Posted on 08/01/2006 7:19:44 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Rep. Pete Stark of Fremont (CA), who would play a key role in the national health care debate if Democrats take control of the House in November, announced a plan Tuesday for universal medical insurance for all Americans.
Stark, the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means health subcommittee, offered a plan that is based on Medicare's payment rates and low-cost administrative structure and a requirement that employers provide coverage for all their workers, even part-timers.
By offering his far-reaching plan, Stark laid down a marker, letting it be known that he and other advocates of the long-debated idea of universal medical insurance will be key players if Democrats get back the House control they lost in 1994, just as then-President Bill Clinton's sweeping health care proposals went down in flames.
It is estimated that at the outset it would cost the federal government $50 billion to $60 billion a year to get the program running.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
If the dems ragain power, we are doomed in every way imaginable.
Oops. Make that "regain."
"If the dems ragain power, we are doomed in every way imaginable."
===
That's the correct summary.
Another article that should motivate people to get out and vote for Republicans:
Kerry calls for universal health insurance by 2012
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1676128/posts
Why don't you compare this, with what will happen to your issues under a DEM Congress?
Eh. If the Rino from MA wins the nomination and the election in 08, universal coverage will come in his own potent form. Heck Bush has given out TRILLIONS in for free pills for granny. How much longer till such items and services are "free" for the rest of the population? Sorry, the Rats no longer have a monopoly when its comes to scaring some of us regarding healthcare and the GOP no longer has the image of being an entity that will protect us from said Rat plans.
Don't use language like that again. Repeat violaters will have their posting privileges suspended or revoked entirely.
(A) Seniors vehemently demanded that the government "do something" about the high costs of Rx, and candidate Bush in 2000 had to come up with some type of plan because Gore & the Dims were beating him over the head on the issue
(B) The new Rx benefit saves Medicare costs down the road because seniors can manage their conditions with cheaper drugs instead of undergoing more costly procedures & surgeries
(C) The program is completely voluntarily nobody's forcing seniors at gunpoint to sign up
With the Dems obsessed with what power they might REGAIN power, I'd feel a WHOLE lot better if the GOP wasn't obsessed with the power of ROGAINE.
See, somehow I thought when they said, "Aim high" it meant something more substantive than getting aggressive about hair loss.
I mean, I'd be very content to see the whole GOP Congressional contingent sporting the classic comb-over, if they just had the politically Conservative underpinnings of Ronald Reagan.
Hey, be glad I didn't say "George Washington", because I'm not. Frankly, I really wish I could put the bar that high, but I'd likely end up being the first Freeper banned for being too Conservative, "We're sorry. You're so Conservative that you're making all of us sound like Ted Kennedy clones. ZOT!"
Anyway, the bottom line, here, is that all of the Pubbies on the ticket can probably count on my vote -- even if it is, in some cases, rather unenthusiastic.
"Better dead than red," after all.
I just love how fiscal discipline dems come up with ideas to coerce employers to fund their utopian ideas. /sarc
The July 29, 2006 British Medical Journal has "Time for an independent NHS?" More evidence that nationalized health insurance doesn't work.
Under the heading, "A Third Way," comes this analysis,
The policy of a market driven by provider competition in which money followed the patient was introduced in 1991, abolished in 1997, and reintroduced from 2006, after a five year interregnum during which the NHS was subjected to annual star ratings, a Soviet-style regime of targets backed by sanctions and rewards. The sequelae of tumultuous continuing change during the years of unprecedented increases in resources include large financial deficits, low productivity, and deep cynicism in clinicians, who see each innovation as having a half life of two to three years before it is either abolished or displaced by another.(emphasis mine)
Medicare supposedly has a low management cost - I've read as low as 2% compared to other insurances. However, that management fee comes out of the doctors' payment through 3rd parties (the Blue Cross/Blue Shield, United HealthCare, etc. who actually manage regional Medicare plans for the Feds) and is actually much higher. Whatever is not covered by Medicare, is probably passed on to other members of the insurance plans.
United HealthCare, which just bought Pacificare and which now has a very large portion of the nation's insurance business (and is buying up those Health Savings Account companies) has posted profits of 25% recently, much of which comes from Medicare plans they sell. In the meantime, they're cutting payments to doctors.
The CEO of United HealthCare made $123 Million last year, plus $Billions (yes, "B"illions) in stock options. He is under investigation for backdating those stock options to increase their worth.
And, the Medicare budget can be manipulated -- for instance, all payments will be held for 9 days at the end of the fiscal year at the end of September. Which means that doctors will do the work, but (rather than the 2 weeks to whenever we normally get paid) will not be paid until after Oct 2. The insurance companies will have a period of time when they can't pass money through - or not - their banks as it comes from the Feds in response to the bills from the doctors.
Then, there's the 'coding' system. The reason for one or more of the employees in each doctor's office. The American Medical Association writes and owns those codes that are used to report the work done and the reason that work was done at each doctor's visit - and sells the books and software to doctors. We're required to use these codes for any Medicare charge, and the insurance companies require them, too. But, the insurance co's often use some sort of "black box" calculations to decide how much money the docs actually get.
"Seniors vehemently demanded that the government "do something" about the high costs of Rx, and candidate Bush in 2000 had to come up with some type of plan because Gore & the Dims were beating him over the head on the issue"
So its the duty of our elected leaders to bend to the will of any number of organized lobbies no matter how harmful their demands are on the country? Or because the Rats are making political hay of an issue? By that logic Bush should champion reparations! (though due to his reauthorizing of the outdated 1965 Civil Rights Act thats not entirely out of the realm of possibility) True leadership occurs when the man in charge explains to the populace that while the goal of "free" medicines are tempting, a better way is to choose a plan that aids, rather than hinders, the country.
Bush and Rove chose the lazy politically expedient way out - give them what they want. Not surprising when put into context:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/974547/posts
"The new Rx benefit saves Medicare costs down the road because seniors can manage their conditions with cheaper drugs instead of undergoing more costly procedures & surgeries"
Which brings me to your second point. Bluntly the Medicare bill failed on all of the above mentioned positives. While introducing the free market into the system and therefore starting a slow rolls towards its dissolution was promised, the Bush team let us down. A bill HAD to pass, free market and the country's long term financial outlook be damned. The Heritage Foundation has some choice words found here proving that:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/issues/issuearea/Medicare.cfm
"The program is completely voluntarily nobody's forcing seniors at gunpoint to sign up"
ROTFLMAO! Sure its voluntary for them but for those of us who actually PAY for their pills its MANDATORY. Try not paying your taxes. See what happens.
This one man has screwed up medicine more than any other human being already. I quess he wants to drive the final stake.
In other words, $500-$600 billion dollars 5-10 years later.
Great idea, let's have a nationalized health care system modeled after Medicare.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.