Tuesday, August 04, 2009

I'm Wondering

While being wimpy and inept is the hallmark of Democrats and their "leadership" (who honestly thinks that pharmaceutical companies are going to agree to lower prices?), is being a Republican synonymous with being a hypocrite?  I ask this because it's been more than obvious that the Democrats don't have the balls to enact legislation that their constituents elected them to pass as they are irretrievably beholden to their corporate masters, but the constant assault on programs that help people while promising to improve their lives by other means is a Republican trademark.

I have no health insurance.  I've been turned down many times due to my asthma and a couple of kidney stones and the one plan that would take me was almost $500 a month with a deductible of $5000 and $50 office visits.  Just for myself.  Mom is covered by Medicare and Medicaid covers her monthly premium.

Having grown up with a single payer health system, courtesy of the USAF, I have no objections to it.  The arguments about the government rationing health care are just that.  Arguments.  Arguments that have no basis in reality since the reality is that I and 47 million other Americans have no coverage at all.  And never will if the Republican versions of the health bills are the ones considered and enacted.  And just like in California, seniors (who made this country what it is) and children (who are the nation's future) will bear the brunt of the health insurance "improvements".
The bill’s failure to make coverage affordable for many low-income people is especially serious because the bill would also eliminate Medicaid coverage for low-income children, parents, and seniors, pushing tens of millions of vulnerable people into the private insurance market. Low-income Medicaid beneficiaries tend to be in poorer health and are more likely to have chronic illnesses than people enrolled in private insurance; if forced to purchase coverage on their own, many likely would find the premiums unaffordable.

In addition, low-income seniors who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare would face substantially higher costs, because under the bill as drafted, Medicaid would no longer pay their Medicare premiums and cost-sharing. Seniors would have to start paying out of their own pockets the Medicare Part B premiums (which now total $1,157 a year), Medicare co-payments (which equal 20 percent of the cost of many outpatient services), and Medicare deductibles (which can run as high as $1,068 in the case of a hospitalization). For many low-income seniors, these charges would be unaffordable. (Summaries of the bill that its sponsors have circulated say that Medicare would assume these charges, but that clearly is not the case under the legislation they have introduced.[2]) The bill would also turn Medicaid coverage for long-term care services into a block grant, placing vulnerable groups at risk for significant benefit and eligibility cuts.
And why are low-income citizens in poorer health and have chronic illnesses than people with private insurance?  Could it be that they don't have access is regular health care and their only option is to wait until their symptoms are bad enough that they go to the emergency room? By any other name that is rationing by way of class warfare.

Republican twaddle has revved up the uninformed masses to something that is beginning to resemble a mob mentality.  And like most mobs they invariably act against their own best interests.


No comments:

Post a Comment