taxpayers pick up Bush's bill

Democratic lawmakers in Washington say they're drafting a health care reform bill that would expand coverage for low-income kids. President Bush says he'll veto any such legislation, warning that it would lead the nation "down the path to government-run health care for every American."

Like that would be a bad thing.

What's particularly galling about Bush's position is that it's coming from a man who just underwent a colonoscopy performed at the taxpayer-funded, state-of-the-art medical facility at Camp David by an elite team of doctors from the taxpayer-funded National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md.

If anyone understands the benefits of government-run health care, it's the president.

But let's not get sidetracked. Bush wasn't being entirely accurate when he derided the notion of government-run health care for every American. That might make for a fine little sound bite, especially among those who fear the specter of "socialized medicine," but it's not really what's at stake.

Rather, advocates of health care reform are seeking government-run insurance for every American, leaving the health care part to those who know best - doctors and nurses.

This is a crucial distinction at a time when 47 million Americans lack medical coverage and, according to researchers at Harvard University, about a third of the $2 trillion spent annually on health care in this country is squandered on bureaucratic overhead.

"Cuba is socialized medicine," observed Dr. Kevin Grumbach, who heads the Department of Family and Community Medicine at UCSF. "The government employs all the physicians and owns all the hospitals. That's not what anyone is talking about for this country."

Rather, the focus here is on two indisputable facts: that the United States spends about twice as much per person on health care as most other industrialized democracies, and that Americans on average do not live as long as people in countries that guarantee medical coverage to their citizens.

"Why have all other countries figured out a way to do this?" Grumbach asked. "Why are we the only ones that are so uncivilized?"

The United States spent an average of $6,102 per person on health care in 2004 (the latest year for which figures are available), according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Canada spent $3,165 per person, France $3,159, Australia $3,120 and Britain a mere $2,508. Life expectancy in the United States was lower than in each of these other countries and infant mortality was higher.

Looking at the numbers another way, the Kaiser Family Foundation determined earlier this year that health care spending accounts for 15.2 percent of the U.S. economy.

By contrast, health care spending represents 9.9 percent of Canada's gross domestic product, 10.4 percent of France's, 9.2 percent of Australia's and just 7.8 percent of Britain's.

And again, the citizens of these countries on average live longer than we do.

In Washington, Democratic lawmakers are crafting legislation to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which subsidizes insurance for low-income kids.

The Senate Finance Committee last week approved a five-year plan to increase funding for the program through a 61-cents-per-pack increase in the federal cigarette tax. This would maintain coverage for 6.6 million recipients while adding 3.2 million uninsured kids to the system.

Bush told an audience in Nashville last week that the Senate bill is "the beginning salvo of the encroachment of the federal government on the health care system." He said he'd veto any such legislation making its way to his desk.

That's a fine how-do-you-do for a guy who had five growths removed from his colon on Saturday largely at the government's expense and had them promptly examined by government experts at the government-run National Naval Medical Center.

Happily, the tests showed no sign of cancer. So Bush can rest easy for another few years, thanks to all that government health care.

No one at the White House could be reached to discuss how much the president paid out of his own pocket for the colonoscopy and subsequent testing.

Presidents typically have their own health insurance, although the first-class treatment they receive is largely defrayed by taxpayer funds. In other words, they're prime beneficiaries of government-run health care - just like in Cuba.

In a paper found on the Web site of the Defense Department's Armed Forces Institute of Pathology ( www.afip.org ), former White House physician George Fuller outlines the mission of the taxpayer-funded White House Medical Unit.

He writes that a primary purpose of the group is to provide "confidential, immediate and private access to preventive, routine and urgent care for the principals." This, Fuller adds, "is a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week commitment with no exceptions."

The quality of health care is so exacting, he observes, "that the president cannot even ride an elevator in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building without a physician escort."

According to Fuller, the president enjoys the benefits of medical and dental clinics in the White House, as well as "a fully equipped and supplied outpatient clinic" at Camp David, where Bush's colon was explored.

He says the White House Medical Unit also "keeps a unique and extensive library of medical facilities throughout the world" to provide for the president's health care needs during overseas travel.

All in all, Bush is the last person with a right to complain about government-run health care for every American. We should all be so lucky.

<<< end quoted text

And the Rescumlicans wouldn't even DREAM of voting to override the veto. They Rescumlicans nowadays are purely "Party before Country" in every meaningful way.

[mnealtx 0]

Funny you should mention that... here's what happening in Wisconsin, due to the Dims...


This exercise is especially instructive, because it reveals where the "single-payer," universal coverage folks end up. Democrats who run the Wisconsin Senate have dropped the Washington pretense of incremental health-care reform and moved directly to passing a plan to insure every resident under the age of 65 in the state. And, wow, is "free" health care expensive. The plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes. It represents an average of $510 a month in higher taxes for every Wisconsin worker.

Employees and businesses would pay for the plan by sharing the cost of a new 14.5% employment tax on wages. Wisconsin businesses would have to compete with out-of-state businesses and foreign rivals while shouldering a 29.8% combined federal-state payroll tax, nearly double the 15.3% payroll tax paid by non-Wisconsin firms for Social Security and Medicare combined.


Proponents use the familiar argument for national health care that this will save money (about $1.8 billion a year) through efficiency gains by eliminating the administrative costs of private insurance. And unions and some big businesses with rich union health plans are only too happy to dump these liabilities onto the government.

But those costs won't vanish; they'll merely shift to all taxpayers and businesses. Small employers that can't afford to provide insurance would see their employment costs rise by thousands of dollars per worker, while those that now provide a basic health insurance plan would have to pay $400 to $500 a year more per employee.

The plan is also openly hostile to market incentives that contain costs. Private companies are making modest progress in sweating out health-care inflation by making patients more cost-conscious through increased copayments, health savings accounts, and incentives for wellness. The Wisconsin program moves in the opposite direction: It reduces out-of-pocket copayments, bars money-saving HSA plans, and increases the number of mandated medical services covered under the plan.

So where will savings come from? Where they always do in any government plan: Rationing via price controls and, as costs rise, waiting periods and coverage restrictions. This is Michael Moore's medical dream state.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[freethefly 6]

Quote

The plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes. It represents an average of $510 a month in higher taxes for every Wisconsin worker.

Who is to really blame for such outragously high healthcare?
Some want to blame those who are ill. I blame the system that allows pharm companies to charge outragous prices for a single pill. I blame the specialized medical field that feels that they should be able to wipe out your life savings for the lousey service that they offer (AIDS doctors seem to be good at doing this. I know firsthand. When my money was gone, so was treatment. No money? Fuck off and die!). I, also, blame the insurance companies who dictates who gets what. I put part of the blame on those who are only there for the profit. Those include the thousands of doctors who file false claims, trumping up treatments that were never performed or doing surgery that never needed to be performed.
Why blame the sick who are only wishing to stay alive? Blame the assholes who would kick you in the head untill you are dead and then steal your wallet before they walk away.

Bush should do the right thing and pay out of pocket for his treatment as I have done. He is a multimillionaire and can easily afford it. I am broke and I have a dr. appointment in sept.. Medicaid will pay a small percentage of this but, the majority is solely on me. It took several years to pay off the last visit. I am struggling with whether I shoulld cancel this appointment. I cannot afford another bill that will take several years to pay before I can see the dr. again. Being that I do not qualify for medication and the visit is only to monitor my blood, is it really worth going in to hear more bad news? Hell, they never gave me the results from two years ago. In order to hear the results, you have to go in on an appointment so that they can charge who an outragous fee. So, I paid the jerks a large sum of money for nothing.
Healthcare was very little to do with actual healthcare and everything to do with higher profits.
Blame the greedy at the top of the money pile.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It represents an average of $510 a month in higher taxes for every Wisconsin worker

What's the ratio of Workers vs non-Workers in Wisconsin?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Rather, the focus here is on two indisputable facts: that the United States spends about twice as much per person on health care as most other industrialized democracies, and that Americans on average do not live as long as people in countries that guarantee medical coverage to their citizens.

Once again, the desparity in life expectancy is not because of poor medical care, but because Americans choose to live a poorer lifestyle. Too much working, not enough vacation, more driving instead of walking, demographical concerns, etc. If we had a poorer medical system the delta would be even larger.

But yeah, Bush's leadership on medical care has been pretty poor. The MSA is a weird joke (use it or lose it madness) and the drug plan was another nice deficit item though it won't show up on the books until he's nicely retired.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

The plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes. It represents an average of $510 a month in higher taxes for every Wisconsin worker.

It may be $510 more in taxes, but how much are people already paying out? That $510 would be in lieu of what they're paying already, right?

Your state is already funding Medicare and BadgerCare, which costs Wisconsin around $4 billion.

So, if you subtract what your state is already paying out, and take into account what people are already paying for private health care... In Wisconsin, the average health care monthly premium is $182.11, plus whatever people pay out of pocket for things such as copays, prescriptions, etc... keep in mind, this is average plan, and most plans are less than comprehensive in their coverage.

So, say that someone is on four prescriptions per month at a $20 copay each, or maybe taking 2 name brand drugs at $40 copay each. That's $80 per month. Then, maybe one doctor visit at $20 copay. That's an extra $100. So, you're now up to $282.11 out of that $510 figure you quoted.

After that, you'd need to subtract what your state and local governments are already shelling out for medicare, badgercare, and unpaid hospital bills, since the money to fund hospitals has to come from your state and local budget. Wisconsin hospitals provided $578 million dollars in uncompensated care in 2004.

That $578 million has to come from somewhere. It either comes from county and state taxes that are funding the hospitals, or it is passed on to other hospital users who do pay. Regardless, it comes out of workers' pockets in one way or another.

So, we've accounted for $282.11 per month out of a potential $510. Once we subtract the $4,578,000,000 that the taxpayers are already shelling out one way or another, you're probably pretty darn close to accounting for the remaining $227.89.

Then, you need to look at how much preventative care could lower bills. A $10 vaccination means kids don't get sick and run up thousands of dollars in hospital bills, so you may end up with indirect savings from there, also.