NATIONAL HEALTHCARE – A POISON PILL
Whose fault is it?
We Americans have been trained to blame someone. It can't be
our fault that health care is so expensive, so we find someone else to blame. It
must be their fault. But who are they? Politicians? Insurance companies? Doctors?
Lawyers with outrageous lawsuits? Drug companies?
Why is Health Care and Health Insurance so expensive in the
U.S.? Why are politicians so eager to have National Health
Care? The politicians who insist we need National Healthcare have a much better health plan than
the average citizen will ever have. Will they get rid of
their plan and use the same plan as the rest of us? Not
likely; unless the citizens insist on major reforms. Do we
really want to
just mimick national health plans that have failed so
miserably in other countries. Michael Moore's movie was
supposed to shed some light on it, but instead he used the
movie to tell more half truths and lies. John Stoessel
interviewed Michael Moore for his special on ABC and asked
why he was so misleading in the movie. He could not answer
the question. If health care is so good in Cuba why doesn't
Michael Moore go there and get in line with the rest of the
citizens in Cuba?
Back to the question, whose fault is it? It is the fault of every politician and legislator at the
National and State level of government.
They are the ones who pass the laws. They are the ones who
enable the abuses. They are the ones who
have a different and better health plan than the rest of us.
Consequently, they have no idea on how to
solve the problem; except..... you guessed it, to pass more
laws and declare, that the only solution is a
Government sponsored Health Insurance Plan paid for by you,
the lowly taxpayer. What better way to add to the
bureaucracy, have another pool of money to play with, allege
and find more abuses and pass even more laws. (Did you know
the US legislators double the number of laws on the books
every 20 years?)
Government sponsored Health Care???? Are you kidding. The
Government can't even secure our borders. They
can't track 12 million illegal immigrants. The Government can't
communicate from one law enforcement group to
another making us vulnerable to social predators and
international criminals like the Russian Mafia.
They cannot even process passport requests in less than four
months. The State and Federal Government cannot get aid to areas
suffering catastrophic incidents. One billion dollars was miss-appropriated and given to the wrong
people by FEMA in Louisiana after the Katrina Hurricane.
Since when has government done anything efficiently and
without loss of taxpayer dollars?
In New York City alone there was a reported 3 billion
dollars in Medicare Fraud over the last two
years. That is 3 billion dollars of your tax dollars. Can
you imagine the graft and corruption that would
exist with a National feeding trough of health care dollars?
That is just the tip of the iceberg. Add up
the corruption nationwide and we could all retire with
benefits befitting royalty.
Is National Health Care really the answer?
Here are some recent examples of National Health Care in
other countries.
A 53 year old Doctor of Psychology in Montreal goes for a
Physical. They see something suspicious.
Three months later they do a biopsy and find it is uterine cancer.
She asks how long before the treatment will
start? She is told the earliest they can start her treatment
is six (6) months. She is upset and finds she
cannot buck the system. She finds a cancer clinic in Boston
and goes for immediate treatment, paying
the $60,000 cost herself. Why? Because she wanted to live.
A 22 year old nurse at a Windsor Hospital finds a lump in
her breast. It takes her three months to schedule a biopsy.
They find it is cancerous but cannot operate for three (3)
months. She waits and has the cancer removed. Why is this so
bad? Because she is one of the nurses in the national health
care system.
A 71 year old woman in Essexville finds out she has Cancer.
They tell her they cannot operate for
nine(9) months. She does not have enough money to seek care
in the U.S. The result; it gets out of
control and she dies.
A thirty four (34) year old breaks his leg playing sports
and goes to the hospital. He is told they will
need to put in some screws and a plate. They set the leg as
best they can and put a cast on it. His
operation cannot be scheduled for six months because there
is a shortage of bone surgeons. When his
operation date comes around they must re-break his leg to
repair it. It will never be the same.
A female member of the Canadian Parliament who has been
pushing for National Health Care for years
becomes ill. She knows she will not get the care she needs in
the Canadian system. She secretly arranges
her care in the U.S. She acknowledged that even she, as a
long standing member of the Canadian
Parliament cannot get pushed to the top of the waiting list;
Even if she did, it would not be the same as
the care she gets in the U.S.
In the US many of the hospitals have MRI equipment and other
advanced technology. In Canada they
may only have one machine in each city and it runs 24 hours
a day, with a huge waiting list.
If you are a smoker
you cannot qualify for an operation in Canada or England.
Would you like to hear a real person faced with brain cancer in Canada? Click here
http://www.freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php
In England
the national health care system is now charging co-pays.
Many citizens are upset that 40% of the money they earn is used
for national health care and now they have the additional burden
of co-pays to see a doctor and other services. They complain
they are now paying twice for the same service. It gets even
worse, because the co-pays are expected to continually go up.
Eventually when the co-pay to see a doctor is 30#s, the poor
will not be able to afford it. Then they will be right back in
the same predicament.
The reality is that
every one seeking treatment in a national run health care
system is evaluated on a cost benefit
analysis. What is their income? How old are they? Are they a
productive member of society? Do they own a business that
employs others? What is the statistical chance they will die
anyway in the next several years? The answers to these
questions determine where someone gets into the waiting
line.
Most older people do not have a prayer or any expectation of receiving
the care or surgeries when they need it.
Consequently, many must seek treatment in another country, paying
cash for the surgery or treatment. Ask the younger citizens
how they feel about the national health care and they will
tell you it is great except for the 40% of their income that
is taken to pay for it. Ask the older citizens over 65 that
have serious medical problems and they will tell you it is
terrible.
In some Scandinavian countries the citizens pay 65% of every
dollar they earn in taxes. Is this where we should take our
country? Right now only 50% of Americans pay any income tax. If
we chase the 50% out of the country with even higher taxes, who
will pay the bills?
On 03/25/08, the trustees for Social Security and Medicare in
their annual report said that both programs are in serious
trouble. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said "Without
change, rising costs for Medicare and Social Security will drive
government spending to unprecedented levels, consuming all
federal revenues and threaten America's future". They
project the Medicare trust fund will be wiped out by 2019. In
2041 the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted.
The present Medicare system accounts for 35% of the national
budget. According to the Congressional Budget Office it will
take 50% of the budget in just 10 more years, by 2018.
Imagine the cost of a national health care plan for everyone.
The country will go broke or the system will break as it has in
other countries.
What are the Presidential Candidates thinking? Do they have a
magic wand to wave? Do they have a money tree? No, they are only
saying what you want to hear to get elected. How can any U.S. politician be advocating better
prescription coverage for seniors, better care for seniors
and then advocate national healthcare which in the long run
puts seniors health care at the back of the line? Do they
have a clue?
Taxes Soar
Even though health care gets much worse for the chronically ill and seniors in a national
health care system, the taxes soar. Canadians pay 40 cents of every dollar they earn to
support national health care.
EVERYONE PAYS. Companies no longer need to provide health care for their employees, but
under a national healthcare system, all businesses must now pay a
hefty tax to provide
healthcare for the masses.
Canadian Officials turn their head.
As reported on ABC by John Stoessel in September 2007,
private health clinics are now popping up
around Canada and offering services and minor operations for
cash. Even though it is against Canadian
law, the officials are turning their head knowing their
citizens need the services and they too, may need
them someday.
Some Canadian provinces are now contracting with Hospitals
in the US to take the most serious cases
because they cannot take care of them in Canada since many of
the specialists have left.
If you know of any cases like this please forward them to us
so we can add them to our list.
Why is it so hard to get
treatment in a National Health Care System?
Because any free service will have many takers,
seeking better and better treatment. Eventually there is not
enough money to support the system. Doctors are asked to
take less pay. What do the doctors do? They leave for a
better place. Hospitals are asked to take less money. What
do they do? They cut back on the equipment they buy, they
reduce the research into newer medicines and treatments.
They pay for fewer specialists. The
consequences are obvious, resulting in much worse health
care and a tax on society that begins to cripple the
economy.
Is the US system perfect?
Of course not! But it is far better than the National Care that
exists in other countries.
Those who are healthy in a national health care country,
believe it is a great system. For those who
become seriously ill national health care is a terrible system.
Why do so many foreign leaders come to the US for operations
and treatment?
Because they know the best health
care in the world is in a system that competes for the
health care dollars and where research on new cures and
surgical techniques is rewarded.
Can our Health Care be better?
Of course it can, but not by
advocating Hillary Care or any other
government sponsored plan.
The recent legislation to upgrade the
SCHIP
plan by Congress would have given health
care to children whose family income was $80,000. The SCHIP
program already covers children at 200% of the poverty level
for only $5 per month which includes all medical, dental and
optical. Even though it is against the rules, some 17
states are now using the money to give health care to
illegal alien adults. Some are using the money for low
income adults in general. In Minnesota 87% of SCHIP
dollars go to care for adults with the majority of them
being illegal aliens. Why aren't all children in
Minnesota covered if they can give 87% to care for adults?
The proposed upgrade to SCHIP
is not intended to help low income children, it is a blatant
attempt to piecemeal a National
Health Care plan for the U.S. Who will pay for it?
As asked by John Stoessel in the September report.......If you had national food insurance would you take the least
expensive food? No, you would take the
best available, driving the cost up until restrictions and
rationing had
to be implemented. Taxes would be increased to make up for
shortages. Eventually the cost and
restrictions would be so great that everyone would complain
just as they do where seriously ill people
can no longer get the care they need in a national health
care system.
If our legislative leaders were truly interested in solving
the problem instead of creating more
bureaucracy and more feeding troughs for their best friends
they could improve the system.
Our health care costs are 50% higher than they should be
because litigation attorneys are out of control.
Malpractice insurance is driving doctors and hospitals out
of business. Why can't the representatives
and senators solve this problem.? Because most of them are
litigation attorneys.
National leaders, Presidential candidates and others are
telling us the only solution is a government run
National Health Care plan. What makes it even worse is the
parading of people who may have had a
problem with their insurance company. Recently some legislators even
sank to parading children who have received care in front of
the public trying to make them think the children would have
died without the new legislation. In fact the children were
taken care of by the existing system.
Instead of solving the problem the legislators scream the
only solution is a feeding trough of money
called National Health Care, that they can use for their own
miss-directed means. If the politicians
really believe this, then they should be forced to live under
the same plan as the average citizen just as
the member of parliament in Canada did.
Politicians are either vastly uninformed or are looking for
more money.
We know from the few examples we stated at the beginning of
this article that government is inefficient
and usually broken. We know from the experiences of the
thousands from other countries seeking
health care in the US that their system does not work.
Even now there are states implementing forms of nationalized
health care.
In Michigan AARP is financing a petition drive along with
Lieutenant Governor Cherry, to have an amendment added to the Michigan State Constitution
mandating Universal
healthcare for the state. AARP is providing $100,000 to finance it. Apparently AARP who is an advocate
for Seniors does not know how severe national health care is on seniors. Apparently AARP does not think
their business of selling insurance products to seniors will be affected. If they thought their income
was going to be negatively impacted they certainly would not take this action.
Blue Cross Blue Shield wants their own form on one payer
healthcare.
In Michigan, Blue Cross Blue Shield
wrote legislation and had a state representative introduce the legislation in the State House
as HB4202 in Feb 2007. (type in the house bill number for
Michigan on Google and read the bill if you need proof) The
Legislation in effect eliminated most competition for BCBSM.
The goal of BCBSM appears to be, to force a form of national health care
on Michigan with them as the administrator and only
provider. Because of resistance they met in the
state house they withdrew their support of the bill and
introduced four more bills in September of 2007.
(House Bills HB 5282 through HB5285) These new bills act as
sort of a half step to full control. They may believe they can
get the rest later on.
Michigan Attorney General
Mike Cox held a press conference stating his opposition to
the bills. On a recent program called "Off the Record" with
Tim Skubick, (12-14-07) the AG said Blue Cross Blue Shield
of Michigan built up their profit off the citizens of
Michigan. "They were a non-profit charged with a social
benevolent position. They have a private equity fund of $ 3
Billion dollars built up off the citizens of Michigan. They
could go buy a casino if they wanted to. They want to
increase profit 30%, drive other competitors out of the
market, raise rates on the sickest citizens up to 250%
without any intercession and push the insurance commissioner
out of the ballgame. They want to change the rules to
benefit only them. They get over $100 million a year because
of the goodwill of Michigan citizens. They became piggish
and tried to grab everything for themselves and rewrite the
rules (the legislation) before anyone paid attention."
A few
days earlier, Paul Austin the VP of Blue Cross Blue Shield
Michigan said on WJR radio (Paul Smith Show) that he did not
understand the resistance. "Well Paul W., it is the same
legislation passed in many other states that other BCBS
franchisees are in." This statement shows this is a national
strategy of Blue Cross Blue Shield Franchisees across the
country to control the insurance industry. The first
legislation was passed in New Jersey in 1993 and now the cost for
health insurance for a family is double or triple that of
states with more competition.
In Pennsylvania, where
health insurance costs are already high, BCBS is trying to
get legislation passed similar to that in New Jersey.
Governor Rendel is supporting the legislation which will
cause health insurance costs to increase dramatically for
individuals and companies. BCBS is non-partisan, and
contributes the maximum allowed by law to state
representatives and senators regardless of party
affiliation. They contribute as much as possible to the
governor. Their purpose is not to side with any particular
party, but to dominate health insurance. Many of the BCBS
franchisees are purchasing insurance companies covering
workmens compensation, Property and Casualty, Long Term Care
and more. They use excess dollars collected from their tax
exempt status to buy people, politicians, companies and
more. They have no limits on advertising and continually run
ads to convince the general public and politicians about
their good intentions. The reality is the Blues have lost
their way and are no longer the benevolent organization the
founders wanted back in the 1930's.
Virtually every legislator in every state receives campaign
contributions from the BCBS
franchise in their state. In Michigan BCBS was the third
largest contributor to the governors most recent campaign. Nationally, BCBS was the third
largest campaign contributor to politicians running for
office when all the dollars are added up. The numbers
are readily available on Google. The Michigan BCBS franchise
appears to have no controls on spending. Over the past two
years they have spent 450 million excess dollars on creating
or buying for profit companies. Are they abusing their tax
exempt status? They spend up to 50 times more on Marketing,
Advertising, Public Relations Firms and lobbyists.
Apparently, there are no controls on this spending and no
state oversight. If they are the insurance of last resort
should the dollars be used to reduce the cost of insurance
to medically challenged individuals? They also spent 250
million on tech initiatives with a department of 100
individuals over the past two years. Where did the money go?
Which companies received the money? Did those companies send
the money off to someone else? Were bonuses paid out of the
money and to whom and how much? The Michigan
experience is the same pattern followed by other BCBS
franchisees in other states. Excess dollars being used to
buy for profit companies and tighten control over the
insurance industry.
In some of those states the
cost of health care has doubled. Look at New York, New
Jersey and Colorado. Regarding BCBS efforts to push
through legislation in Colorado,The governor said "When any
company receives tax exempt status and buys other assets
with the money that taxpayes had to forego (and the services
they would have provided) then the assets belong to the
citizens of the state."
What is the usual result
of the exclusivity and higher rates? A clamoring
for National health care. If this becomes a reality at the national level, there will
have to be a compromise. As an appeasement for those who do
not want pure national healthcare, a carrot will be tossed
out and they will allow some private companies to run the
program. Guess who will be waiting in the wings to do this?
The largest health insurance organization. Millions of
dollars are being spent to convince the general public BCBS
is only concerned with the citizens welfare and the general
public believes it.
As President Eisenhower said, When big government and big
corporations get together it can only be to the detriment of
the average citizen. This is exactly what is happening. Do
we really need national health care run by politicians
who are only concerned about how to enrich themselves? A
system of laws that makes healthcare available to all
citizens from companies who are kept under control and
compete for the business is a much better alternative?
Has BCBS been good for the U.S. and millions of citizens?
Yes, however; it appears the social mission they were
founded on in the 1930's has been lost. They still provide
many citizens in Michigan the health insurance they need
when they have debilitating medical issues, but it was BCBS
that sought out this special classification and secured it
with Public Act 350 in 1983. We have placed many of our clients and companies with
BCBS because it was the best option for the client. We are
now concerned that it may become the only option. If the wellbeing of the citizens is still their
mission as their millions of dollars in marketing states,
then their their actions betray them.
When will our elected officials get it?
If you are
an advocate for national health care then you
are advocating fewer states rights and fewer citizens rights.
You are also asking for higher taxes, fewer profitable
businesses and a version of the movie "Soylent Green" for
the senior citizens. Do you really believe that only government can make your decisions for you?
When Government wants to make your decisions for you, it is because in
their superior wisdom the politicians believe you are not
capable of making them.
This may not mean a total absence of national
oversight, but a limited amount of interference in a
citizens right to make their own decisions. You should be demanding
the legislators wake up and start passing laws that favor
the citizens and not the special interest groups.
We
support some Federal guidelines regarding health care to
prevent the mish mash of laws that drive health care costs
up.
Support legislation to limit the lawsuits
that are forcing doctors and hospitals out of business
because they can no longer afford the malpractice insurance.
Believe it or not there are ways to solve the high cost of
health care without destroying the system as they have in
other countries. We can provide proper care for all of our
citizens without creating a feeding trough for the
politicians and special interests. Most legitimate insurance
companies would welcome the chance to participate in a forum
to make this a reality. National Controls would be required to
prevent abuse of citizens and to prevent profit windfalls by
certain companies.
Of all the Presidential
candidates offering health insurance reforms, those offering
a combination of private insurance with government subsidy
show the most promise. This would allow the U.S. to prevent
the same failures of other countries with national health
care. It would allow those who want health
insurance to purchase it at a reasonable price and control
run away profits.
An example of the above may be as
follows;
--All companies offering group insurance would be
required to offer individual insurance in every state they
are licensed to do business. Individual only companies would
not be required to sell group insurance.
--They would be required to
offer a comprehensive plan, and an HSA plan.
--Income groups
would be established by the government, by zip code, similar to
those for the Medicare Advantage Plans. The areas would take
into account the COLA and other factors such as average income.
--Based on a person or families income they would pay full price
or a discounted price for the health insurance plan they choose.
--To receive the discount, individuals would be required to provide
their tax return for the previous year with the application, the
same as is required for Disability insurance today. This allows
the low income families to pay less on an ongoing basis rather
than wait for a tax refund. Most low income families live from
month to month and cannot wait for a refund. They need lower
cost from the beginning. The base would be set as low as $25 per
month for the lowest income families.
--The insurance
companies would be responsible for submitting the necessary
documents to a government agency to receive the difference
between what the person paid vs. someone who pays the full
price.
--Companies would be required to sell a specified
number of policies to non subsidized individuals to keep them
from becoming a welfare type of provider.
--Each state
insurance commissioner would still have jurisdiction over the
insurance laws of the state.
--All states would be required to set up a revolving list of companies
who would insure high risk individuals and families. The rate up
for these individuals would be set at a percentage above the
base price of their policies. This would ensure that all members
of society would be able to get insurance even with medical
conditions. Those with medical conditions would pay more and age
rating would be allowed within a pre-determined amount. The
discounts based on income would apply to them as well.
-- No
state legislature would be allowed to pass laws that caused the
rates in the state to be more than 30% above the national
average. This would prevent large influential health insurance
corporations from getting legislation passed in their favor as
BCBS does now.
--Employers would be allowed to deduct the
cost of individual insurance from an employees pay to avoid
payroll taxes on the individual.
--Drug companies would not
be able to charge more than 30% higher than the average cost of
a drug they charge to the rest of the world.
--Lawsuits would be limited to a maximum
award depending on the loss to the plaintiff.
--Any attorney who brings a lawsuit against any
hospital or doctor will be required to pay 50% of the cost of the defending party attorney fees if they lose
the lawsuit.
--Rates would be determined by the marketplace and not an overzealous State Insurance Commissioner.
In Washington the insurance commissioner had the authority to hold down rates and within a few years 43 health
insurance carriers left the state.
This allows private industry
to continue searching for new cures, new ways of treating
diseases, prevents a bureaucracy that in the long run does not
work and eliminates the rash of lawsuits and awards that have
crippled the health care industry. It will bring down the cost
of malpractice insurance and prescriptions, the two fastest
growing costs of health care in the U.S. Most importantly it
allows the U.S. to provide health care for anyone who is
interested in having it.
As Thomas Jefferson said "A Government
big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to
take everything you have."
Once the country starts
down the path of national health care we can never go back
to the system the rest of the world envies. Let your Senators and Representatives know
what you support.
|
Health Insurance
Auto Insurance
Homeowners Insurance
Life Insurance
Long Term Care Insurance (LTC)
Website
Promotion provided by Allchoice, Inc.
| |
|
