National health coverage?
Today East Palestine writer Melody Gustafson, managing editor of Kent State East Liverpool's Eastern Flash, returns to ORL with a piece on national health care.
by Melody Gustafson
It is insane to force a country of 290 million people to pay for a national health care bureaucracy to provide care for less than 50 million people who lack health coverage.
An approximation of the numbers shows that a mere 16 percent of the population of the United States comprises the group for which an entire system overhaul has been proposed. While it is unfortunate that so many of us has to pay cash for health care, revamping an entire system at a higher cost to taxpayers, while requiring a sacrifice of the citizen access to quality health care, is ludicrous.
The biggest problem with the national health care proposal, besides the inflated taxes, is the inevitable loss of quality of care, and this will happen in a couple ways.
First of all, bureaucracies are headed by non-elected administrators who don’t answer to the public at the polls. These non-elected heads launch policies regularly that may be questionable to the public. When life and health are on the line, is it wise to eliminate accountability and competition in the midst of a few people whose main role in the process is to reconcile the financial existence of the country’s health care? Cost-cutting policies will effectually marginalize the standards of quality care of more people than will benefit from the overhaul.
Dick Morris, political consultant and author, issued an article May 18 that outlined some of the loss-of-quality concerns by comparing the U.S. private system with what the Canadians have done with their country.
Morris writes: “As in Canada, the best way to cut medical costs is to refrain from using the best drugs to treat cancer and other illnesses, thereby economizing at the expense of patients’ lives...death rates from cancer are 16 percent higher in Canada.” It doesn’t make sense to limit the resources of those who already have adequate health care now so a diminutive minority of Americans can benefit from a costly handout.
Morris also addresses the issue of the shortfall of medical personnel. Congress is considering saving on Medicare fees by regulating the amount doctors can charge for services. Without an incentive to enter the profession and compete with others, the amount of good doctors and nurses will decrease. One can only imagine how many times Congress would, with their backs against the wall, have to “reduce costs” at the expense of what the professionals earn. The result will be a country with an increasing population and less and less doctors to care for them.
According to Morris, “Canadian experience indicates that when government – or its satellite private insurance providers – ration health care, they cut preventative care first. In Canada, colonoscopies are so rationed that the colon cancer rate is 25 percent higher than in the United States.”
Morris does try to look at the bright side, and reason that the “other radical changes Obama is bringing about in our country can always be reversed. That which is nationalized can be privatized.” This columnist disagrees. Our country has a history of helping the disadvantaged, but as future lawmakers face the proposition of repeal in four or eight years, the propagandist mantra of the national health-care advocates will be accusation of inhumane deprivation of care for the 16 percent instead of simple “privatization.”
by Melody Gustafson
It is insane to force a country of 290 million people to pay for a national health care bureaucracy to provide care for less than 50 million people who lack health coverage.
An approximation of the numbers shows that a mere 16 percent of the population of the United States comprises the group for which an entire system overhaul has been proposed. While it is unfortunate that so many of us has to pay cash for health care, revamping an entire system at a higher cost to taxpayers, while requiring a sacrifice of the citizen access to quality health care, is ludicrous.
The biggest problem with the national health care proposal, besides the inflated taxes, is the inevitable loss of quality of care, and this will happen in a couple ways.
First of all, bureaucracies are headed by non-elected administrators who don’t answer to the public at the polls. These non-elected heads launch policies regularly that may be questionable to the public. When life and health are on the line, is it wise to eliminate accountability and competition in the midst of a few people whose main role in the process is to reconcile the financial existence of the country’s health care? Cost-cutting policies will effectually marginalize the standards of quality care of more people than will benefit from the overhaul.
Dick Morris, political consultant and author, issued an article May 18 that outlined some of the loss-of-quality concerns by comparing the U.S. private system with what the Canadians have done with their country.
Morris writes: “As in Canada, the best way to cut medical costs is to refrain from using the best drugs to treat cancer and other illnesses, thereby economizing at the expense of patients’ lives...death rates from cancer are 16 percent higher in Canada.” It doesn’t make sense to limit the resources of those who already have adequate health care now so a diminutive minority of Americans can benefit from a costly handout.
Morris also addresses the issue of the shortfall of medical personnel. Congress is considering saving on Medicare fees by regulating the amount doctors can charge for services. Without an incentive to enter the profession and compete with others, the amount of good doctors and nurses will decrease. One can only imagine how many times Congress would, with their backs against the wall, have to “reduce costs” at the expense of what the professionals earn. The result will be a country with an increasing population and less and less doctors to care for them.
According to Morris, “Canadian experience indicates that when government – or its satellite private insurance providers – ration health care, they cut preventative care first. In Canada, colonoscopies are so rationed that the colon cancer rate is 25 percent higher than in the United States.”
Morris does try to look at the bright side, and reason that the “other radical changes Obama is bringing about in our country can always be reversed. That which is nationalized can be privatized.” This columnist disagrees. Our country has a history of helping the disadvantaged, but as future lawmakers face the proposition of repeal in four or eight years, the propagandist mantra of the national health-care advocates will be accusation of inhumane deprivation of care for the 16 percent instead of simple “privatization.”
posted by M. | 10:10 AM
21 Comments:
The purpose of national health care is not merely to help the 16 percent who do not have health care. It is also to help small and large businesses who find that providing health care to their employees is proving to be impossible simply because of the cost. Also the cost of purchasing your own insurance is astonomical. You are looking at $400 and up for an individual with a very large deductable. There are many ways to look at this issue but we are the only industrialized nation that does not provide some sort of national health coverage and our rates are the highest in the world for everything. Maybe we shouldn't have it, maybe it should just be a perk for someone fortunate to work for a company that can still afford coverage. Maybe it's time we stopped saying "No" to everything. Maybe it's time we stopped listening to Dick Morris and his ilk.
It was a rather political article.
The R.N.'s at East Liverpool City Hospital issued their strike notice on Friday. Tommorow is the last day of negotiations. No unreasonable demands. Safe Nursing practice. No demands for wage increases. Administration is not giving in. They want to bankrupt the hospital. Why has this not been in the paper?
freemarketcure.com
this site provide some facts about health care in other countries, as well as some interesting tidbits about our current system.
A significant cost of heath care can be attributed to litigation. Heath care providers pay huge liability insurance premiums and order unnecessary tests to protect themselves from litigation. We have the trial lawyers playing law suit lottery by filing huge class action suits. Even if the law suit fails, the health providers must pay huge costs to defend themselves. Much of these costs could be eliminated through tort reform. One way to reform the system is a loser pay system. The problem is that the trial lawyers make huge contributions to the politicians.
I remember when the family physician had an office staff of himself and possibly a nurse. Last week I visited my primary provider and there were five office personnel in addition to himself. The extra help is required to do clerical work and much of that work is required by the government. The government is the problem not the solution.
When the stats for the number of uninsured are stated, they fail to mention that a huge block of the uninsured are in this country illegally. Many others are young adults who feel they don't need to worry about health insurance.
I am sure we will end up with socialized medicine before long - perhaps before the next presidential election. Medicare and Social Security are already straining the government's resources. I don't see how it can survive the added costs.
Ahhh, the usual, the govt is the problem.
Big bad government is always the problem. Sort of like two SCOTUS rulings in the 60s concerning mandatory Bible reading and prayer in public school is the cause of all bad that has happned to American society since. Yea, right.
Sometimes the govt is the problem, but not always. Most issues are complex with a number of factors interacting producing results that may be good, or bad.
It is just too easy and too simple to say the government is to blame.
If the government takes over health care, then yes, without a doubt, the government is the problem. Stop whacking off to separation of church and state issues, why do you always bring those issues up? Do you have some sort of deity complex?
The government has never ran one program more effective than private industry.....and GM is next. Although it wouldn't be hard to run GM better than it has been run the past few decades, the government will still muck it up.
And if you would like the government to be in charge of what you do, by all means let them. They have never turned down money, send them all the tax money you desire, they will find a way to waste it, but please don't ask me to do it.
El Alum said...
. . .Stop whacking off to separation of church and state issues,
[end quote]
I guess I missed the memo about where you were named ORL blog cop.
[quote]
why do you always bring those issues up?
[end quote]
Because I can?
Because it was a valid comparison?
Because it bothers you?
I have always felt that, a couple of steps can be taken to reduce the cost on health care. First get rid of all the drug reps, everytime I am in my doctors office, one of these people come in and present a menu to the doctor and staff to buy lunch, and leave all there advertising garbage all over the place. get rid of this shameless plugging, and that would save millions.
Secondly no more drug ads in the media. A thirty second commercial costs millions during certain events and shows. Print ads in nationwide publications isn't cheap either.
Lastly, and the one that really effects this area, audit the Emergency Room usage of Medicare, and Medicaide subscribers. If someone goes to the hospital everytime they are bored, or are seeking drugs stick them with the bill after they abuse the system.
Buckeye,
I can't believe you won't tolerate my expressions? I mean, I am not supposed to tolerate yours, I am an evil, white, rich (don't I wish) conservative.
You are supposed to display the love and tolerance the left always promotes. You should tolerate my opinions and lunatic views, regardless how demented they are...isn't that what the left is about? Show me some love!!
As for your questions, yes you can bring those up, and yes your views do bother me, but no it is not a valid comparison.... And no, I am not ORL cop. I made a request, if I was the cop I would have enforced something, not requested something.....but let me guess, police enforcement somehow ties back to separation of church and state.
Continue whacking.
At least you didn't try and defend government health care.
But I will rephrase my earlier statement, the government does provide national security better than the private sector would.
gotta start somewhere,
One of your suggestions has already been invoked. The drug reps no longer give goodies to the doctors and buy them lunches.
Not only do people abuse the ER, but many who have coverage also abuse the system. They go to the Dr. for the slightest sniffle because it's "free". I've heard stories (not confirmed) of others who use the ambulance service to get a free ride to town. Another tale is of the seniors om FL who make scheduled visits to the doctor's office to see their friends. Free medical care is abused.
Insurance used to be for catastrophic situations. You paid the Dr. and submitted a request for reimbursement. Routine office visits weren't covered.
EL Alum said...
Buckeye,
As for your questions, yes you can bring those up, and yes your views do bother me, but no it is not a valid comparison....
Good they bother you, too bad, and yes a valid comparison.
The false comments by one David Barton and others is that when in the early 60s the courts removed God (mandatory school prayer and Bible reading, crime rate soured, the economy fell apart, teenage pregnancies sky rocketed and just about anything else negative that has ever happened to the US took place as a result. That all is bull crap just the same as blaming everything on the government is equally bull crap. Since both are equally incorrect it is a valid comparison.
Buckeye,
It hasn't gone unnoticed that you don't miss a chance to bash religion or the religious. No matter the topic, out comes the knife. You try to pass yourself off as enlightened but you sound like just another hater.
Flapjack said...
Buckeye,
It hasn't gone unnoticed that you don't miss a chance to bash religion or the religious. No matter the topic, out comes the knife. You try to pass yourself off as enlightened but you sound like just another hater.
[end quote]
It hasn't gone unnoticed that you are weak in the facts department.
Would you kindly post any quotes where I have, in fact, ever posted anything about religion per se, negative, positive or indifferent?
You will have a very hard time finding such since they don't exist.
Now, the Radical Religious Right, on yes I do say a lot about such theocrats, yes you can find things about those types.
Religion or religious per se, nope. Not something I concern myself with.
The problem is certain people seem to think that one has to be against religion or hate religion or religious people to be a supporter of the Constitutional Principle of Church (religion) state (govt) Separation.
The Constitutional Principle that the founders of this nation placed in that document. The same founders who were by and large varying degrees of religious themselves.
That same principle that has been upheld time and time again by judges and justices who also were
religious folks.
In fact, the vast majority of folks since 1787 to present who were and who are today supporters of Church state separation are religious folks, most of whom have been and are of some Christian denomination or sect. They were not, nor are today haters of religion or the religious. Neither am I.
Those are the facts.
What you may imagine as attacks against religion or religious does not make it so. So, I again invite you to post any quotes from any post of mine that shows me hating religion or religious.
Buckeye,
Perhaps I am too loose with the word hater. I am often around teenagers who use terms that don't translate in civilized discussions. I should have said that you are quick to interject your disdain for things religious. I don't need to go any further than your previous post for an example. Although you may not agree with David Barton, many share his view. The Bible is full of examples of the turmoil nations fall into when they turn their backs on God. When you call that opinion "bull crap" and kid might say, "don't be a hater".
Also, I think we are on the same side when it comes to church/state issues. I don't want the government's tentacles anywhere near my church especially in the current political climate. I think where we differ is in the area of school vouchers. I just don't see the problem when taxpaying parents choose a non-government run school for their kids education. As long as the cost doesn't exceed what would be spent on their public school counterpart, why the outrage? I trust parents to make the best educational decisions, not some uninterested politician. I've always suspected this is more of a teachers union lobby issue than a church/state one. I appreciate your efforts in refering me to other discussion boards on this topic. Your passion for this subject is obvious, but I doubt that I'll ever trust D.C. more than good old parental instict when it comes to matters of education.
Flapjack said...
Buckeye,
Perhaps I am too loose with the word hater. I am often around teenagers who use terms that don't translate in civilized discussions.
I should have said that you are quick to interject your disdain for things religious.
[end quote]
Again I invite you to quote anything I have ever said that shows disdain for any religious tenets, doctrines, dogmas. Good luck with that.
I don't need to go any further than your previous post for an example.
Although you may not agree with David Barton, many share his view.
David Barton!!!!!
David Barton is a man, he isn't a religion, though some may think he is. He isn't a religious tenet, doctrine, dogma. David Barton is a theocrat, along with being a con artist, a snake oil salesman. He is a fraud and a liar.
I don't expect you to accept that but I will say that I can prove the above statement easily. The question would be, would you and some others on here ever accept any evidence that would go counter you what you do and what you want to believe. That would be the question and so far the evidence I have seen is, no you would not.
But I do have the evidence and would be more then happy to provide it, all of it. Since the vast majority of people here would have no interest in that I suggest once more we go to the site I have suggested before to do that.
You are right about one thing, I have total disdain, total contempt for David Barton and it has nothing to do with any religion or anything religious. It has to do with the fact he is a fraud, a man who lies, misrepresents, cons people, even manufactures false evidence.
In spite of what some here may think, I have worked hard over and period of 15 years to build a reputation. One that people can rely on and count on. I bend over backwards often times to check and double check, to verify something to be sure it is true and accurate. I have researched some of David Barton's work and found it to be bull. I have found lies, misrepresentations even evidence of manufactured evidence. So have many others, respected peer reviewed scholars. At one point so many people were pointing out his "errors" that he finally admitted a dozen or so quotes he had published in his first book and offered on his tapes couldn't be verified. A DOZEN OR SO!!!!!!!! That was just the tip of the iceberg of his sloppy, shoddy "research" just the tip of his lies, misrepresentations, etc.
I am aware of that fact that some people thinks David Barton walks on water, that the sun rises and sets on his head. That is sad that such people have been so taken in by him. But that is exactly what has happened, they and many others have been taken in by him.
His lies and unethical crap had paid off well for him allowing him to rise to positions of impermanence in the Republican Party, the Republican Party of Texas, etc.
None of that has anything to do with religion. You seem to be confused on this issue. David Barton, the late Jerry Falwall, Pat Robinson, James Kennedy, James Dobson,and all the other theocrats, the Radical Religious Right types are public figures, peddling a pig in a poke, con job and exposing them for who and what they are isn't attacks on religion. They are not a religion and have very little to do with religion of any kind.
[quote]
The Bible is full of examples of the turmoil nations fall into when they turn their backs on God. When you call that opinion "bull crap" and kid might say, "don't be a hater".
[end quote]
The Bible is full of examples a lot of things, incest, violence, genocide, polygamy, contradictions, stores that exist in writings of other older cultures, etc. That has nothing to do with 20th and 21st century snake oil salesmen trying to con people. Exposing these clowns has nothing to do with "attacking" religion.
[to be continued]
Flapjack said....
[quote]
Also, I think we are on the same side when it comes to church/state issues. I don't want the government's tentacles anywhere near my church especially in the current political climate.
[end quote]
I tend to doubt we are on the same page. Your comment above shows a common misunderstanding of church state separation. David Barton may not have been the first to claim it was one directional but he is the one most cited now.
Church state separation is not a one way street. It keep the government out of religion but keeps religion out of the government as well.
Again that can be shown with documentation.
[quote]
I think where we differ is in the area of school vouchers. I just don't see the problem when taxpaying parents choose a non-government run school for their kids education.
[end quote]
That pesky little item called the Constitution. It took Rehnquist 20+ plus years to barely have enough supporters on the SCOTUS to squeeze through a approved voucher plan. If one was to seriously study that you would see just how political that ruling really was and it was a 5-4 ruling. Those rulings are the weakest rulings and the easiest to overturn by a future court. The one thing about playing politics on the court is it can work in both directions.
At any rate, in the years since the Cleveland case was upheld., vouchers have not become the order of the day across America. They are still being routinely shot down in courts across the country.
You see, every single pvt k-12 religious in American includes teaching religion in their courses. They don't just teach the three "R"s. In spite of Rehnquist and his 4 buddies, using public funds to teach religion is a no no.
We also have the fact that pvt schools do not educate better than public schools. I have already provided evidence of that and can provide even more.
[to be continued]
Flapjack said ...
[quote]
As long as the cost doesn't exceed what would be spent on their public school counterpart, why the outrage?
[end quote]
The public doesn't want it, unconstitutional, doesn't guarantee a better education, is harmful to the pubic school systems by creating under funding, etc.
I trust parents to make the best educational decisions, not some uninterested politician. I've always suspected this is more of a teachers union lobby issue than a church/state one.
(1) Parents can be as misinformed as anyone else. When data shows pvt schools do not have any better results then public schools and in some cares worse results how do you explain parents wanting to send their kids to a pvt school?
(2) That is another myth perpetrated by Barton and others on that side of the issue. What none of you people EVER mention (or don't even know) is the fact that the pro voucher people out spend all the teacher unions combined by vast amounts. Some of the biggest companies on the Fortune 500, some of the biggest names in conservative and or republican politics spend millions upon millions on trying to get vouchers rammed through state legislatures. They out spend teachers and educational unions by vast amounts. In Wisconsin they even "bought" a Wis. Supreme Court justice to get the Milwaukee Voucher program upheld. (One justice had received a small donation to her re-election campaign from pro voucher organization. She recused herself from voting on the Mil voucher issue. Another justice
received a large contribution to his re-election campaign. He didn't recuse himself and voted to approve the Mil program. The program was approved by one vote. You do the math)
[quote]
I appreciate your efforts in refering me to other discussion boards on this topic. Your passion for this subject is obvious, but I doubt that I'll ever trust D.C. more than good old parental instict when it comes to matters of education.
[end quote]
The site I suggested will give u a great deal of information, current information as well as historical information. Of course one has to be interested or thy would be bored out of their gourd.
There is no guarantee that parents are up to date on all the available information out there. The information I refer to isn't just from the government, and BTW, while the government can lie, mislead etc they can also put out valuable and valid information as well. A hard core anti govt stance is as silly as believing anything and everything they say.
There are many experts and yes a expert can be mistaken too, but odds are they at least know a little more about the topic they are devoting their life to than average Suzy Snotgrass or Joe Blow.
There are non govt studies as well as govt studies. There are studies by neutral as well as those for and against vouchers. It takes time and dedication to wade though it all. But it can be done.
Buckeye,
Wow. I think Dave Mason may have sang it best.
"So lets leave it alone. 'cause we don't see eye to eye. There ain't no good guys. There ain't no bad guys. There's only you and me and we just disagree. ooo-ooo-oooh".
I love you man. Now take something for the Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and take the rest of the day off.
Flapjack said...
Buckeye,
Wow. I think Dave Mason may have sang it best.
. . . 'cause we don't see eye to
eye. . . we just disagree.
[end quote]
That was obvious from the very first time you replied to me.
I also notice that you haven't really replied to any of the actual information I have provided in my replies back to you.
Ah well, no surprise there.
Ooops goofed on the last
Flapjack said...
Buckeye,
. . .cause we don't see eye to eye. . . we just disagree.
I knew that from the very first time you ever replied to me.
I also noticed that you really never did reply to any of the information I included in my replies to you, but that isn't surprising.
Post a Comment
<< Home