PDA

View Full Version : The American Health care Dilemma



Nickdfresh
09-08-2007, 11:32 AM
A Bit Richer, But A Bit Sicker; The Latest Census Figures
Copyright 2007 The Economist Newspapers Ltd.All Rights Reserved The Economist

September 1, 2007 U.S. Edition

Health care is a bigger problem than poverty in America

WITH an election looming, even the driest documents can spark fury. Hillary Clinton expressed "outrage" at the news contained in the Census Bureau's latest report on income, poverty and health insurance in the United States, which was released on August 28th. Barack Obama said it represented "a betrayal of the ideals we hold as Americans". John Edwards, reviving a well-worn theme, said it confirmed that there are "two Americas". To anyone not running for president, however, the report contained both good news and bad.

The good news is that the average American is a little better off, and the proportion of Americans who are poor has dwindled a little. Real median household income rose by 0.7% from 2005 to 2006, to $48,201. And the official poverty rate fell from 12.6% to 12.3%. The bad news is that the number and proportion of Americans who lack health insurance continued to climb, from 44.8m (15.3%) to 47m (15.8%).

Together, these numbers hardly represent the disaster leading Democrats say they do, but neither are they cause for unrestrained glee. Median household income is still below its peak in 1999, and has grown more slowly than income per head, as the rich have gained more than those in the middle. Confusingly, even as median incomes rose, median earnings for full-time workers fell by about 1% between 2005 and 2006. The explanation is that more people are working longer hours.

This lends itself to the sound-bite that Americans are working longer hours for lower wages, but that may be misleading. It is not clear that the same people are being paid less for the hours they work. Rather, it may be that more unskilled people are starting to work full-time instead of part-time or not at all, and therefore bringing down the average, says Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institution, a think-tank. The census data also fail to take account of George Bush's generous tax cuts, which have boosted take-home pay. On the other hand, they are too old to reflect the fallout from this year's market turmoil, which could be grave.

The poverty figures are both less accurate and more hopeful. It sounds awful to say that 36.5m Americans are living in poverty. But "poverty" in America, as defined by the Census Bureau, does not mean destitution. A typical poor American lives in a three-bedroom house with a car, air-conditioning and two televisions. His children actually eat more meat than rich kids do. And he receives substantial benefits that the census bizarrely excludes from its calculations.

Americans are deemed poor if their pre-tax income falls below a certain threshold—for example, $20,614 for a family of four. By this measure, the proportion of Americans who are poor is no better today than it was in the 1970s. But this is nonsense. The census ignores non-cash benefits such as government health insurance, food stamps and subsidised housing. It also ignores the earned-income tax credit, a wage subsidy for the working poor that is reckoned to be one of America's most effective anti-poverty measures. On the day the census report appeared, Michael Bloomberg, New York's mayor and a possible independent presidential candidate, called for a huge expansion of the earned-income tax credit and a serious re-think of how poverty is measured.

This week's gloomiest news concerns health insurance. As medical costs soar, more firms are opting not to provide their staff with coverage. The government provides insurance for the poor and the elderly through monster programmes called Medicaid and Medicare. But that still leaves a big hole in the safety net, through which a swelling crowd of Americans is falling. Many states have tried to stitch up the hole by expanding Medicaid to include people who are not quite poor, and by enrolling more children in the federally funded State Children's Health Insurance Programme (SCHIP).

This is expensive, however. On August 17th the Bush administration imposed new restrictions to curb costs. Several states allow children to join SCHIP if their family income is as much as 250% of the poverty line. But under the new rules, states will have to demonstrate that 95% of children with family incomes below 200% of the poverty line are enrolled before they can raise the bar to 250%. Whereas it makes sense to try to reach the poorest first, the 95% target is unattainable, says John Colmers, the secretary of health in Maryland. Poor families are often too disorganised to fill in forms, and many are illegal aliens shy of any contact with officialdom.

The uninsured can still see a doctor by going to a hospital emergency room. But, as a glance at the crowded waiting area of the Johns Hopkins hospital in Baltimore reveals, that usually means a long wait. The uninsured often "don't seek help until they are really sick," says Ed Beranek, a director at the hospital. "By the time they arrive, that cold has turned into pneumonia." For lack of timely preventive measures, the uninsured get sicker than they need to and cost more to treat. That extra cost is then passed on to everyone else who uses the hospital.

The politicians agree that the system is dysfunctional, but disagree on how to fix it. Democratic presidential candidates are pushing for universal coverage largely through greater public spending. The Republicans want to tinker with the current system to make private insurance more affordable. Rudy Giuliani, the Republican front-runner, says people should be able to buy insurance from any state, not just their own. That should make the market more competitive. Mitt Romney, another Republican, says that individuals should be allowed to buy health insurance with pre-tax dollars. (Currently, and unfairly, only employer-provided health insurance gets this tax break.) Critics note, however, that increasing the subsidy will surely stoke yet more health-care inflation.

Link (http://www.insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?a=top_lh&id=84746)

Nitro Express
09-08-2007, 12:02 PM
The system has been fine for decades. It's the skyrocketing costs that's the problem. The same with education. Both systems waste a lot of money. In healthcare, malpractice liability is through the roof. Also the pharmacutical lobby has spiked the price of drugs. None of these bozo politicians are going to do a damn thing about that because they are bought and owned by the pharmacutical lobby.

LoungeMachine
09-08-2007, 12:06 PM
Single Payer Healthcare is the only answer IMO.

It's only a matter of time before the whole system collapses under it's own weight and greed.

When HMO CEO's take home 1.2B bonuses, you know we're fucked.

Nitro Express
09-08-2007, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Single Payer Healthcare is the only answer IMO.

It's only a matter of time before the whole system collapses under it's own weight and greed.

When HMO CEO's take home 1.2B bonuses, you know we're fucked.

With two terms of Bush almost behind us, it educated me. I see Bush as a puppet for a globalist agenda that want to put North America and Mexico under one currency and one political camp. Nothing is getting fixed because they don't want it fixed. They want to destroy the United States and make it a basket case so we all eventually go crawling to the global elite for help and they will have all the sollutions.

It's scary.

It's a good ol boys club that has been around for over a century but destroying the US has been the post WWII goal. They are doing it. Bush has done everything they wanted him to do.

Nickdfresh
09-08-2007, 12:45 PM
American CEOs in any industry are thought to take home too much money PERIOD! (in comparison to Euro and Asian/Japanese CEOs)

LoungeMachine
09-08-2007, 12:46 PM
Wiping out The New Deal has been job one for them.

Chimpy tried to do away w/ SS.

LoungeMachine
09-08-2007, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
American CEOs in any industry are thought to take home too much money PERIOD! (in comparison to Euro and Asian/Japanese CEOs)

True, but I still find it CRIMINAL when we're talking about Healthcare, as opposed to Big Oil.

Basic Healthcare should be a RIGHT in this country, just like police, fire, defense, etc...

And by the way, imagine the level of healthcare we could afford with the almost TRILLION DOLLARS this occupation is going to cost us.

:gulp:

We guarantee every child born here an eductaion until 18, but not basic healthcare?

:mad:

Nitro Express
09-09-2007, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
True, but I still find it CRIMINAL when we're talking about Healthcare, as opposed to Big Oil.

Basic Healthcare should be a RIGHT in this country, just like police, fire, defense, etc...

And by the way, imagine the level of healthcare we could afford with the almost TRILLION DOLLARS this occupation is going to cost us.

:gulp:

We guarantee every child born here an eductaion until 18, but not basic healthcare?

:mad:

I remember living in Hong Kong in the late 70's. I had a private tutor and not every child got an education. You had to buy education and it was expensive. So you would see some kids going to school in their uniforms and kids the same age would be working menial jobs.

My parents always said the American shcool system might not be the best in the world but it was available to everyone.

Now looking at things. I think the US public educational system was excellent until the 1970's. Then something happened to it. A lot of corruption came in. I blame the parents becoming less involved in the schools and the teachers union.

Schools now are so choked with corruption and politics they hardly educate anyone. I pulled my kids out of the public school because I felt the system was agains my goal of educating my kids for world competition.

Can you believe our grade school said my child was an honor student but she still hadn't mastered her times tables by 6th grade? She even got a fancy piece of paper with President Bush's signanture on it.

Well I would drill her on times tables and she didn't know her 7's and 8's. I get out the flash cards and she rebels saying she's an honor student. I said, sorry, I know the world kid and you are going to have your head handed to you by the average Chinese 6th grader and that's your competition.

So we pulled them out. Know thy enemy. If we can't compete with China in our schools, we are fucked.

blonddgirl777
09-10-2007, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
... We guarantee every child born here an eductaion until 18, but not basic healthcare?

:mad:

Along with healthcare, you should all be provided with government subventions (not only scholarships and loans) AFTER age 18... It costs you an arm and a leg to get a higher education! :(

blonddgirl777
09-10-2007, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Nitro Express
... Know thy enemy. If we can't compete with China in our schools, we are fucked.

The Chinese have a very different mentality when it comes to work and efforts in general...

I've been there, I've seen them work... (and I ain't talkin' 'bout sweat shops)...

Americans (and Kanucks :o ) are not really into working 60 hours/week on a regular basis...
No matter what kind of education we get, trust me; we will never compete with them!

Nitro Express
09-10-2007, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by blonddgirl777
The Chinese have a very different mentality when it comes to work and efforts in general...

I've been there, I've seen them work... (and I ain't talkin' 'bout sweat shops)...

Americans (and Kanucks :o ) are not really into working 60 hours/week on a regular basis...
No matter what kind of education we get, trust me; we will never compete with them!

I know lots of people who work 60 hour weeks. My dad did.

Hyman Roth
09-10-2007, 05:52 AM
"...The uninsured can still see a doctor by going to a hospital emergency room..."

That is just not true. An emergency room can turn away a potential patient if they are uninsured unless they are pregnant or have an "emergency medical condition" (defined by statute). see e.g. Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

http://www.emtala.com/law/index.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=42&sec=1395dd

blonddgirl777
09-10-2007, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Nitro Express
I know lots of people who work 60 hour weeks. My dad did.

I hear you... Both my parents did too, my husband's average week is 60 hours and I've done up to 70 for years (week-end business trips and all)... Franksters is busy up to is hears, we don't eaven have time to hang out anymore :(

I'm just saying that in general, the average working week is 35-40 hours because that's what we accept as a society and the ones that do more are not rare but are not necessarely happy with it either.

Here, we would rather favor our social lives, spending time with our families and we really try to be done by 5 o'clock... We have a life outside of work and the majority of us prefer to have fun than work.

But over there... the average week (for everybody that works) is AT LEAST 60 hours and they fully accept it... they don't complain about their situation, it's just within normality!

I prefer (by far) our mentality on that, eaven if we get screwed by lazy ass wellfarers at times...
Dealing with Chinese (in the garment business) is ALL work... absolutely NO play!

It used to be that we'd send our sewing "crappy" jobs overseas but now, the employers go directly there to bring back a higher level of educated workers (designers, merchandisers, product managers etc...) because they really go the extra mile, don't really care about their rights... all that, with a smile!

As far as I'm concerned I can't compete witht that... As much as I love my career... there is always better to do at home (or elswhere)!


My husband's "competition" in Electronic Engineering are Indian workers... apparently... they kick our ass to the moon in that field!