Impeding changes to our Health Care system

Nope..I simply thought it was a bit hypocritical for Wilson to complain about illegal immigrants getting health care two months after he sponsored a bill to give resident status to an illegal.

But, back to topic: health care and your contention that the government cant do it right.

SCHIP and 6+ millions kids of working families now receiving quality, efficient, health care.

SO whats wrong with SCHIP? How is it inefficient and how could the private sector alone do it better?

***
ps. I promise not to bring up Wilson again in an unrelated discussion if you do the same with ACORN.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Nope..I simply thought it was a bit hypocritical for Wilson to complain about illegal immigrants getting health care two months after he sponsored a bill to give resident status to an illegal.

But, back to topic: health care and your contention that the government cant do it right.

SCHIP and 6+ millions kids of working families now receiving quality, efficient, health care.

SO whats wrong with SCHIP? How is it inefficient and how could the private sector alone do it better?

***
ps. I promise not to bring up Wilson again in an unrelated discussion if you do the same with ACORN.

FTR I think Wilson was out of line. I do not support him or his comments. They were out of line and disrespectful. He should be publically admonished.

[TheMercenary]

Yet there are real limits to incremental health reform. After all, despite gains in Medicaid and SCHIP, almost nine million children remain uninsured. The insurance system for children, notwithstanding their sympathetic status, is beset by the same problems that plague the rest of the U.S. health care system: fragmentation, inequality, and alarming coverage gaps.

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/03/17/schi...ncrementalism/

Well, then I guess we disagree.

I dont think it is a failure of the program simply because SCHIP cannot keep up with the record rate at which working families have been loosing their health insurance over the last 10 years since the program's inception.

It is a failure of the health care system as a whole (as noted in your bolding above) and it is not limited to the actions of the Democrats in the last two years.

I have no idea how many additional kids have been covered since Obama signed the extension in February. Presumably, more than those who were left uncovered by Bush's two vetos of the bill.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Well, then I guess we disagree.

I dont think it is a failure of the program simply because SCHIP cannot keep up with the record rate at which working families have been loosing their health insurance over the last 10 years since the program's inception.

It is a failure of the health care system as a whole (as noted in your bolding above) and it is not limited to the actions of the Democrats in the last two years.

I have no idea how many additional kids have been covered since Obama signed the extension in February. Presumably, more than those who were left uncovered by Bush's two vetos of the bill.

The problem is not over the last 10 years, the problem is the last 9 months!

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The problem is not over the last 10 years, the problem is the last 9 months!

You're not really suggesting that the health care crises began in last 9 months?

The percentage of Americans w/o health insurance has been on a steady decline for at least 10 years and the cost to those covered by employer-based plans has been rising disproportionately at a higher rate than wages for the last 10 years.

Ignoring that fact as it was for those 8 years between 2000- 2008 was not a solution.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

You're not really suggesting that the health care crises began in last 9 months?

The percentage of Americans w/o health insurance has been on a steady decline for at least 10 years and the cost to those covered by employer-based plans has been rising disproportionately at a higher rate than wages for the last 10 years.

Ignoring that fact as it was for those 8 years between 2000- 2008 was not a solution.

No, actually it started long before that, most of the problems really took off because of the Clinton Administration and the things they did and failed to do. The period of 2000 -2008 was mere icing on the cake. The foundation was laid by Clinton.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No, actually it started long before that, most of the problems really took off because of the Clinton Administration and the things they did and failed to do. The period of 2000 -2008 was mere icing on the cake. The foundation was laid by Clinton.

Health care costs as percent of GDP have been rising steadily for 40 years....from about 5% in the 60s to over 15% now.

The steadily rising cost of health care is not a partisan issue....it is fact, without regard to the party in power.

When Reagan took office in 1980, the per capita expenditures on health care were under $1,000....by the time Clinton took office in 1992, that cost rose to about $2.500...in 2000, it was about $4000 and now it is over $7,000.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealt...ads/tables.pdf (see table 6)

But if you want to make it a partisan issue, by blaming Clinton, I would suggest the partisanship comes about with the proposed solutions, if any....Reagan and GHW Bush did nothing to even attempt to address the problem. Clinton tried and failed, with the exception of SCHIP. GW Bush did nothing. Obama is taking it head on.

[TheMercenary]

As I stated. It was the policy developed in the later half of the Clinton Administration which set the stage for the exponential growth in the following years. Your graph shows that. The growth took off before Bush was elected.

This was a pretty good summary.

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/167/2/163.pdf

http://whatifpost.com/heath-care-his...beginning-1929

HMO's leave Medicare, costs soar for the uninsured:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Medica.....-a0102286841

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

As I stated. It was the policy developed in the later half of the Clinton Administration which set the stage for the exponential growth in the following years. Your graph shows that. The growth took off before Bush was elected.

This was a pretty good summary.

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/167/2/163.pdf

http://whatifpost.com/heath-care-his...beginning-1929

I accept that you want to ignore all the data before Clinton.,,that somehow, the current health care crises started with Clinton.

Even if that is the case, and the data suggests otherwise, Bush did nothing to address the problem for eight years and it only got worse.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Even if that is the case, and the data suggests otherwise, Bush did nothing to address the problem for eight years and it only got worse.

I never said it has not gotten worse. Only that exponential failures began in the 1990's. That is why I support reform. But up to this point I see nothing on the table that will fix the problems with the system. It wil place a bunch of bandaids over some of the issues, but it will not fix the system as it is.

[TheMercenary]

NationalHealthExpenditures perCapita andTheirShareofGross DomesticProduct,1960-2005Source

Graph, Page 6

CumulativeChangeinSingleandFamilyHealthInsurancePremiumsandFederalPovertyThreshold,1996-2004

Graph, Page 15; starting point zero 1996.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7670.pdf

[classicman]

.

[TheMercenary]

[Madman]

Can't blame Bush for the health care dilemma. This has been growing all along - as far back as I can remember. Heck, in the 70's ther was talk about health care problems and people not bing covered. I wasn't concerned because I was in the military and my family was covered.

I remember the divorcee across the lawn in another apartment. Single mom raising two children and no health care. Not an uncommon situation even back then. Honestly, the only thing that has changed it the cost of everything associated with health care. It's an ugly situation.

Americans want Government to solve all our problems. Well, that's what were getting - then we complain when Government get too big - sound like a vicious cycle of circle jerks. Obama is doing what the Democrates have wanted all along - big Government in a socialistic atmosphere under a democratic label. He just happens to be the first democratic presidential candidate who hasn't had a stream of mud clinging to his past.

If this thing doesn't pass, I'll be surprised.

One thing that has puzzled me and I hoped would be answered during the address President Obama made to Congress a couple of weeks ago. I waited for the part on "How would this be paid for?" to come up. It finally did... as a matter of fact... Obama had transitioned with that very question...

"How is this going to be paid for?" He said it... I heard it...

He never answered it.

I understand England has 12% coming out of their citizens paychecks every payday to pay for their health care (I may be wrong). If that happens in this country... it will undoubtedly help many but, it will also bankrupt many.