Republican Position on Health Care: 'I got mine, screw you."

Earlier this week we published a piece entitled "Whose Side Are You On?"You can read the prior post by clicking on the link in the previous sentence.

In that piece, we opined that if you aren't for health care reform, then you are with those who really don't care if 30 million Americans don't have insurance, or are denied medical insurance because of pre-existing condtions, or have their medical insurance policies rescinded when they make a claim.

This position led to a writer who calls himself/herself "Be Responsible" writing to protest that he/she doesn't fit into either of the categories that we set forth in our above menioned blog entry. Here is his or her's comments:

I am not on either side that you mentioned and either are millions of other citizens. Older people don't want their services cut by half a billion dollars as in the senate package and people like me and teachers want to keep their present health care coverage.

For example, I was sick 3 months ago, called my doctor's office at 8:05 AM, he saw me at 8:30, examined me, wrote a prescription, I paid my co-pay, and took my first pill before 9 am. Sorry, I don't want to lose that !

If anyone thinks that I will get that same care by adding 30 million people and subtracting all the doctors, like mine, who said he would quit, is fooling themselves. Yes, EVERYONE wants the Fraud and rates to come down.

What's wrong with making the insurance companies actually compete?

By opening up all 50 States to all the insurance companies watch the rates drop !!

And stop the ridiculous law suits with Tort reform.

We don't need another big inefficient bureaucracy.

And we can not add to the debt anymore or all our money will be totally worthless.

Be Responsible's comment is all about him or her. It is typical of the attitude that most Republicans have, "I got mine, screw everyone else."

Nowhere does Be Responsbile talk about the needs of those who have no medical insurance, or get denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, or see their medical insurance rescinded just when they need it most. Nowhere does Be Responsible talk about the thousands of people who are forced into bankruptcy because of a lack of medical insurance or the thousands of people who die earlier than they would have to if they had medical insurance.

Be Responsible talks about how tort reform and allowing medical insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines will somehow miraclously lower health insurance costs. Of course, what Be Responsible doesn't talk about is how the Republicans had both the Congress and the White House for six years. During that time, we didn't see national tort reform, we didn't see legislation passed to allow the selling of medical insurance policies across state lines. What we did see was an unpaid for expansion of Medicare drug benefits with absolutely no payment mechanism.

Here's question for Be Responsible and all the other Republicans who badmouth Obama's plan: What did you do for the six years you ran the national goverment to lower medical costs, or expand coverage, or increase competition in the medical insurance industry. Oh, that's right, not one damn thing.

So here is a news flash to Be Responsible: The lack of health care for every American is am moral issue, not just an economic one. It is a national shame that this country can't do what every other Western country, including Japan and Germany, our former enemies, have managed to do and that is cover every citizen with adequate health care.

All of the misery the present system is causing to millions of Americans apparently doesn't matter to Be Responsible as long as he/she has his/her medical insurance. Personally, we think that most Americans are bigger than that, but we shall see.

Sandusky Register Story on Finding Docs Who Accept Medicaid

The Sandusky Register ran a story dated Sunday, October 21, 2007 about the difficulty Medicaid recipients are having finding both doctors and dentists. This is a quote from the article:

Health care providers say what the government is willing to pay falls far short of the actual cost.

In 2006, government payments to Firelands Regional Medical Center for Medicare and Medicaid patients fell $15.5 million short of actual costs, according to a hospital brochure.

Earlier this week we ran an entry from a column in the Houston Chronicle by Froma Harrop which contained the following quote:

Note how Bush does this big "compassionate conservative" thing about very much wanting SCHIP for poor people. Programs for the poor are fine, because you can always cut the living daylights out of them. Politicians who mess with middle class benefits find their heads in the return mail.

This article by the Sandusky Register is a reflection of that attitude. Note that it is Medicaid recipients and not Medicare recipients that are having problems finding medical providers. Why? Because Medicare is better funded because the people who receive Medicare vote and politicians know that they vote.

The real genius of the social welfare programs enacted during the New Deal were that they benefited everyone because they weren't means tested. The result is a constituency that puts pressure on politicians to keep such programs going. If you want to help the poor, include the middle class in the program. That's the lesson from the New Deal and Democrats and progressives need to remember it.

Ralph Regula Backs Health Insurance Companies Over Uninsured Children

Democrats in the House passed a bill that will increase the number of children covered by the States Health Insurance Program, (SHIP), while decreasing the amount of money paid to Medicare HMOs by the Federal Government. Republicans opposed this bill because (1). they don't think that the Federal government should be covering more uninsured children and (2). they think that private insurance companies should get Federal money even when, as in this case, the Federal Government pays 12% more for these private Medicare HMOs than it pays for traditional Medicare coverage. In short, as Paul Krugman recently wrote, they believe that insuring children is less important than helping private health insurance companies. Krugman was right when he called that philosophy "immoral."

Representative Ralph Regula, (OH-16), backed the Republican position and voted against expanding access to health insurance for America's children. Congressman Regula, we are sad to say, put the interest of private health insurance companies ahead of uninsured children. Think about that if he runs for re-election in 2008.

Once Again George Voinovich Puts Drug Company Profits Ahead of Ohioans' Pocketbook

Yesterday, the Senate voted 49-40 to adopt an amendment to legislation that prevented consumers from importing cheaper prescription drugs from Canada. You can see how the Senators voted here.

Senator Sherrod Brown voted with consumers and Voinovich didn't. It's really that simple. Oh, sure, George V. is going to say that it was to make sure that consumers are safe because the FDA doesn't regulate or police prescription drugs in foreign countries. Of course, earlier this year he voted against giving the Federal Government the power to negotiate prescription drug prices for Medicare. You can see that vote here.

If Choice "A" is making drug companies happy, and Choice "B" is making consumers happy, line up George V. on the side of the drug companies.

George Voinovich Shows His True Colors: Bush Lap-Dog

There were two votes in the United States Senate that showed George Voinovich's true colors. The one was a vote on a cloture motion to stop debate on the Medicare prescription drug bill that would allow the government to negotiate with the insurance companies for the best possible price for drugs. Voinovich voted with the Republican leadership and the Bush Administration. (You can see that vote here.)

The second vote was on a cloture motion to stop debate on a bill that would fund the nation's intelligence agencies, but require more disclosure from the Bush Administration. Again, Voinovich voted with the Republican leadership and the Bush Administration. (You can see that vote here.)

Time and time again Voinovich talks the talk of opposing Bubble-Boy and his destructive policies, but, when it comes to walking the walk, he backs down. He won't confront Bush because in the final analysis he cares more about making right-wing Republicans happy than making most Ohioans happy. Since he has been doing it since 2000 and got re-elected in 2004 by a sizable vote, he thinks he can get away with it forever. Maybe he can, but maybe he can't. Its up to Ohio Dems to insist that Voinovich stop being a Bush enabler.

UPDATE: You can read the New York Times article about the Senate vote on the Medicare prescription drug bill here.

N.Y. Times Story: Illegal Immigrants Taking 20% of Construction Jobs

The New York Times ran a story in the April 17, 2007 edition in the Business section about how the housing slowdown in America is impacting illegal immigrants in America. the interesting statistic in this story is that illegal immigrants are taking up to 20% of all construction jobs, including jobs that pay $25.00 to $35.00 an hour. This is a far cry from how Bush and other Republicans portray illegal immigrants. The refrain from the Republicans and Bush is that illegal immigrants are taking jobs that no one else will do such as farm labor. As this story makes clear, however, illegal immigrants are taking jobs that Americans would do if they knew about the jobs or had an opportunity to apply for them.

The reason why employers hire illegal immigrants is that it is cheaper to hire them. They won't apply for benefits like unemployment insurance or workers' compensation. They don't complain about being subjected to unlawful working conditions. Because they are often paid "off the books" their compensation doesn't show up for tax purposes. This means that employers don't have to pay for Social Security or Medicare benefits. For the employer, they are a great deal. For the rest of America, however, employing illegal immigrants isn't such a great deal. In fact, its a lousy deal. ________________________________________________________________
Click on the link in the title to read the New York Times article.