Summer supposedly is officially over 3 weeks into September, but let's be honest, internally we all consider September 1st as the real end of summer, and Labor Day as the last good day to relax, which is odd considering its name.
Coming in September, Congress will reconvene after the mandatory month long vacation. It's actually a nice reprieve to have Congress cease to sell-off our rights one month a year.
With Congress back in action, we have the newly named KennedyCare on the docket, formerly ObamaCare, formerly ClintonCare, et cetera. Of course, we already have MediCare and Medicaid, which marginally address the health issues for the elderly and those who are too poor to have their own insurance.
Well, let's start with the new suggested name, KennedyCare, named after the "Lion of the Senate," which I did not look up as to why he was called that -- I was happier assuming it meant he pounced unsuspecting innocent victims.
Teddy Kennedy, recently portrayed as some sort of hero despite a long history of events that are, at least to me, the antithesis of being a hero. Hmm, looking at the wiki page on him, it says he was kicked out of Harvard for cheating on his Spanish test, let back in after being a good person, wound up killing a girl named Mary Jo Kopechne but only faced a 2 month suspension for doing so, lived a hedonistic life, worked with the KGB against Reagan, helped his nephew get acquitted of rape in 1991, co-sponsored No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and The Freedom of Information Act. I approve of that last one, and by default, I have to despise NCBL because my wife teaches.
Because of a small plane accident in the 1960s, Kennedy has had back pains ever since then (err, up until August 25th that is) and as such, has been a strong proponent of nationalized health care. So now that he is gone, many politicians are calling for it to be called KennedyCare in an effort to put an emotional emphasis on passing it. Win one for the gipper, I suppose.
Good luck. And I mean that as insincerely as possible.
Let's look at Nationalized health care. I briefly talked about this a few months ago when I was rallying against socialism as a whole. Honestly, we've been steadily cruising that way since Woodrow Wilson made the Federal Reserve in 19... uhm, 1917? Meh, go back and read it if the date is that important to you. We're just missing a few more pieces before we're totally socialized: 1st amendment, 2 amendment and nationalized health care. It ultimately about controlling your populace.
House Bill 3200 has been the main focus thus far. There has been ample information and misinformation about it. So much so, that the White House asked people to narc on those spreading "disinformation" that seemed "fishy." Disinformation is deliberate wrong information -- happens all too often in campaigns. However, what the White House asked was illegal by the Privacy Act of 1974, and they are now being sued for it.
Let's look at the merits of passing health care reform. As claimed, there are 47 million people in the US without health care coverage, or roughly 18% of "Americans." This number includes several million illegal aliens (9.73 million), people who are able to afford health care but opt not to (9.1 million), people in-between health care coverages, people who are in college, and a myriad of other individuals. In short, it actually isn't as high as reported above (and that website debunks the 47 million claim anyway, which Obama cited).
Next, how much clamoring did you hear from the US citizens begging for Health care reform anyway? None? I worked at the Oregon Health Plan for a bit, and believe you me, just about anyone can get health care coverage. Not only that, it is illegal for hospitals to turn people away and Ted Kennedy also passed the COBRA laws to protect uninsured you. Now then, the US government, on the the other hand, isn't fairing too well with Medicare and Medicaid. They plan to go broke soon. Here's the quote from the top of that link: "The federal budget is on an unsustainable path, primarily because of the rising cost of health care." So the federal government is in financial trouble for the health care it already provides, and now they want to cover more people as well. Yeah, that sounds like a swell idea...
Meanwhile, of the 1300 health insurance companies in the US, the top 10 posted a combined $13 billion dollar profit last year overall. Excessive? Well, maybe. But at least they aren't running in the red like the multi-trillion dollar government. This is one element that we need to be wary of with the government -- they aren't making money on taking over health care, they're just creating new debt for us and our children (and their children) to assume at a later date. Here's what I mean: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has stated that to cover 16 million people for ten years, it'll cost over $1 trillion dollars. Uh, we don't have that laying around anywhere...
Above all, there are the political by-words of "single payer system" and what does that mean, really? It means one option. No shopping around between BlueCross/BlueShield, Providence, Kaiser, or what have you. It is a one stop health care coverage and no Slurpee-for-you station. And we specifically do not want that. Americans like options. We're a picky folk and we like it that way. If it takes 1 trillion to cover 16 million over ten years and the US earns 14 trillion a year in GDP, how much would it cost us to cover everyone for that same time. Meh, too late to do math. Of course, some one could just pony up more money to cover us all. "Single payer system" rhetoric has been dropped since the first month it was mentioned.
Going back to why this is necessary. Is it? I mean, this is a really bad recession, and we've already spent too much money on the economy trying to mitigate the effects of a recession. Shouldn't this sort of idea come up when the economy is doing well, and we have a surplus to pay for such benefits? Or maybe we should fix the bankrupt Medicare/caid and Social Security (which is the biggest ponzi scheme in the world). I just do not get the need to rush this through, regardless of who dies in the Senate.
Let's discuss just how bad (or good) or medical coverage is. First, no other country in the world matches our superior care or innovation in medicine. It is a business and we drive it forward. I've heard made mention that US citizens actually do have the longest life spans in the world, but because we drive fast and play war, it shortens the overall life span. But, regardless of that, the average life span is rising in the US anyway.
Remember how long you waited at the ER last time? 2 hours? Yeah, you were furious, but here's Canada's average: + 20 hours. How many of us can stay up that long? Here's the most recent famous claim that over 4,000 UK women had given birth in hallways because there weren't enough beds. You stay classy, England!
Logistically speaking, however, we do not have enough doctors, hospitals, nurses, etc., to help the supposed 47 million uninsured or even half that. Also, the government would determine the pay rate for visits, surgeries, therapies, and I believe there would be a professional revolt to that. Plus, the government is chronically slow on payment as well.
So, what to do... Well, if we had to do something just to save what programs the government already runs in health care, here is an idea that really needs to be addressed: tort reform. Just a snobby lawyer way of saying curbing medical malpractice law suits. Texas recently did it, and their results are astounding! This was on the ballot a couple of years ago here in Oregon, and I voted it down, but this was due to one story (oh boy, here we go -- side tangent) about a guy who had testicular cancer in the lefty, and the doctor accidentally removed the righty, and ultimately he was left with a scholarship to eunuch school. In all honesty, you couldn't offer me the annual US GDP for my boys. Yeah, that's right, they are priceless! So there'd have to be an asterisks for me to approve of Texas' system, but the results are undeniable there.
What we do need is health insurance reform. [Read that link written by a doctor here in Oregon -- it will give you the best insight.] I don't want to regulate it any more like the power companies who's profits are capped by legislation. And I certainly do not want the government coming in, under-cutting the competition, and forcing employers to abandon private coverage which would dump people into the government care. If I were an employer, I would. After all, you'll be paying higher taxes for this public option to exist, so why bother paying private insurance premiums as well?
So in my opinion, we don't need a federal government oversight health care option. What we do need is tort reform with a "save the nads" clause for people who have that concern. Deregulation would be nice, because people who pay for insurance in middle-America pay less than those on the east coast, yet they cannot (by law) get the same coverage in other regions.
But realistically, in one of those links above, 9.1 million people chose not to have health care and earn over $75,000 a year. They don't want it! If we're going to expand government health care, let's do it for those under a set amount of income that do want it, and they can pay a subsidized premium for it. If they sign up for it, they agree to caps on potential law suits, and have mandatory health screenings for preventative measures -- medical, dental and vision. The premuims have to be comparable to other companies so people don't flock to it and overwhelm the system.
And no, illegals do not get this option. Call it racism if you must, but I call it 'the law.'
And lastly, it should be a state matter. There's nothing in the constitution that says the government should have a role in health care. It might even be illegal -- you're health records in a data base controlled by government bureaucrats. Super. Well, at least they could verify that FAFSA form for my Eunuch University application.
You'll note that I haven't talked about, "death panels," "assisted suicide," "paid abortions," "free sex changes," "coverage for illegals," and a litany of other topics. Truth is, the bill isn't finalized as lots of things could change before it gets voted on. I'll probably have to revisit this topic once again. Hopefully it will not be so scatter-brained as this post. I've been working on this for too long, and I am anxious to move on. Not the lack of links in the latter half?
And yes, I will miss Michael Jackson more than Ted Kennedy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Nate. do you every listen to Bill Post on 1430? you seriously should call or e-mail in. your stuff is great, makes sense and it's a hoot! Tomorrow is the Wednesday Whine where you can call in about anything. He's 12-1pm on 1430 if you can. You would be great.
Finally, your take on health care! What a lot of people also don't realize, when citing Europe's example (in addition to the long waiting times) is that here we pay at least 40% of our salary in taxes (and that is married, with a family, making $50,000 per year). If you are single, then you pay at least 50%. And there are health services and tests that we still have to pay out-of-pocket for. Anyway, you should really go more public with your stuff (if you haven't already).
Post a Comment