| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
|
24-01-2004, 09:37 AM
|
#106
|
|
|
Re: The State of the Union, Health care and more lies from the President
moveeman1 wrote:
> There was until the unpopular Vietnam war and there will soon be one
> again. Drafts usually come about whenever a nation needs fighting men and
> after the Vietnam war the US didn't need fighting men until Gulf war 1.
There was no draft for the Gulf War.
|
|
|
|
|
24-01-2004, 09:37 AM
|
#107
|
|
|
Re: The State of the Union, Health care and more lies from the President
In article <10100jg9o8b4a37@corp.supernews.com>, "moveeman1"
<moveeman1@superweb.ca> wrote:
> Medicare costs so much because the drugs costs so much! The drugs
> costs
> so much because the big pharma drug companies have to do FDA mandated
> drug
> tests that costs from 200 million to 650 million each and then they can
> patent their useless concoctions
Useless concoctions? Then what are the clinical trials demonstrating?
and have exclusive rights to them and
> then
> literally soak the people with obscene markups in prices. What follows
> is a
> short explanation from the 'Life extension Foundation' on what drugs
> really
> costs!
>
> [ Do you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company to obtain the
> active
> ingredient in a prescription medication? Life Extension did a search of
> offshore chemical synthesizers that supply the active ingredients found
> in
> drugs approved by the FDA.
As you mention, there is a significant cost associated with drug trials.
I freely admit that an obscene amount of marketing expense goes into US
pricing. I also would say that there are significant numbers of
"me-too" drugs introduced that have no real therapeutic benefit over
existing drugs, but allow competition, especially against generics.
In contrast, however, there are new classes of drugs constantly being
developed that have dramatic effects on previously untreatable diseases
-- and aren't cheap. Consider tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors in
rheumatoid arthritis, and, more controversially, for septic shock.
Surfactant for respiratory distress in newborns. Aromatase inhibitors
as an adjunct to tamoxifen in breast cancer.
There are also new treatment paradigms, such as the aggressive diagnosis
and treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in ulcers.
what you refer to is raw manufacturing costs, and considers neither
>
> WHAT DRUGS REALLY COST
> BRAND NAME CONSUMER PRICE
> (For 100 tabs/caps) COST OF GENERIC ACTIVE INGREDIENT
> (For 100 tabs/caps) PERCENT MARKUP
[snip long list]
|
|
|
|
|
24-01-2004, 09:37 AM
|
#108
|
|
|
Re: The State of the Union, Health care and more lies from the President
In article <rPUPb.14690$0H7.2875@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>, "Jarg"
<scottharringtons@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I know there are exceptions. But my point is that for most Americans
> health
> care is affordable, and the broad statements Sara made to the contrary
> are
> incorrect.
>
And with all due respect, what would you suggest as the most
cost-neutral way to deal with the exceptions? Given that if I go into a
diabetic crisis, an emergency room must take me, under the unfunded
mandate of EMTALA. It would seem much more cost-effective for me to
have a way to get the drugs and monitoring that would prevent that
crisis from taking place.
|
|
|
|
|
24-01-2004, 09:37 AM
|
#109
|
|
|
Re: The State of the Union, Health care and more lies from the President
"moveeman1" <moveeman1@superweb.ca> wrote in message
news:101066r247hqvbe@corp.supernews.com...
> Who was it then?
I think socialized medicine was one Bismarck's ideas in Germany in the
late 19th century as a means to produce a healthy populace as a source
for conscripts.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
|
|
|
|
|
24-01-2004, 09:37 AM
|
#110
|
|
|
Re: The State of the Union, Health care and more lies from the President
"Andrew Chaplin" <abchaplin@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:1167d4$e1229.6@parl5.parl.gc.ca...
> "moveeman1" <moveeman1@superweb.ca> wrote in message
> news:101066r247hqvbe@corp.supernews.com...
> > Who was it then?
>
> I think socialized medicine was one Bismarck's ideas in Germany in the
> late 19th century as a means to produce a healthy populace as a source
> for conscripts.
Later, Bismark's ideas led to WWI and then WWII.
|
|
|
|
|
24-01-2004, 09:37 AM
|
#111
|
|
|
Re: The State of the Union, Health care and more lies from the President
"moveeman1" <moveeman1@superweb.ca> wrote in message
news:10106qoocum1921@corp.supernews.com...
> There was until the unpopular Vietnam war and there will soon be one
> again. Drafts usually come about whenever a nation needs fighting men and
> after the Vietnam war the US didn't need fighting men until Gulf war 1. In
> the meantime the US got it's fighting men through the people being so poor
> they didn't have much other choice for economic sustenance.
Wow, that's news to me! You should work for the Psychic Network! I hadn't
heard a thing about this new draft.
Until it happens though, shouldn't you stick to actual events in this
discussion?
Jarg
|
|
|
|
|
24-01-2004, 09:37 AM
|
#112
|
|
|
Re: The State of the Union, Health care and more lies from the President
"moveeman1" <moveeman1@superweb.ca> wrote in message
news:10106ecg5nlgb29@corp.supernews.com...
> These mambers of Gov't,...are they right wingers or left wingers?
Capitalist
> or Socialists?
Each has their own crop to grow.
> "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@sti.net> wrote in message
> news:_6GdnXmqNvKwlY3dRVn-sw@sti.net...
> >
> > "moveeman1" <moveeman1@superweb.ca> wrote in message
> > news:10101mk7jpdft37@corp.supernews.com...
> > > So explain this Gov't meddling then.
> >
> > Government medling leads to jobs for friends and larger sums of money
> > controlled by Government. Sometimes, Government can create a "black
> > market", in certain goods, and members of Government can engage in
> > "organized crime". The latter situation being inherently more
profitable
> > than the first.
> >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" <jtarver@sti.net> wrote in message
> > > news:1Oadna8qc_rqSpPdRVn-ig@sti.net...
> > > >
> > > > "john" <z2345678998765432y@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:milt00leuv8ljk395e0bnr4ic7hj0b59ne@4ax.com...
> > > > > On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:43:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > > > > <roncachamp@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"john" <z2345678998765432y@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > > > > >news:4bat001j1hq97c5irhhsm6kqh0ua9qa6g6@4ax.com...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> So what am I to deduce from that statement? That the health
care
> > > needs
> > > > > >> of all the people in the country was adequately taken care of
> > during
> > > > > >> that period?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Pretty much. Prior to government meddling health care was far
more
> > > > > >affordable than it is today.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So wasn't EVERYTHING more affordable then?
> > > >
> > > > No.
> > > >
> > > > > So government meddling caused things to cost more?
> > > >
> > > > Usually.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
24-01-2004, 09:37 AM
|
#113
|
|
|
Re: The State of the Union, Health care and more lies from the President
"moveeman1" <moveeman1@superweb.ca> wrote in
news:10100jg9o8b4a37@corp.supernews.com:
> Medicare costs so much because the drugs costs so much! The drugs
> costs so much because the big pharma drug companies have to do FDA
> mandated drug tests that costs from 200 million to 650 million
> each and then they can patent their useless concoctions and have
> exclusive rights to them and then literally soak the people with
> obscene markups in prices.
If you believe that, I have swampland in lower Botswana ou might be
interested in.
The reason drugs cost so much is because the pharmaceutical companies
are refusing to let them be sold at prices set by supply and demand
(and they claim to be kapitalyists).
When drugs are produced in generic formats, as we have found in Canada,
the cost is considerably less to the consumer. The companies claim
they need that money to pay for research, but really, they just want to
make a profit on the misery of humanity.
Our former prime minister, Brilliant Macaroni, as one of his final acts
in 1993, guaranteed the pharmaceutical companies a 7-year extension on
their patents. The fear of generic drugs has not prevented them from
doing research, although they said it would. Capitalists only know how
to lie...wait, scratch that...capitalists only know how to misrepresent
the truth.
--
"I'm the master of low expectations."
GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003
|
|
|
|
|
24-01-2004, 09:37 AM
|
#114
|
|
|
Re: The State of the Union, Health care and more lies from the President
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:19:56 -0330, moveeman1 wrote:
> There was until the unpopular Vietnam war and there will soon be one
> again. Drafts usually come about whenever a nation needs fighting men and
> after the Vietnam war the US didn't need fighting men until Gulf war 1. In
> the meantime the US got it's fighting men through the people being so poor
> they didn't have much other choice for economic sustenance.
Big hint. Its not just the US where that happens.
In any nation that has a volunteer military you are
going to find that those from economically depressed
regions and/or ethnicities are over-represented in the
military. Its a way out and you can get a useful education
if you have the intellectual assets and apply them.
Two kinds of people wind up pushing a rifle, the mud dumb
and the adrenalin junkies, the latter usually tend to go
for the high end stuff like parachute and special forces.
IBM
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
|
|
|
|
|
24-01-2004, 09:37 AM
|
#115
|
|
|
Re: The State of the Union, Health care and more lies from the President
nobody <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>RogerM wrote:
>Obesity has everything to do with health care. A nation has to look at the
>total amount spent on healthcare in relation to GDP. Whether private or
>public, it is the total cost that matters to a nation.
>
>The more people are overweight and couch potatoes, the more people will
>require costly heart related health care, as well as hypertension, clogged
>arteries etc.
Isn't there a pretty high correlation in the US between people who
are obese and people who don't have health insurance?
i.e. those at the bottom of the income ladder.
They pull down the average life expectancy by a significant amount
I would think.
--
Stephen
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image
when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
Anne Lamott
|
|
|
|
|
24-01-2004, 09:37 AM
|
#116
|
|
|
Re: The State of the Union, Health care and more lies from the President
"ian maclure" <ibm@svpal.org> wrote in message
news an.2004.01.22.21.17.23.48889@svpal.org...
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:19:56 -0330, moveeman1 wrote:
>
> > There was until the unpopular Vietnam war and there will soon be one
> > again. Drafts usually come about whenever a nation needs fighting men
and
> > after the Vietnam war the US didn't need fighting men until Gulf war 1.
In
> > the meantime the US got it's fighting men through the people being so
poor
> > they didn't have much other choice for economic sustenance.
>
> Big hint. Its not just the US where that happens.
> In any nation that has a volunteer military you are
> going to find that those from economically depressed
> regions and/or ethnicities are over-represented in the
> military. Its a way out and you can get a useful education
> if you have the intellectual assets and apply them.
> Two kinds of people wind up pushing a rifle, the mud dumb
> and the adrenalin junkies, the latter usually tend to go
> for the high end stuff like parachute and special forces.
Middle class warriors.
|
|
|
|
|
24-01-2004, 09:37 AM
|
#117
|
|
|
Re: The State of the Union, Health care and more lies from the President
Jarg wrote:
>"Sara" <safranospam@rr.com> wrote in message news:400F37C2.8090907@rr.com...
>. When the middle class and a lot of hardworking people are
>
>
>>priced out of the US healthcare system, there is something wrong here.
>> The insurance companies continue to make the same
>>
>>
>
>I don't really see that the middle class or even the working class is priced
>out of the system. What you tend to find are a lot of people who can afford
>it but opt out. For example, I'm in my late 30s and pay less than $2500 per
>year for good coverage with a HMO.
>
>Jarg
>
>
>
>
From what I've read, it is mostly families with children who cannot
afford it. If they have their own business, health insurance for a
family of four runs at least $700 per month, and it goes up from there.
That's a lot of money for an average family. Even companies that
provide health insurance now charge a good chunk for spouses and
dependents. A lot of the middle class families just do not have the
kind of disposable income you need to pay for health insurance. And I
know people who stay at jobs they hate just to be able to buy affordable
insurance. Kind of sucks. Since the amount of uninsured in the middle
class keeps jumping hgher every year, it definitely is becoming a trend,
and it certainly doesn't bode for well for the quality of life in the US.
|
|
|
|
|
24-01-2004, 09:37 AM
|
#118
|
|
|
Re: The State of the Union, Health care and more lies from the President
Jarg wrote:
>"Howard Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote in message
>news:hcb-504952.13384422012004@text.giganews.com...
>
>
>>In article <bwTPb.4607$ZN4.420@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>, "Jarg"
>><scottharringtons@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Sara" <safranospam@rr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:400F37C2.8090907@rr.com...
>>>. When the middle class and a lot of hardworking people are
>>>
>>>
>>>>priced out of the US healthcare system, there is something wrong here.
>>>> The insurance companies continue to make the same
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I don't really see that the middle class or even the working class is
>>>priced
>>>out of the system. What you tend to find are a lot of people who can
>>>afford
>>>it but opt out. For example, I'm in my late 30s and pay less than $2500
>>>per
>>>year for good coverage with a HMO.
>>>
>>>Jarg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Try it at a more advanced age, when COBRA-extensions ran out or became
>>unaffordable. At 55, an HMO would run well over $1000 per month, but
>>turned out to be unwilling to underwrite due to preexisting conditions
>>-- not under treatment because of unwillingness to opt in, but
>>unaffordability or unavailability of coverage.
>>
>>The irony is that I'm most interested in getting chronic disease
>>management, maintenance drugs and labs, etc., that demonstrably prevent
>>the more serious and expensive complications. Yet in my area, the only
>>clinic programs require demonstration of poverty and have several months
>>wait. There's a zone for people that would opt in, but where there's
>>nothing for them to opt into.
>>
>>
>
>I know there are exceptions. But my point is that for most Americans health
>care is affordable, and the broad statements Sara made to the contrary are
>incorrect.
>
>Jarg
>
>
>
>
New York Times November 16, 2003
For Middle Class, Health Insurance Becomes a Luxury
By STEPHANIE STROM
DALLAS -- The last time Kevin Thornton had health insurance was three
years ago, which was not much of a problem until he began having trouble
swallowing.
"I broke down earlier this year and went in and talked to a doctor about
it," said Mr. Thornton, who lives in Sherman, about 60 miles north of
Dallas.
A barium X-ray cost him $130, and the radiologist another $70, expenses
he charged to his credit cards. The doctor ordered other tests that Mr.
Thornton simply could not afford.
"I was supposed to go back after the X-ray results came, but I decided
just to live with it for a while," he said. "I may just be a walking
time bomb."
Mr. Thornton, 41, left a stable job with good health coverage in 1998
for a higher salary at a dot-com company that went bust a few months
later. Since then, he has worked on contract for various companies,
including one that provided insurance until the project ended in 2000.
"I failed to keep up the payments that would have been required to
maintain my coverage," he said. "It was just too much money."
Mr. Thornton is one of more than 43 million people in the United States
who lack health insurance, and their numbers are rapidly increasing
because of ever soaring cost and job losses. Many states, including
Texas, are also cutting back on subsidies for health care, further
increasing the number of people with no coverage.
The majority of the uninsured are neither poor by official standards nor
unemployed. They are accountants like Mr. Thornton, employees of small
businesses, civil servants, single working mothers and those working
part time or on contract.
"Now it's hitting people who look like you and me, dress like you and
me, drive nice cars and live in nice houses but can't afford $1,000 a
month for health insurance for their families," said R. King Hillier,
director of legislative relations for Harris County, which includes Houston.
Paying for health insurance is becoming a middle-class problem, and not
just here. "After paying for health insurance, you take home less than
minimum wage," says a poster in New York City subways sponsored by
Working Today, a nonprofit agency that offers health insurance to
independent contractors in New York. "Welcome to middle-class poverty."
In Southern California, 70,000 supermarket workers have been on strike
for five weeks over plans to cut their health benefits.
The insurance crisis is especially visible in Texas, which has the
highest proportion of uninsured in the country -- almost one in every
four residents. The state has a large population of immigrants; its
labor market is dominated by low-wage service sector jobs, and it has a
higher than average number of small businesses, which are less likely to
provide health benefits because they pay higher insurance costs than
large companies.
State cuts to subsidies for health insurance to help close a $10 billion
budget gap will cost the state $500 million in federal matching money
and are expected to further spur the rise in uninsured. In September,
for example, more than half a million children enrolled in a state- and
federal-subsidized insurance program lost dental, vision and most mental
care coverage, and some 169,000 children will lose all insurance by 2005.
"These were tough economic times that the legislature was dealing with,
and the governor believed in setting the tone for the legislative
session that the government must operate the way Texas families do and
Texas businesses do and live within its means," said Kathy Walt,
spokeswoman for Gov. Rick Perry.
She noted that the legislature raised spending on health and human
services by $1 billion this year, and that lawmakers passed two bills
intended to make it easier for small businesses to provide health
insurance for their employees.
Those measures, however, will not help Theresa Pardo or other Texas
residents like her who have to make tough choices about medical care
they need but cannot afford.
Ms. Pardo, a 29-year-old from Houston, said that having no insurance
meant choosing between buying an inhaler for her 9-year-old asthmatic
daughter or buying her a birthday present. The girl, Morgan, lost her
state-subsidized insurance last month, and now her mother must pay $80
instead of $5 for the inhaler.
Rent, car payments and insurance, day care and utilities cost Ms. Pardo
more than $1,200 a month, leaving less than $200 for food, gas and other
expenses. So even though her employer, the Harris County government,
provides her with low-cost insurance, she cannot afford the $275 a month
she would have to pay to add her daughter to her plan.
When Morgan's dentist recently wanted to pull a tooth, Ms. Pardo
hesitated. The tooth extraction proceeded, but: "I had to ask him, if
you pull this tooth, will it cause other problems? Because if it does, I
can't afford to deal with them."
Lorenda Stevenson said her choice was between buying medicine to treat
patches of peeling, flaking skin on her hands, arms and face and making
sure her son could continue his after-school tennis program. "There's no
way I will cut that out unless we don't have money for food," she said.
Mrs. Stevenson's husband, Bill, lost his management job at WorldCom two
years ago, when an accounting scandal forced the company into
bankruptcy. They managed to pay $900 a month for Cobra, the government
policy that allows workers to continue their coverage after they lose
their jobs, but when the cost rose to $1,200, they could no longer
afford it.
When their son, a ninth grader, needed a physical and shot to take
tennis, Mrs. Stevenson turned to the Rockwall Area Health Clinic, a
nonprofit clinic in Rockwall, a city of 13,000 northeast of Dallas. The
clinic charged her $20 instead of the $400 she estimated she would have
paid at the doctor's office.
"I sat filling out the paperwork and crying," she said, tears streaming
down her face. "I was so embarrassed to bring him here."
A salve to treat her skin condition costs $27, and she pays roughly $50
a month for medications for high blood pressure and hormones. She does
without medication she needs for acid reflux, treating the conditions
sporadically with samples from the clinic.
Carol Johnston cannot afford even doctor visits. A single mother in
Houston, she lost her job in health care administration in May and said
she was still unemployed despite filling out 500 to 600 applications and
attending countless job fairs.
Cobra would have cost $214 a month, or more than one-fifth of the $1,028
in unemployment she gets a month. As it is, her monthly bills for rent,
car, utilities and phone exceed her income.
She got a 12-month deferral on her student loans, and Ford pushed her
car payments back by two months. The Johnstons rely on television for
entertainment and almost never use air-conditioning, despite Houston's
muggy, hot climate.
Now Ms. Johnston's 16-year-old son is losing the portion of his
insurance that covered treatment for his learning and emotional
disabilities because of state cutbacks.
Ms. Johnston herself does not qualify for Medicaid, the government
insurance program for the indigent, because her income is too high, the
same reason she qualifies for only $10 a month in food stamps. "I worry,
I worry so much about making sure my son is safe," she said.
As for her own health, Ms. Johnston has two cysts in one breast and
three in another but has had only one aspirated because she cannot
afford to check on the others. "Do I have to move to Iraq to get help?"
she asked. "They have $87 billion for folks over there," she said,
referring to money Congress allocated for military operations and
rebuilding.
Experts warn that allowing health problems to fester is only going to
increase the costs of health care for the uninsured. "As Americans, when
are we going to realize it's cheaper to save them on the front end than
when they get cancer and show up in the emergency room?" said Sandra B.
Thurman, executive director of PediPlace, a nonprofit health clinic in
Lewisville, Tex.
Many hospitals and neighborhood clinics here say that the well-heeled
are now joining the poor in seeking their care. Emergency rooms are
particularly hard hit, since federal law requires them to treat anyone
who walks through their doors for emergency treatment, regardless of
whether they can pay.
Public hospital emergency rooms are even harder hit, since private
hospitals will move quickly to shift uninsured patients to them. And
clinics for the poor are also seeing an increase in demand.
A clinic run by Central Dallas Ministries charges patients $5 for a
doctor visit, $10 for medication and $15 if laboratory work is needed,
but often settles for no payment from many of the 3,500 patients it
treats each year.
"I'm not real optimistic it will get a lot better," said Larry Morris
James, executive director of Central Dallas Ministries. "Demographic and
economic trends tell you that it's probably going to get worse."
For Irma Arellano, the problem has already hit home. Mrs. Arellano is a
secretary in the Royse school district northeast of Dallas, which
provides her health insurance for $35 a month but offers no discounts
for her three children or husband.
Two years ago, the Arellanos paid $269 a month to insure the family. The
price jumped last year to $339 and this year to $780, more than their
monthly mortgage payment.
Her husband works for a small landscaping company that does not offer
insurance. So Mrs. Arellano is insured, but her husband, Jose, and their
three children -- Jackie, 16; Joe, 15; and Anthony, 13 -- are going
without insurance.
The Arellanos' income, which ranges from $2,800 to $3,200 a month, makes
them ineligible for state-subsidized insurance. Their basic expenses run
$2,000 a month or more.
"I'm one of those people in the middle," Mrs. Arellano said. "We don't
make enough to pay for insurance ourselves, but we make too much to
qualify for CHIP," the government-subsidized program for children.
So her children were recently at the Rockwall clinic for the physicals
they need to participate in after-school sports, paying $25 instead of
the $100 or more Mrs. Arellano would have paid at the doctor's office.
The family has catastrophic insurance, but Mrs. Arellano is uncertain
how much longer she can afford it. Mr. Arellano's income typically drops
in the winter, and his wife is hoping the children will then qualify for
the state insurance program.
Even so, newly initiated regulations require families to reapply for the
insurance every six months, rather than once a year, so they are not
likely to qualify for long.
"I'll take what I can get," Mrs. Arellano said.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
|
|
|
|
|
24-01-2004, 09:37 AM
|
#119
|
|
|
Re: The State of the Union, Health care and more lies from the President
Jarg wrote:
>"Howard Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote in message
>news:hcb-504952.13384422012004@text.giganews.com...
>
>
>>In article <bwTPb.4607$ZN4.420@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>, "Jarg"
>><scottharringtons@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Sara" <safranospam@rr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:400F37C2.8090907@rr.com...
>>>. When the middle class and a lot of hardworking people are
>>>
>>>
>>>>priced out of the US healthcare system, there is something wrong here.
>>>> The insurance companies continue to make the same
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I don't really see that the middle class or even the working class is
>>>priced
>>>out of the system. What you tend to find are a lot of people who can
>>>afford
>>>it but opt out. For example, I'm in my late 30s and pay less than $2500
>>>per
>>>year for good coverage with a HMO.
>>>
>>>Jarg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Try it at a more advanced age, when COBRA-extensions ran out or became
>>unaffordable. At 55, an HMO would run well over $1000 per month, but
>>turned out to be unwilling to underwrite due to preexisting conditions
>>-- not under treatment because of unwillingness to opt in, but
>>unaffordability or unavailability of coverage.
>>
>>The irony is that I'm most interested in getting chronic disease
>>management, maintenance drugs and labs, etc., that demonstrably prevent
>>the more serious and expensive complications. Yet in my area, the only
>>clinic programs require demonstration of poverty and have several months
>>wait. There's a zone for people that would opt in, but where there's
>>nothing for them to opt into.
>>
>>
>
>I know there are exceptions. But my point is that for most Americans health
>care is affordable, and the broad statements Sara made to the contrary are
>incorrect.
>
>Jarg
>
>
>
>
Press Release
Thursday, August 10, 2000
Consumers Union's Washington, DC Office
CONSUMERS UNION STUDY REVEALS A "HEALTH CARE DIVIDE"
Despite U.S. prosperity, financial burden of health care
weighs heavily on the sick, the middle class, and the poor
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Despite the unprecedented growth of the U.S.
economy, the cost of health care continues to place an enormous burden
on Americans who are seriously ill, as well as those who have moderate
and low incomes.
According to Consumers Union, the nation is faced with a "health care
divide," a condition in which the financial burden of health care is
much heavier for the sick, the middle class, and the poor than it is for
the healthy and the wealthy.
The sickest 10 percent of Americans account for 68 percent of the money
spent on health care each year, according to "The Health Care Divide," a
national study by Consumers Union's Washington DC office.
The study was written by Gail Shearer, Consumers Union's Director of
Health Policy Analysis, based on data compiled by the Lewin Group, a
health care policy research firm.
"Our health care system is characterized by divisions," said Ms.
Shearer. "People with health insurance receive more care than the
uninsured, who often cannot afford the care they need. Even among those
with insurance, the healthy are divided from the sick, leaving the sick
to shoulder large financial burdens. The burden of paying for health
care divides people by income, with those at the lower income levels
paying the largest share of income for health care. Until we overcome
these divisions in our health care system, the goal of achieving
affordable, universal health care coverage will continue to elude us."
"The Health Care Divide" finds that the sickest 10 percent of Americans
pay seven times what the average American spends on health care.
The study also examines how much families have to budget for health
care, taking into account what they spend on insurance premiums as well
as out-of-pocket costs. It finds that:
· Families with incomes of at least $100,000 spend 3 percent of their
income on health care. Meanwhile, families making $45,000 spend 6
percent of their income on health care, and families making under
$10,000 spend 17 percent on health care.
In other words:
· Middle-income families spend twice the percentage of income that
wealthy families spend on health care expenses; and
· The poorest families spend six times the percentage of income that
wealthy families spend on health care.
The study also finds that one in six households headed by a person under
65 spends 10 percent or more of family income on health insurance
premiums and out-of-pocket costs. The burden increases dramatically with
age, with one in every two households headed by a person over 65
spending more than 10 percent of family income on health care.
The private marketplace has failed to provide affordable health care to
all Americans. Piecemeal attempts at reforming America's health care
system have not reduced the number of Americans without health
insurance, which stands at 44 million people and rising. Nor have these
incremental approaches addressed the problem of Americans who have
health insurance, but not enough to cover their bills if they become
seriously ill.
"When health care was the federal government's major topic of debate in
1994, many of those who rejected the idea of providing comprehensive
coverage argued that most of the system's problems could be solved by
the marketplace and smaller, limited initiatives," said Ms. Shearer.
"However, this Consumers Union report makes it clear that problems in
our health care system are getting worse instead of better. The 'health
care divide' has only become deeper in the last six years."
Considering these findings and the fact that the federal government now
has a budget surplus estimated at over $4 trillion, Consumers Union
believes that it is time for Washington policymakers to renew
discussions of establishing a system that provides universal health
coverage.
"With its unprecedented budget surpluses, Congress should establish, as
a matter of law, that all people in this country have a right to health
care coverage -- comprehensive, affordable, quality health care
coverage," said Ms. Shearer.
If policymakers are not willing to take a comprehensive approach,
Consumers Union believes that they should address the needs of those who
are most vulnerable in our society. Congress should pass a law to ensure
that all children have comprehensive health coverage. It should approve
a universal Medicare prescription drug plan. Medicare should be expanded
to people between 55 and 64, and Medicaid and the State Children's
Health Insurance Program should be extended to the parents of the
children enrolled in these programs.
Consumers Union also believes that Congress should reject proposals that
perpetuate the failings of the marketplace, such as medical savings
accounts (MSAs), healthmarts, and association health plans. While touted
by some as ways to help more people get health insurance, these programs
would eventually put health insurance out of reach for many Americans.
These programs appeal mostly to people who are healthy and thus pull
healthier people out of traditional insurance programs. As a result,
those left with traditional health insurance would be forced to pay
higher premiums. MSAs, health marts, and association health plans would
only deepen the "health care divide."
Consumers Union's report "The Health Care Divide" is available online in
the Health section on this web site. To obtain a copy of the tables of
health care expenditures compiled by the Lewin Group that serve as the
basis of the study, contact Gail Shearer or David Butler at (202) 462-6262.
**
|
|
|
|
|
24-01-2004, 09:37 AM
|
#120
|
|
|
Re: The State of the Union, Health care and more lies from the President
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:21:39 -0330, moveeman1 wrote:
> The trouble with Canadian health care is that for the last 10 years or so a
> right wing capitalist is the finance minister and he just won't fund
> medicare as the medicare act provides for. What he wants to do is say it is
> too costly so eventually has to be scrapped. What else can you expect of a
> right wing capitalist who is a liar in that he won't admit that he wants to
> scrap Canada's uncapitalistic health care system! Also see above post of
> mine wherein I show how the right wingers have conspired through the FDA to
> outrageously and obscenely raise drug prices so that no system could long
> afford to pay for them!
That is, of course, somewhat exaggerated. Firtst, health is a prerogstive
of the provinces, although historically they were getting federal support.
Federal support was not earmarked for medical insurance, but for a series
of programs that included medical insurance. Anyway, the fight between
the feds and the provinces is ongoing, and it's hard to precisely ascribe
blame, beyond blaming both.
It is of course true that the budget balancing act of the nineties hurt
health care funding. But claiming that it was ideologically driven
(except possibly in Alberta) is a bit of a stretch.
Furthermore, people in Canada are clear: they massively support their
public health program, so that no politician would dare to really go
against. Co-pay notions (the Trojan horse of public health) have been
dealt a massive blow in the recent Romanoc report which is supposed to be
the guiding recipe.
There is of course the other side: population growing older, and as health
care becomes technologically more advanced, it costs more. So that as a
fraction of GNP, the cost of public health is inevitably going up.
Then there are right wing/populist politicians who are beating the no
taxes drum, and sell people the idea that they can have their cake and eat
it too: get free health yet cutting taxes just by "cutting fat." Which
has not been there for quite a while.
Anyway, I do remain reasonably optimistic on the long term survival of
public health in Canada.
What most people don't seem to understand well is how it works. The
medical profession is private. What we have is a public insurance scheme,
at the provincial level.
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 06:32 AM.
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
The Travel Forum
|
|
|
|
