Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A view of Socialized Medicine from the other side

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A view of Socialized Medicine from the other side

    Lower The Cost Of Health Care Without Sacrificing Control To Washington

    The following op-ed was published in the Austin American-Statesman.

    Health care reform is on the fast track in Washington. The elites have promised to pass a bill quickly, even though their specific proposals and how to pay for them have been very slow in coming. So legislation is speeding down the track without all the cars attached and without any idea how much fuel is needed to make it to the station. We don't know yet whether this train will deliver its passengers safely – or if we're headed for a train wreck.

    I believe our top priority should be to lower the cost of health care, without reducing quality or access to care. Rising health care costs make it hard to make ends meet, whether you're putting together a family budget or a business plan. Health care costs have risen far faster than inflation in both good economic times and bad. Costs have forced many self-employed workers into the ranks of the uninsured. The American health care system now costs twice as much per capita as those in most of the developed world.

    I believe we can lower the cost of health care without giving Washington more control over the decisions of doctors and patients. Yet more control in Washington is the vision behind the government plan proposed by Senator Edward Kennedy. To his credit, Senator Kennedy is the only Democrat on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue who has provided legislative detail on his specific health care reform proposals this year. But the more we learn about these proposals, the more concerned Americans should be that Washington elites will not fix the problems in our health care system, but only make them worse.

    First, Senator Kennedy's bill will cost at least $1 trillion over the next ten years – and that's just the beginning. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that this huge price tag will reduce the net uninsured population by less than 30 percent. The taxpayers' $1 trillion does not include the cost of increasing eligibility for Medicaid for people up to 50 percent above the poverty line.

    Second, Senator Kennedy's bill includes a government-run health care plan that will force at least 15 million people to lose their current private health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office recognizes that no current provider can long compete against a government that calls the balls and strikes even as it takes the field. According to the independent Lewin Group, a government plan could eventually take away current health benefits from 119 million Americans, and force 130 million Americans into a Washington-run health care plan.

    Third, a new Washington-run plan will increase the cost of private insurance. "Cost-shifting" occurs when a health care provider accepts low government reimbursement rates, but only if it can charge extra to those with private insurance. This cost-shifting acts like a hidden tax on millions of American families and small businesses. One respected actuary estimates that cost-shifting increases the average American family's health care premium by more than 10 percent, or more than $1,500. Adding another new government health care plan on top of Medicare and Medicaid will only increase this cost.

    Fourth, a new Washington-run plan would lead to government rationing of health care. Just look at the results in Canada. Thousands of our friends to the north come to the United States every year for life-saving surgeries, after their government has told them they'll just have to wait. Various studies suggest that Canadians, especially the poor, are less healthy under socialized medicine than those in our own country. More and more Canadians want to reduce the role of government and expand private options for health care, even as elites in Washington want to move America in the opposite direction.

    Fifth, a new government plan would replicate the model of Medicare and Medicaid, which illustrate everything that can go wrong with Washington-run health care. Costs for both plans have exploded. Low reimbursement rates force many providers out of the system, and many patients to long waiting lines. Taxpayers pay up to $90 billion a year in fraudulent and wasteful medical bills, about two-thirds of that in the Medicare program alone.

    The Kennedy Bill has other provisions that would increase Washington's control of our health care system – including new punitive tax increases. If a family doesn't have a Washington-regulated health care plan, they would pay a new tax. If a small business owner doesn't offer a Washington-regulated plan for every employee, then she would pay a new tax. These tax increases are designed not to raise revenue to pay for health care, but to punish families and businesses that step out of line.

    There are alternatives to a Washington takeover of the health care system, and the best of them will give patients more control over their care. Innovators in both government and the private sector have learned that empowering patients as consumers can lower costs. They've learned that the right incentives can encourage patients to make healthier choices, and providers to compete for their business. These are the ideas that can drive successful reform of our health care system.

    Health care reform can be successful if we take the time to get it right. If our experience with the Stimulus Bill tells us anything, it's that when Congress acts too quickly, it often delivers bad policy. I will insist that the Administration and Congressional leaders give the American people plenty of time to understand their proposals, and decide what they mean for themselves and their families. Washington elites want to dictate to the American people the future of health care, but I believe the best solutions will come when Washington begins to listen.

    Senator Cornyn.
    See, there isn't only 1 way to approach this socialized medicine idea. Non-liberals have a view about it. And I agree, do not rush this policy just because Kennedy fears death.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the Blood of Patriots and tyrants" Thomas Jefferson
    "I can merely plead that I'm in the presence of a superior being."- KrazyHorse

  • #2
    Dude, Ted Kennedy is wealthy enough to pay for any treatment he needed.

    Comment


    • #3
      It's part of his "legacy" building Kuci.
      I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
      For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

      Comment


      • #4
        Sorry, my fault, didn't mean to word it like he wants the gov to pay his bills. I know the guy has more money than I will ever have in my life. What I meant for it to say was he wants a legacy, to be remembered outside of just being a Kennedy. Everyone will remember HIM if he gets this bill pushed. He is afraid of dying before it happens, so he is leading the push to pass it quick and without review.
        "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the Blood of Patriots and tyrants" Thomas Jefferson
        "I can merely plead that I'm in the presence of a superior being."- KrazyHorse

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by zakubandit View Post
          What I meant for it to say was he wants a legacy, to be remembered outside of just being a Kennedy.
          There is the little matter of the murder he committed which he will be remembered for in some circles.
          I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
          For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

          Comment


          • #6
            Yankies are strange - they have no problem about whining over too small airplane seats due to abysmal fatness, but still finds it ok that people dies due to lack of basic medical care.
            With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

            Steven Weinberg

            Comment


            • #7
              It's summer, and you're a young European. Shouldn't you be out rioting, BC?
              1011 1100
              Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

              Comment


              • #8
                BC, I pay taxes because I have to not because I want to. But since I pay those taxes I expect for the government to listen to what I say and take it into consideration. There is a great scale of opposition to the socialized medicine plan that is being pushed. We do not want to pay into a system that is destined for failure, to be abused, to pay for health care for those that either do not pay into the system or that are already taking everything they can from the government. Employees of businesses are going to be heavily taxed on their current benefits because they can afford health care on their own. Penalties for those who can provide for themselves. And thats right?
                "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the Blood of Patriots and tyrants" Thomas Jefferson
                "I can merely plead that I'm in the presence of a superior being."- KrazyHorse

                Comment


                • #9
                  There are alternatives to a Washington takeover of the health care system, and the best of them will give patients more control over their care. Innovators in both government and the private sector have learned that empowering patients as consumers can lower costs. They've learned that the right incentives can encourage patients to make healthier choices, and providers to compete for their business. These are the ideas that can drive successful reform of our health care system.
                  Okay. Let's say I have a minimum wage job and I have cancer. I need treatment in order to have a chance at survival. How am I, as a consumer, going to be empowered by Senator Cornyn's proposal? Isn't he just saying, "You're on your own!"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Another piece from the good Senator.

                    The White House: Don’t Take Us Seriously
                    Friday, June 19, 2009

                    U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, made the following statement after the Associated Press reported that the White House said "the president's rhetoric shouldn't be taken literally" on health care.

                    "On Monday, the President ‘promised' the American people, ‘If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period.' Today, the White House told the American people that they cannot, and should not, take President Obama at his word.

                    "A promise that can't be taken literally is not a promise at all. Americans with private health insurance want to keep it - they literally want to keep the insurance they have - and they should be able to do so. The American people like President Obama personally, and they want to be able to trust him. But when his own White House admits that the President's rhetoric is detached from reality, the President erodes that trust."
                    Sen. Cornyn serves on the Finance, Judiciary and Budget Committees. He serves as the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee's Immigration, Refugees and Border Security subcommittee. He served previously as Texas Attorney General, Texas Supreme Court Justice, and Bexar County District Judge.
                    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the Blood of Patriots and tyrants" Thomas Jefferson
                    "I can merely plead that I'm in the presence of a superior being."- KrazyHorse

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Elok View Post
                      It's summer, and you're a young European. Shouldn't you be out rioting, BC?


                      Well, if I'm young, then there are a lot of toddlers at this site
                      With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

                      Steven Weinberg

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by zakubandit View Post
                        See, there isn't only 1 way to approach this socialized medicine idea. Non-liberals have a view about it. And I agree, do not rush this policy just because Kennedy fears death.
                        Yeah, you can do as the Conservatives do and completely ignore it.

                        Here in Cornyn's home state, we had healthcare reform a few years ago, they limited the amount you can sue a doctor for if they are guilty of malpractice.

                        ACK!
                        Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Tuberski View Post
                          Yeah, you can do as the Conservatives do and completely ignore it.

                          Here in Cornyn's home state, we had healthcare reform a few years ago, they limited the amount you can sue a doctor for if they are guilty of malpractice.

                          ACK!
                          That's evil - how are lawyers then supposed to feed ?
                          With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

                          Steven Weinberg

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Americans favor a plan for government-run insurance to compete with private insurers, a Times/CBS poll found.


                            June 21, 2009
                            In Poll, Wide Support for Government-Run Health By KEVIN SACK and MARJORIE CONNELLY
                            Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

                            The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.

                            Yet the survey also revealed considerable unease about the impact of heightened government involvement, on both the economy and the quality of the respondents’ own medical care. While 85 percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt, 77 percent said they were very or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their own care.

                            That paradox was skillfully exploited by opponents of the last failed attempt at overhauling the health system, during former President Bill Clinton’s first term. Sixteen years later, it underscores the tricky task facing lawmakers and President Obama as they try to address the health system’s substantial problems without igniting fears that people could lose what they like.

                            Across a number of questions, the poll detected substantial support for a greater government role in health care, a position generally identified with the Democratic Party. When asked which party was more likely to improve health care, only 18 percent of respondents said the Republicans, compared with 57 percent who picked the Democrats. Even one of four Republicans said the Democrats would do better.

                            The national telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16, found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan — something like Medicare for those under 65 — that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

                            Republicans in Congress have fiercely criticized the proposal as an unneeded expansion of government that might evolve into a system of nationalized health coverage and lead to the rationing of care.

                            But in the poll, the proposal received broad bipartisan backing, with half of those who call themselves Republicans saying they would support a public plan, along with nearly three-fourths of independents and almost nine in 10 Democrats.

                            The poll, of 895 adults, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

                            Mr. Obama and many Democrats have argued that a public plan would be essential, in the president’s words, to “keep insurance companies honest.” But Mr. Obama has also signaled a willingness to compromise for Republican support, perhaps by establishing member-owned insurance cooperatives instead.

                            It is not clear how fully the public understands the complexities of the government plan proposal, and the poll results indicate that those who said they were following the debate were somewhat less supportive.

                            But they clearly indicate growing confidence in the government’s ability to manage health care. Half of those questioned said they thought government would be better at providing medical coverage than private insurers, up from 30 percent in polls conducted in 2007. Nearly 60 percent said Washington would have more success in holding down costs, up from 47 percent.

                            Sixty-four percent said they thought the federal government should guarantee coverage, a figure that has stayed steady all decade. Nearly 6 in 10 said they would be willing to pay higher taxes to make sure that all were insured, with 4 in 10 willing to pay as much as $500 more a year.

                            And a plurality, 48 percent, said they supported a requirement that all Americans have health insurance so long as public subsidies were offered to those who could not afford it. Thirty-eight percent said they were opposed.

                            In a follow-up interview, Matt Flurkey, 56, a public plan supporter from Plymouth, Minn., said he could accept that the quality of his care might diminish if coverage was universal. “Even though it might not be quite as good as what we get now,” he said, “I think the government should run health care. Far too many people are being denied now, and costs would be lower.”

                            While the survey results depict a nation desperate for change, it also reveals a deep wariness of the possible consequences. Half to two-thirds of respondents said they worried that if the government guaranteed health coverage, they would see declines in the quality of their own care and in their ability to choose doctors and get needed treatment.

                            “It is the responsibility of the government to guarantee insurance for all,” said Juanita Lomaz, a 65-year-old office worker from Bakersfield, Calif. “But my care will get worse because they’ll have to limit care in order to cover everyone.”

                            When asked their opinion of specific changes being considered in Washington, three-fourths of those surveyed said they favored requiring health insurers to cover anyone, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions. Only a fifth supported taxing employer-provided health benefits to help pay the cost of coverage for the uninsured. And there was deep uncertainty about whether employers should be required to either help insure their workers or pay into a fund for covering the uninsured.

                            Three of four people questioned said unnecessary medical tests and treatments had become a serious problem, suggesting that they would support calls by health researchers for a payment system that would better reward appropriate care. But an even higher number, 87 percent, said the inability of people to have the needed tests and treatments was a serious problem. One in four said that in the last 12 months they or someone in their household had cut back on medications because of the expense, and one in five said someone had skipped a recommended test or treatment.

                            The poll found that Americans were far less satisfied with the cost of health care than with the quality of it. Mr. Obama, who has emphasized the need to reduce costs, has found an audience for his argument that health care legislation is vital to economic recovery. Eighty-six percent of those polled said rising costs posed a serious economic threat.

                            Yet only a fifth of those with insurance said the cost of their own medical care posed a hardship. And only a fourth said that keeping health costs down was a more urgent need than providing coverage for the country’s nearly 50 million uninsured. That was a notable change from a Times/CBS poll taken in early April, when 40 percent said that controlling costs was more pressing.
                            I suggest that the republicans continue to attack Obama and other democrats. It's the only way to stop these policies!!!
                            “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
                            "Capitalism ho!"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Why would Americans want their health care rationed?

                              Do you really want Obama to tell you how much health care you need?

                              It is a terrible system up here. The fact that anyone who can afford to do so comes down to the states says everything. The queues are only for the 'little people'. At least in the US you can get timely coverage for a fraction of what it costs up here.

                              As for this poll, I've seen other polls saying that health care support is far less now then it was 10 years ago. People shouldn't have to give up their current plans in order to sign up for Obamacare.
                              Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
                              "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
                              2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X