Healthcare Debate
Bush is going to hell PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 1
Written by gabriel   
Wednesday, 10 October 2007

That is, if you believe in that sort of thing. For those Hindus, he's not going to be reincarnated as a higher being.  For those Buddhists, he's nowhere near nirvana, let's put it that way. 

Why do I say this?  I cannot think of a president who has so consistently come down on the wrong side of morality. Just a few examples:

-Iraq:  Bush invaded Iraq without cause , made horrible decisions that resulted in the chaos we have today. Being incapable of admitting mistake, he clings to the righteousness of his decision in the face of 66% voter disapproval.  There is only one president in history with lower approval ratings - Nixon - and he was only at 67%.  Specifically, over 3800 US soldiers have died, a startling 80,000 iraqi civilians have died "violent deaths", and a mind boggling 655,000 total iraqi deaths are attributed to the war.  The cost so far has been $458,000,000,000 and this year he is asking for $190,000,000,000 , the highest level yet. "The end of major combat operations."  Indeed. 

-environment: To give you a sense of how Bush thinks of environment issues, he appointed Steven Griles, a lobbyist for the mining, oil and gas industries, as deputy secretary of the interior department.  Talk about a fox in the hen house!  He has steadfastly opposed mileage improvements. Has supported drilling in Alaska. He has not made the major investments needed in alternative energy. He has refused to sign the Kyoto accord (see my article on global warming .  About the only good thing he's done is support nuclear energy (which has the potential to significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions). 

-AIDS and reproduction policies:  Supporting the radical religious right, the Bush administration focused international AIDS prevention resources and funds on ineffectual abstinence programs and opposed education on the use of condoms.  According to the New York Times , "President Bush's decision to stop the funds for any overseas family-planning group that mentions abortion has also effectively stopped condom provision to 16 countries and reduced it to 13 others, including some with the world's highest rates of AIDS infection."  By following this ineffectual and ideologically driven policy, this administration has forgone the investments needed to reduce AIDS transmission and is indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands if not millions of additional AIDS related deaths in Africa.

His latest morally bankrupt move, Bush vetoed a plan to expanded health care coverage to 4 million additional  poor, uninsured children. The bill enjoyed wide, bipartisan support in congress. It would cover uninsured children whose parents cannot afford coverage. The cost is $35 billion over 5 years.  See my article on health care reform for why this is a moral imperative.

I mean, really. We spent $458 billion on an unjustified war that has made us less safe, and we can't afford health care for our children? 

There has never been a president more interested (and dare I say evil?) in serving a few personal relationships to the detriment of an entire nation and world.

Yes, Bush is going to hell. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars. Go directly to hell.

Technorati Profile
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 09 April 2008 )
 
Universal Healthcare: How to Fix Healthcare in the United States PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 3
Written by gabriel   
Sunday, 22 July 2007

Health care in the United States is broken. Every individual deserves access to health care both preventative and emergency.  This is a wealthy country, and the idea of letting people die for lack of medical access is unthinkable.  

Let's start with a few premises on healthcare: 

  1. Health care is a human right
  2. It is in the interest of society to satisfy this right in the most cost effective and efficient manner

Let's get past the rhetoric and look at the facts:

  • Over the past 15 years, health care costs have increased on average at double digit rates, far out-pacing inflation.  This  rate of increase is  unsustainable, and is quickly becoming one of the largest single costs for individuals and corporations alike.
  • An uninsured person visiting a doctor pays a rate that is nearly double that of an insured person FOR THE SAME DOCTOR.  This is the person that can least afford to pay such outrageous rates.
  • Uninsured people, unable to visit a physician for preventative care, must resort to emergency room care which is orders of magnitude more expensive that preventative care and results in uninsured people not catching major diseases like cancer that are treatable early in an illness.
  • One major reason that insurance is so expensive is that the insured subsidize emergency care visits from the uninsured, who typically have no means to pay for such a visit.

So what can be done about it? 

There are two angles to attack this:  

  1. Universal healthcare coverage
  2. Cost reduction

Arnold Schwartzeneger, a republican no less, has proposed mandatory universal medical care for all California citizens.  It relies on a combination of individual contributions, public funding, and corporate subsidies.  I think that's absolutely the right way to attack this.  It doesn't rely on nationalization, and it spreads the responsibility fairly.

Healthcare coverage needs to be universal and mandatory.  Otherwise, there will continue to be cross-subsidies and a reliance on reactive care, which is far more expensive than preventative care.

There are a few prerequisites to implement mandatory universal healthcare coverage. 

First, corporations need to provide healthcare to employees on reasonable terms.  Before you get up in arms about that making the US uncompetitive, in Japan, which is an incredibly competitive nation and exporter, healthcare is provided for all employees at a dramatically lower rate than in US.  The US just needs to get the costs down.

Second, individuals and families who can afford it should chip in and bear part of the cost of their healthcare.  Personally, that means that I will have to pay my fair share, which I can accept.  On the other hand, people who can't afford it should have a government subsidy for their healthcare premiums.  And people in the middle will get a mix.

Universal healthcare coverage doesn't necessarily mean equal coverage.  This is a capitalistic society after all.  There will still be high end doctors for the wealthiest people, and the average person may still not be able to afford that.  That's fine, and not too different from today.  But the average person WILL get access to quality physicians, and that's the important point.

Last Updated ( Saturday, 22 November 2008 )
 

Syndicate