real median household income in the united states rose by 1.1 percent between 2004 and 2005, reaching $46,326, according to a report released today by the u.s. census bureau. meanwhile, the nation's official poverty rate remained statistically unchanged at 12.6 percent. the percentage of people without health insurance coverage rose from 15.6 percent to 15.9 percent (46.6 million people).
Let me tell you about two government-financed health care programs. One, the Veterans Health Administration, is a stunning success — but the administration and Republicans in Congress refuse to build on that success, because it doesn’t fit their conservative agenda. The other, Medicare Advantage, is a clear failure, but it’s expanding rapidly thanks to large subsidies the administration rammed through Congress in 2003....
...The key to the V.A.’s success is its long-term relationship with its clients: veterans, once in the V.A. system, normally stay in it for life.
This means that the V.A. can easily keep track of a patient’s medical history, allowing it to make much better use of information technology than other health care providers. Unlike all but a few doctors in the private sector, V.A. doctors have instant access to patients’ medical records via a systemwide network, which reduces both costs and medical errors.
The long-term relationship with patients also lets the V.A. save money by investing heavily in preventive medicine, an area in which the private sector — which makes money by treating the sick, not by keeping people healthy — has shown little interest....
...The commander of the American Legion has proposed letting elderly vets spend their Medicare benefits at V.A. facilities, which would lead to better medical care and large government savings.
Instead, the Bush administration has restricted access to the V.A. system, limiting it to poor vets or those with service-related injuries. And as for allowing elderly vets to get better, cheaper health care: “Conservatives,” writes Time, “fear such an arrangement would be a Trojan horse, setting up an even larger national health-care program and taking more business from the private sector.” ...
...Medicare Advantage (HMO) plans cost the government 11 percent more per person than traditional Medicare. Oh, and mortality rates in these plans are 40 percent higher than those of elderly veterans covered by the V.A....
I have been on disability. I got off of it because I like working better. These are health problems that I was born with not acquired by poor decision making. However, since I have a disability, I have a pre-existing condition, which makes getting private health insurance impossible. Sure I could get health insurance a state sponsored policy which would cost me just a little under half my monthly income. This would make living a problem plus it doesn't cover the cost of medications which keep me a taxpayer. I would still have to pay them out of my pocket like I am now. I'm just really frustrated that an illegial allien can receive tax dollars to have a baby, a drug user can get his teeth fixed, and the like, when an honest working person cannot get any help because they have choosen to work instead of being on welfare or disability. I know several disabled people who would love to be in the work force. However, they would lose their medical and that just scares the crap out of them. So they languish on disability and/or illegally work under the table. When they work under the table, taxes are not taken out so the system also loses those dollars. Not to mention that it's illegal. The system is broken.
Sadly, another issue that I've seen working EMS is that sometimes uninsured individuals wait too long to address health problems, ones that initially could have been treated simply by a primary health care provider have escalated to the point where they are life threatening. Look at the cost of one doctor's office visit vs. a lengthy stay in ICU. Then there is the other end of the spectrum, with uninsured individuals presenting at the ER for the "sniffles" transported in by ambulance. An effective healthcare system would have to look at the entire picture, starting with making the appropriate resources available and accessible to individuals (and somehow enforcing the use of appropriate resources). That would be much more cost effective in the long run. JMHO.
First, I would really like to see how they arrived at that number just like the supposed 3 million homeless in this country, and people having to choose between food and medicine and my favorite someone working three minimum wage jobs to make ends meet. Secondly, there are so many government (tax payer funded) programs out there that just about anyone could qualify. A lot of young healthy people choose not to receive health care coverage by choice. They are healthy and would rather spend that money on other choices. Many people are homeless as a choice or have drug and mental health issues and this is a direct cause by JFK deinstitutionalizing the mentally ill. I am always skeptical of these numbers.
Disbelieve all you want. I experienced it up front and personal when an injury knocked me out of being able to work for almost a year (not work related, unfortunately). I've been working since I was 15y. When I tried to get temporary assistance I was told I wouldn't qualify because I was not 1) a minority and 2) I was not a single mother.
Homeless by choice? I would really like to see the data on that. It's the kind of claim Reagan would make. As far as blaming homelessness on JFK, well, he's been dead for over 40y, so maybe we could take some responsibility and say it didn't work. And this is what Kennedy said about deinstitutionalization: "If we apply our medical knowledge and social insights fully," President Kennedy stated, "all but a small portion of the mentally ill can eventually achieve a wholesome and a constructive social adjustment." A "concerted national attack on mental disorders [was] now possible and practical." As Kennedy had a sister who was mentally ill and required hospitalization, I hardly think he would have advocated throwing people into the street.
JFK is directly to blame for the number of homeless and poor in this country as well as his predecessor for the utter failure that the war on poverty has caused. JFK and Lyndon Johnson have done more to harm and decimate minorities and women in this country than any administration in history.
This isn't a direct cause of JFK's Community Health Act, if that's what you're talking about. there were many other initiatives after that, like those under Reagan that re-routed federal funding meant for the mentally ill, etc. that compounded that particular problem.
And BTW, most of the uninsured here in the U.S. are the working poor- many of them with 2 or more part time jobs, where benefits aren't offered or aren't affordable. The problem is more complex than people just choosing to be uninsured.
I'm wondering how you are coming up with this conspiracy theory when you live in Canada, and aren't experienced the healthcare crisis here under managed care?
Instead of continuing to blame people who are long gone, what suggestions do you have to improve the situation?
This is so bizarre; what is your agenda here, other than to make sure blame gets appropriated to someone who's been dead for 40y? Do you have any ideas, or is this just an opportunity for you to have a rant against political leaders you disliked (are you even old enough to remember their being in office?).
JFK is directly to blame for the number of homeless and poor in this country as well as his predecessor for the utter failure that the war on poverty has caused. JFK and Lyndon Johnson have done more to harm and decimate minorities and women in this country than any administration in history.
WHAT?? Gee....social program cuts....who did that?? Cut spending for underprivledged children in pre-school programs?? Cut VA benefits?? The list goes on....and JFK and LBJ weren't around when it happened. This isn't 1960!!
Your opinion....is of course, your opinion....but I'm not buying it.
The war on poverty was working. Poverty rates dropped to about 8% during the 70's but increased back up to about 12% with the "deforms" started during the Reagan years. The war on Poverty actually started during the Depression. Our current system is broken and in need of a serious overhaul towards at a minimum universal access but preferably single payer.
I have been on disability. I got off of it because I like working better. These are health problems that I was born with not acquired by poor decision making. However, since I have a disability, I have a pre-existing condition, which makes getting private health insurance impossible. Sure I could get health insurance a state sponsored policy which would cost me just a little under half my monthly income. This would make living a problem plus it doesn't cover the cost of medications which keep me a taxpayer. I would still have to pay them out of my pocket like I am now. I'm just really frustrated that an illegial allien can receive tax dollars to have a baby, a drug user can get his teeth fixed, and the like, when an honest working person cannot get any help because they have choosen to work instead of being on welfare or disability. I know several disabled people who would love to be in the work force. However, they would lose their medical and that just scares the crap out of them. So they languish on disability and/or illegally work under the table. When they work under the table, taxes are not taken out so the system also loses those dollars. Not to mention that it's illegal. The system is broken.
Fuzzy
This is exactly why we need to make a commitment as a country to implementing a single-payer health system. Your state government is failing you and every other person like you with its failure to find a way to provide group coverage through a sliding fee scale system.
Let me tell you about two government-financed health care programs. One, the Veterans Health Administration, is a stunning success-but the administration and Republicans in Congress refuse to build on that success, because it doesn't fit their conservative agenda. The other, Medicare Advantage, is a clear failure, but it's expanding rapidly thanks to large subsidies the administration rammed through Congress in 2003....
...The key to the V.A.'s success is its long-term relationship with its clients: veterans, once in the V.A. system, normally stay in it for life.
This means that the V.A. can easily keep track of a patient's medical history, allowing it to make much better use of information technology than other health care providers. Unlike all but a few doctors in the private sector, V.A. doctors have instant access to patients' medical records via a systemwide network, which reduces both costs and medical errors.
The long-term relationship with patients also lets the V.A. save money by investing heavily in preventive medicine, an area in which the private sector-which makes money by treating the sick, not by keeping people healthy-has shown little interest....
...The commander of the American Legion has proposed letting elderly vets spend their Medicare benefits at V.A. facilities, which would lead to better medical care and large government savings.
Instead, the Bush administration has restricted access to the V.A. system, limiting it to poor vets or those with service-related injuries. And as for allowing elderly vets to get better, cheaper health care: "Conservatives," writes Time, "fear such an arrangement would be a Trojan horse, setting up an even larger national health-care program and taking more business from the private sector." ...
...Medicare Advantage (HMO) plans cost the government 11 percent more per person than traditional Medicare. Oh, and mortality rates in these plans are 40 percent higher than those of elderly veterans covered by the V.A....
pickledpepperRN
4,491 Posts
Health Policy Malpractice
Let me tell you about two government-financed health care programs. One, the Veterans Health Administration, is a stunning success — but the administration and Republicans in Congress refuse to build on that success, because it doesn’t fit their conservative agenda. The other, Medicare Advantage, is a clear failure, but it’s expanding rapidly thanks to large subsidies the administration rammed through Congress in 2003....
...The key to the V.A.’s success is its long-term relationship with its clients: veterans, once in the V.A. system, normally stay in it for life.
This means that the V.A. can easily keep track of a patient’s medical history, allowing it to make much better use of information technology than other health care providers. Unlike all but a few doctors in the private sector, V.A. doctors have instant access to patients’ medical records via a systemwide network, which reduces both costs and medical errors.
The long-term relationship with patients also lets the V.A. save money by investing heavily in preventive medicine, an area in which the private sector — which makes money by treating the sick, not by keeping people healthy — has shown little interest....
...The commander of the American Legion has proposed letting elderly vets spend their Medicare benefits at V.A. facilities, which would lead to better medical care and large government savings.
Instead, the Bush administration has restricted access to the V.A. system, limiting it to poor vets or those with service-related injuries. And as for allowing elderly vets to get better, cheaper health care: “Conservatives,” writes Time, “fear such an arrangement would be a Trojan horse, setting up an even larger national health-care program and taking more business from the private sector.” ...
...Medicare Advantage (HMO) plans cost the government 11 percent more per person than traditional Medicare. Oh, and mortality rates in these plans are 40 percent higher than those of elderly veterans covered by the V.A....
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI=http://select.nytimes.com/2006/09/04/opinion/04krugman.html&OQ=_rQ3D1&OP=292f55c7Q2FQ26ncMQ26T!X__TQ26UbbhQ26bjQ26btQ26_8SQ5DS_Q5DQ26btdX@ZQ51WQ5DQ3B-TQ51Y