Posts Tagged ‘Healthcare Availability’
« Older Entries |
Thursday, March 11th, 2010
CNSNews.com
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., left, talks with Sen. John Cornyn, D-Texas, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 9, 2010, as they walk to McConnell’s office, following the weekly caucus luncheons. (AP Photo/Harry Hamburg)
(CNSNews.com) – Republicans appear to be winning the battle of ideas, according to a Rasmussen Reports survey of American voters that found the GOP is trusted more than Democrats on
eight out of 10 policy issues.The survey, released on March 5, shows that Republicans are trusted more than Democrats on issues ranging from the economy to abortion.
The issue at the forefront of Americans’ minds – although not at the top of Congress’ agenda – is the economy, where a plurality of the public, 46 percent, trust Republicans, the survey found.
Only 41 percent of Americans trust Democrats more on the economy, marking a major turnaround during a year of rising unemployment despite nearly $800 billion in federal stimulus spending. At the start of President Barack Obama’s first term, January 2009, Democrats enjoyed a nine-point lead over Republicans on the issue.
Republicans are also trusted more, and by a similar margin, on what has become Obama’s and the Democrats’ signature issue: health care. Forty-five percent of Americans trust Republicans on health care issues, while only 42 percent put their faith in Democrats.
That gap widens among independents, who trust Republicans 45-to-29 percent over Democrats.
On taxes, Republicans hold an 11-point lead over Democrats, 48 to 37 percent. This gap has narrowed since February, the survey found, when Republicans enjoyed a 16-point advantage.
Republicans have a 10-point lead on national security issues, despite the fact that the Obama administration has continued many Bush-era policies and has increased U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan.
Rasmussen found that 47 percent of Americans place their trust in Republicans on national security issues compared with only 37 percent who trust Democrats.
Republicans have a smaller advantage on the more narrow issue of the war in Iraq, with 42 percent of the public trusting the GOP and only 38 percent putting more faith in Democrats.
Neither party earns much trust on the issue of immigration, though Republicans hold a slight advantage there as well. Thirty-nine percent of Americans have more faith in Republicans, while 34 percent place more trust in Democrats on the issue.
(A separate Rasmussen Reports poll found that 67 percent of Americans think that illegal immigrants place a “significant strain” on the federal budget.)
Americans also trust Republicans over Democrats by a small margin on Social Security, with 42 percent saying they trust the GOP and 38 percent saying they trust Democrats.
Surprisingly, Rasmussen reported an identical split on a different social issue: abortion.
Previous surveys had shown Republicans with a wide margin on the contentious issue; a margin which has shrunk to a mere four-point divide. Forty-two percent of Americans told Rasmussen they trusted Republicans more on the issue, while 38 percent said they put more trust in Democrats.
Democrats enjoyed a lead over Republicans on two issues: education and government ethics.
Americans reported that they trusted Democrats more than Republicans – 41 percent to 38 percent – on education issues, a finding that Rasmussen reported had swung back from a four-point Republican advantage in its previous survey.
Americans also said they had more faith that Democrats would run a more ethical government than Republicans. From the “likely voters” surveyed, 35 percent put more faith in the Democrats compared to 28 percent who trusted Republicans more to run an ethical government – 27 percent said they did not know who they trusted to run government ethically.
For these results, two surveys of 1,000 likely voters were conducted by Rasmussen Reports Feb. 27 – March 2, 2010. The margin of error for each survey was plus or minus three percentage points with a 95 percent level of confidence.
Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, Election 2010, Healthcare Availability, Houston Voters, National Security, Public Education, Trust
Posted in National Issues, The U.S. Government | No Comments »
Wednesday, March 10th, 2010
Small steps toward a much better world.
[Answer 0 ]
Megan McArdle has an excellent post on that question and here is her column. Here is one startling bit:
To my mind probably the single most solid piece of evidence is this: turning 65–i.e., going on Medicare–doesn’t reduce your risk of dying. If lack of insurance leads to death, then that should show up as a discontinuity in the mortality rate around the age of 65. It doesn’t. There are some caveats–if the effects are sufficiently long term, then it’s hard to measure, because of course as elderly people age, their mortality rate starts rising dramatically. But still, there should be some kink in the curve, and in the best data we have, it just isn’t there.
And this:
The possibility that no one risks death by going without health insurance may be startling, but some research supports it. Richard Kronick of the University of California at San Diego’s Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, an adviser to the Clinton administration, recently published the results of what may be the largest and most comprehensive analysis yet done of the effect of insurance on mortality. He used a sample of more than 600,000, and controlled not only for the standard factors, but for how long the subjects went without insurance, whether their disease was particularly amenable to early intervention, and even whether they lived in a mobile home. In test after test, he found no significantly elevated risk of death among the uninsured.
Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, Election 2010, health insurance, Healthcare Availability, Houston Voters, national healthcare, socialized medicine
Posted in National Issues, The U.S. Government | No Comments »
Wednesday, March 10th, 2010
Table Of Iatrogenic Deaths In The United States
(Deaths induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures)
| Condition |
Deaths |
Cost |
Author |
| Adverse Drug Reactions |
106,000 |
$12 billion |
Lazarou (1) Suh (49) |
| Medical error |
98,000 |
$2 billion |
IOM (6) |
| Bedsores |
115,000 |
$55 billion |
Xakellis (7) Barczak (8) |
| Infection |
88,000 |
$5 billion |
Weinstein (9) MMWR (10) |
| Malnutrition |
108,800 |
— |
Nurses Coalition (11) |
| Outpatients |
199,000 |
$77 billion |
Starfield ( 12) Weingart (1, 12) |
| Unnecessary Procedures |
37,136 |
$122 billion |
HCUP(3, 13) |
| Surgery-Related |
32,000 |
$9 billion |
AHRQ(85) |
| TOTAL |
783,936 |
$282 billion |
We could have an even higher death rate by using Dr. Lucien Leape’s 1997 medical and drug error rate of 3 million. (14) Multiplied by the fatality rate of 14 percent (that Leape used in 1994 (16) we arrive at an annual death rate of 420,000 for drug errors and medical errors combined. If we put this number in place of Lazorou’s 106,000 drug errors and the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) 98,000 medical errors, we could add another 216,000 deaths making a total of 999,936 deaths annually.
| ADR/med error |
420,000 |
$200 billion |
Leape 1997(14) |
| TOTAL |
999,936 |
Annual Unnecessary Medical Events
| Unnecessary Events |
People Affected |
Iatrogenic Events |
| Hospitalization |
8.9 million(4) |
1.78 million(16) |
| Procedures |
7.5 million(3) |
1.3 million(40) |
| TOTAL |
16.4 million |
3.08 million |
The enumerating of unnecessary medical events is very important in our analysis. Any medical procedure that is invasive and not necessary must be considered as part of the larger iatrogenic picture. Unfortunately, cause and effect go unmonitored. The figures on unnecessary events represent people (”patients”) who are thrust into a dangerous health care system. They are helpless victims. Each one of these 16.4 million lives is being affected in a way that could have a fatal consequence. Simply entering a hospital could result in the following (out of 16. 4 million people):
- 2.1 percent chance of a serious adverse drug reaction (186,000) (1)
- 5 percent to 6 percent chance of acquiring a nosocomial [hospital] infection (489,500) (9)
- 4 percent to 36 percent chance of having an iatrogenic injury in hospital (medical error and adverse drug reactions) (1.78 million) (16)
- 17 percent chance of a procedure error (1.3 million) (40)
All the statistics above represent a one-year time span. Imagine the numbers over a 10-year period.
Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, Election 2010, Healthcare Availability, Houston Voters, national healthcare, socialized medicine
Posted in National Issues, The U.S. Government | No Comments »
Monday, March 8th, 2010
Whenever Obama gets backed into a corner, I’ve noticed that he says “I’m fired up” or “you’re fired up”. bccohan The crowd didn’t look fired up though.
Obama Speech – Teleprompter Goes Out
It, however, does infer that you can get treatment now.
Tags: Barack Obama, Election 2010, Healthcare Availability
Posted in National Issues | No Comments »
Friday, March 5th, 2010
Friday, March 05, 2010
Some years ago, one of my favorite doctors retired. On my last visit to his office, he took some time to explain to me why he was retiring early and in good health.
Being a doctor was becoming more of a hassle as the years went by, he said, and also less fulfilling. It was becoming more of a hassle because of the increasing paperwork, and it was less fulfilling because of the way patients came to him.
He was currently being asked to Xerox lots of records from his files, in order to be reimbursed for another patient he was treating. He said it just wasn’t worth it. Whoever was paying– it might have been an insurance company or the government– would either pay him or not, he said, but he wasn’t going to jump through all those hoops.
My doctor said that doctor-patient relationships were not the same as they had been when he entered the profession. Back then, people came to him because someone had recommended him to them, but now increasing numbers of people were sent to him because they had some group insurance plan that included his group.
He said that the mutual confidence that was part of the doctor-patient relationship was not the same with people who came to his office only because his name was on some list of eligible physicians.
The loss of one doctor– even a very good doctor– may not seem very important in the grand scheme of heady medical care “reform” and glittering phrases about “universal health care.” But making the medical profession more of a hassle for doctors risks losing more doctors, while increasing the demand for treatment.
A study published in the November 2009 issue of the Journal of Law & Economics showed that a rise in the cost of medical liability insurance led to more reductions of hours of medical service supplied by older doctors than among younger doctors.
Younger doctors, more recently out of medical school and often with huge debts to pay off for the cost of that expensive training, may have no choice but to continue working as hard as possible to try to recoup that huge investment of money and time.
Younger doctors will probably continue working, even if bureaucrats load them down with increasing amounts of paperwork and the government continues to lower reimbursements for Medicare, Medicaid and– heaven help us– the new proposed “universal health care” legislation that is supposed to “bring down the cost of medical care.” Continued…
[My doctor told me something similar in December. He said doctors lose patients because of a $5.00 difference in co-pay in their group plan. He no longer sees new patients just a few old timers that he has had for many years. He is now employed by a large medical chain and oversees other doctors.]
Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, Election 2010, health insurance, Healthcare Availability, Houston Voters, national healthcare, socialized medicine
Posted in National Issues, The U.S. Government | No Comments »
Thursday, March 4th, 2010
Obama says its time to take control of your health care away from insurance companies and give control to the American people. Is it control by the people when government says you must buy insurance and you must by this much and you must buy it from this entity.
Right now you can buy insurance from your employer’s group, your association if you belong to one, your professional society or you can use the free clinics, the city clinics and if you are a veteran you can use the Veterans Administration. I can also use Medicare if I choose to but I don’t. I continue my membership in the AICPA even though I am retired because I could get coverage through their group plan should I need to in the future.
I am ensured by my wife’s employer because her employer picks up a lot of the costs and has a predetermined fee schedule worked out with the insurance company and the medical service providers.
During my years of working my employers changed insurance companies every couple years because they got a better deal, my wife’s as well.
If you are young and healthy you may choose to pay your own bills. Under Obama’s plan you will be fined if you do not buy an insurance product through the government entity. Most young people don’t see a doctor until about age 40 unless they break an arm, get some kind of temporary infection or have young children. So in effect if you are young and healthy you will be paying a tax since you will get no benefits in exchange for the government required premium.
There is no question that under his plan as delineated on Tuesday the government will be in control, not you.
Insurance companies do not have huge profits as he says. Their stocks are not attractive for investors looking for a good return on investment. People invest in insurance stocks because they are stable. They don’t have seasonal variations and people still need coverage in good times and bad. In bad times the unemployed may not have insurance policies but the others do.
Insurance companies are stable because the states have strict laws governing them and they are audited usually by an independent accounting firm every year as well as by the SEC every couple years and they are audited by their home state insurance department usually about every three years. When their home state is preparing to do the triennial audit they notify the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (each state has an insurance commissioner) who send auditors representing several states to join the team. The audit team usually has 3 or 4 members occasionally more and take as long as a year.
Every new policy type is approved in advance by each state in which they plan to sell it along with the rates (prices to be charged) and actuarial assumptions. Each year every insurance company in the USA must send a very detailed financial statement to each insurance commissioner in addition to any financial statements sent to the SEC and other securities regulators.
The prices for coverage as determined by actuaries are based on statistical experience over many years. If they over charge assuming it gets approved by the states, customers go elsewhere for a better deal. If they under charge they lose money on the product.
And people do watch the fees. Insurance premiums are a payroll deduction and people pay attention to their net pay.
People will change their insurance from a PPO plan where you can select your doctor to an HMO plan for a lower premium if they are both offered by their employer.
Insurance companies are not big, bad villains. You can choose to not do business with them.
Under national health care you will have no options. When the government requires insurance companies to accept people with chronic or severe illnesses for which the companies’ premium rates would not be designed, the company will lose money. What happens when the company loses money year after year? Does TARP and bailout ring a bell. What happens when the government bails out a bankrupt company? The government sets the rules. The government now owns 60+% of the stock of General Motors and it also has control of AIG.
If this health care bill becomes law, over the next several years only one entity will survive, the government’s insurance entity. You will have no choices whatsoever.
All of this fuss to provide required coverage to about 30 million people half of which do not want coverage and the other half who can now get free or extremely cheap medical care through existing channels. Our total population in the US is well over 300 million people.
(This is my personal opinion, not necessarily that of John Faulk)
Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, Election 2010, government control, health insurance, Healthcare Availability, Houston Voters, national healthcare, socialized medicine
Posted in National Issues, The U.S. Government | No Comments »
Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010
Monday, March 01, 2010
Posted by: Meredith Jessup at 12:05 PM
A (temporary) 21 percent pay cut for Medicare doctors begins today. According to BusinessWeek, this budget cut has already led many doctors to delay appointments for elderly patients:
“We don’t know what we’re getting paid this year and we need to get systems in place before the bad news,” said Bell, a 55-year-old dermatologist who practices in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, a city of more than 100,000 southeast of Nashville. The American Medical Association, the largest U.S. group for doctors, said today “many” physicians will limit patients.Annual fee reductions beginning in 2002 were baked into a formula that Congress approved in 1997 to slow growth in government spending. Starting in 2003, lawmakers have delayed the reductions, which accumulate as a result. That creates a dilemma while President Barack Obama is promising to rein in health-care costs, said Paul H. Keckley, head of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, a research arm of Deloitte LLP.
“If you look at the numbers we’ll spend on Medicare, it’s the single biggest spending in health care,” Keckley, who is based in Washington, said in a Jan. 28 interview. “We aren’t zeroing in on this and finding a way to reduce costs without compromising care.”
According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the cost of Medicare is expected to grow 1.5 percent this year to $514.7 billion–the equivalent of 1 out of every 5 dollars spent on health care in the U.S. Without the cut, Medicare spending would grow 5.1 percent.
Bottom line: There is a serious cost-control crisis in Medicare and the only way politicians try to fix it is to cut working physicians’ payments. As a result, new primary care doctors are more likely to avoid getting involved in government health care because it doesn’t effectively cover their costs–costs that often are passed onto other health care consumers.
More and more docs are likely to follow in the footsteps of larger institutions like the Mayo clinic who have stopped accepting Medicare patients altogether.
[Go to the polls! Vote for John Faulk. When you get back I'll have more out here for you to read.]
Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, Election 2010, health insurance, Healthcare Availability, national healthcare, socialized medicine
Posted in National Issues | No Comments »
Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Most discussions of health care are like something out of Alice in Wonderland.
What is the biggest complaint about the current medical care situation? “It costs too much.” Yet one looks in vain for anything in the pending legislation that will lower those costs.
One of the biggest reasons for higher medical costs is that somebody else is paying those costs, whether an insurance company or the government. What is the politicians’ answer? To have more costs paid by insurance companies and the government.
[Stop! If you haven't yet voted for John Faulk, go vote now, then come back and finish reading!]
Back when the “single payer” was the patient, people were more selective in what they spent their own money on. You went to a doctor when you had a broken leg but not necessarily every time you had the sniffles or a skin rash. But, when someone else is paying, that is when medical care gets over-used — and bureaucratic rationing is then imposed, to replace self-rationing.
Money is just one of the costs of people seeking more medical care than they would if they were paying for it with their own money. Both waiting lines and waiting lists grow longer when people with sniffles and minor skin rashes take up the time of doctors, while people with cancer are waiting.
In country after country, the original estimates of government medical care costs almost always turn out to be gross under-estimates of what it ultimately turns out to cost.
Even when the estimates are done honestly, they are based on how much medical care people use when they are paying for it themselves. But having someone else pay for medical care virtually guarantees that a lot more of it will be used.
Nothing would lower costs more than having each patient pay those costs. And nothing is less likely to happen.
One of the big costs that have actually forced some hospitals to close is the federal mandate that hospitals treat everyone who comes to an emergency room, whether they pay or not. But those who talk about “bringing down the cost of medical care” are not about to repeal that mandate. Often they want to add more mandates. Continued…
Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, Election 2010, health insurance, Healthcare Availability, Houston Voters, John Faulk, national healthcare, socialized medicine
Posted in John Faulk, National Issues | No Comments »
Sunday, February 28th, 2010
44% Rate U.S. Health Care System Good or Excellent
Sunday, February 28, 2010
All the talk about reforming health carever the past year hasn’t led to any legislation, but it has generated improved perceptions of the U.S. health care system and left voters divided about the need for reform.
Following President Obama’s bipartisan health care summit on Thursday, 44% of voters nationwide rate the U.S. health care system as good or excellent. That’s up from 35% when the President first proposed his reform ideas last May and up from 29% two years ago. In more recent months, perceptions of the system have stabilized
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% now say the U.S. health care system is poor.
Additionally, 76% of those with insurance rate their own coverage as good or excellent. Just three percent (3%) rate their own coverage as poor.
The fact that most Americans are comfortable with their own insurance coverage has proven to be a major obstacle for advocates of reform. Forty-nine percent (49%) of insured Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that the plan before Congress could force them to change their own coverage. Just 39% say it’s not likely. Those figures include 28% who say the proposed legislation is Very Likely to force them on to a new insurance plan while only 11% are confident that outcome is Not At All Likely.
Polling conducted last week showed that a solid plurality of Democrats believe it would be good for workers if they were forced off their private insurance plan and on to a government program. Republicans and unaffiliated voters disagree.
Among all voters nationwide, 49% say it’s at least somewhat important to pass health care reform this year. Forty-five percent (45%) take the opposite view and say it’s not important.
While voters are divided on the need for some kind of reform, most have consistently opposed the legislation being considered by Congress.
[Remember health insurance and health care are not synonyms. You can get free health care here.]
Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, Election 2010, health insurance, Healthcare Availability, Houston Voters, national healthcare, socialized medicine
Posted in National Issues | No Comments »
Friday, February 26th, 2010
Ed Driscoll.com
February 26th, 2010 11:06 am
MSNBC host Ed Schultz screams on his radio show, “You’re damn right, Dick Cheney’s heart’s a political football. We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him. I’m glad he didn’t tip over. He is the new poster child for health care in this country.
Actually, I’d say that Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, who told the media that “This is my heart, it’s my health, it’s my choice”, before jetting down to Florida for his operation is the best poster child for health care in America.
Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, Election 2010, health insurance, Healthcare Availability, Houston Voters, national healthcare, socialized medicine
Posted in National Issues | No Comments »
« Older Entries |
