In the early 1990s, they were on TV all the time, a middle-aged, middle-class American couple named Harry and Louise, sitting around the kitchen table, worrying that Hillary Clinton’s health care plan would get between them and their doctor.
Today, that Clinton woman will be back again with her radical ideas about insurance for everyone, but will Harry and Louise still be worrying about socialized medicine?
Not Harry. When his company went bankrupt a few years later, he and Louise lost their insurance and couldn’t get new coverage because of Harry’s asthma and coronary history.
They lost the family doctor they loved so much, too. He switched his practice to “concierge care,” but Harry and Louise couldn’t afford the $2000 annual dues to stay on his roster of patients.
Louise can’t be sure but, if Harry had been getting his annual checkups and follow-up visits, he might have avoided or survived the heart attack that killed him at the age of 60.
As a widow, Louise has now reached the age of being eligible for Medicare. She is still free to see any doctor she chooses, but it bothers her that the government is involved in her health care and she is waiting with some annoyance to see what mischief Hillary is up to now.
Showing posts with label health insurance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health insurance. Show all posts
Monday, September 17, 2007
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Middle-Class Health Care Crisis Gets Worse
The newest Census figures put a statistical face on the sickening truth about health care in America. Even as household incomes go up, so do the number of uninsured. The creeping crisis has moved beyond the poor into the middle class.
A record high 47 million Americans were priced out of health care, even as the poverty rate went down and median household income rose to $48,200 in 2006. Uninsured families earning more than $75,000 a year increased by 1.4 million.
As profits of HMOs, health insurers and drug companies soar, more and more employers are cutting down or eliminating coverage as a job benefit, leaving families to fend for themselves in a market of rising premiums and discrimination against the most vulnerable.
“Middle income Americans are now experiencing the human suffering that comes with being uninsured. It makes any illness a potential economic and social catastrophe,” says Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, of the Harvard Medical School, a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.
Yet politicians keep tinkering with the current system. Of all the Presidential candidates for ’08, Dennis Kucinich is the only one proposing a single-payer system to eliminate the one out of every three dollars spent on health care that goes to insurers’ overhead and profits.
But rumblings of revolt can be heard. In California,
a new statewide poll shows voters rejecting moderate health-care reforms proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic legislators and leaning, instead, toward a state-managed "single-payer" system.
But it will take much more public demand to overcome the largest lobbying expenditures in American history to keep the system as a cash cow for companies that profit from it.
A record high 47 million Americans were priced out of health care, even as the poverty rate went down and median household income rose to $48,200 in 2006. Uninsured families earning more than $75,000 a year increased by 1.4 million.
As profits of HMOs, health insurers and drug companies soar, more and more employers are cutting down or eliminating coverage as a job benefit, leaving families to fend for themselves in a market of rising premiums and discrimination against the most vulnerable.
“Middle income Americans are now experiencing the human suffering that comes with being uninsured. It makes any illness a potential economic and social catastrophe,” says Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, of the Harvard Medical School, a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.
Yet politicians keep tinkering with the current system. Of all the Presidential candidates for ’08, Dennis Kucinich is the only one proposing a single-payer system to eliminate the one out of every three dollars spent on health care that goes to insurers’ overhead and profits.
But rumblings of revolt can be heard. In California,
a new statewide poll shows voters rejecting moderate health-care reforms proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic legislators and leaning, instead, toward a state-managed "single-payer" system.
But it will take much more public demand to overcome the largest lobbying expenditures in American history to keep the system as a cash cow for companies that profit from it.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
The War Bush Is Winning
Things may not be going too well in Iraq or against Al Qaeda in Pakistan, but there is one front where the Bush Administration is prevailing--in the war to keep American children without medical coverage to protect the HMOs and private insurers who have given us one of the worst health care systems in the world at the highest cost.
Yesterday the Administration announced new policies that will make it harder for states to insure all but the lowest-income children under the government-subsidized State Children's Health Insurance Program.
President Bush has said he is opposed on “philosophical grounds” to any expansion of the program that might keep families from buying private insurance. As always, his priorities are cockeyed, but his determination to stay the course is unshakable.
Yesterday the Administration announced new policies that will make it harder for states to insure all but the lowest-income children under the government-subsidized State Children's Health Insurance Program.
President Bush has said he is opposed on “philosophical grounds” to any expansion of the program that might keep families from buying private insurance. As always, his priorities are cockeyed, but his determination to stay the course is unshakable.
Friday, August 03, 2007
Covering the Super-Healthy Only
If Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney or Chief Justice John Roberts applied for private health insurance, they wouldn’t get it.
Neither would Michael Moore for his obesity or Arnold Schwarzenegger, who went to the hospital in 2005 for rapid heartbeats.
An organization called the Medical Information Bureau would take a quick look at their histories and tell 470 companies they are hopelessly bad risks. Their work helps health insurers cherry-pick prospects to cover only those who are unlikely to get sick.
So much for universal coverage and the faith that Republicans, including President Bush, have in the marketplace. After the removal of his five polyps last month, he would have trouble getting health insurance himself.
CBS reported recently that a survey by the Commonwealth Fund last year found that 89 percent, or 52 million, of those looking for individual health insurance didn't get it because it was too expensive or they were turned down.
“Insurers are getting double the profit that they make in the group market. Why is it so lucrative? Because they exclude anybody and everybody who has even a remote sense of risk associated with their health care," said Dr. Bryan Liang, who has studied the insurance industry for more than a decade.
Someone should break the news to Rudy Giuliani, who loves the current system. His 2001 treatment for prostate cancer would rule him out for coverage in a New York minute.
Neither would Michael Moore for his obesity or Arnold Schwarzenegger, who went to the hospital in 2005 for rapid heartbeats.
An organization called the Medical Information Bureau would take a quick look at their histories and tell 470 companies they are hopelessly bad risks. Their work helps health insurers cherry-pick prospects to cover only those who are unlikely to get sick.
So much for universal coverage and the faith that Republicans, including President Bush, have in the marketplace. After the removal of his five polyps last month, he would have trouble getting health insurance himself.
CBS reported recently that a survey by the Commonwealth Fund last year found that 89 percent, or 52 million, of those looking for individual health insurance didn't get it because it was too expensive or they were turned down.
“Insurers are getting double the profit that they make in the group market. Why is it so lucrative? Because they exclude anybody and everybody who has even a remote sense of risk associated with their health care," said Dr. Bryan Liang, who has studied the insurance industry for more than a decade.
Someone should break the news to Rudy Giuliani, who loves the current system. His 2001 treatment for prostate cancer would rule him out for coverage in a New York minute.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Health Care: Good vs. Evil
This should be just the kind of battle the President loves, right against wrong, no nasty little nuances to fog the mind, but here he is on the side of darkness, threatening to veto a bill passed by the House that would extend health insurance to five million more children of the working poor.
The proposal, according to the Washington Post, is backed by “Republican and Democratic governors, the American Medical Association, AARP, the March of Dimes, the Catholic Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and even cyclist Lance Armstrong. And the prospects are good in the Senate, where a key Republican, Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), said, ‘It's difficult for me to understand how anyone wouldn't want to do this.’"
George Bush doesn’t--on “philosophical” grounds. "When you expand eligibility,” he argues, “you're really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government."
In his opposition, the President may be opening the wider debate on American health care and what some of his loyal supporters yesterday denounced as the first step toward “socialized medicine.”
If so, it would only be a baby step, but the discussion is long overdue. If “socialized medicine” is the only alternative to lining the pockets of HMOS and health insurance companies at the expense of sick kids, so be it. If “socialized” means humane rather than rapacious, what’s so scary about it? Socialized doesn’t mean Socialist.
Even doctors, the presumed victims, seem to be in favor of scrapping the current system. A recent survey by the Minnesota Medical Association found that “64% favored a single-payer system, 25% HSAs, and 12% managed care. The majority of physicians (86%) also agreed that it is the responsibility of society, through the government, to ensure that everyone has access to good medical care. Less than half (41%) said that the private insurance industry should continue to play a major role in financing health care.” (Source: Sustainable Middle Class blog.)
It’s time to talk frankly about what’s good and what’s evil in our health care system, and President Bush may just be leading the way.
The proposal, according to the Washington Post, is backed by “Republican and Democratic governors, the American Medical Association, AARP, the March of Dimes, the Catholic Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and even cyclist Lance Armstrong. And the prospects are good in the Senate, where a key Republican, Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), said, ‘It's difficult for me to understand how anyone wouldn't want to do this.’"
George Bush doesn’t--on “philosophical” grounds. "When you expand eligibility,” he argues, “you're really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government."
In his opposition, the President may be opening the wider debate on American health care and what some of his loyal supporters yesterday denounced as the first step toward “socialized medicine.”
If so, it would only be a baby step, but the discussion is long overdue. If “socialized medicine” is the only alternative to lining the pockets of HMOS and health insurance companies at the expense of sick kids, so be it. If “socialized” means humane rather than rapacious, what’s so scary about it? Socialized doesn’t mean Socialist.
Even doctors, the presumed victims, seem to be in favor of scrapping the current system. A recent survey by the Minnesota Medical Association found that “64% favored a single-payer system, 25% HSAs, and 12% managed care. The majority of physicians (86%) also agreed that it is the responsibility of society, through the government, to ensure that everyone has access to good medical care. Less than half (41%) said that the private insurance industry should continue to play a major role in financing health care.” (Source: Sustainable Middle Class blog.)
It’s time to talk frankly about what’s good and what’s evil in our health care system, and President Bush may just be leading the way.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
George W. Bush, Philosopher
The President is threatening to veto a bipartisan Senate proposal to increase the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years. His opposition is on “philosophical grounds.”
Bush’s philosophy, like everything else in his Administration, is dogma. In this case, the moral principal is that “when you expand eligibility...you're really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government."
At least he is consistent. While overseeing the worst-managed war in American history, he is defending to the death one of the worst health-care systems in the world.
The program in question, which costs the federal government $5 billion a year, helps provide health coverage to 6.6 million low-income children. Another 3.3 million would be covered under a proposal by Senate Finance Committee, which is supported by such Republican radicals as Sens. Charles Grassley and Orrin Hatch, among others.
But the President is adamant. “I expect people to speak out,” he said in a Washington Post interview about the bill and health care. “I also have my own points of view and feel very strongly about a lot of issues."
His philosophy has deep traditional roots, perhaps best-expressed by one of Charles Dickens’ most memorable characters. Asked for money for the poor, his answer reflected the guiding Bush principle: “Are there no prisons...and workhouses?” If he were alive today, Scrooge might have added, “And no HMOs?”
Bush’s philosophy, like everything else in his Administration, is dogma. In this case, the moral principal is that “when you expand eligibility...you're really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government."
At least he is consistent. While overseeing the worst-managed war in American history, he is defending to the death one of the worst health-care systems in the world.
The program in question, which costs the federal government $5 billion a year, helps provide health coverage to 6.6 million low-income children. Another 3.3 million would be covered under a proposal by Senate Finance Committee, which is supported by such Republican radicals as Sens. Charles Grassley and Orrin Hatch, among others.
But the President is adamant. “I expect people to speak out,” he said in a Washington Post interview about the bill and health care. “I also have my own points of view and feel very strongly about a lot of issues."
His philosophy has deep traditional roots, perhaps best-expressed by one of Charles Dickens’ most memorable characters. Asked for money for the poor, his answer reflected the guiding Bush principle: “Are there no prisons...and workhouses?” If he were alive today, Scrooge might have added, “And no HMOs?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)