HOUSE DEMOCRATS PASS HEALTH INSURANCE FOR NEEDY CHILDREN OVER OBJECTIONS FROM BIG HMOs, BIG TOBACCO AND THEIR REPUBLICAN PUPPETS
>
Earlier today we looked at Giuliani's typically Republican pseudo proposal for solving the very real health care crisis in this country. Giuliani's approach, identical to Bush's, is to further enrich big corporations that offer little or no value to people in need of medical treatment and no value to people providing care (doctors). HMOs, unhealth insurers, Big Pharma... putting billions of dollars into the pockets of the managers of this corporate entities-- who in turn bankroll Republican politics-- is the GOP approach to the crisis in health care.
Today the Democratic-led House took a different approach. They passed legislation that would add 6 million lower-income children to a health insurance program while cutting back on corporate welfare for HMOs. The Democratic plan shifts money from corporations to doctors and from the well off to the indigent. "The decade-old SCHIP program is designed to subsidize the cost of insurance for children whose families earn too much to participate in Medicaid, but not enough to afford private health insurance. Through federal waivers, however, the program has expanded in many states to include middle-income children and adults, prompting Republicans to argue that it has morphed into a backdoor way to extend government-provided health care to an ever-increasing population of Americans."
The legislation sparked a bitterly partisan health care battle on the eve of Congress' monthlong summer recess.
A raucous debate over the measure-- filled with parliamentary fireworks by angry Republicans-- engulfed what is otherwise a broadly supported program to insure working poor kids in a larger argument over whether the government or the private sector should provide health insurance to the nation's most vulnerable populations.
A more limited, $35 billion expansion of the children's health care program without broader Medicare changes appeared headed for a bipartisan endorsement in the Senate by the end of the week, despite another threatened veto. Bush has proposed spending half as much on the program over the next five years.
Instead Bush intends to veto the bill. HR 3162 passed 225-204. Ten of the most reactionary Democrats abandoned their party and voted with the Republicans: Dan Boren (OK), Jim Cooper (TN), Joe Donnelly (IN), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Bob Etheridge (NC), Baron Hill (IN), Jim Marshall (GA), Mike McIntyre (NC), Heath Shuler (NC), and Gene Taylor (MS). Four are freshmen-- all across the board reactionaries, routinely supporting Bush and the Republican agenda-- and all 4 were proudly recruited by Rahm Emanuel: the 3 wingnuts from Indiana plus Shuler. The only Republicans to vote for children's health care were the newly liberated Ray LaHood (IL) who told the GOP to kiss off and is resigning plus 4 petrified fake moderates who have rubber stamped Bush's whole toxic agenda and are now fearful that they will lose their seats next year: Shelley Moore Capito (WV), Mike Ferguson (NJ), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), and Chris Shays (CT).
Beyond health care for children, though, the measure reflected dueling Democratic and Republican health care priorities, especially on how to cover the nation's seniors, a potent voting bloc. Democrats have long worked to bolster government-provided coverage for seniors under Medicare, while Republicans have favored giving private companies incentives to insure them.
To help pay for the SCHIP increase, Democrats dipped into federal payments to Medicare HMOs, which they argue drive up premiums for seniors in traditional Medicare by inflating the cost of care. Officials estimate the government pays an average of 12 percent more to these private plans than it does for traditional coverage.
Rep. John D. Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, called the Medicare HMO overpayments "a great injustice," and said Democrats were determined to "stop that evil practice."
...The rest of the increase would be financed by a 45-cent-per-pack cigarette tax increase.
Tobacco industry lobbyists were behind much of the Republican rage over the bill which take a small step in the inevitable direction of universal health care. Representative Jim McDermott, Democrat of Washington, said, “Today’s debate comes down to this: Do you favor big tobacco or children?”
Labels: health care, health insurance
4 Comments:
I don't see anyone talking about the new additional tax on smokers. They are already being robbed. How about a user tax on blogs? What we need is universal health care for all. Not another program to single out and rob a small group of people. Since I don't smoke what do I care?
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!
It's a step in the right direction I guess, but what about the rest of us??
I think this bill is designed for one purpose only, which is to distract people from, and prevent the passage of, the real goal of universal single-payer health care. There will be a lot of fussing over this, with cries of "Socialism!" and the like, but it's all bullshit. Whether the bill passes or not, it will achieve its true objective.
I'm sure the Obama campaign is aware of these numbers but you never know until you put it out there. I have been extremely conservative with my data, without a doubt the Senator has access to better information.
There are, in excess, of 150 million workers in the United states today. Reports show that 84% have some type of health insurance, that is 125 million, again to be conservative lets say that 100 million people have health insurance and between medical and dental benefits pay $100 a month into their plans. This is $10 billion dollars available for universal health care, each month or $120 billion per year. This is raised simply by translating current insurance premiums into an additional payroll tax for healthcare. Business pay in 5 to 8 times that cost in premiums, if there were similarly taxed for healthcare at 4 times the individual cost this would raise another $480 billion annually. $600 billion a year, with no additional costs and with significant savings to the people and employers. By making a universal health care program a non-profit entity and using the Canadian system as an example (They have a higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and more nurses and doctors per capita yet fewer dollars spent per capita on health costs) by setting the cost per capita at $3000 per year for health costs. This leaves an additional $300 billion to be raised. While this is a seemingly daunting amount, the funds are already allocated for Universal healthcare under the Medicare payroll tax. $900 billion dollars, conservatively is available annually to pay for a universal healthcare package so that every citizen and legal resident of the United States can go to a doctor or a dentist as needed without any out of pocket cost for preventative health care, health maintenance or catastrophic injury, with a mandatory acceptance of this insurance by every practicing physician and health worker. This amount exceeds even the most outrageous estimates provided by those both for and against universal coverage. (Although I do not know why any politician would be 'pro-death due to lack of health care") As always, should an individual choose to purchase additional health coverage they could do so, existing health insurance companies can fight for their business. All of this done without tax increases or additional costs to businesses or taxpayers. Keep in mind that this is a conservative estimate of dollars available while covering the latest estimates of US population. Should such a program be implemented funds in excess of $1 trillion dollars would likely be available. The funding is there already, it need only be tapped. Basic health care should not be a for profit business. If you need to call it National Healthcare to sidestep the politicizing of socialized medicine whatever it takes. I have insurance for my family and still cannot afford to see the doctor or dentist. This could be implemented in less than a single term. Because it would be a mandatory tax, all other health insurance options would be voluntary for businesses and individuals. Small businesses would be better able to participate.
As I said at the start, I am sure all of this information and more accurate numbers are available to the Senator. I'm a layman, but I think this could work and I think that Americans would accept such coverage readily since it would cost them no more and likely less than what they are paying now. Hospitals would know they are getting paid for providing necessary treatments and by taking the for-profit nature out of the mix, cost of healthcare will be reduced. The administrative body needed for such a program would be one that determines only if the care is necessary to maintain good health or is purely cosmetic or elective. No injury or sickness should go untreated for lack of coverage. For those against such coverage, I demand an answer: why? Why would we willingly deny healthcare for our citizens when we have the opportunity to provide it? Why would we choose to provide profit to companies that place profit above the well being of the patient? When it comes to it, people want to be able to go to the doctor when they are sick or hurt, would be more likely to go to the doctor for well check-ups if they did not have to pay for the privilege in addition to paying for their insurance. If it doesn't cost you anything more that you are paying now and likely cost you less, since there would be no co-pays. Would it matter to you if the government was the primary payer or an insurance company who counts on you to NOT go to the doctor in order to maximize their profit? How does Universal health care not make sense?
I don't understand why we make new medicines if the government doesn't help people to receive them.
Post a Comment
<< Home