Archive for the ‘single payer health care’ Category

Obama Administration tries to mollify doctors by teleconference, accuse dissenters of spreading myths.

Sunday, August 30th, 2009

On Aug 28, the Obama Administration hosted a nationwide call-in for physicians, in which more than 1,900 physicians participated. It was said to be “closed to the press” so that a “conversation” could occur. (more…)

Myth 16. In countries with government-funded health care, people get immediate care in emergencies, though they may have to wait for elective procedures.

Wednesday, August 12th, 2009

The usual response to concerns about the months-long waiting lists for surgery in Canada and Britain is that this is a mere inconvenience, a small price to pay for universal “free” care. If you have a really serious need, you’ll get immediate attention—or so Michael Moore and others tell us. (more…)

Single payer cat out of the bag!

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

Another Democrat – Rep Barney Frank of MA — finally admits that the “Public Plan” provisions in the health care bills are intended to lead the U.S. to a single-payer, socialized system.

 “The best way to get single-payer is to have a public plan option” is the mantra he repeats in a video shot on July 27, 2009 outside the National Press Building in Washington DC. (more…)

Myth 6: Life expectancy is longer in other countries because they have universal tax-funded medical coverage, and the U.S. does not.

Wednesday, July 8th, 2009

The longest-lived people are probably the Japanese. They have good genes, are seldom overweight, and eat lots of fish. They have had a government-funded medical system since 1927—and they also have a robust private medical sector. Japanese, like all people except Canadians and North Koreans, are not restricted to a “single” (government) payer. How do we know they wouldn’t live even longer without their government medicine? (more…)

Myth 4: Infant mortality is lower in other countries because they have “universal” tax-funded medical care, and the U.S. does not.

Friday, July 3rd, 2009

A number of countries report lower infant mortality than the U.S., but it has nothing to do with the source of payment for medical care. (more…)

Stop the Senate From Sneaking Socialized Medicine into the Budget Today

Thursday, April 2nd, 2009

URGENT ACTION NEEDED!

Stop the Senate From Sneaking Socialized Medicine into the Budget Today

Contact your Senators NOW – the vote could come any time

[SCROLL DOWN TO BOTTOM OF PAGE TO POST YOUR COMMENTS]

The Senate is voting on amendments to the Budget Bill even as we send out this message, and there is one extremely important vote later today that could help stop socialized medicine from becoming the law of the land.

Sen. James DeMint (R-SC) has offered the “Healthcare Freedom Amendment, SA 853, that would prohibit the government from forcing you into “government-managed, rationed health care.”

WE CANNOT LET THIS OPPORTUNITY SLIP AWAY

Just yesterday, the Senate voted down an amendment from Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) that would have thrown a big roadblock in the way of any plans for government rationing through “Comparative Effectiveness Research,” or CER. That was defeated along party lines.

CALL YOUR SENATORS RIGHT NOW TELL THEM TO VOTE “YES” ON THE “HEALTH CARE FREEDOM AMENDMENT,
SA 853 ON THE BUDGET.

The lines are extremely busy, so tell the receptionist you would like to leave a message with the staff member responsible for the budget. Tell them you support the Healthcare Freedom Amendment, SA 853, because it would strip out language that would open the door to socialized medicine. Leave your name and a phone number.

CONGRESSIONAL SWITCHBOARD:

(202) 224-3121

SEND AN EMAIL TO YOUR SENATOR

SEND A MESSAGE TO SEN. DeMINT

SCROLL TO BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE TO COMMENT ON THIS AMENDMENT OR THE BUDGET


TEXT OF SEN. DeMINT’S HEALTHCARE FREEDOM AMENDMENT, SA 853:

SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT DECREASES THE NUMBER OF AMERICANS ENROLLED IN PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE WHILE INCREASING THE NUMBER ENROLLED IN GOVERNMENT-MANAGED, RATIONED HEALTH CARE.

(a) In General.–In the Senate, it shall not be in order, to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that decreases the number of Americans enrolled in private health insurance plans, while increasing the number of Americans enrolled in government-managed, rationed health care (as determined by the Congressional Budget Office).

(b) Waiver.–This section may be waived or suspended only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.

(c) Appeals.–An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.


SENATE VOTES ON HEALTHCARE RATIONING
Efforts to Oppose Defeated Along Party Lines

April 2, 2009 — The Senate had a flurry of voting on amendments to the Budget Bill yesterday, including one extremely important vote that could have helped to stop government rationing of medical care.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) offered an amendment , SA 793, that would have thrown a big roadblock in the way of any plans for government rationing through “Comparative Effectiveness Research,” or CER.

The stimulus bill passed with $1.1 billion allocated for CER to compare the clinical outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of medical services. That money sets the stage for a health rationing bureaucracy.

Yesterday on the floor of the Senate, Sen. Kyl and his colleague Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) expressed their concern that CER would be used to justify rationing by comparing costs, rather than effectiveness. Sen. Roberts compared it to giving away the “golden ring” to bureaucrats.

The language of Sen. Kyl’s amendment was simple: it would have prohibited the government from denying care to patients just to save money based on CER studies.

Universal care striking out in “laboratories of democracy”

Thursday, November 20th, 2008

Hawaii is ending the only state universal child health-care program in the country, after just 7 months.

The Keiki (Child) Care Plan was designed to offer health care insurance to the children of parents who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid or Hawaii’s State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), but are felt not to be able to afford private coverage.

State officials found that families were dropping private coverage in order to enroll their children in the “free” plan In fact 85 percent of the children in Keiki Care were previously in a private, nonprofit plan costing $55 per month. Facing budgetary shortfalls, Governor Linda Lingle pulled the plug on funding.

“All this is a lesson for political leaders in Washington who are drafting plans now to expand SCHIP to children in families earning up to $82,000 a year or more. That expansion would wind up doing what Keiki Care did: mainly crowd out the private coverage that millions of middle-income kids already have,” writes Grace-Marie Turner (NY Post 10/27/08).

According to MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, SCHIP crowds out private insurance 60 percent of the time. California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Wisconsin have turned back from major efforts to approach universal coverage because of the prohibitive cost. Massachusetts officials no longer claim that such a goal is even possible, Turner writes.

Two Massachusetts safety-net hospitals, Boston Medical Center and Cambridge Health Alliance, will be cutting programs because of state cuts of more than $200 million in payments to Medicaid providers (Boston Globe 10/17/08).

Designed to cover 3,500 children, Keiki Care was a small-scale program. Fiscal problems were evident when only 2,000 children had enrolled. Larger programs lead to fiscal disaster (Investors Business Daily 10/20/08).

Tennessee’s disastrous experiment with universal coverage “forced dozens of hospitals out of business, pushed thousands of doctors and other health care professionals out of the state, destroyed any semblance of competitive health insurance market, and nearly drove the state government into bankruptcy,” writes Patrick Poole (American Thinker 1/17/07).

The state budget was in such straits that a state income tax was proposed, precipitating the Tennessee Tax Revolt of 2000. Thousands of citizens swarmed into downtown Nashville, and traffic came to a virtual standstill, as cars blared their horns from 7:30 a.m. well into the night. Legislators abandoned the income tax proposal and fled. Poole described it as the “most exhilarating experience I have been privileged to…witness….” Democrat Gov. Phil Bredesen was forced to dismantle TennCare piecemeal.

People like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who proposed to inflict state health insurance on all residents of California, including illegal aliens, should go to Tennessee if they need a heart valve replaced, suggests Poole, to see first-hand the results of universal health care.

Additional information:

Teacher suspended for posting video

Monday, October 20th, 2008

A middle-school teacher at the Urban Community Leadership Academy in Kansas City, Mo., was suspended for posting a YouTube video of a slogan-chanting drill squad.

The video features 10 black male students in 8th or 9th grades, wearing military-style uniforms, marching and chanting slogans supporting Barack Obama. The students also recited claims about Obama’s healthcare plan.

A chant of “Alpha, Omega,” possibly originating from the black fraternity step-team tradition, gave way to “Yes, we can.” Each student proclaimed that “Because of Obama, I’m inspired to become the next doctor (architect, chemical engineer, firefighter, etc.).”

Further drill activities were halted. The teacher had been warned in a letter not to post the video, and was accused of insubordination for doing so anyway.

The video is imbedded in the story “Obama Commandos’ Teacher Disciplined,” (WorldNetDaily 10/6/08).

Other news concerning Barack Obama:

Which candidate’s health plan will hurt the most?

Friday, October 17th, 2008

The basic difference in the major candidates’ proposals for “health care reform,” according to Mark Pauley, writing in Health Affairs, is that McCain recognizes that workers earn their health benefits, while Obama apparently views benefits as the employer’s money (Greg Scandlen, Consumer Power Report 10/16/08).

Obama and supporters claim that the McCain plan will cause workers to lose employer-sponsored insurance, while Obama’s will permit those who like their employer-sponsored plan to keep it.

Summarizing the only two academic studies of the McCain and Obama plans,
John Goodman writes that
, according to the Lewin study, 9.4 million would lose employer coverage under McCain, and 13.9 million under Obama. That means for every three people who lose coverage under McCain, four would lose it under Obama. The loss under Obama could be much higher. Employer-based coverage could actually increase with the McCain plan, while dropping by 60 million under Obama, according to the analysis by Roger Feldman of the University of Minnesota.

Obama promised that people buying insurance on their own would have access to the same coverage as members of Congress. The Lewin study assumes that the government-sponsored “national plan,” with the same on-paper benefits, would pay providers 25%, or even 40% less than private plans do.

Medicaid rolls would swell by 16.6 million under Obama, and shrink by 12 million under McCain, as Medicaid enrollees shifted to private plans.

Neither candidate has proposed a realistic way to pay for his proposal. The estimated 10-year cost is $2.1 trillion for McCain and $1.1 trillion for Obama (according to Lewin), and $2 trillion for McCain and $6 trillion for Obama (according to Feldman).

According to an analysis by the Pacific Research Institute (PRI), the McCain plan would help to end job lock, and result in a wage increase averaging $9,000 per year. PRI states that the Obama “job-killing” taxes would be especially harmful to low-income workers, and his reforms would lead to a “death spiral” for privately chosen health insurance (John R. Graham, “Presidential Prescriptions: Diagnosing the Candidates’ Health Reforms, PRI 10/14/08).

The McCain tax credit would correct the “arbitrary, unfair, and wasteful” distribution of tax benefits for health insurance, writes John Goodman. The Obama proposal would “build on today’s regressive, discriminatory subsidies for employment-based insurance,” while new rules would make insurers “little more than functionaries in a new federal government regulatory regime,” states Grace-Marie Turner (Health Care News, September 2008).

Senator Obama seems to be confusing a tax credit with a tax deduction, suggests Ralph Weber, who spoke at the 2008 AAPS annual meeting. A $5,000 tax credit is the equivalent of a $20,000 deduction for most families. It actually is enough to pay the average family health insurance premium in New Mexico, leaving $2,000 to start building up health savings. McCain has also proposed allowing the purchase of health insurance across state lines (FlashReport 10/16/08).

The New England Journal of Medicine shows its political colors in its Oct 16 article, “Primum Non Nocere—the McCain Plan for Health Insecurity.” It concludes that “Senator McCain’s plan does not demonstrate the kind of judgment needed in a potential commander in chief of our health care system”—assuming a “system” that has a commander in chief (David Blumenthal, N Engl J Med 2008;359:1645-1647). For balance, however, Joseph Antos of the American Enterprise Institute writes in an accompanying article that Obama’s “hopes are too audacious to be believed.” A pay-or-play mandate amounts to a tax on labor (N Engl J Med 2008;359:1648-1650).

The “usual suspects show up as savers: health information technology, prevention, and comparative-effectiveness research”—but none is “likely to produce savings any time soon,” Antos writes.

Additional information:

Medicare veto override a triumph for single-payer advocates, Krugman writes

Monday, July 21st, 2008

Ostensibly, the vote was against pay cuts for doctors. But it was really about “creeping privatization of Medicare,” writes left-wing columnist Paul Krugman.

Krugman blames Medicare deficits on the Medicare Modernization Act. Not Part D, but Medicare Advantage private fee-for-service plans. He asserts that these rapidly growing plans cost the government 17% more per beneficiary, while threatening to “undermine Medicare’s universality.” Insurance companies “cherry-pick healthier and more affluent older Americans, leaving the sicker and poorer behind”—in the wonderful “traditional” Medicare system that leftists want all Americans to have.

Krugman notes, correctly, that previously payments to doctors were maintained through “bipartisan fudging.” That is, “politicians from both parties got together to waive the rules. In effect, Congress kept Medicare functioning by expanding the federal budget deficit” (NY Times 7/11/08).

President Bush vetoed the bill preventing a 10.6% cut in Medicare fees because it was attached to payment cuts to Medicare Advantage plans. In addition, in his veto message he stated: “[The bill] would imperil the long-term fiscal soundness of Medicare by using short-term budgetary gimmicks that do not solve the problem; the result would be a steep and unrealistic payment cut for physicians—roughly 20% in 2010—likely leading to another expensive temporary fix” (Iglehart JK, N Engl J Med 10.1056/NEJMp0805760).

Krugman is exultant because the Democrats’ ability to stop a filibuster and override a veto make “the odds of achieving universal health care, soon,…look a lot higher than they did just a couple weeks ago.”

The AMA also celebrated, calling the legislation a significant victory. Through paid advertisements, the AMA exerted intense pressure on Republican senators initially opposed to the measure, Iglehart noted. The bill also staves off the scheduled 2009 cut.

“Good job, AMA leadership,” writes Dr. Thomas LaGrelius, president of the Society for Innovative Medical Practice Design (SIMPD). “You made the enemy very happy.”

The bill also killed competitive bidding for new equipment, which reportedly would have saved the program billions of dollars. For example, copayments for an oxygen concentrator for Medicare beneficiaries now total $1,428 over 36 months—more than double the purchase price. Medicare rents it for $198.40/mon, and the copayment is 20%. Medical equipment suppliers lobbied fiercely against this provision (Consumer Power Report #136, 7/18/08, citing Michael Leavitt, “Will Congress Continue a Medicare Scam?” Wall St J 7/9/08). (DME suppliers posted numerous comments in response to this article, regarding the value of the follow-up services they provide, and the Medicare rules and regulations.)

Additional information: