We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The Congressional Budget Office’s initial analysis of the Republican alternative to Obama/PelosiCare is striking.Lowered federal deficit, lowered premiums, more freedom of choice, less government intrusion into medicine and peoples’ personal lives, support for health care and savings innovations (including cutting the huge costs of “defensive medicine” by having tort reform – which the tort lawyer funded Democrats conveniently left out), and increased and easier coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.
This op-edand the CBO Director’s transmittal letterbriefly sums it up; the full CBO analysis is here. According to the CBO, less of those called uninsured, although in actuality only about a quarter are citizens truly needy, would be covered than under ObamaCare.Many of those actually needy would be covered, and others already insured would better afford keeping their coverage. This is at a savings of $1+ trillion, and our freedoms, and the ability of our world-leading health care innovations to not be stifled.
Sounds like a real choice, right? Throw out the baby with the dirty water, a la ObamaCare, or provide a proper cleansing.Not with this heavily Democrat Congress.But, wait and work for 2010 to correct that.
This program may not directly control costs or shove insurance much further than it already covers, but then neither of those tasks are federal jobs. If they belong to any government (which I doubt), they belong to the states. This bill would help most by reducing barriers, undoing some governmental foolishness.
Most of the increase in healthcare costs over the last fifty years has been due to increased capability -- we can do what once we could not and it costs a pile of money. There's a ripple effect: running a cardiac arrest protocol in the field runs around $2000; if the patient survives, we've got $30k in care for the immediate episode in many cases and then ongoing care. Meantime, Tim is alive and working and in the bosom of his family. Letting him die on his living room floor would have saved something like $100,000 in lifetime costs -- at the cost of his life.
Some of the increase is things like defensive medicine, or the fact that CNAs and LPNs may need enough salary to support a family, not supplement the (usually husband's) income.
Much of the increased cost occurs in elderly people -- Alzheimer's care, cancer treatment, COPD and diabetes. Most of the Americans in the high-cost groups are already on Medicare and/or Medicaid, though of course not all.
The profit of insurance companies is so small an element in healthcare costs as not to matter.
The left-wing activist AARP has endorsed the House "healthcare" bill.
"AARP applauds the House of Representatives for moving health care reform forward with the introduction of the Affordable Health Care for America Act. . . .. The Association looks forward to continuing to work with members of the House and Senate to pass a health care bill this year . . ..
I think only massive resignations will get their attention, and their address is AARP, 601 E Street N.W., Washington, DC 20049.