Our second goal is high quality, affordable health for all Americans.
The American system of medicine is a model of skill and innovation, with a
pace of discovery that is adding good years to our lives. Yet for many
people, medical care costs too much, and many have no coverage at all.
These problems will not be solved with a nationalized health care system
that dictates coverage and rations care.
Henwood: "Instead, we have a very expensive private system that dictates
coverage and rations care -- to maximize the profits of HMOs."
Instead, we must work toward a system in which all Americans have a good
insurance policy, choose their own doctors, and seniors and low-income
Americans receive the help they need.
Zuckerman argues that Bush is omitting a huge problem: "State cuts in
Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Programs. Medicaid provides
health care for the poorest Americans and CHIP provides health insurance
for children whose families earn too much to be eligible for Medicaid but
not enough to afford health insurance. According to the Kaiser Family
Foundation study, 49 states have planned or implemented Medicaid cuts in FY
2003, and 32 states are already on their second round of cuts. In order to
reduce deficits, states are eliminating health care for some of the poor
adults and children who used to be eligible for Medicaid, requiring
patients to pay higher co-payments, or reducing the reimbursements made to
doctors, hospitals, or nursing homes that care for the needy. When payments
to doctors or hospitals are reduced, it becomes even harder for patients to
find doctors or hospitals that will treat them. When payments to nursing
homes are reduced, the quality of care is harmed, and very vulnerable
elderly patients will die."
Instead of bureaucrats and trial lawyers and HMOs, we must put doctors and
nurses and patients back in charge of American medicine.
Ida Hellander, executive director of Physicians for a National Health
Program: "Bush says that we do not want a national health program that
'rations care' and instead want one where they can 'choose their doctors,'
but a national health insurance would allow people their free choice of
doctors which is currently very constricted by insurance plans. Of course,
we currently have rationing by ability to pay -- with 42 million uninsured,
and medical bills the most frequent cause of bankruptcy after loss of job.
We already pay more in health care taxes than any other country in the
world except Switzerland -- this year health care costs will exceed $6,000
per person. With our level of spending we could have the best heath care in
the world -- for all -- if we eliminated the insurance middleman. The cost
of paperwork exceeds $300 billion a year - at least half of which could be
saved with a simplified national health program."
Health care reform must begin with Medicare; Medicare is the binding
commitment of a caring society.
We must renew that commitment by giving seniors access to the preventive
medicine and new drugs that are transforming health care in America.
Hellander: "The prescription drug coverage Bush has proposed is skimpy and
expensive. Seniors could save at least 40 percent on drug costs if they
were given the same discounts as the Veterans Administration negotiates."
Seniors happy with the current Medicare system should be able to keep their
coverage just the way it is.
Hellander: "The best option is to make drugs a part of Medicare, but the
drug companies spent over $80 million on the last election to elect Bush
and others legislators opposed to making drugs a benefit of Medicare. Also,
the new head of the Senate, Bill Frist, has a $26 million fortune from a
for-profit hospital corporation (Columbia/HCA, which was recently fined
$1.7 billion for Medicare fraud) founded by his brother. In fact, Frist
used his HCA profits to finance his first election to the Senate. So, Bush
and Frist are beholden to the for-profit medical industry."
Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research:
"Every other industrialized nation has universal health care coverage for
its citizens. They also have better health care outcomes using measures
such as life expectancy and infant mortality rates. And, on average they
pay about half as much per person as the United States does. The president
is apparently determined to ignore how the health care market works. Health
insurance companies make money by not insuring people that are going to get
sick. The insurance companies have proven themselves quite effective in
dumping less healthy patients, which is why including HMO's in the Medicare
system has raised costs, as numerous government studies have found.
President Bush's plans for Medicare do not make sense as health care
policy. However, they are likely to be quite effective in increasing the
profits of the insurance industry."
And just like you, the members of Congress, and your staffs and other
federal employees, all seniors should have the choice of a health care plan
that provides prescription drugs.
My budget will commit an additional $400 billion over the next decade to
reform and strengthen Medicare. Leaders of both political parties have
talked for years about strengthening Medicare. I urge the members of this
new Congress to act this year.
Zuckerman: "Unfortunately, the President's plan would require the elderly
to choose between the current system -- which does not include prescription
drugs -- and a new system which would include some prescription drugs but
have other, less desirable changes. The speech doesn't explain what they
are, but other information suggests that either the elderly would have to
join an HMO to get their care, or would have to pay extra for better
medical care."
To improve our health care system, we must address one of the prime causes
of higher cost: the constant threat that physicians and hospitals will be
unfairly sued.
Baker: "Any judgment that is considered to excessive can be (and often is)
reduced by the trial judge. It can be, and often is, reduced on appeal. If
Bush appointed competent judges then there could be no problem of excessive
awards for frivolous suits. Also, the vast majority of suits are brought
against a small number of doctors. If the medical profession policed itself
and kept these people from practicing medicine, it would drastically reduce
the incidents of malpractice, and therefore the need for suits."
Because of excessive litigation, everybody pays more for health care, and
many parts of America are losing fine doctors. No one has ever been healed
by a frivolous lawsuit; I urge the Congress to pass medical liability reform.
Zuckerman: "Of course no one has ever been healed by a frivolous lawsuit.
But many lawsuits are not frivolous. The Institute of Medicine and other
independent reports have documented the huge number of patient deaths
caused by preventable errors, as well as amputations of the wrong limb and
other tragedies. Shouldn't these patients (and their families) be allowed
to sue and shouldn't the fear of those lawsuits help persuade hospitals to
have better safeguards in place?"
FROM...
http://www.accuracy.org/2003/
While still wanting to totally destroy the state,there is the staged
demolition possibility where all the socialism for the rich,military and
spook and pr establishments and the top management get deep sixed while
health care actually ramps up.If the rate of destruction of the state
exceeds the growth,where's the harm? Plus you wind up with a vastly reduced
state with a vastly flatter hierachy.
