FEDS AND STATES INTO HEALTHCARE 2/3/07

By now most folks have heard about Bush's proposed tax benefit for medical insurance program-- spend a bunch of money to get a tax deduction. Spend too much money and get whacked by the IRS on April 15th. Don't have the money, you are stuck. A senior or disabled person on Medicare will wind up paying more. Poor people on Medicaid will be given vouchers for three thousand bucks. I swear sometimes the government is trying to kill some of us off. Ultimately, this stuff will result in decreasing funds available for Social Security Retirement beneficiaries. Cat food and medication vs. tuna fish-- you choose.

That is the abbreviated version as presented on physician discussion boards [According to the current Medscape poll, a full 74% of physicians are against the Bush 41 plan]. The fuller version is a maze. Very few folks have come up with a viable alternative. Now, a group of physicians has. The group is called "Physicians for a National Health Program." They are proposing "single payer national health [insurance]." The idea is attractive.

The main difference between their proposal and socialized medicine is that doctors will not be paid by the government. Some other advantages of their proposal are: lowered cost for all, no co-pays, medical decisions will once again be between patient and doctor without interference by insurance agencies whose best interests do not coincide with what is best for our health, and there will be no uninsured AMERICAN CITIZENS.

The website is quite thorough and also refutes arguments put forth by the opposition. One of those arguments is that the United States currently does not ration our health care. Of course it does. Anyone who has had to deal with finding physicians who accept Medicaid will tell you that health care in this country is indeed rationed. So will folks who have to have root canals without anesthesia because their insurance will not pay for anesthesia, folks who need treatment whose H.M.O.s are refusing to pay, folks without dental insurance or insurance for glasses who go without dental care and eye care.

Now, the thing is that this will not result in the creation of a bureaucracy because as stated at:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php?page=2
[direct quote]

Won’t this just be another bureaucracy?

The United States has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. Over 24% of every health care dollar goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, and other non-clinical costs. Because the U.S. does not have a system that serves everyone and instead has over 1,500 different insurance plans, each with their own marketing, paperwork, enrollment, premiums, rules, and regulations, our insurance system is both extremely complex and fragmented. The Medicare program operates with just 3% overhead, compared to 15% to 25% overhead at a typical HMO.

It is not necessary to have a huge bureaucracy to decide who gets care and what care they get, if and when everyone is covered and has the same comprehensive benefits. With a universal health care system we would be able to cut our bureaucratic burden in half and save nearly $150 billion per year. [end of quote]

Speaking of bureaucracy, I was astonished to learn that Texas is mandating a cervical cancer vaccination for all fifth and sixth grade girls. Because cervical cancer can be gotten from things like rape or a husband, the religious right politicians there went along with it. Because Merck doubled its' production of the vaccine at the same time that it doubled its' lobbying funding for the state of Texas, I can't help but think that the lovely mix of Politicians plus Pharmaceuticals has wielded Power.

My friends tell me that the vaccination only targets cervical cancer, that there are other non-cancer related strains of H.P.V. That has not been mentioned in the news much or in the commercials and it ought to be. Of greater concern is that the vaccination mandation does allow for parents to opt out on religious or philosophical grounds. Yet I think it should be the other way around. The vaccine should be put on the list of "recommended but not required" which would return the decision-making to the parents, doctor, and in a few cases girl involved.

But then Merck would lose out on some of the profits it is making off of our lives.

radical sapphoq
with shout-outs to Natalie and Megs