Despite the media frenzy over the uninsured in America. The health care debate should not be about how we find a way to cover the 15% percent of Americans who presently are not covered by any type of health coverage. It should be about how we save the present medicare and medicaid insurance coverage presently in place. If their are no changes made these systems will be bankrupt in a few short years.
All of the Democrat candidates for President are for universal health coverage! They have their own semantic way of describing what if passed will be no more and no less than socialization of the most advanced medical system in the world.
I am not writing to defend the way the system has become too much business and in many cases not enough medicine. Government interference in a private medical system started the paper avalanche and raised the number of bureaucrats working for HRS by the tens of thousands. This all began in the late 60's with the passing of legislation that included both Medicare and Medicaid.
President Lyndon Johnson signed the Bill in the Harry Truman Library in Independence. Mo. in honor of the man who first asked Congress to pass a Universal Health Insurance Bill in 1945 while he was president.
The cost to enroll in the Program was $3.00 per month, and Truman was the first enrolled. We have come a long way baby! Look at your payroll stub to see how much you pay for medicare today, even though you are not eligible because you are not old enough. It is a large and ever growing portion of your tax confiscated from your earnings.
Unfortunately like every other government program the bureaucracy gets bigger every year, and HRS has become a jobs program for big government. Through out the years the medical care has grown so much better, despite the Socialists claims to the contrary, hat people come from Europe, Great Britain, South America and Canada to be treated.
I live in an area which is fortunate to have one of the more well known medical centers of the world, and my visits to this center demonstrates this, by the foreign languages I hear from so many in the registration areas.
Yes it is expensive, but socializing it won't get it to be any less expensive. All this would do is shift the dollars to the payroll of more administrators, away from the people who provide the care.
The one thing you can count on if Hillary, Obama, John or any of the other "Me TOO" candidates gets elected. There will be a shift towards socialization of our medical care, and before you vote for them you should consider what is happening in Europe under Socialized Medicine.
The perils of socialized health care can already be seen in Europe, where certain medical treatments or drugs are no longer available to Europeans above a certain age, says Paul Belien, editor of the Brussels Journal and an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute.
In Europe, says Belien:
"More expensive drugs and treatments with fewer side effects are set aside for younger patients, while less expensive drugs are given to the elderly because of budgetary constraints in a system providing "free" health care.
Studies of kidney dialysis show that more than a fifth of dialysis centers in Europe and almost half of those in England have refused to treat patients over 65 years of age.
If governments continue these policies, euthanasia will soon be the price that the solidarity principle of the European welfare states imposes on the very old and the very sick."
In the United States, the situation is the reverse:
Elderly Americans are entitled to universal health coverage via the Medicare program.
In America, the bulk of government health-care expenditure goes to those over 65 years old, while in Europe most of the government money is spent on those under 65. Even if you are under the age of 65 you must hope you will someday make it to that age, and do you want this type of situation to await you. And in the meanwhile consider this. No government program is paid for by the government. Every program has a tax consequence to you the tax payer. So while you work toward the age of retirement you will be paying ever increasing amounts of YOUR earnings to a program that may not be friendly to old people!
the perils of socialized health care can already be seen in Europe, where certain medical treatments or drugs are no longer available to Europeans above a certain age, says Paul Belien, editor of the Brussels Journal and an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute.
In Europe, says Belien:
More expensive drugs and treatments with fewer side effects are set aside for younger patients, while less expensive drugs are given to the elderly because of budgetary constraints in a system providing "free" health care.
Studies of kidney dialysis show that more than a fifth of dialysis centers in Europe and almost half of those in England have refused to treat patients over 65 years of age.
If governments continue these policies, euthanasia will soon be the price that the solidarity principle of the European welfare states imposes on the very old and the very sick.
In the United States, the situation is the reverse:
Elderly Americans are entitled to universal health coverage via the Medicare program.
In America, the bulk of government health-care expenditure goes to those over 65 years old, while in Europe most of the government money is spent on those under
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment