Bush Is Prepared to Veto Bill to Expand Child Insurance

this scumbag bastard....

Paul Krugman: The Waiting Game
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Paul Krugman: The Waiting Game
New York Times

Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President Bush. "I mean, people have access to health care in America," he said last week. "After all, you just go to an emergency room."

This is what you might call callousness with consequences. The White House has announced that Mr. Bush will veto a bipartisan plan that would extend health insurance, and with it such essentials as regular checkups and preventive medical care, to an estimated 4.1 million currently uninsured children. After all, it's not as if those kids really need insurance ?- they can just go to emergency rooms, right?

O.K., it's not news that Mr. Bush has no empathy for people less fortunate than himself. But his willful ignorance here is part of a larger picture: by and large, opponents of universal health care paint a glowing portrait of the American system that bears as little resemblance to reality as the scare stories they tell about health care in France, Britain, and Canada.

The claim that the uninsured can get all the care they need in emergency rooms is just the beginning. Beyond that is the myth that Americans who are lucky enough to have insurance never face long waits for medical care.

Actually, the persistence of that myth puzzles me. I can understand how people like Mr. Bush or Fred Thompson, who declared recently that "the poorest Americans are getting far better service" than Canadians or the British, can wave away the desperation of uninsured Americans, who are often poor and voiceless. But how can they get away with pretending that insured Americans always get prompt care, when most of us can testify otherwise?

A recent article in Business Week put it bluntly: "In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems."

A cross-national survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund found that America ranks near the bottom among advanced countries in terms of how hard it is to get medical attention on short notice (although Canada was slightly worse), and that America is the worst place in the advanced world if you need care after hours or on a weekend.

We look better when it comes to seeing a specialist or receiving elective surgery. But Germany outperforms us even on those measures ?- and I suspect that France, which wasn't included in the study, matches Germany's performance.

Besides, not all medical delays are created equal. In Canada and Britain, delays are caused by doctors trying to devote limited medical resources to the most urgent cases. In the United States, they're often caused by insurance companies trying to save money.

This can lead to ordeals like the one recently described by Mark Kleiman, a professor at U.C.L.A., who nearly died of cancer because his insurer kept delaying approval for a necessary biopsy. "It was only later," writes Mr. Kleiman on his blog, "that I discovered why the insurance company was stalling; I had an option, which I didn't know I had, to avoid all the approvals by going to ?'Tier II,' which would have meant higher co-payments."

He adds, "I don't know how many people my insurance company waited to death that year, but I'm certain the number wasn't zero."

To be fair, Mr. Kleiman is only surmising that his insurance company risked his life in an attempt to get him to pay more of his treatment costs. But there's no question that some Americans who seemingly have good insurance nonetheless die because insurers are trying to hold down their "medical losses" ?- the industry term for actually having to pay for care.

On the other hand, it's true that Americans get hip replacements faster than Canadians. But there's a funny thing about that example, which is used constantly as an argument for the superiority of private health insurance over a government-run system: the large majority of hip replacements in the United States are paid for by, um, Medicare.

That's right: the hip-replacement gap is actually a comparison of two government health insurance systems. American Medicare has shorter waits than Canadian Medicare (yes, that's what they call their system) because it has more lavish funding ?- end of story. The alleged virtues of private insurance have nothing to do with it.

The bottom line is that the opponents of universal health care appear to have run out of honest arguments. All they have left are fantasies: horror fiction about health care in other countries, and fairy tales about health care here in America.

It's how Bushie gets his rocks off.

Hey! If they'd just shut the war down 10 months early we'd have that 60 billion dollars to insure all those kids without having to raise any kind of taxes. The tabacco compaines should really get behind this end the war effort!

"The proposal would dramatically expand the Children's Health Insurance Program, adding nonpoor children to the program, and more than doubling the level of spending," Mr. Fratto said. "This will have the effect of encouraging many to drop private coverage, to go on the government-subsidized program."

Adding "NON-POOR" children? Why would I want to pay for something that their parents can afford (is this how I am to interpret NON-POOR)?

Bush Veto Foreseen On Child Health Bill

(AP) WASHINGTON The Bush administration said that senior advisers would recommend the president veto Senate legislation that would substantially increase funds for children's health insurance.

The legislation calls for a 61-cent increase in the federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes. The revenue would be used to subsidize health insurance for children and some adults with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid ?- the government health insurance program for the poor ?- but not enough to afford insurance on their own.

Members of the Senate Finance Committee brokered a bipartisan agreement Friday that would add $35 billion to the program over the next five years. The Bush administration had instead recommend $5 billion.

Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the committee's chairman, said the proposal would lead to more than 3 million uninsured children obtaining health coverage. But others said that estimate is high because they believe some families that would sign up for the program would have already been getting their coverage through the private sector.

The Senate legislation expands the State Children's Health Insurance Program beyond the original intent of the program, White House Spokesman Tony Fratto said Saturday.

"It's clear that it will have the effect of encouraging many to drop private coverage ?- purchased either through their employer or with their own resources ?- to go on the government-subsidized program," Fratto said. "Tax increases are neither necessary nor advisable to appropriately fund SCHIP."

Congress is considering renewing the program before it expires Sept. 30. When Congress approved the program in 1997, it provided $40 billion over 10 years. States use the money, along with their own dollars, to subsidize the cost of health insurance. The federal government covers about 70 percent of the cost.

"Congress needs to deliver a bill the president can sign or they need to send him an extension so that people don't worry about losing their current coverage," Fratto said. "It's important that Congress understands the serious consequences of delaying this or sending the president legislation that he clearly cannot sign."

Fratto also called on the Senate Finance Committee to consider the president's recommendation to tax employees on the health insurance premiums paid by their employers. The president would offset the increased taxes by giving taxpayers a deduction or credit. The result would be a tax cut for most families, but not for those with the highest-priced insurance plans. The Bush administration says such changes could make insurance more affordable for many families.

Republican Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Orrin Hatch of Utah had called on the president Thursday to step back from veto threats of legislation that had not been finalized yet.

_____________________________________________________

It's good to see more of the facts unadulterated by liberal bias.

Well, exactly that's the question to be asked with any insurance: why should I subsidise bad drivers with my car insurance, when I never make an accident and those with the big cars easily can pay for themselves? Why should I pay for fire insurance ...


Do insurences generally work differently in the USA, woiyo, than elsewhere?

Wally is missing the point. This is a TAXPAYER FUNDED program.

"Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the committee's chairman, said the proposal would lead to more than 3 million uninsured children obtaining health coverage. But others said that estimate is high because they believe some families that would sign up for the program would have already been getting their coverage through the private sector. "




From the above post.