The Failed Promises of Government Funded Health Care
by Administrator at Jun 26, 10:46 am
The Failed Promises of Government Funded Health Care
By Frank S. Rosenbloom, M.D.Subsequently, government funded health care has been debated in nearly every session of Congress since 1939.
Many people assume that the establishment of Medicare in 1965 was the result solely of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society legislation. In fact, the establishment of Medicare was the culmination of decades of efforts by progressive liberals, and was seen as a stepping stone to government funded health care for all. In fact, some of the tactics the government used to pass Medicare were illegal at the time, employing taxpayer money to lobby for political programs.
See this, click here
Taxpayer-Funded Abortion Is Not Health-Care Reform [John Boehner]
When most Americans talk
about the need for health-care reform, they’re usually talking about
the need to address rising health-care costs; they aren’t talking about
the need for taxpayers to subsidize abortion. In fact, a November 2008
Zogby poll revealed 71 percent of Americans oppose government-funded
abortion.
It seems Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill don’t share this
perspective, however. With the unequivocal support of President Obama,
they’ve written a health-care bill that won’t lower health-care costs
for American families, but will require them to subsidize abortion with
their hard-earned tax dollars.
In his campaign for the presidency, President Obama said health-care
legislation should include expanded access to abortion. He hasn't said
much on the matter since taking office last January. But now, over the
objections of some in his own party, President Obama is demanding that
Congress pass health-care legislation before August, and the House is
slated to vote next week on a bill that will fulfill the president’s
vow if signed into law.
The Obama administration contends the urgent deadline is necessitated
by the suffering of American families who have waited too long for
Congress to act to address the high cost of health care. But according
to the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill the
president supports won't lower health-care costs; it will increase
them. And as the veteran political operatives in the Obama White House
well know, the frantic timetable conveniently leaves precious little
time for the American people to know what's actually in the bill.
Health Reform and the Budget
The President’s 2010 Budget lays the groundwork for reform of the American health care system, most notably by setting aside a deficit-neutral reserve fund of $635 billion over 10 years to help finance reform of our health care system to bring down costs, expand coverage, and improve quality.
Read more about the President’s 2010 Budget and health reform
Add Comment
The United States And Government Sponsored Healthcare
by Administrator at Jun 26, 10:15 am
The United States And Government Sponsored Healthcare
By: Eric Kaad
As the Obama stimulus plan unfolds, the signed legislation is starting to propagate with details of what was exactly in the 1,100 page document.
One item that stood out was a broad Healthcare IT program to create an electronic database for medical records, which lays the ground work for government subsidized universal healthcare.
I respect those who have experience with certain aspects of life and in traveling and speaking to others who live in a country with a government subsidized healthcare system, the resounding comeback when asked about their level of healthcare is "Yeah government healthcare for everyone is great - just don't get sick".
What most people don't realize is that in government subsidized healthcare systems, doctors are mere followers as opposed to leaders when it comes to diagnosing and treating illnesses. Diagnosis and treatments are regulated by fixed medical protocols as established by the government. In turn, medical services are approved or rejected based on the cost of the treatment and what stage a particular individual is at in their life.
One aspect of the bill does just this and identifies "Comparative Effectiveness Research" which in laymen's terms sets the stage for government bureaucrats to determine who will receive what treatment and also decides to what extent the treatment will be carried out.
Considering the methodology of countries who currently employ a universal healthcare model, a likely scenario for a 55 year old male who gets sick and goes to his doctor will likely progress as follows:
1) Doctor evaluates the man and submits request in government electronic database for MRI diagnostic testing as it appears to be a serious condition requiring immediate attention.
2) Medical Government Official (MGO) reviews request and then disapproves it recommending that blood tests be done first.
3) Doctor directs patient to go for blood test. Doctor receives blood test results corroborating, once again, that there may be a serious health problem.
4) Doctor re-submits request for diagnostic MRI procedure. MGO reviews request and passes on to higher government authority for approval based on the high cost of the MRI procedure.
5) MGO receives approval from higher authority and in turn sends approval to doctor and patient for MRI procedure.
6) MRI test is conducted and serious condition is identified by doctor who in turn submits request through electronic database for costly operation.
7) MGO reviews request with the estimated cost of the operation and based on the patients age determines that a certain type of medication should be prescribed first and rejects request for operation.
8) Doctor prescribes medication and the patient's condition worsens.
9) Doctor re-submits request for operation and based on the cost once again forwards to higher authority for authorization.
10) Higher authority denies request and MGO notifies doctor that request has been denied, however recommends another medicine.
11) And on it goes..........
If the above scenario seems farfetched, I would simply remind you that all government programs and agencies have annual budget's. The budget is tracked throughout the year and certain cash outlays are evaluated on a monthly basis as it relates to the remaining dollars in the budget.
Therefore, the only way to manage cost would be to ration healthcare in order to maintain the budget. Some months may be better than others in terms of available healthcare yet the fact that it is capped and managed leaves the average joe with little assurance that he will receive medical care when he needs it.
The quality of universal healthcare is most damaging to patients when it comes to wait times. The average patient in Canada will wait anywhere between 2-3 months for an MRI and up to 18 weeks to see a specialist.
In the United Kingdom, you would be lucky to make it into the O.R. in less than 6 months for a major surgery and if dental work were needed may take up to a year for the simple fact that most dentists will not accept the government's insurance.
You can make the argument about our own insurance companies delaying authorizations and questioning your doctors method of treatment. However, you have considerably more leverage by going to your human resource department who has the power to intervene on your behalf. Whereas in a government subsidized domain you would simply be disregarded.
Additionally, the notion that government subsidized universal healthcare is free could not be farther from the truth. As with any government sponsored program that serves the publics interest they expect you to pay for it via higher taxes and in most cases if you want better treatment options have to pay for it out of your own pocket.
The very idea of government subsidized healthcare is promoted with the impression that everyone will receive equal care. This is not the case and is why countries who offer universal healthcare have additional programs or options that you can upgrade to in order to receive better care.
The fact that better options exist for those who can afford it brings the argument back full circle in that those who cannot afford to upgrade to a better medical plan receive lesser care. Therefore, universal healthcare promotes the very problem it is trying to solve - availability of equal medical care for all individuals in a society.
Therefore, government sponsored healthcare is deceitful in design as it is nothing more than a vehicle to justify higher taxes. When the program is found to be inefficient it is de-funded, however taxes remain at current levels and the search for the next social experiment begins.
About the Author
Eric Kaad is a Political Enthusiast favoring Independent thought as featured on http://averagejoeknows.blogspot.com/
(ArticlesBase SC #794577)
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/ - The United States And Government Sponsored Healthcare
Add Comment
Health Reform Drags Obama Poll Ratings Down
by Administrator at Jun 26, 10:13 am
Health Reform Drags Obama's Poll Ratings Down
January 12, 2010 04:59 PM ET | By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blogSupport for President Barack Obama continues to decline, fueled in no small measure by an increase in the public's dissatisfaction over the progress of healthcare reform.
A poll released Tuesday by CBS News shows the decline to be continual, with 54 percent of the more than 1,200 adults surveyed saying they disapproved of the way in which Obama was handling healthcare. With only 36 percent now indicating their approval, those responding to the latest poll were 11 percent more dissatisfied with the president than they were in October of last year and 6 percent more dissatisfied than they were in December, when the poll was last conducted.
The marks given to Congress are even worse, with 57 percent of those surveyed registering thumbs down to the way the Democrats are handling the issue and 61 percent saying they disapproved of the Republicans' conduct on healthcare.
Of particular importance, from a political standpoint, is that the CBS poll fails to demonstrate that there is anything approaching a consensus that Obama and Congress are on the right track. "Only about one in five Americans thinks the reforms strike the right balance when it comes to expanding coverage, controlling costs and regulating insurance companies," the poll shows while the public remains divided "on whether the reforms go too far or not far enough in providing health coverage to as many Americans as possible."
It's an odd turn of events for something that was the Democrats' signature issue during the 2008 presidential campaign. Survey after survey led politicians in both parties to conclude that healthcare reform was something the American people were demanding but, as has been the case before, they clearly do not like what they are being offered.
Partly, the process is to blame. Rather than focus on maintaining, even improving, the quality of care available in the United States, the White House and the Democrats who control Congress have labored to produce a hodgepodge of reforms that threaten the continued existence of the system as we know it while providing little in the way of guarantees that the parts of the current system people like will not be adversely affected by the proposed reforms.