- Connect
- Login
- Print Subscription
|
Welcome,
| |
| |
- Most Commented
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Most Emailed
- Popular
- Popular
« Opinion
Health insuranced reform is endangered by lobbyists
Health insuranced reform is endangered by lobbyists
EDITOR:
The voices of Ohioans are at risk of being drowned out as the health insurance industry pumps millions of dollars into efforts to kill substantive health care reform. What I know from talking to people across Ohio is the great majority of working men and women want comprehensive health insurance reform.
That’s why I made a trip to Washington, D.C., earlier this month. I delivered a message and over 5,000 letters from working Ohioans to our senators and representatives. Over and over again in their letters, our friends and neighbors wrote in favor of health insurance reform that controls costs, provides guaranteed coverage for all Americans, holds insurance companies accountable, includes a strong public option, requires all employers to pay their fair share and rejects new taxes that would hurt middle class families that are already struggling to survive. We sent a strong message that working Americans are paying close attention to the health insurance reform debate and will hold their elected officials accountable.
We expect that Sens. Sherrod Brown and George Voinovich, along with Reps. Tim Ryan and Charlie Wilson, will represent our interests over those of the very same insurance companies that continue to drive up costs while denying life sustaining coverage to thousands of Americans.
RONALD GAY Jr.
Vice President-Communication Workers of America Local 4300
Canfield
Third World conditions too close to home
EDITOR:
Please, say it isn’t so.
The article on the Oct. 28 Vindicator front page about deplorable living conditions had to be a story from a Third World country. Something like this couldn’t happen here in the U.S.A. Wrong, it was right in Canfield, to be exact.
I haven’t been able to get those two little boys off my mind ever since reading the article. If I told you what I wanted to see done to the parents, I probably would be put in jail. It is sacrilegious to bring your two sons up in such filthy conditions. You are lucky they are alive, the seven dogs and three cats weren’t so lucky (or maybe they were). If these people needed help, there are people and organizations out there that could and would have helped them.
How could this family fall through the cracks, and not be noticed? Someone should have been paying attention.
JOANIE FARMER
Columbiana
- Requires free registration.
Comments
Ronnald Gay......If you think Lobbyists are the problem, you have been drinking the PELOSI/RYAN KOOL-AID. Try just one LOBBYIST that the Dems listened to-PHARMA.The drug industry made sure that no one could import CHEAPER DRUGS! Do you like paying for ABORTIONS?.....unless the bill changes by Saturday all of us will be paying for abortions in this"HEALTH/INSURANCE REFORM".I suggest you start reading about this bill you think is so"GREAT"
The Pelosi"care" bill is not true health insurance reform. In fact it expands coverage-based decisions rather than need-based decisions, thus increasing the expense of health care.
For the first time in American history, a subject (formerly citizen before the socialist transformation) must purchase something by law or face punishment by the rulers (formerly known as public servants). It is unconstitutional to do this, but the socialists aren't too bothered by this fact. You cannot be pro-Pelosi"care" and pro-liberty.
Every American would be required to buy health insurance or be fined up to 2.5% of their income.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) pegs its cost at $1.055 trillion over 10 years, not the $894 billion Mrs. Pelosi claims. Politico reports that "the legislation is projected to create deficits over the second five years" by front-loading revenue and benefit cuts and back-loading costs. Some estimates are as high as $2.4 trillion for its first decade of operation. Remeber that Medicaid is 17x (yes...17x) over initial budget projections.
In its first 10 years, the bill calls for $572 billion in new taxes (including a 5.4% income surtax), and $426 billion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts, which will hurt seniors and the poor and could lead to rationing of care.
The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation reported recently that the House's legislation will whack small businesses because they would pay $153.5 billion of the surtax. Small businesses unable to provide health coverage to their workers would also pay up to 8% in new payroll taxes. This would cost them $135 billion more over the next decade, thereby diminishing their ability to create jobs.
In the House bill there is a $2 billion tax on those who already have health insurance, $20 billion in taxes on medical devices, $8 billion in taxes on anyone who buys over-the-counter drugs with money from their health-savings accounts, and $140 billion in higher taxes on drugs.
Mrs. Pelosi's bill will drive up premiums. A family of four with an income of $78,000 would pay $13,800 for insurance a year by 2016, according to CBO. Their tab would average $11,000 without the bill.
Gee whiz, would it make sense to perhaps try instead something that has worked, like Tort reform, as a first step? It would make sense if you weren't trying to transfer power from the people to the socialist regime.
Ron-By the way did you know that $150 BILLION CUTBACKS in Medicare is taking place?Funny that AARP talked to Obama, and when SENIOR CITIZENS who have Medicare only ,will go looking for additional insurance do you think AARP will increase the profit margin? Did you know that the BILL was 72 Hours prior to a vote(called Managers Amendment) BUT the Dems can ADD TO IT 24 HOURS before the vote (called the RULE) and pass whatever is added to it.GREAT BILL thank you Nancy/Timmy
@Nonsocialist, you've clearly thought a lot about all of this. It's easy to tear down, but what is your solution for the millions of uninsured that will cost us 56 Billion dollars just this year in medical expenses (not to mention public assistance for those unable to work as a result of treatable illnesses). That's up from 30-something Billion just last year, and left unchanged will likely be 70-something Billion next year.
I'm sure you're aware that tort actions account for less than 1% of healthcare costs... right? Even if all tort actions were completely banned, that would do little to affect the cost of health care that is estimated to increase over 10% this next year alone and over 100% in this next decade.
In the Bible, Job fell on hard times through no fault of his own... it's a good thing Job didn't live in contemporary America where he'd be vilified by the right as a lazy lay-about sucking off the wealthy.
Also, (just for the record)
- "Socialized medicine" would involve government ownership of hospitals and employment of healthcare providers. This has never been proposed. An example of socialized medicine is in the UK where they get better results for less money with less doctors/capita and less medical diagnostic equipment/capita. The closest American example of this is the VA Hospital system that has been found to provide better service to its clients (who are happier with their treatment) than the free-market system and in-spite of perpetual underfunding.
- A "single payer system" (what the conservatives fear) is where there is only one "insurance provider". An example of this is Canada's system where all citizens / residents pay insurance premiums to the government who then acts as the national insurer. Despite claims that Canadians come to America for care, studies have shown that only happens in border towns that have contracted for that care. Other than that, no study has been able to document this "flood of Canadians" seeking treatment in the US. However, there is a growing "Medical Tourism" trade for US citizens who are going to third world countries seeking affordable care. The closest US version of single payer system is Medicare, a system that provides insurance for those people that the free market place does not want to insure, the elderly. Despite the fact that Medicare by definition insures the most expensive patients (seniors) without the ability to cherry pick (e.g. no pre-existing condition outs), It manages to use 97% of each dollar expended to provide health care (compared to only 85% of each dollar in the free market place).
Columbiana-HEALTH BILL ....cost $1.3 Trillion,LOWER PREMIUMS...no,TAX current insurance...yes,LOWER PREMIUMS on small business&employees...no,$1.3 trillion cost does not include $210 BILLION MEDICARE DOC FIX, JOB LOSS...yes,white house economists quote" Destroy 5.5 million jobs over next 10 years", ALLOW small business to pool together to lower prices...no,CUTS TO SENIOR CITIZENS...yes $505 billion over 10 years in medicare(CBO),TAX PAYER FUNDED ABORTION...yes and requires private insurance companies to include in their own plans at least 1 option,GOVERNMENT PLAN.. has a Monthly Abortion Premium that everyone who is in the plan MUST pay,UNFUNDED STATE MANDATES...yes $34 BILLION over first 10 years (per CBO).. THIS IS GOOD FOR AMERICA?
InColumbiana,
When the government owns and operates a health plan ('the public option"), it is socialized medicine. Socialized medicine has failed everywhere, everytime...the NHS, Canada, the VA, Massachusetts, Medicare (scheduled to go bankrupt in 2017). Like all socialized medicine models, it will ration and deny care and go way overbudget (the rare exception is medicare D)...not very compassionate.
If instead, one wants to reduce costs, reduce rationing and denials of care, reduce waste of resources, and empower patient's governance over their own body...than I suggest a combination of simple reforms (well outlined in my previous posts).
The simple key is to transform from a coverage-based model (Why not! I'll get the $2,000 MRI!! It's covered!) to a need-based model (Doc, I'll get the MRI if I really need it, but I'll shop around for the radiology center with the best rate!). The bills put forth by the Democratic-Socialist Party all expand the coverage-based model, and will thus expand health care expenses.
The CBO states that tort reform would save $54 billion over 10 years (I believe that this is a wild underestimation). Why not save $54 billion? Why?
I also suggest improved hospital admission screening for conditions such as chest pain and chronic pain.
Who are the uninsured? Approximately one-fifth are illegal aliens, nearly three-fifths make $50,000 or more a year and can afford insurance, and just under a third are eligible for Medicaid or other government programs already, but just haven't enrolled.
The Federal government has bankrupted itself, Medicare, the USPS, and you want them to control your healthcare? This is only superficially about health care, but really about government control over its subjects. This current administration has increased the public sector from 19% to 30% of the GDP. Health care reform (if you want to call it that) will increase it to 46%!!
If you wish to have these politicians have this control over you and your families health, than recall what Sam Adams said to those who somehow craved an oppressive and controllng government:
"crouch down and lick the hands which feed you" and "may your chains sit lightly upon you."
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/12/...