Opinion: National health care long overdue
By FAYE ARMITAGE
Fruit Cove
Publication Date: 05/24/09
In America's unsafe, uncivilized health care system patients fall victim to neglectful corporate health insurance bureaucracies. Many can't get any health insurance at all. Our system's in "critical condition."
Yet we have false and deceptive TV advertising by a cynical front group Conservatives for Patient Rights (CPR) run by Rick Scott, founder and ex-CEO of Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., who left after FBI raids in 1997. CPR is running emotional ads warning of the dangers of "socialized medicine." What these lobbyists are against, most of us regard as really "civilized medicine."
Scott's Columbia/HCA chain that couldn't bill straight was infamous for defrauding Medicare. Sued by the Justice Department in 2001, it settled the case for $1.7 billion, becoming the largest health care fraud in history. Now Scott has put $1 million of his Columbia/HCA gains behind malicious ads intended to scare Americans about a public option. The scare ads show purported Canadian patients and the operator of a private Vancouver clinic claiming that patients are dying on waiting lists. Not true.
Canada has no waiting lists for emergency procedures. It's wrong to suggest that Canadians with serious, life-threatening illnesses are enrolled on a "waiting list" before they can receive life-saving therapies. "Waiting lists" are for elective procedures.
How frustrating to those whose lives are ruined by lack of medical attention to be insulted by Rick Scott's cruelly unfair and misleading TV commercials about Canadian health care.
So how does America compare on wait times? A 2009 survey reports average doctor appointment wait times for cardiology, dermatology, obstetrics/gynecology, orthopedic surgery and family practice: average wait for a doctor's appointment is over two (2) months in some cities (if you're lucky enough to have health insurance). Almost 50 million Americans have no health insurance; and another 50 million have inadequate, or junk insurance. Some 39 percent of men, and 52 percent of women delay needed care. Health crises are the number one reason for bankruptcies and foreclosures.
The Republican Massachusetts health care "reform" model pushed by U.S. Rep. John Mica, is the worst of all worlds for patients/taxpayers. It creates a mandate to purchase taxpayer-subsidized private insurance mostly high out-of-pocket cost, minimum benefit plans. Mandating private insurance is a windfall (not unlike a taxpayer-funded bailout) to for-profit health insurances, while people are left high and dry (and on waiting lists) at high financial and health risk.
We must reduce the number of home foreclosures in Florida; one of the best ways is to devise an effective universal medical healthcare system that includes a less costly "public option," so families don't go bankrupt paying for hospitalizations.
Nothing is more destructive to patient care than the $20 billion annual private health insurance bureaucracy which profits from frequently denying or delaying health care claims. Fully one-third of U.S. health insurance claims are initially denied; yet according to the PBS documentary "Sick Around the World," claims are paid within two weeks in countries that employ a non-profit private insurance system along-side a public option.
Patients must have the right to choose their own doctors, which is exactly what an expanded Medicare style public option will allow. Corporate (HMO) health care denies that right. That's wrong. Speaking of "waiting lists," hardworking, loyal Americans have been waiting almost 64 years for civilized health care, since President Harry S. Truman first proposed it, on Nov. 19, 1945. That's a long wait, even in Congress. Watching Congress "deliberate" health care 64 years later is like waiting for a herd of turtles to compose a symphony.
Today, we're all Trumanites: we want national health care before more people die from a broken healthcare system.
Faye Armitage is an economist and advocate for a better health care system for the United States.
Click here to return to story:
http://staugustine.com/stories/052409/opinions_052409_030.shtml
This cynical attempt to take advantage of the mortgage crisis and recession to push through national health care is shameless and disgusting.
Why should someone be ashamed to push health care. Is someone not using the protocol set forth to sway others toward their position. I have always loved the concept of marketplace of ideas. Argue your side push your ideas or just name call if that's all you have. You know others on these threads about health care who on both sides have made good points. Why must Jmac vilify? Debate is my America.
I'm not vilifying. I'm calling out the Dems and their stated strategy of exploiting this economic crisis .
Quote from: JMac on May 25, 2009, 09:17:23 AM
I'm not vilifying. I'm calling out the Dems and their stated strategy of exploiting this economic crisis .
IMac, you're so right. When our nation is in an economic crisis we should just sit back and do nothing, rather than look for solutions.
Of course you forgot how Bush Republicans ( I have great respect for traditional conservatives vs neo-cons), actually DID exploit 9/11 to start a war in Iraq under false pretenses.
No WMD and......
QuoteAmerican soldiers have been risking and losing their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan for seven Memorial Days, longer than any American war except Vietnam. Omar Bradley's wisdom "nothing succeeds like excess" only applies to conventional warfare. Our overwhelming advantages in mobility, manpower and firepower are negated in guerilla wars of insurgency. Why have we let this happen?
In "Just How Stupid Are We?," historian Rick Shenkman cites John F. Kennedy: "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie â€" deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth â€" persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
Shenkman offers doses of cold, uncomfortable truth on many topics, but especially on our collective willingness to believe the myths surrounding our ongoing use of preemptive military force in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For example, the 9/11 Commission reported in July 2004 that Saddam Hussein had not supported al Qaeda. Yet a Newsweek poll in September 2007 found that 41 percent of Americans still believed "Saddam Hussein's regime was directly involved in financing, planning or carrying out the terrorist attacks on 9/11."
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/05/25/0525palaima_edit.html
National Healthcare is needed, but at the expense of those with jobs now? Obama wants to increase the amount of tax I pay as a payroll tax to give those without a job healthcare coverage.
That is wrong and immoral.
Faye - Raising taxes to fund a massive new entitlement will not help revive economy.
QuoteThe Myth of the 46 Million
By Philip Klein on 3.20.09 @ 6:10AM
"Even for folks who are weathering this economic storm, and have health care right now," President Obama said at this month's White House health care summit, "all it takes is one stroke of bad luck -- an accident or an illness, a divorce, a lost job -- to become one of the nearly 46 million uninsured…"
Whether it's in political speeches, commentary, newspaper features, or hard news stories, the statistic of 46 million uninsured is one of the most-widely cited numbers in the health care debate. It promotes the idea that nearly one out of every six Americans does not have access to health care and it plays into the arguments of those calling for massive expansion of government to fix the problem. Yet the ubiquitous figure is highly misleading.
To be clear, the statistic is not pulled out of thin air. It comes from an annual report by the Census Bureau, which most recently pegged the number of uninsured at 45.7 million for 2007. But the problem lies in the way the statistic is commonly cited and understood.
For starters, the statistic does not mean that there are "46 million uninsured Americans," as the New York Times reported in a recent story on health care, and as is echoed throughout the media. Just a quick look inside the Census Bureau data shows that 9.7 million of the uninsured are not citizens of the United States. Liberals can argue that we still have a moral duty to cover non-citizens, but this doesn't change the fact that as a matter of accuracy, the Census data only tells us that 36 million Americans are uninsured.
But this doesn't fully convey the problematic nature of the 46-million statistic. As even the authors of the Census Bureau report themselves acknowledge, "health insurance coverage is likely to be underreported" in the Current Population Survey from which the health insurance data is derived. The reason is that respondents are asked in February through April about their health coverage status in the previous calendar year. Some may answer the question as intended, but others may cite their current insurance status, and others may say they were without insurance even if they only spent a portion of the year without coverage.
"[T]he estimate of the number of people without health insurance," according to the report, "more closely approximates the number of people who are uninsured at a specific point in time during the year than the number of people uninsured for the entire year."
In reality, a person who goes without coverage for a few months while between jobs is in a completely different boat from somebody who is permanently without insurance. But the broad citation of the headline figure would have you believe that there are literally 46 million people who never, ever, have coverage.
How many people actually spend the whole year without health insurance? It's difficult to say, and recent data is hard to come by. But in 2003, the Congressional Budget Office took a stab at answering the question, and looked at two studies from 1998 that conducted interviews multiple times over the course of the survey period. One study pegged the number of people who were uninsured for the entire year at 31 million, while another put it even lower, at 21 million. In either case, the number was significantly lower than it was in 1998's Current Population Survey, which found 43.9 million uninsured.
Another problem with citing the 46-million figure is that many of those who are identified as uninsured are actually eligible for existing government programs but simply never bothered to enroll. In 2003, a BlueCross BlueShield Association study estimated that about 14 million of the uninsured were eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP. These people would be signed up for government insurance if they ever made it to the emergency room.
In addition, some of the 46 million could theoretically afford health coverage, but chose not to purchase any. In 2007, 17.6 million of the uninsured had annual incomes of more than $50,000 and 9.1 million earned more than $75,000. In fact, as Sally Pipes notes in the Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide, those making more than $75,000 per year are part of the fastest growing segment of the uninsured population.
The Census figures also show that 18.3 million of the uninsured were under 34. Some in this age group may have simply determined that they are young and healthy and thus can do without coverage.
When all of these factors are put together, the 2003 BlueCross BlueShield study determined that 8.2 million Americans are actually without coverage for the long haul, because they are too poor to purchase health care but earn too much to qualify for government assistance. Even being without insurance still doesn't mean they won't have access to care, because federal law forbids hospitals from denying treatment to patients who show up at the emergency rooms.
This exercise isn't about downplaying the problems facing the American health care system, but a necessary part of devising the proper remedies. Under current state laws, mandates force insurers to provide certain benefits, meaning that young and healthy Americans must choose between paying exorbitant premiums to cover treatments that they don't need or going without health insurance. Many of these so-called "young invincibles" who are included in the ranks of the uninsured could be wooed into the market were they allowed to purchase catastrophic insurance with lower monthly premiums.
Right now, the tax code exempts people from paying taxes on health care benefits purchased through their employer, while denying the same tax advantages to individuals. Ending this discrimination would make health care more affordable to those who are self-employed or not covered through their workplace. In addition, this would allow Americans to have health care policies that are portable, so it would reduce the gaps in coverage people can face when they quit or lose a job.
Those pushing for a major government intervention in health care are distorting the 46-million statistic to boost their cause, and by disseminating it so widely without further elaboration, the media is rigging the game in their favor.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/20/the-myth-of-the-46-million
QuoteAnother problem with citing the 46-million figure is that many of those who are identified as uninsured are actually eligible for existing government programs but simply never bothered to enroll. In 2003, a BlueCross BlueShield Association study estimated that about 14 million of the uninsured were eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP. These people would be signed up for government insurance if they ever made it to the emergency room.
In addition, some of the 46 million could theoretically afford health coverage, but chose not to purchase any. In 2007, 17.6 million of the uninsured had annual incomes of more than $50,000 and 9.1 million earned more than $75,000. In fact, as Sally Pipes notes in the Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide, those making more than $75,000 per year are part of the fastest growing segment of the uninsured population.
The Census figures also show that 18.3 million of the uninsured were under 34. Some in this age group may have simply determined that they are young and healthy and thus can do without coverage.
Completely agree... I hadn't thought of the wealthy demographic though until it came up in recent conversation. If you're well-off, why pay high premium's for "just in case" or check up's? You're most likely living a healthy lifestyle and can afford catastrophic med bill's.
QuoteYou're most likely living a healthy lifestyle and can afford catastrophic med bill's.
What if you are in an accident, you can't work, you have no disability, you have no safety net, because you are young and healthy? Far too many people live paycheck to paycheck with no savings, thinking they can save later, just like health care is not for me now, but for me later. Our health plan offered the folks in our office simple 5,000 deductible for 20 bucks a month. If something catastrophic occurs, they are covered. They have a higher co-pay, but they are covered for many things they would otherwise have to pay for.
Insurance is not for what might happen, but for when it will happen.
QuoteNo thanks to government health care plantation
To see government health care at work, we don't need to look at Canada or Great Britain or Cuba. 59 million Americans already have it -- it's called Medicaid
Monday, May 25, 2009
by Star Parker
Four Republicans -- Senators Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Richard Burr of North Carolina along with Congressmen Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Devin Nunes of California -- have fired the first salvo in the great health care reform debate.
They've introduced the Patients' Choice Act. Now, although we have a pretty good idea of what Democrats have in mind, we await crystallization of their ideas into legislation.
The difference of approach of the two parties on health care rides on the same basic question that divides the country and the parties on everything else. Are the problems we're facing today the result of too much government intervention in our economy and our lives or not enough?
The Patients' Choice Act reflects Republican thinking that health care costs are out of control and, as result, not affordable for many, because of too much government. It allows Americans to take direct control of their health care expenditures by giving families and individuals cash in the form of a tax credit ($5700 and $2300 respectively) to buy insurance and set up a Health Savings Account.
Democrats will take things in the opposite direction. Rather than controlling costs and access through more competition and consumer control, they see it coming from more government and regulation. Mandates on employers to provide insurance, fines if they don't, and using those funds to finance a new subsidized government plan.
And central to cost control are government bureaucrats defining what procedures may be used and determining what physicians will be compensated.
I'd suggest two considerations in assessing whether today's runaway costs and inefficiencies are the result of too much government or not enough.
First, we already have massive government involvement in health care. Practically half of all health care delivered today comes directly from government programs -- mainly those begun in the 1960's. Medicare, Medicaid, and then later the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
Only 35 percent of health care is paid for through private insurance. Some 87 percent of it is paid for by third parties -- either government or employers. In 1960, 60 percent of Americans' health care expenditures were out of their own pocket. Today it is 12 percent.
So massive growth in health care spending and cost escalation correlates directly with increasing government involvement in this marketplace and decreasing consumer control over their own expenditures. Does this tell you something?
Second, to see government health care at work, we don't need to look at Canada or Great Britain or Cuba. Fifty nine million Americans already have it. It's called Medicaid.
Medicaid was passed in 1965 to cover health care for poor Americans. It is a pure entitlement. If you qualify, you are covered. Government, both federal and state, pays.
Bureaucrats define what is covered and how much physicians will be paid. And, as result, there is a huge gap between being covered and actually getting health care.
On average, 40 percent of physicians won't accept Medicaid patients. They are paid less than what it costs them to provide the care. In a survey done last year by Merritt Hawkins, a healthcare manpower firm, 65 percent of physicians said reimbursements from Medicaid were less than their costs.
Merritt Hawkins did a survey this year of physicians of different specialties in fifteen different cities on acceptance of Medicaid patients. In Washington, D.C., for example, which has the highest incidence of children living in poverty in the country, only 63 percent of surveyed physicians in family practice will accept Medicaid patients.
A federal district appeals court ruled just a few weeks ago, affecting Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, that state Medicaid programs can't be forced to pay if they disagree with a doctor's decision regarding care. In this particular case, Medicaid officials disagreed with the amount of nursing care prescribed by a physician for a teenager who suffers seizures.
A study cited by Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a physician and health care expert at the American Enterprise Institute, showed Medicaid patients to be 50 percent more likely to die after heart bypass surgery than patients with private coverage or Medicare.
Move the whole nation onto a new government health care plantation?
No thanks. I'll take freedom and personal responsibility.
http://www.urbancure.org/article.asp?id=3158
QuoteWhat if you are in an accident, you can't work, you have no disability, you have no safety net, because you are young and healthy?
mtrain I was talking about the wealthy who are uninsured. They do have the money in reserves for the catastrophic when it does occur.
I agree young people do not have the "safety net" of savings but the point is a lot chose not to take the insurance available to the them for extra monthly income. My reply was in agreement with the article posted by Sigma that the 46 million uninsured American's is a skewed #.
On Tragic Wait Times in the US:
Universal health care is a necessity
June 1, 2009 by Yamini Piplani
Health care should be matter of logic, not politics
Illustration by Jorge Labrador
Most of us wouldn’t need to glance at the plethora of available statistics to agree that the health care system in the U.S. is in a sad state.
This is because so many of us have either personally experienced or have seen someone we know being failed by our health care system. It is unfortunate that health care reform has been a matter of politically-biased debate for years, as the health of American citizens should be the first and foremost priority of any political party.
People are suffering across party lines â€" whether Republican, Democrat or something else, stories of people being ill-served by their insurance or being denied treatments, to the detriment of their long-term health, are overly common.
Though I am one of the 46 million Americans lacking health insurance, until now I had been fortunate enough not to have had any horrible experiences with health care. I had only read in articles, learned through research or heard strangers’ horror stories about our handicapped health care system.
Recently, my grandmother was told by an ophthalmologist in the U.S. that she needed cataract surgery, but that it would be two weeks until her next eye exam, a few more days until she got her results back and then her surgery would be scheduled a couple weeks later. In all, it would take about one month for her to regain her vision.
But in three weeks my grandmother was going to India â€" she had already booked a flight a couple months ago. Her doctor here told her the surgery wasn’t an emergency and that it could be done when she returned or, if my grandmother preferred, she could have her eye surgery done in India.
When she landed in India, she set up an appointment with an eye doctor for the next day. Her basic check-up along with all her exams were done within a few hours, she had her exam results back in another two hours and her eye surgery was scheduled for the next morning. Within 24 hours of her first visit, she had her vision back â€" quicker and much cheaper.
The doctor told her that if she had waited another month for her surgery like the doctor in the U.S. had suggested, her eye could have been permanently damaged.
My grandmother got lucky â€" I’m sure there have been many others that haven’t been so lucky in the U.S.
From top to bottom, our health care system has so many problems that it cannot simply be fixed; the entire system needs to be changed.
From overpriced insurance plans that find ways to not cover you when you need them most, to exam results being delayed because they are sent overseas to be read to save costs, our health care industry has become a monstrous bureaucracy in which neither efficiency nor equity are achieved.
The U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services report[ed] that, as it stands now, Americans spend more per capita on health care than any other country at $7,421 per person. Yet, Reuters pointed out, “studies suggest Americans get poorer care than people in other industrialized countries that have national health care plans.â€
Private health care plans are both expensive and inefficient â€" a claim substaniated by a rise in medical tourism.
In fact, our health care system has become a medium through which discrimination by social class is perpetuated. Logically, those who are left untreated more often are those with poor insurance plans or no insurance at all â€" usually not the rich.
The current flawed concept of insurance has become convoluted and complex. In fact, those with insurance are charged differently than those without insurance and cash-pay patients, hinting at the fact that the mere existence of health insurance bumps up health care prices.
Should it be allowed under law to treat those who have health insurance differently than those who don’t? Do people with preexisting conditions not deserve to have a chance at quality health care?
If anything, I would hope that preserving life would be of utmost importance to our government and therefore, it would be exempt from the games of money and power. Government-sponsored universal health care should not be a matter of debate; any unbiased person should agree that any legitimate government has an obligation to preserve and protect the lives of its citizens.
http://unlvrebelyell.com/2009/06/01/universal-health-care-is-a-necessity/