"but I think the most likely reason of all was the Grinch had a heart two sizes too small" ("How the Grinch Stole Christmas," Dr. Seuss).
According to Rush Limbaugh, the health care reform that may be passed by Congress is socialism. Yet, it bears a striking resemblance to the universal healthcare system that just treated him in Hawaii that prompted his remark: "there is nothing wrong with the American health care system. I received no special treatment."
Yes, Rush. That's the point! American medicine is superb--for those who can get it. And, in Hawaii, no one gets special treatment, because everyone can get it.
[Er, by the way, just to help you out, Rush, a fair percentage of your listeners do not know Hawaii is part of the United States, so clarify that for them...otherwise, they will wonder about you]
By accepting socialist medical treatment in Hawaii, therefore, Rush Limbaugh has shown that, when one is ill, what matters is the availability of quality health care, even if it is socialist.
Rush follows a long litany of conservatives, such as all Members of Congress that have a medical office paid for by taxpayers available in the Capitol, by Dick Cheney who had socialist pacemakers implanted paid for by the government, and George W who had a government-paid socialist colonoscopy while in office. Members of Congress over 65 get single-payer socialist medical care from Medicare.
Hawaii has had nearly-universal employer-mandated health insurance since 1974. Although its Pacific Island location makes the costs of everything--from gasoline to milk to ice cream to housing--the highest in the nation, health care premiums in Hawaii, for comprehensive care with small co-pays and deductibles, are nearly the lowest and their costs per medicare beneficiary are the lowest in the nation.
Why? There are a variety of reasons, most traceable to universality. With everyone covered by primary care, emergency room visits tend to be for real emergencies, not the non-emergent care mainland ERs dispense for people without coverage. That reduces the costs of ERs and the costs of non-emergent medicine since patients can be handled less expensively and more effectively by their primary docs. Hospitals have not overbuilt, acquiring expensive machines to compete with their neighbors for patients. Insurance companies have instituted screening and other measures to improve wellness among their covered populations.
We can all be pleased that Rush appears to have survived his encounter with socialist medical care. He seems to be very happy himself, commenting on the results of a socialist angiogram that showed no disease in the arteries that feed his heart muscle.
Now, of course, Rush does not live in Hawaii and so his costs are not covered by the Hawaiian insurance system, but having that "socialist" system for more than 3 decades has not reduced the quality of the care he received. Who would have thunk it!
If Hawaii-style medical care is good enough for Rush Limbaugh, it is good enough for me.
Thanks Rush, and with it my hopes that your medical insurance covers all your costs and that the greatest country in the world can make that same care available to everyone.
Happy New Year!
"Plans designated as 7(b) provide for sound basic hospital, surgical, medical, and other health care benefits; however, plan’s benefits, such as, the deductible, out of pocket limit, lifetime maximum benefit, benefit level and copayments, may be more limited than the benefits provided by plans qualifying as 7(a). Plans qualifying as 7(b) require the employer to pay one-half of the cost for dependents’ coverage."
Hawaii mandates coverage, but the employee still pays out of pocket. This isn't socialized medicine. It does not come close to Canada, France or any other country that offers its citizens a "socialized health care". Hawaii is not a good example of how a health care system should function. It's not even close to Medicare... The insurance companies and the corporate hospitals are still getting the lions share of the profit.
Well welcome to world of the used and forgotten, where your medical problems, bills, layoffs, foreclosures, are just the price of doing business; “maybe you should work harder.”
The goal of the Post Office shouldn't be to make a profit...nor should it be to lose 6 billion and counting. If the Post Office must deliver to far reaching places then change it so that mail is delivered just 2 days/week there.
The PO is dead anyway....bills should be paid through electronic invoice anyhow and you can save money on the posgtage! Sorry but the idea that it is OK and people are making excuses as to how gov't agencies like the Post Office can just lose billions of dollars is absolutely crazy.
In 10 or so years we are going to be here discussing the same exact thing except it will be about how gov't is losing billions in health care.....and at that time the Post Office will be 20 billion in debt!
(Er, by the way, just to help you out, Paul, a fair percentage of your readers did not know that Congress was controlled by the Dems since the '06 during the last election, so clarify that for them...otherwise, they will wonder about you)
"Now, of course, Rush does not live in Hawaii and so his costs are not covered by the Hawaiian insurance system, but having that "socialist" system for more than 3 decades has not reduced the quality of the care he received. Who would have thunk it!"
I believe the author's point is that a system of socialized medicine does not reduce quality of care.
The interesting part of the story, however, is much like the ending of "How the Grinch Stole Christmas"...when the Grinch realizes he cannot stop the merriment down in Whoville, Rush's angiogram "came without death panels, it came without lines, it came without government agents' declines!" So, maybe, just maybe health reform means a little bit more...
So when we hold the "bill has finally been made into law feast", Rush, Rush himself will carve the roast beast!
I am not looking to win a argument here. I think the press has lost objectivity, hence, my comments. But I want to know the truth. Give me the data that shows that I am wrong and I will adjust my opinion. People are not talking to one another. They are yelling at each other and refusing to listen to any information that contradicts their worldview.
Give me real information, cite your sources. Stop the name calling and innuendo. I blame the press because I believe they created this atmosphere.
Hawaii does not have socialized medicine. They have a private sector system with a regulation requiring employers to provide health care to their full time employees. This has expanded health care -a good thing. However, it has interfered with the free market, causing an overwhelming, unsustainable increase in premiums. That is the down side.
Instead of attacking, why not have a discussion on improving health care without rationing, that does not punish business (which will cause a loss of health care). Keep in mind, as much as some of you hate business, it is business that funds all of this and we must maintain a healthy economic climate -including consistent profit margins- to obtain increased health care coverage.
During the same time period, Hawaii's uninsured went DOWN from 9,9% in 1998 to 7.8% iin 2008 (that's a growth factor of 2.1%). The number of people covered by private or government insurance also rose 2.1% from 90.1% of Hawaiia's population to 92.2%.
The Census Bureau does not track information regarding the cost of health insurance premiums at all. So your figures there are very suspect.
However, I would like to point out: if the government is requiring mandatory health insurnace coverage, and more people are getting coverage, then why are premiums going up? Doesn't capitalism say that more people mean more money to be shared by more Health Insurance companies, which means more competition, which means the premiums would go down? So explain how a mandatory insurance requirement, in a free market enterprise is causing premiums to go up? What part of a government mandate that all individuals have health care coverage is prohibiting more healh insurance comapanies to go into that market and offer coverage?
As for your question about the Free Market, the answer is simple: The Free Market has been muted in Hawaii. By mandating that employers MUST by the product, insurance companies do not have to compete in the Free Market to entice employers' business. They are legally required to buy the product. And what is worse, Hawaii, like most states, limits the number of companies that can legally provide health care in the state, further restricting Free Market competition.
Hawaii limits the number of companies that can do business in their state (we used to call that a monopoly) and then requires that everyone must buy their product. The state further interferes with the Free Market by requiring an ever increasing amount of heath care issues and patient entitlements are included with each policy. Of course premiums are going to go up.
Preventitive care has never been insurance companies moto! Why would they? Once you get really sick they just drop you for a pre-existing condition! So a universal mandate WITH A PUBLIC OPTION would be the most ideal! Then all insurance companies would be forced to focus on preventitive care to keeptheir costs down! Then, nomore ER visits for colds, flu, etc...
Turning health care over to the Federal government would be like giving the keys to the bank vault to the mob.
I spent two hours in a local emergency room a few weeks ago. The cost? $2200. I hadn't been to a doctor in 30 years so I was not exactly prepared for that figure.
Since 1913 the dollar, whose value was supposedly going to be protected by the newly-founded Federal Reserve, has lost more than 95% of its value. Producers/entrepeneurs are constantly subjected to advancing costs, which also promote an economic climate antithetical to savings, the source of true capital advancement, and these advancing costs encourage the migration of industry to foreign countries.
It is insanity to believe that experts know the correct amount of money for the proper functioning of an economy, and in fact, economists of the ignored Austrian school have shown that the quantity of money is relatively unimportant if prices are allowed to adjust. In our own history of the latter half of the 19th century, we experienced unprecedented growth accompanied by a slight deflation (the purchasing power of the dollar actually went up).
Money arose historically in the market place as gold and silver, without the agency of banks and governments, and it is high time to return to a precious metal-backed currency that cannot be counterfeited by governments or banks.
Also, let us have some fun. It's so crazy that someone would actually believe that garbage that it makes for some good fun. With all the craziness that is going on (thanks in most to Republicans), at least let us have some fun with it.
Guess what someone makes just those above listed changes to their lives by living below their means plus allowing more competition between health care companies so someone can buy health care policies across state lines....there is plenty of money left over at the end of the month to purchase health care. Problem is the person complaining about not having health care doesn't want to change their life style....Me give up my BMW? My Nissan Max? Heck no...let the gov't pay for me. Heck, many here saying that they can't afford health care are complaining about it over the internet....my internet plus cable costs over $200/month. Why not give up the internet and your other comforts and pay for your necessities in life first and then get the internet, expensive car, the trip to hawaii etc. Any left over money then use it for the extras....Plus, please, stop having children you can't afford that expense is a killer.
1) How many children do you have? I bet you have more than you can afford. Want to talk about moral compass? True environmentalists believe that there is way too many people living on this Earth....moral compass should say "Gee why produce more children that will further corrode the Earth" Why did I have 3 children? Because you wanted them right? Maybe someone shouldn't have 2, 3, 4 or more children if they can't afford to take care of that number of kids. Have one. Maybe, just maybe you shouldn't have any if you can't afford it. But let me guess, you want the gov't to help take care of your responsibilities right?
2) What kind of car do you drive? Buy a used car and not lease a new one. Maybe you would love to have a brand new Nissan Maxima...but you can only afford a used Honda Civic....guess what, you buy the used Civic.
3) Where did you go to college? Maybe you should start out at community college for the first 2 years and then do the next 2 go to your local state college. Not everyone can afford private name brand schools that are ranked higher. Do what you can do.
4) What do you eat every day? Steak? Chicken? Do you eat out? Maybe you can't afford to eat meat? Maybe you can't afford to eat out? Go veggie if you can only afford pasta.
Guess what someone makes just those above listed changes to their lives by living below their means plus allowing more competition between health care companies so someone can buy health care policies across state lines....there is plenty of money left over at the end of the month to purchase health care. Problem is the person complaining about not having health care doesn't want to change their life style....Me give up my BMW? My Nissan Max? Heck no...let the gov't pay for me. Heck, many here saying that they can't afford health care are complaining about it over the internet....my internet plus cable costs over $200/month. Why not give up the internet and your other comforts and pay for your necessities in life first and then get the internet, expensive car, the trip to hawaii etc. Any left over money then use it for the extras....Plus, please, stop having children you can't afford that expense is a killer.
You create this stereotype of what non-insured people are like and just assume everyone is like that...ridiculous.