The Non-Healthcare crisis
In this op-ed from David Limbaugh, he explains why Obama cannot afford to tell the truth and give all the information about the numbers.
David Limbaugh : Obama Can't Afford To Tell Truth on Health Care - Townhall.com
President Barack Obama is spreading disinformation about health care almost as quickly as he's driving up the national debt, such as that 47 million Americans can't get health care and that a government takeover would be a panacea.
Democrats have constantly demagogued the 47 million uninsured figure to gin up public fear about the scarcity of health care access, especially for the poor. They follow up with the promise that under their plan, we would achieve universal access. But both are untrue.
In "The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care," Sally Pipes points out that while there are some Americans who simply can't afford health insurance, many millions who can afford insurance choose not to buy it and "very likely would not want to be 'rescued' by mandatory socialized medicine."
In the first place, the 47 million number is grossly inflated. The Congressional Budget Office survey generating it included those who were uninsured for any part of a year, despite the fact that almost half of these remain uninsured for an average of only four months.
Some 38 percent of this 47 million -- almost 18 million -- make more than $50,000 a year, and 10 million of them make more than $75,000. Of all the uninsured groups, this is the only one that is growing, because in a still-free country, they've made their own decision not to buy expensive insurance while (most of them) are young and healthy. The Census Bureau also reports that more than 10 million of the uninsured are not American citizens.
But how about the very poor? Well, it turns out that the Democrats are shedding crocodile tears here, as well. Pipes explains that "as many as 14 million of the 45.7 million uninsured -- poor and low-income Americans -- are fully eligible for generous government assistance programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP." But "they're just not enrolling in the programs."
So while Obama tells us that almost 8 million children lack health insurance, he doesn't disclose that 5 million of them only lack insurance because they haven't been enrolled in the available programs. Not only would this fact undermine the urgency of his appeal; it illustrates that even under his "universal access" plan, not everyone would acquire coverage anyway. Indeed, the CBO has estimated that some 17 million would remain uninsured if the Democrats' plan were implemented.
Yes, there are people who fall through the cracks (Pipes' words) -- mostly those who earn less than $50,000 per year but too much to qualify for government help. When it's all said and done, there are probably about 8 million of these "chronically uninsured," who really can't afford insurance and don't qualify for help -- though they are able to receive emergency room care. And many of these 8 million would be better able to afford coverage if government regulations and mandates hadn't driven up the costs so much.
But how urgent do you suppose Obama's call for universal coverage would sound if he were to come clean with these figures? The truth is he couldn't get to first base if he used the 8 million figure instead of 47 million.
But there's another important factor to keep separate, as well. There's a major difference between a lack of insurance and a lack of care. Under Obama's socialized medicine scheme, not only would universal insurance coverage be impossible to achieve but also access to medical care and the scope of care would be dramatically reduced, as it has been in every socialized system in the world and in our own government health programs.
It is axiomatic that price controls result in rationing and waiting lines, and many of the very people Obama is using to shame us into supporting socialized medicine would suffer drastic reductions in the quantity, scope and quality of care. Hit hardest would be the elderly. Big Brother would make the decision as to scope and even quality of care. Chilling evidence for this is already in the draft bills and in Obama's unwitting admissions to that effect.
It is true that our health care costs are very high and rising at alarming rates, but not for the reasons Obama wants you to believe. Rather, it's because we Americans demand greater quality care and medications (and we get them), which are expensive, and because of already excessive government interference with free market forces.
It's no wonder costs are skyrocketing when government-mandated coverage requirements choke competition and prevent more affordable plans and when 60 percent of Americans have employer-provided health insurance and don't directly pay for their care, which necessarily increases demand (and prices).
The solution lies in unleashing market forces (more on this later), not the tyrannical hand of government.
So when you really figure out that it's not about healthcare, access, or insurance for the majority of Americans, you have to ask yourself what the underlying motive truly is.
The answer is power and control that the radical left wing wants to obtain.
David Limbaugh : Obama Can't Afford To Tell Truth on Health Care - Townhall.com
President Barack Obama is spreading disinformation about health care almost as quickly as he's driving up the national debt, such as that 47 million Americans can't get health care and that a government takeover would be a panacea.
Democrats have constantly demagogued the 47 million uninsured figure to gin up public fear about the scarcity of health care access, especially for the poor. They follow up with the promise that under their plan, we would achieve universal access. But both are untrue.
In "The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care," Sally Pipes points out that while there are some Americans who simply can't afford health insurance, many millions who can afford insurance choose not to buy it and "very likely would not want to be 'rescued' by mandatory socialized medicine."
In the first place, the 47 million number is grossly inflated. The Congressional Budget Office survey generating it included those who were uninsured for any part of a year, despite the fact that almost half of these remain uninsured for an average of only four months.
Some 38 percent of this 47 million -- almost 18 million -- make more than $50,000 a year, and 10 million of them make more than $75,000. Of all the uninsured groups, this is the only one that is growing, because in a still-free country, they've made their own decision not to buy expensive insurance while (most of them) are young and healthy. The Census Bureau also reports that more than 10 million of the uninsured are not American citizens.
But how about the very poor? Well, it turns out that the Democrats are shedding crocodile tears here, as well. Pipes explains that "as many as 14 million of the 45.7 million uninsured -- poor and low-income Americans -- are fully eligible for generous government assistance programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP." But "they're just not enrolling in the programs."
So while Obama tells us that almost 8 million children lack health insurance, he doesn't disclose that 5 million of them only lack insurance because they haven't been enrolled in the available programs. Not only would this fact undermine the urgency of his appeal; it illustrates that even under his "universal access" plan, not everyone would acquire coverage anyway. Indeed, the CBO has estimated that some 17 million would remain uninsured if the Democrats' plan were implemented.
Yes, there are people who fall through the cracks (Pipes' words) -- mostly those who earn less than $50,000 per year but too much to qualify for government help. When it's all said and done, there are probably about 8 million of these "chronically uninsured," who really can't afford insurance and don't qualify for help -- though they are able to receive emergency room care. And many of these 8 million would be better able to afford coverage if government regulations and mandates hadn't driven up the costs so much.
But how urgent do you suppose Obama's call for universal coverage would sound if he were to come clean with these figures? The truth is he couldn't get to first base if he used the 8 million figure instead of 47 million.
But there's another important factor to keep separate, as well. There's a major difference between a lack of insurance and a lack of care. Under Obama's socialized medicine scheme, not only would universal insurance coverage be impossible to achieve but also access to medical care and the scope of care would be dramatically reduced, as it has been in every socialized system in the world and in our own government health programs.
It is axiomatic that price controls result in rationing and waiting lines, and many of the very people Obama is using to shame us into supporting socialized medicine would suffer drastic reductions in the quantity, scope and quality of care. Hit hardest would be the elderly. Big Brother would make the decision as to scope and even quality of care. Chilling evidence for this is already in the draft bills and in Obama's unwitting admissions to that effect.
It is true that our health care costs are very high and rising at alarming rates, but not for the reasons Obama wants you to believe. Rather, it's because we Americans demand greater quality care and medications (and we get them), which are expensive, and because of already excessive government interference with free market forces.
It's no wonder costs are skyrocketing when government-mandated coverage requirements choke competition and prevent more affordable plans and when 60 percent of Americans have employer-provided health insurance and don't directly pay for their care, which necessarily increases demand (and prices).
The solution lies in unleashing market forces (more on this later), not the tyrannical hand of government.
So when you really figure out that it's not about healthcare, access, or insurance for the majority of Americans, you have to ask yourself what the underlying motive truly is.
The answer is power and control that the radical left wing wants to obtain.
Labels: healthcare, lies, Obams
posted by Anonymous at 5:41 AM
16 Comments:
A nation can be judged by the treatment of it most vulnerable citizens.
You state the majority of Americans have access and insurance for healthcare, I will not dispute that fact, out of 300 million Americans, there are between 46 million and 65 million who do not have coverage, or access to affordable health care.
Hell, that is only 1 in 6 who does not have it, and besides, they are generally poor, undereducated, and only capable of crappy manual labor type jobs anyway.
So in the long run, why should we have to worry about them? They are just another bunch of whining minorities.
Reforming healthcare for them would be about as stupid as reforming civil rights for those other nimorites.
Or as stupid as fighting in a world war for a bunch of relegious minorities in Europe.
Why cant these minorities just get over themselves, accept their sub-plebian vulgus position in our great society, quit their bitching, get sick and die, right GOP?
WOW, the uninsured keeps going up. Why don't you get your facts straight.
There are really only about 8-10 million who do not qualify or do not have access to health insurance.
But keep touting the false "talking points". Repeating a lie enough does work for the uninterested and uneducated.
Anon,
May I ask where you get your numbers from?
Since I work in the field that and we only treat uninsured/ underinsured, I kind of have a finger on the pulse here. Along with the other 1200 FQHC's in the country.
And honestly, what does it matter if there are 200 million, or 200 with out coverage?
Are they not worthy of having access to affordable wuality health care?
Or do we have to hit a specific number of people before we give a crap?
Christopher D:
How much of your income are you willing to give to the government for the health care of others? 50%? 75%? 95%?
Then after all have health care whether they want it or not, how much will you contribute for food for everyone? How about automobiles? Homes?
Since when is it the responsibility of the Government to provide health care for the citizens? I see no requirements in the constitution for health care. Our government is creating a nanny state and in so doing will prevent human ambition to better oneself.
Christopher D
This 47 million uninsured number is repeated ad nauseum but it is very misleading and dishonest.
This statistic was generated by the Census Bureau and it relies entirely on a questionnaire known as the Current Population Survey (CPS) for gathering information on Health insurance. The survey was intended to garner information about, income, age, race, living situation, and, of course, health insurance status of individuals living in the United States.
The accuracy of the data it produces has substantial margins of error and the Census Bureau explains in its annual report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States “health insurance coverage is likely to be underreported on the CPS.
The estimate of the number of people without health insurance more closely approximates the number of people who are uninsured at a specific point in time during the year than the number of people uninsured for the entire year because of the wording of the questions.
When broken down, the results are as follows:
Almost 18 million of the uninsured make more than $50,000 a year. And almost 10 million of them have an income of more than $75,000 a year. In other words, 38 percent of the U.S. uninsured population earn more than $50,000 per year and may just choose not to have insurance.
The Census Bureau’s breakout shows that more than 10 million of the people considered uninsured by the U.S. government aren’t U.S. citizens at all.
As many as 14 million of the 45.7 million uninsured poor and low-income Americans—are fully eligible for generous government assistance programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP but not enrolling in these programs usually because of the hassles associated with them
After the overlap in some of these categories, there are roughly eight million chronically uninsured patients.
According to the Census Bureau’s report, the number of households with annual incomes of less than $25,000 who lack health insurance has gone down steadily since 1998 and surprisingly, the fastest-growing segment of the uninsured are households making more than $75,000 a year.
So there is a group of citizens that truly need more help. But it is not the crisis that Obama et. al. makes it out to be.
So let’s be honest about the real numbers.
We can be as honest as we can about the numbers.
But Political agendas blind us to the real issue Doctor.
True we have a population of persons who are above federal pverty guidelines who choose not to purchase health coverage, and I might add that is both assinine and ignorant.
In concerns to the 62% of the demographic that you mentioned, yes, in theory they are eligible for "generous" subsidized programs.
In theory. Trying to obtain subsuduzed coverage for persons who fall under federal poverty guidelines, who are not a pregnant woman, is like pulling teeth.
Case in point, it had taken 16 weeks to obtain medicaid for a family member of mine who was diagnosed with stage 3B adenocarcinoma, bilaterally of the lungs.
16 weeks!
This is a person who subsists off of $700 per month, had no insurance coverage, too young for medicare, and never felt sick a day in his life.
By the time we had obtained the medicaid, and were able to get the ball really rolling, his bad prognosis, had gotten even worse.
I am sure there are millions more out there jsut like this family member.
I recently attended to funeral or a 45 year old clinic patient, didnt know about FQHC's, had no insurance, and started feeling weak about a year and a half ago.
By the time she got to us, and we referred to out to a specialist, who discovered she had been eaten alive from cervical cancer, we applied for "emergency medicaid" properly documented the case, had all of the required supporting documentation.
This lady died waiting on medicaid, and was denied AFTER she died because they needed copies of her tax bills for her house worth $40K.
Had she been able to get coverage at an affordable rate, she would probably still be alive if she could have afforded to go to the GYN for routine PAPs.
So we can go back and forth. You can throw at me reasons why the numbers are skewed, and I can through back at you horror stories of people who have lost everything, some including their lives waiting on the broken, lacking, inefficient system we have.
SLIM,
as stated previously, a country is judged by the way in which it treats its most vunerable members.
I would like to invite you to come to my office, and I will call the 17 year old daughter of the woman whom I just spoke of, and you can explain to her, face to face, that her mother had no reason to expect affordable access to comprehensive healthcare.
Explain to the girl that her mother chose wrong by choosing to pay for food, clothing and shelter, and utilities for her child, instead of paying hundreds and hundreds of dollars up front for a pap smear.
But of course, again, she was just a poor undereducated, laborer. She probably voted for Obama. And she was probably just another damn liberal because she expected to be able to be taken care of somehow.
Christopher D,
You are using the typical Liberal play book by bringing out these sad cases. I hate these situations and I hate that there are victims of the current flawed system. In a way, you are making the case against Government run health care - long waits and rationed care. Government meddling into the health care system has already driven up costs. Conservatives have a strong plan for reducing costs of health care and insurance. They want to eliminate pre-existing conditions, make health insurance portable across state lines, allow people to cross state lines to purchase insurance, create health savings accounts. Most importantly, Tort reform is needed. How about limiting the amount of award to the amount of life insurance one carries on oneself? Why should the citizens of this country pay for the huge malpractice awards through higher premiums? In other words, let the market and capitalism do its thing. The Government prevents capitalism from working when it meddles. Look at the War on Poverty. Billions have been redistributed, but we still have poverty.
I ask you basically the same question again? How much did you spend of your
assets to help your relatives and friends that you cited? How about the rest of your network? How much did they spend? How about your church or other churches? How much did they contribute? That is the basis of capitalistic insurance, many people paying some of their incomes to help the needy. It has been proven many times in the USA that one does not have to have insurance to get health care. So, I hate it when someone says they could not get health care because they were waiting for medicaid, or whatever government plan they expect.
Good discussion - thanks for your comments.
No one is mentioning that many "insured" people have very expensive plans with crappy benefits. As usual, it's the working people in the middle that are getting screwed and the Republicans have absolutely no concern or compassion for their circumstances. The Republican response to health care is to deny a problem exists, which is absolutely unconscionable.
Have you ever tried shopping for health insurance on the individual market, especially in a state like Indiana that has virtually no regulation of this market? I have, and it isn't pretty. I can't imagine trying to keep good coverage for a family of four on $50,000 per year. Heaven forbid you need maternity coverage too.
Now, if you make good money, like HB does, you can go high deductible with an HSA (plus you get the nice tax shelter...thanks G-Dub). Most people, however, don't have the kind of cash sitting around to make those plans work.
You can't deny your way out of this problem. If it hasn't already, it will bite you sooner or later.
B.W.
You are also using the typical Liberal play book: "The Republicans don't care and ignore the problem." That is a Liberal lie. True conservatives believe in rugged individualism and private sector solutions to social problems. Liberals always look to Big Government for solutions that never come. Government, for years, has been a dismal failure at solving social problems - eg. The War on Poverty.
My spouse and I are in the "Red Zone" - five years before retirement. My spouse has a medical condition that prohibits us from getting private health insurance in the current market place. So, we are personally affected by the health care systems short comings. But, we are not looking for a radical takeover of the health care system by Big Government to solve our problem. We truly believe that the private sector market place unencumbered by a myriad of Government regulations is the answer along with the reforms that I have mentioned earlier on this blog.
bwsmith,
Your comments are ludicrous. Repubublicans have plans, have voiced them, would like to pass them, but your democratic friends want nothing to do with really solving the problem. It isn't about healthcare for them but about power. You as an attorney likely make more than HB as a primary care doctor. What percentage of someone's salary should they have to spend on their health. 5%, 10%, or do you believe nothing and it should be free. Most average families spend as much on clothe a year as they do healtcare costs.
Slim,
So, a relative is being eaten from the inside out from cancer that has spread through out his body.
His O2 sat levels have dropped to the point that with out supplimental o2 he can barely walk across the floor.
His digestive system is failing and can not absorb nutrients, so he spends what is left of his life lying in a rented hospital bed (and yes, bub, family members paid for this bed out of pocket, paid for his o2, etc. until he was able to get medicaid)
He worked his entire life, but worked as an auto mechanic in his own garage, no retirement package, no insurance... But yet in all of you compassion for your fellow man, you ask how much WE paid for his care? YOu call me a "typical liberal", you dont know a damn thing about me there Slim... I am neither liberal or conservative, I hate politics and its baggage, politicians and political wannabe's have a habit of turning everything either liberal or conservative, black or white, and forget that there are lives at stake, but what do you care, as long as that damned old black president is proven wrong right?
By the way, are you interested in showing up to tell that 17 year old girl that her mom died because she didnt "pay" enough, or because she got what she deserved because of her perceived expectation of entitlement?
I am sure your opinion will make her life so much easier...
Or even better yet, slim, why dont you come on over to where my family member is staying and help care for him for a night. When you are done cleaning up the bloody phlem, the bloody feces, or listening to him gurgle whilst he tries to breath for night....
Again, whats it matter, hes just another poor person with only himself to blame beacuse he wont get up out of his deathbed to get a "real job"
Repubublicans have plans, have voiced them, would like to pass them
I've seen these so-called plans and stand by my earlier post.
You as an attorney likely make more than HB as a primary care doctor.
Not yet, but I'm working on it.
My spouse has a medical condition that prohibits us from getting private health insurance in the current market place.
Had you only worked harder and made better choices, this wouldn't be a problem for you now. Right?
I'm just making a point, of course, I'm sorry to hear that.
So much for the "long wait everywhere else" conservative lies...
"The CommonWealth Fund survey looked at the percentage of patients to get "a same or next-day appointment for a nonroutine visit":
Britain........ 71%
Germany..... 69%
Australia..... 66%
U.S............. 47%
Canada....... 36%
"...Those lengthy wait times in the U.S. explain why 26% of Americans reported going to an emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor if available...
...the U.S. had shorter wait times than every country except Germany when it came to getting an appointment with a specialist for nonemergency elective surgery...
...the U.S. assumed first place—by a wide margin: 51% of U.S. adults surveyed did not visit a doctor, get a needed test, or fill a prescription within the past two years because of cost. No other country came close to that percentage."
A fellow nature photographer and friend of mine in Vancouver, Canada who has a genetic blood disorder that predispenses her to clots and P.E.'s has recieved excellent care, and in a timely manner.
She was able to get into a Clinical Hemotologist (C.K. Williams, MD, FRCPC, DABIM), have genetic testing, find the root cause of her Thrombophilia (Factor V Leiden mutation), and get on a treatment plan, along with various support mechanisms (nutritional education, counseling for the emotional issues associated with being 28 years old and nearly dying multiple times from P.E.'s)
This was accomplished faster in a system of socialized medicine than I could get diagnosis, insurance authorization, a specialist consultation, and then get insurance authorization for EVLT for CVI with chronic
Superficial thrombophlebitis, and a DVT.
And though her treatments are far more detailed, far more expensive, and far more complicated, she has not gone into debt.
I, on the other hand, with what could be considered good insurance by American Standards, lost my 403(b) retirement account, cashed in my savings, along with a health stack of savings bonds to pay my deductables, copays, and "uncovered" portions of my procedures.
I love it. Real people with real names discuss issues, and anonymous assassins bark. Always works that way. What's the deal with this level of cowardice?
(my verification tag was "godpall" There's an omen for you)
Post a Comment
<< Home