Rethinking Health Care and History

[bonnie]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/rethinking_health_care_and_his.html

October 30, 2009

Rethinking Health Care and History

By Ben T. Briscoe

The congressional vote to "fix" health care is almost upon us. Right now, five bills -- two in the Senate and three in the House -- have passed their respective committees. Congress will most likely vote on some version of these bills next month. Should the legislation pass -- after more massaging and another vote by both House and Senate -- it will be forwarded to the President to sign into law.

This is a good time to review the health care debate leading up to this point. First, Obama declared that the nation's most urgent problem was that 45 million people do not have health insurance. Then someone pointed out that 15 million of those aren't Americans. When 15 million illegal aliens are subtracted, 30 million Americans -- or 10% of the population -- are left without health insurance. Then someone else noted that many of that 10% are temporarily without insurance because they are unemployed.

Others observed that many young people opt not to buy insurance because they feel they don't need it. And there are also those living way above the poverty level who just don't want to spend money on health insurance. So you net out all those folks, and you have about 15 million -- or 5% of the population -- without health insurance.

This is the point where the debate got murky. Somehow the Obama coalition (including major media) attempted to convince the American people that not having health insurance meant not having access to health care. But everyone has access to the emergency room and emergency medical service, even folks who are here illegally. More than 7,000 clinics all over the country provide health care to the uninsured. These uninsured are then charged according to their ability to pay. Hospitals, drug companies, and local governments also provide indigent care.

Some asked, is the level of medical care for indigents comparable to the care members of Congress enjoy at taxpayer expense? Probably not, but it's still better than what regular folks get in Afghanistan, Somalia, China, or Russia. And it can be even better than the care provided in places like Britain and Canada -- "free countries" with socialized health care. Currently in Canada, the average waiting time between the first visit to the physician's office and treatment is over 18 weeks! For many reasons, the American health care system is just about as good as it gets. But that may not be true for long.

Should we spend 83 to 130 billion dollars a year and allow the government to take over 16% of our economy to provide what the supposedly deprived population already has? Remember, the President promised to make this change without adding one dime to the deficit!

The US started down the socialized medicine path in 1967 by spending $2.7 billion on Medicare for roughly 7% of the US population. At the time, that expenditure was 1.7% of the total federal budget, or about $180 per person annually. Today, Medicare provides coverage for 15% of the population by spending 430 billion. That represents 10% of the total federal budget, or about $10,000 per person annually, which is almost twice the 1967 rate (adjusted for inflation). Historically, the government doesn't have a good track record on programs and spending, as you can see by its exponential growth.

Do we really need to spend billions more on a program that will, according to a recent Congressional Budget Office study, cover only about 10 million of the 30 million who are not insured? All this spending and fuss, and the government can't cover even one third of their target.

In 1961, Ronald Reagan gave a speech warning that socializing medicine was the quickest way to political socialism. He was dead-on in that observation.

The ObamaCare supporter should be asked the following questions:

1) Why is socialized medicine being "sold" as a way to make health care affordable without addressing the crippling costs of medical malpractice insurance?

2) Why is tort reform not a major part of any of these bills?

3) If coverage does not include illegal aliens, why are providers not allowed to ask proof of citizenship from the patient?

4) How does a public plan promote competition? There are over 3,000 health insurance providers today. When the government whittles this number down to one -- itself -- how is that competitive?

5) How can you provide health care to another 30 million folks without a massive increase in medical staff, equipment, pharmaceuticals, and hospitals?

6) How will government increase staff when it has pledged to limit pay and cut revenue to hospitals and doctors? Every other government provider of health care in the world must limit care. How will our system avoid limiting care? Unfortunately, our socialized health care system will have no choice but to limit health care. There will be death panels. Decisions that have historically been made by individuals, families, and their doctors, will now be made by government employees -- strangers who assess statistics, medical expediency, and finances rather than ethics, religious principles, and freedom.

So, 7) Will the health care legislation provide federally funded abortions?

8) Why does the Obama administration seek to silence or counterattack every organization and individual that has opposed the plan? Isn't debate a critical part of democracy?

9) Why is legislation to give Congress three days to read and comprehend what will be a 1000- to 1500-page bill being squashed by the Left? Thirty days is not enough to review a bill of this magnitude. I predict that it will be forced through in record time à la Cap and Trade in the House, where they had less than half a day before the bill came to a vote.

It's ironic that the same administration that pushed for more comprehensive consumer protection from the banking industry is dead-set against protecting the taxpaying consumer in its haste to get this freedom-destroying legislation passed.

Obama's health care reform is not about health care -- it's about control. This legislation will destroy what we have and we'll never be able to regain our current quantity and quality of service. Someone recently said that "just because there isn't blood in the streets doesn't mean we're not in the middle of a revolution." I'm worried that this is true and most of us don't realize it. Look up "revolution" in the dictionary and you will find that it includes the term "change."

[bonnie]

HEY BONNIE

SO the government is saying that a large amount of

people are with out insurance when the number is really

small then government wants to have control over all

the people for you best interesting

that is not democracy

dgrimm60

Obama has given these same figures. When pushed on the illegal immigrants he then lowered the number of uninsured.

For a small percentage that could be handled in other ways we need to all end up paying more for less

[Dr. Shane]

It isn't just about the percentage uninsured. Healthcare costs are out of control. Healthcare costs have been rising more than 3 times faster than inflation for a number of years. More and more small employers cannot afford to provide insurance to their employees. Those that can are providing insurance with less benefits, higher deductibles and co-pays. Most small companies that provide health care insurance do not provide it for the family. Thus many mothers are working just to get health care insurance.

I have yet to see how the Democrats are going to control the cost of health care without impacting the availability or quality of services.

[bonnie]

It isn't just about the percentage uninsured. Healthcare costs are out of control. Healthcare costs have been rising more than 3 times faster than inflation for a number of years. More and more small employers cannot afford to provide insurance to their employees. Those that can are providing insurance with less benefits, higher deductibles and co-pays. Most small companies that provide health care insurance do not provide it for the family. Thus many mothers are working just to get health care insurance.

I have yet to see how the Democrats are going to control the cost of health care without impacting the availability or quality of services.

They aren't. If health care was not expected to pay for every DR visit for a hang nail and up it wouldn't be so expensive.

If the government would get rid of the mandates insurance would be competitive as they claim they want.

I don't need to be covered for substance abuse and other mandates

[Dr. Shane]

Well, certain mandates need to be there. Substance abuse is a good example. If that was not a mandate, no one would have carry it. Thus the substance abuse clinics would close and society would have a greater problem with substance abuse.

[bonnie]

Well, certain mandates need to be there. Substance abuse is a good example. If that was not a mandate, no one would have carry it. Thus the substance abuse clinics would close and society would have a greater problem with substance abuse.

Choosing my health care should not be based on what may be good for someone else.

If you indulge in riskier behavior than my family why should my premiums reflect that and not yours?

The insured already carry the water for many uninsured. It doesn't stop the risky behavior.

If you are hospitalized for any length of time,check the bill sent to insurance claims.

A box of tissue cost me 17.95 a few years ago. At least 15.00 of that went to the deadbeats,and those that choose not to carry insurance.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Choosing my health care should not be based on what may be good for someone else.

Wrong. We do not live on little islands isolated from each other. What one person does impacts another. We are all in this together.

Quote:

If you indulge in riskier behavior than my family why should my premiums reflect that and not yours?

This obviously reflects a lack of understanding of substance abuse. Luckily the health care professionals have a better understanding.

Quote:

The insured already carry the water for many uninsured.

That is why we need a system that makes sure everyone is covered. The current system doesn't work.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Wrong. We do not live on little islands isolated from each other. What one person does impacts another. We are all in this together.

My neighbor is no more responsible for my health care than I am responsible for yours.

No,we are not in insurance coverage together.

Quote:

This obviously reflects a lack of understanding of substance abuse. Luckily the health care professionals have a better understanding.

I know you have mentioned many times the fact you are an alcoholic. I was not responsible for what led you there. I am glad there are agencies available to help those in that situation. We have many such avenues available to those that cannot pay. The poorest of course already have coverage under the welfare system. Others qualify for Chips.There are help centers that provide help on a sliding scale based on your financial situation.

There is not a large population left without help. Some can afford their own insurance without hiking mine out of sight.

Some and these I know personally could afford insurance if they stopped the fast food way of feeding their children,stopped the cell phones,cable TV etc.

Does it hurt sometime to pay that premium? Of course,but why do I have to hurt twice so someone else can avoid once.

Anyone that indulges in substance abuse is involved in riskier behavior than the non-user. While I have not been a substance abuser I have know many. Out of the most recent ten there has been a variety of causes? and a variety of excuses,and a variety of treatments. Some paid for thru the welfare program,some insurance and some private pay.

What our government has a right to confiscate from us by force and what each decides to do on their own are two different issues.

Quote:

That is why we need a system that makes sure everyone is covered. The current system doesn't work.

Most are covered now or have access to health care. It will never happen that all are covered and have access to all

they would like or think they need. Not with the government handling our insurance

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

My neighbor is no more responsible for my health care than I am responsible for yours.

We are not talking about welfare. We are talking about health care. We all need it. We are all in the same situation. It is like food or gasoline. We can't live without it. When gasoline prices go through the roof we demand something be done. As ethanol drove the price of corn through the roof, an outcry was heard for government to do something. Health care costs are out of control and something needs to be done. Yes, we are our brother's keeper. We are all in this together.

Quote:

I know you have mentioned many times the fact you are an alcoholic. I was not responsible for what led you there.

It was genetics mostly. Which is the case for most diseases. Many people don't know what diseases lurk in their DNA so mandates are practical and necessary.

Quote:

Anyone that indulges in substance abuse is involved in riskier behavior than the non-user.

If there was no mandate, the person involved in substance abuse wouldn't be covered because the abuse would be a pre-existing condition. No one is going to buy insurance with a substance abuse option prior to them becoming addicted. Clearly there has to be a mandate for all policies to cover substance abuse.