Archive for the ‘nationalized’ Category

Healthcare Reform

Tuesday, July 14th, 2009

Well, it looks like the House is at in full force now, attempting to pass a healthcare reform package before August.  I believe any proposed bill will have to get through 3 committees, and then to the floor.  The Dems seem hell bent on passing something, anything to give Obama his “win”.

Yet, as of yesterday, the country is now 1 Trillion dollars in debt.  So how will the dems pay for it?  the latest on the table is tax the wealthy up to 1.5% and to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance.  For now, the stick it to the wealthy approach might just sell.  But one day, sooner or later, with 1 Trillion dollars of debt, everyone is going to be paying higher taxes.

Article Bias Regarding Cancer and Uninsured

Thursday, December 20th, 2007

Well, the headline today on www.foxnews.com  read as below:

Study: Uninsured Cancer Patients Twice as Likely to Die

I had to read this story based on the above shocking headline.  Yet, it raised more questions than I expected after reading it.  Here is an excerpt from the story:

“People without health insurance are less likely to get recommended cancer screening tests, the study also found, confirming earlier research. And when these patients finally do get diagnosed, their cancer is likely to have spread.The research by scientists with the American Cancer Society offers important context for the national discussion about health care reform, experts say — even though the uninsured are believed to account for just a fraction of U.S. cancer deaths. An Associated Press analysis suggests it is around 4 percent.”

This article goes on to imply that the reason uninsured cancer victims are dying is due to our heartless healthcare system, which is letting these people down and essentially killing them.  This is an article, at its heart, that is as biased as they come regarding the uninsured.  First, as the article states, uninsured cancer deaths are thought to be 4%.  Now, I understand if you are unfortunate enough to be one of the 4% that you don’t care the number is that low.  Yet in the context of national politics, it is a rather low number.  So, 96% of cancer deaths are from the insured.  In that case, I don’t think having insurance has much to do with the outcome of treatment. However, reading the rest of the article sure sounds like our healthcare system is in total failure for this population.

Furthermore, I really wonder why people without insurance don’t get cancer screening tests.  Some of these tests like a colonoscopy are expensive, but others are not.   I think Americans need to be willing to take on the responsibility of their own healthcare, including screenings.  Sure, they can be expensive, but this is a person’s health at stake.  Wouldn’t the cost of a healthcare screen be more important than taking a vacation?  Also, I don’t know the stats, but I doubt most people with insurance get preventive health screenings for cancer.

I have always thought that all Americans should have catastrophic insurance coverage, especially to cover cancer.  The real question, as always, is who should pay for it?  Right now, we all pay for the uninsured through higher premiums.  Thus, I still like the idea proposed by Romney, require all Americans to purchase at least catastrophic insurance coverage.  Many of my conservative friends don’t agree with this, but I still believe it to be a reasonable solution. 

Socialism and Healthcare

Thursday, November 22nd, 2007

I recently began reading The Reagan Diaries (everyone that knows me well understands my admiration for Ronald Reagan). In reading a passage from his diaries regarding America’s grain embargo in the 1980s with the Soviets, Reagan said the following about the Soviets:

“Their socialism is an ec. failure. Wouldn’t we be doing more for their people if we let their system fail instead of constantly bailing it out?”

Reagan was a true conservative and what he knew well was that socialism is simply a failure. Unfortunately, many in our country now want socialized medicine. Some want complete socialization and other just want to play around with a little of it. Either way, it’s really bad for our country.

People define socialism, especially in regards to medicine, in many different ways. Yet, for me, socialized medicine is simply where the government redistributes wealth from the masses to pay for healthcare for some or all Americans.What would Reagan say about socialized medicine? Well, no doubt he would be completely against the current movement for government intervention in our healthcare system, especially those that want a Canadian or UK type system.

In my mind socialism is simply bad for our country and frankly immoral. Look at Reagan’s quote again, as he had it right. We should let socialism die on the world political stage just as communism did. For the better of us all, America should not go down this path in healthcare.

Lack of Information by Liberals on SCHIP

Sunday, October 28th, 2007

I always have fun reading the liberal blogs and just how far off these people are. The comments below are from http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/10/healthcare_for_children.html

“In the days following the President’s last veto, Dems and Republicans began to see the light, as they felt pressure from their constituents to support such a good bill. We’ll see that pressure continue. We may never change the President’s attitude toward providing healthcare for children, but we may shift the power dynamic soon regarding who gets to make that decision.”

First, The USA should not pay for healthcare for individuals over the age of 21. This bill that Bush Vetoed would have paid for the healthcare of “children” to 25 years of age. Also, the wages were way off regarding who qualified. No one that I know of has a problem with poor or working poor having tax paid subsidized healthcare, but it should not be for everyone. President Bush has not said he wants children to die in the streets from lack of healthcare. The liberals just can’t get this right about Bush.

The SCHIP bill is simply an attempt by the liberals to extend government controlled healthcare to the majority of citizens. If this bill had been signed by President Bush, most “kids” up to age 25 would have healthcare via the government and seniors 65 and over would be mostly in government ran programs. Hmm, that would have only left age 26 to seniors totally in the private sector. Again, it just seems to me that the SCHIP bill was an effort to piece mill nationalized healthcare.

After Hillary’s failed healthcare attempt in the early 1990s, the Clinton administration and its T.V talking helpers said it would just have to be done one piece at at time. I guess we see that happening with SCHIP.