"Insuranization" of Medicine

Radical right-wingers speak of the evils of "socialized medicine" when they attack plans such as the S-CHIP or the health care plans of Hillary Clinton. They act as if the American medical system is some perfect system and that adoption of government programs such as S-CHIP will ruin this perfect system for everyone. They say that if the government assumes a bigger role in providing or guaranteeing medical care for Americans, it will lead to government telling citizens what kind of care they can get and who can provide that care.

What they don't talk about, however, is the fact that for most of us we already exist in such a system, only it isn't the government telling us what care we can get or who can provide it, it is private insurance companies. Companies that aren't accountable to anyone but their owners and officers.

This "insuranization of medicine", to coin a phrase, means that the medical care that you get is dependent on decisions made by your insurance company. The insurance company decides what care is allowed and what care is not allowed. It decides what should be covered and what shouldn't be covered. It decides what medical providers you will be allowed to see and what providers you won't be allowed to see, if you want reimbursement for the cost of those providers.

This system has led to the average cost to employers for medical insurance coverage for a family of four being, on average, $11,500 per year and has led to the average family of four paying $3000 a year toward their own insurance coverage. These figures, by the way, are from the National Coalition for Health Care.

The issue before Americans isn't whether some powerful institutions are going to control their health care and dictate their coverage. That ship has sailed. The issue before Americans is who will hold such institutions accountable, the public or private individuals? That's the real issue and that's what Americans who want health care reform should be pointing out to Americans.

GOP Goes Stark-Raving Mad

Representative Pete Stark from California is driving the GOP radical right and their media allies crazy over remarks that he made on the floor of the House of Representatives. This from an article about the remarks:

"First of all, I'm just amazed that the Republicans are worried that we can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? You are going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war?

"You don't have money to fund the war or children, but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

He went back to the same point moments later: "But President Bush's statements about children's health shouldn't be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States and in Congress."

The right-wingers and their media allies like Fox News are demanding that Stark apologize. John "Bonehead" Bohner, the House Minority Leader, claims that somehow the Stark's remarks were an attack on American troops serving in Iraq. Apparently, to Bonehead, attacking Bush is the same as attacking the troops.

Of course what is at work is that the American public supports the S-CHIP bill and the Republicans are trying desperately to distract them from the real issue, which is Bush's veto of S-CHIP and their support of that veto.

The interesting thing is that the coverage of this non-issue doesn't really help the Republicans. Millions of Americans who support S-CHIP aren't going to wake up and say to themselves "By Golly, I used to support insuring children whose parents don't have health insurance but because of that mean Pete Stark I have changed my mind." Not going to happen.

Would we have said what Stark said? No, because it does allow the GOP to distract people from the real issues in the debate about America's health care problems. Do we think that in the long run it will have any impact on the American public? No. Do we think that it will drive right-wingers absolutely nuts? Oh, yeah.

Bush's Veto Complicates Ohio's Plans to Cover More Uninsured Children

The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran an article dated October 19, 2007 pointing out that Bubble-Boy's veto of the S-CHIP will complicate Ohio's attempt to cover more uninsured children. The article points out that Ohio's program is supported by both Governor Ted Strickland and the GOP leadership in the General Assembly. While it is possible that the Bush Administration could approve the changes that Ohio wants to make to its program, the article claims that this not likely to happen.

Below is a quote from the article explaining how this program would work:

Ohio currently offers coverage to children whose families earn up to twice the federal poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four. The state plans to raise that in January to triple the poverty level, about $62,000 for a family of four.

The future of Ohio's plan has been uncertain since the Bush administration announced in August that it will oppose state efforts to extend coverage to children in families whose income is above 2.5 times the federal poverty rate unless states meet various conditions that Ohio does not expect to meet. The bill Bush vetoed would have prevented the administration from imposing those conditions.

Ohio officials, uncertain how the battle between Congress and Bush would play out, are now seeking permission from the administration to use money from the Medicaid program to cover children at higher income levels. In an interview with The Plain Dealer this week, however, an administration official who oversees state children's health programs sounded doubtful that the administration would approve such a plan

The article also notes that all six Democratic Congressional Representatives voted to override Bush's veto as did six out of 10 Republicans. It is interesting that Minority Leader John Bohner of Ohio, aka "Bonehead", couldn't get a majority of Ohio's 10 Republicans to vote his way.

AARP Releases Music Video on Covering Kids' Health Insurance

Check out this music video from You Tube on the need to expand health insurance coverage for children:

Republicans & Wing-Nut Bloggers Attack 12 Year Old Boy & Family

Just one more reason why we are not Republicans: We would find it impossible to be a part of a political party who decides that a 12 year old boy who was critically injured in a automobile crash and didn't have health insurance is a legitimate political target. Here is some background from the ABC News story linked to above:

With debate raging in Washington over children's health insurance, congressional Democrats found a new way to make their case for an expansion last weekend: Rather than have a senator or a congressman respond to President Bush's weekly radio address, they decided to have a child who was helped by the program speak directly to the public.

But the 12-year-old boy whom Democrats chose as their poster child is now at the center of a firestorm in Washington and beyond. Conservative bloggers who uncovered some details of the family's finances are blasting the family, calling the fact that they rely on federal insurance an example of how the State Children's Health Insurance Program has expanded beyond its original intent.

According to Senate Democratic aides, some bloggers have made repeated phone calls to the home of 12-year-old Graeme Frost, demanding information about his family's private life. On Monday, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accused GOP leadership aides of "pushing falsehood" in an effort to distract from the political battle over S-CHIP.

Now, you are probably asking yourself why would even Republicans be this mean? Here is what they are alleging:

But after a largely positive story about Frost appeared in the Baltimore Sun, conservative-leaning bloggers began focusing on details of Frost's family situation. They suggested the family makes the conservative argument -- that the children's health insurance program has strayed from its original purpose by subsidizing healthcare for middle-class families, not just poor children.

A blogger on FreeRepublic.com discovered that Frost and his sister, Gemma, attend a private school where tuition costs $20,000 a year. Their father, Halsey, is a self-employed woodworker, meaning that if his family doesn’t have health insurance, it’s because Halsey Frost -- as his own boss -- chooses not to purchase it for himself.

"One has to wonder that if time and money can be found to remodel a home, send kids to exclusive private schools, purchase commercial property and run your own business . . . maybe money can be found for other things," a blogger with the handle "icwhatudo" wrote on FreeRepublic.

Only, of course, being Republicans they didn't bother to check out the facts. Here's what we are referring to:

But Manley say conservative bloggers didn't dig deep enough. It turns out that the Frost children attend Baltimore’s Park School on near-full scholarships; they pay roughly $500 per child per year in tuition, he said.

Like many small-business owners, Halsey Frost can't even afford to provide health insurance to himself, Manley said.

"Last year, the Frost's made $45,000 combined," Manley said. "Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined depending on Halsey's ability to find work."

The Frost family did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

Of course, facts don't manner to Washington, D.C., Republicans, whether the issue is starting a war in Iraq, passing reckless tax cuts, or vetoing children's health insurance, they just don't care.

Link S-CHIP and Iraq War Funding

Americans want Bush's request for Iraq War funds cut and they want the States Children Health Insurance Program funded. There is an obvious connection here. Democrats should work to cut the funding for the war and transfer the money to the S-CHIP. Obviously Republicans would filibuster this if they could and there are probably not enough votes in the House to override a Bush veto, given the fact that most commentators expect Bush's veto of the S-CHIP bill to be upheld.

It is not enough, however, to just support S-CHIP. Democrats need to drive home the point that Republicans would rather spend money in Iraq than on American kids without insurance. Most Americans don't support that choice and Democrats should make Republicans pay a price for choosing Iraqis over American children.