Results tagged “healthcare” from Eagle Forum Collegians

Policymakers are currently trying to achieve universal coverage through a mandate requiring every individual to buy health insurance. This mandate has caused much controversy far and wide. The question is: will this mandate result in universal coverage?

 

Perhaps the most common argument in favor of insurance mandates is in reference to liability car insurance. Though the level of insurance varies by state, 48 states require liability insurance. Even in lieu of a mandate to by liability insurance, 15% of drivers are still on the road uninsured.

 

Policymakers had an advantage in considering the effects of mandates that most paid no attention to—Massachusetts care. In 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed into law a mandate requiring individuals to buy health coverage, else they lose their personal income tax reduction, if their employers do not provide medical insurance.

 

Though 350,000 (of 550,000 to 715,000) previously uninsured Massachusetts citizens had enrolled by the summer of 2008, about half of them had chosen Commonwealth Care, a heavily subsidized free insurance program for adults who did not have access to government-sponsored programs or employer insurance. 

 

Not only are there still uninsured people in Massachusetts, but the costs of the program are bankrupting the state. Lawmakers greatly underestimated the costs. 

 

No, worries. The taxpayers will take care of it! The bill to taxpayers was: 

--$133 million in 2007

--$647 million in 2008

--projected to be $869 million to $1.1 billion

 

Governor Mitt Romney had predicted the cost to be only $125 million a year.

 

Though about 262,000 took advantage of the free programs offered by the state, only 18,122 enrolled in the government’s full price, unsubsidized Commonwealth Choice program. The question is—was universal coverage attained?

 

No. Five percent are still uninsured, and the Massachusetts economy has suffered greatly.

 

If a government mandate will truly “fix” a faulty system, why do we not end world hunger, homelessness, and poverty? 

 

The answer is simple: mandates will not “fix” these things. 

The left has been using race-based agitprop for a century. The media conspiracy that emerged from the Capitol Hill protest on the Obamacare vote is a classic case of the same. Check out this video!

Part 1

Overall, prescription drugs presently make up 10% of healthcare spending. However, though this percentage is higher than in recent decades, prescription drugs in fact reduce overall spending on medical care.

 

Did you know 6 in 10 Americans have at least one chronic disease? Nearly 85% of all health care spending is spent on managing these diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, cancer, HIV, obesity, arthritis.

 

In a study by Gerard Anderson, a professor at John Hopkins, some very shocking figures are presented:

· 82% of hospital admissions and 79% of all doctor visits are by people with chronic diseases.

· People with 2 chronic diseases cost the health care system 5 times more than those without.

· Those with chronic diseases are 4 times more likely to be hospitalized.

 

Why are these percentages so high? The answer is simple. We are old and fat. In a country where 2 in 3 American adults are overweight, and 1 in 8 Americans are over the age of 65, it is no surprise that heart disease kills 1 person every 34 seconds and diabetes diagnoses have doubled over the past decade.

 

However, we MUST realize prescription drugs curtail the costs. Drug prices do not drive up health care costs.

 

Example: Lipitor is cheaper than heart surgery.

 

The Journal of the American Medical Association reported that from 1999-2006 after tracking nearly 45,000 heart patients from 14 different countries, the rate of death from heart attacks dropped by half. Why? The increasing number of cholesterol-lowering drugs, blood thinners, stents, and angioplasties did the trick. From 1999-2005, the proportion of patients developing congestive heart failure dropped from 19.5% to 11.

 

A 2005 study in Medical Care found that $4-7 is saved on other medical spending for every additional dollar spent on drugs for blood pressure, cholesterol, and diabetes. Additionally, a paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research states that Medicare saves $2.06 for every dollar spent on medications. 

 

True: Prescriptions cost money, but cost less than hospitalization and surgery.

 

False: Drug prices drive up health care costs.

 

 

*All facts and figures taken from studies cited in The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen’s Guide by Sally C. Pipes. I strongly urge you to read this book for more information. 

False. 

 

This post is not about downplaying the problems with access to medical care in America but about bringing to light the necessary facts to lead us to a more reasonable conclusion on the proper remedies for expanding access.

 

Results from surveys conducted by the United States Census Bureau show that 15% of the American population is in fact uninsured. However, these results hold potential for a very large margin of error. Numbers are likely to be underreported, meaning coverage is likely to be significantly higher, and the individuals may have been uninsured just during the time that the surveys were taken. 

 

Though there are 46 million Americans without health insurance, “lacking access” and simply being “uninsured” hold completely different implications. 

 

Let's look at a break down of the numbers. 

 

Of 46 million uninsured Americans:

· 38% earn more than $50,000 per year.

· 30% are eligible for Medicare, Medicaid & SCHIP but aren't registered.

· 25% are not U.S. citizens but merely reside in the U.S.

 

The government would like us to believe that the uninsured are simply "down and out." However, in 2008, of $86 billion spent on health care, $30 billion was by the uninsured. Thus, the largest group of uninsured Americans still recieve medical care.

 

A segment of this group (the largest group of uninsured) is classified as the "invincibles," according to the Commonwealth Fund, and is comprised of Americans aged 18-29. The invicibles category is one of the largest and fastest-growing segments of the uninsured.

 

The second largest group of uninsured Americans qualify for government programs but are not enrolled. Twenty-seven percent non-elderly Americans are eligible for Medicaid yet not enrolled. During his campaign, President Obama constantly reiterated that nearly 8 million children lack access to health insurance. The truth is nearly 6 million of these children (75% of 8 million) are in fact eligible for federally-mandated programs. 

 

Why are they not enrolled? Finding the answer to this question is critical before we fundamentally change the way people access medical care in our country.

 

The third largest group of the uninsured, though they can still receive free treatment in the ER, is comprised of people merely living in the United States. They are not United States citizens and do not pay taxes.

 

There are a couple of facts worth noting that were not mentioned during all the campaign propaganda:

1. The number of households without health insurance making less than $25,000 year has gone down since 1998.

2. The fastest growing segment of uninsured Americans is actually making more than $75,000 per year. 

 

The problem with the largest group of uninsured Americans is not a lack of access but a lack of planning and responsibility.

 

The sad reality of all these statistics is that there are still about 4 million poor, continually uninsured Americans that fall through the cracks. Our focus should not be on completely changing the American health care system, but rather focusing on what our system can change in order to provide proper care for these individuals.

 

True: There are about 4 million continually uninsured Americans.

False: 46 million Americans lack access to health care.

 

 

False. 

 

In 1950, the average American spent $500 on healthcare (2006 inflation-adjusted dollars) representing 5% of GDP. In 2006, the average American spent $7,026 comprising 16% of GDP.

 

Yes, we are spending more on health care than 50 years ago.  

 

However, it is of dire importance that we consider the following realities: 

·During the course of the 20th Century, life expectancy increased by 30 years.

·Between 1950 and 2000, the death rate from heart disease decreased by 59%, and from 1993-2000, the rate dropped another 22%

· In 1900, a male had an 18% chance of dying by age 1, but in 2005, the mortality rate didn’t reach 18% until age 62. 

 

Yes, we are paying 14 times as much on health care as was spent in 1950, but in my opinion, we are receiving an amazing return. The fact of the matter is: we pay more because it is worth it.

 

In a time when life-saving advances are made in medicine at an unprecedented rate, society must realize that these advances come with a cost. Consider cardiac care: pacemakers cost roughly between $20-25,000 and a bypass surgery costs tens of thousands of dollars. However, we're talking about several years added to a human life. In considering the low prices promised by socialized medicine, the cost isn't low if you end up paying with your life. 

 

Even still, the amount spent on health care comprises only 5.4% of the average household income.

 

Consider this breakdown of the costs for an average American family:

· Housing: 40.8%

· Transportation: 18.3%

· Food: 18.2%

· Health care: 5.4%

· Clothing: 4.5%

 

Though there are many inefficiencies driving the costs of health care up, there are more sensible ways of reform than resorting to a nationalized health care system. 

 

True: We must keep health care costs in perspective.

False: We’re spending too much on health care.

 

Facts and figures taken from studies cited in Sally Pipes' The Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide.

False. 

  

Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP—all three are inefficient and unsuccessful government-run healthcare programs created for providing proper care to the underprivileged and elderly. The suggested remedy to our "failing system" is to place full control of America’s healthcare into the already inefficient and unqualified hands of the federal government. 

 

If 60% of the healthcare economy is already run by the government, then placing the other 40% of our system into the hands of the feds is ludicrous!

 

Take a look at these facts:

 

·  Medicare wastes $1 out of every $3 while rationing care & denying medical claims at twice the rate of private insurers. It will take a 6.4% payroll tax to keep the program afloat by 2017. If someone makes a modest $30,000 per year, that's an additional $1920 in taxes per year!

 

·  Because of low reimbursement costs for doctors and hospitals, 1 in 3 seniors are struggling to find a new doctor. In California, $45 billion was shifted to private payers & hospitals to compensate for unpaid Medicare costs while $738 million in charges were paid by the private sector in Washington state to make up for underpayments by Medicare and Medicaid in 2004.

 

·  For veterans, claims take between 127 and 177 days to process—well above private industry average: 89.5%.

 

Are these federally mandated programs running efficiently? I’ll leave the answer up to you.

 

Would a single payer (the government) be able to effectively negotiate prices? 

 

Pipes, in her book The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide, presents an example from a previous attempt, and failure, by our government to do exactly this by eliminating the middle-man:

 

During World War II, price controls were placed on a wide range of goods and services. As a result, a lucrative black market emerged for everything from cars to underwear, and businesses that didn’t go underground cut their costs by lowering their quality. Consumer Reports, in a 1943 study, tested 20 candy bars and found the 19 had shrunk in size compared to the previous year. 

 

There is only one area in which price controls prove effective: limiting innovation. By cutting costs, research will most certainly be cut too resulting in detrimental effects for health care. All we have to do is take a look at the state of our European counterparts. Here are a few simple facts on cancer patients that Pipes provides: 

 

· For 13 of the 16 most common cancers, Americans have a higher survival rate across the board.

 

· Among men, an American has a 20% better chance of living 5 years after diagnosis.

 

· American women have a 7.2% better chance of living 5 years after cancer diagnosis.

 

Maybe these statistics are why tens of thousands of Europeans flee to America for advanced or sophisticated procedures unavailable, or rather rationed, in their own country. 

 

Health care is like food, shelter and clothing: They are each critical to our survival but are not to be guaranteed by government. The problem is that many Americans have created a false reality in which they place their “inalienable rights.”

 

If government health care is the answer, why don’t we put the feds in charge of providing a house for every homeless American too?

 

True: The American health care system is in need of reform.

 

False: Government provided health care will prove most efficient reform.