Posts Tagged ‘Medicaid’
If you want less socialism in health care, start regulating health care correctly
Posted by: William Thien on: August 25, 2019
If you are afraid of socialized medicine, all the country has to do is to start regulating health care correctly once again.
Health care in America was much less socialized prior to Reagan deregulating health care. Ever since health care was deregulated, the socialized systems designed to pay for health care in America, Medicare and Medicaid, have expanded exponentially now that regulations have been dismantled. Prices have soared way beyond what the average citizen can pay out-of-pocket, something that was quite common prior to Reagan deregulating health care.
If you are afraid of seeing a socialized system of health care in America, then we must begin regulating health care correctly again. That’s all that is needed.
All of the rhetoric about socialized medicine coming from both parties is a false narrative designed to steer you away from the subject of a health care system that is properly regulated and both parties are involved in that misdirection.
Copyright © William Thien 2019
Sign up to receive updates. It is easy and safe. We will never sell your contact information to anyone. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address in the “Email Subscription” box and click “Sign me up!”
The New Trump Budget
Posted by: William Thien on: May 26, 2017
I think the new budget proposal coming out of The White House is brilliant. Aside from cuts to public education and some cuts to programs for disabled veterans, which I do not favor, the budget gets right down to the core of the country’s problems. Regarding cuts to programs for disabled veterans, it isn’t fair nor is it right to cut programs for those who have actually earned their benefits.
Naturally there are concerns about cuts to the social safety net, but for years we have all recognized that the way in which the social safety net is structured has resulted in massive misuse. Abuse of the social safety net has become a form of avocation for generations of families. Attempts to prevent abuse of the system have generally been unsuccessful.
So, other than the cuts to public education and some programs for disabled veterans, which I stated before that I do not favor, I think the quote by The Budget Director, Mick Mulvaney, sums it up. “We have plenty of money in this country to take care of the people who need help. And we will do that,” he said. “We don’t have enough money to take care of people who don’t need help.’
Furthermore, Mulvaney added, “Yes, you have to have compassion for the people receiving federal funds, but you also have to have compassion for the folks who are paying it and that is one of the things that is new about this president’s budget.”
That is also something no previous administration has attempted to address. The middle class tax payer has been perpetually enslaved by the federal tax code to pay for the expansive social safety net and its misuse. This budget addresses that.
Ultimately, this budget is better than any coming out of Washington in fifty years or more. The budget is better than anything Reagan produced, better than any of the Bush or Obama budgets, and better than any of the Kennedy budgets.
Way to go!
Copyright © William Thien 2017
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.
The following is from an email from The DAV.ORG that explains cuts to disabled veterans that I do not support:
|
Being a veteran I am acutely aware of the staffing shortage some of the VA Hospitals have been facing and the problems with scheduling that have been brought to the fore recently, scheduling problems resulting in delays that then resulted in the deaths of veterans.
I think the solution to the problem is rather simple. Instead of forcing veterans to attend a Veterans Administration Hospital for treatment, we as a country should pay for veterans to obtain treatment on the open market at a local hospital in their community instead of having to travel to a V.A. Hospital.
Paying for veterans to obtain medical care on the open market makes huge financial sense, for one thing. Some veterans have to be transported great lengths to receive treatment since they live hundreds of miles from the nearest VA Hospital. When scheduling exceeds capability to provide medical care, give the veteran the option of visiting another medical facility on the open market. Why let a medical problem exacerbate itself and become more expensive because we are making the veteran wait for care? Medical issues generally become more expensive to treat the longer into the condition or malady. Any doctor will tell you that. Since we use tax payer dollars to pay for the treatment, why make it more expensive?
Our elderly who have not offered up their lives for their country or served in the military are eligible for free medical care and we do not make them go to a special hospitals for “the elderly” like we make our veterans attend VA Medical facilities. Could you imagine what would happen if we made our elderly visit special hospitals for the elderly? Could you imagine the political cacophony of screams coming from the retired? They are making us go to “death hospitals!” It is a valid fear really. So why do we force our veterans to do just that, visit special, overcrowded hospitals?
Let me add that I am not saying we should dismantle the current VA Hospital system, quite the contrary. We should enhance it. Certain war related catastrophic wounds are best treated by specialists who see that type of injury all of the time. But not all such battlefield injuries require those types of specialists. Therefore, I believe we can fund enhancements to our VA Hospital system through properly managing care for our veterans by providing choices.
My local VA hospital is an excellent facility and has not had any of the problems we have been hearing about in the news. But veterans who live in the northern part of the state have to travel hundreds of miles to receive advanced medical care and their families often have to stay several nights away from their homes when there are local hospitals right there in their own community offering the same care. Why do we put them through that? Again, could you imagine the raucous cries if we made the elderly do that, travel half way across the country for care? And most of them haven’t even served in the military.
I think this is a better way of dealing with the problem of overburdened VA facilities. Use of the facilities is slated to increase as The US draws down in Afghanistan completely so the problems are likely to get worse.
It’s time to give our veterans a choice option when it comes to care.
It is an indication of the failure of our country’s entitlement culture when we pay for our elderly to use whatever hospital they choose and they have not even served in the military while we force our veterans, many of them elderly themselves in to crowded VA Hospitals. It is just plain wrong. Veterans pay taxes too AND have served their country. So why are they being treated like second class citizens?
It’s time to give veterans a choice when it comes to receiving medical care. Not only is it the right thing to do, it makes huge financial sense.
Contact your Senators and Congressmen and tell them you think veterans should have a choice to receive care on the open market by clicking here Find Your Elected Representatives and send them an email.
You will be doing every veteran in America a big favor and saving yourself some money at the same time. And that’s what America is really all about. It ain’t about entitlements.
Copyright © William Thien 2014
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.
All Is Not “Unfair” with Obamacare
Posted by: William Thien on: August 29, 2011
There has been a lot of negative hype about the Obama Administration’s Health Care Law which has been going gradually into effect. In fact some believe Obamacare was one of the driving forces behind the formation of The Tea Party.
There is one provision in Obamacare which I find entirely acceptable, though.
There is one crucial element of Obamacare that I believe is so significant that were it not for the other equally unacceptable aspects of the law (the requirement to purchase health insurance, for example), I would not change a thing, and that one crucial element is the prohibition of “pre-existing conditions” clause, that health insurance companies cannot avoid paying for treatment because someone has a “pre-existing condition.”
I have no way of knowing but I’d be willing to wager that it is the very reason The Tea Party is getting so much support from the health insurance industry (not to mention what I call the “Big Business Robot Frontmen,” so-called conservatives lining up at the Health Insurance Industry trough), that the health insurance industry wants to create political discord in relation to Obamacare because that very provision, “the no pre-existing conditions” clause in the law, is not “in the profit plan.” Nothing wrong with making a profit, as I’ve said many times before. In fact, it’s great! Unless of course it is making everyone sick.
And when all is said and done, when this thing makes it to The Supreme Court, I doubt it will be determined that you can refuse someone because they have a pre-existing condition in the same way that say an auto insurance company can turn someone down because they are a repeat OWI offender. There is a big difference. People generally don’t have a choice with regard to pre-existing conditions.
If there is one thing that comes from Obamacare in the “no pre-existing conditions” clause in the law is that it seems to me to be the beginning, it signifies a new, sensible form of regulation that the government hasn’t been able to induce from within for a long time. All to often there is an over abundant, all-encompassing agency of regulation to the point of stifling manufacturing and industry in general, which the conservative side of the aisle makes known to good standing. But the “no pre-existing conditions” clause within Obamacare seems like a healthy regulatory maneuver on its own merits.
It is yet to be determined if The Supreme Court will throw the entire law out or if they will find parts of it unconstitutional. Let’s just hope they get to it before this entire episode in American History makes everyone sick.
Copyright © William Thien 2011
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.
Asking The REAL Question About Health Care in America. What’s the Math?
Posted by: William Thien on: August 6, 2011
The premise of my most recent essay on health care is that our current system of medicine in The United States is more expensive and less efficient than many socialized systems in other countries because their people live longer and pay less for the services. That’s pretty significant. They don’t want you to know that here in The United States.
I concluded that the reason our system is less efficient and more expensive is that we pay into many systems, our own private health insurance, as well as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The administrative costs to maintain those systems and administer medicine is enormous. In contrast, in a country with socialized medicine, or perhaps theoretically a single, privatized system, they pay into only one system which is much less complicated, much less expensive, and often more efficient due to its simplified design.
The problem many conservatives have with government-run health care, or socialized medicine, is that it means more government. But I’ve proven that our current system of medicine in The United States, which is really a contrivance of a number of systems, is actually more government than in many of those countries with socialized medicine. Why? Because we have several systems all working at once with redundancies and multiple administrative costs to accomplish one goal, America’s health.
This raises the question, then, with conservatives believing in less government, and a one system form of socialized medicine which exists in other countries being less government than the system we currently have composed of many complicated systems, it raises the question, would conservatives go for such a single, socialized system (or privatized) of health care if it means less government, less cost, and more efficiency, or, would conservatives simply have an ideological difference which prevents them from accepting such a system of medicine even if it meant a substantial cost savings and that citizens subject to such a system of medicine lived longer, or, is there another factor in the equation that we don’t know about, that of the health insurance lobbyist that likes things this complicated because it is more profitable?
That’s a long question. That’s a good question. It’s the question they don’t want anyone to ask of the general public, I guarantee.
As a conservative myself I can honestly say that if it meant substantially less government and less cost and I got more out of such a health care system, my answer would be a definitive “YES!”
But America is not those other countries. Our social makeup is far more complex. We speak many languages and have many customs whereas in other countries, they have a more homogenous population, all speaking one language, perhaps all eating very similar foods and having similar behaviors. It stands to reason that it would be less complicated to treat such a population.
Yet, it still doesn’t negate the fact that our system of medicine in The United States is very complicated and as a result more expensive and probably less efficient, even though many trumpet our advances in medical science and diagnosis. The fact remains that people often live longer in countries with socialized medicine and if you ask me, longevity is really the final word on whether a system of medicine is effective or not.
And, as a country desperately looking to trim the budget, maybe we should look into it, even if it means less cost and better services.
I think the question at the back of everyone’s mind is, “has anyone done the math, yet?”
Copyright © William Thien 2011
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.
Medicaire. Medicaid. Kittycare? Kittycaid?
Posted by: William Thien on: July 25, 2011
I really don’t know what to make of this story except that it is an indication how haywire the social safety net has become in this country.
I was chatting recently with a friend of mine on the telephone and he tells me this story about someone he used to work with that was laid off. The guy who was laid off owns cats and likes his cats very much. One day when he gets up in the morning he notices there is something wrong with one of his favorite cats and so he takes the animal in to the veterinarian.
After a few minutes the vet comes out and says his cat is going to need a $4500 operation. Luckily, the guy says, he’d saved some money before he was laid off and he can pay for it. Go ahead, he tells the vet, let’s do it.
Two months later the guy himself finds out that he himself needs to have some medical work done and it turns out the doctor’s bills approach thirty-five hundred dollars. But since he was laid off, he lost his health insurance. And since he spent the money on his cat’s surgery two months prior, he can’t cover the cost of his own health care anymore. He didn’t buy his own private insurance plan. Now he doesn’t know what to do.
So, he files with the government that he is unable to pay for the doctor’s bills. Now you and I are paying for his doctor’s bills when, had he not paid to have $4500 dollars of veterinarian work done on his cat, he would have had the money.
I like animals as much as the next guy. But this seems to me to be a little insane and is a clear indication of how haywire the social safety net has become in this country. And I’d be willing to bet many of those cat women out there, you know, the ones that have three or more cats, and there are a lot of them, have done just what that guy has done. It’s not just the money, it’s the cost to administer the money as well.
And it’s the insanity of it all.
It’s Not My Cat. Why Do I have to Pay to Have it Cured? Because that’s effectively what has happened, make no mistake. And it probably happens all the time.
Copyright © William Thien 2011
Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.
William Thien 
Tax? Or Entitlement?
Posted by: William Thien on: December 15, 2019
Often we hear people refer to what are systems of taxation as “entitlements,” Medicare, for example, or Social Security.
I think Social Security and Medicare are both forms of taxation and should be included in the summation of that which is removed from your pay before you see your net pay provided by your employer.
In other words, we often hear about federal or state taxes as a percentage of your income. I believe not only should we included your federal and state taxes in summing up the total taxes coming from your pay, but we should also add Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid as taxes. This in effect increase that which comes out of your pay dramatically and it is something the classical bureaucrat would rather not be tabulated in your “total taxes.” That is why you will hear the bureaucrat say, “but those are not taxes, they are entitlements.” Wrong!
I think there is a clear delineation as to when these government programs become entitlements and stop being taxes and that is if you live long enough to become eligible for either program. If you don’t make it to the age where you can begin receiving Social Security payments, then it is not an entitlement. It is just a tax that you never see again. You never see it again because unlike a private retirement account where you get back everything you put into it after taxes, you never see the principal again in Social Security. You only ever see the payments disbursed to you. You lose the principal. It vanishes. TAX!
Same with Medicare. If you don’t live long enough to become eligible, then it is just a tax. It is the only health care program that you pay into all your life but never use until if and only if you make it to the age of eligibility. You could be paying for your own health care all of your life but instead you are paying for someone else’s. Not a bad idea on the face of things in a sense, helping the elderly out with their health care. But what if you don’t have any heath care yourself? TAX! TAX plus socialism. Still, not a bad idea on the face of things. But for the purposes of making the distinction between a tax and an entitlement, it is a prime example.
So, I think the line which distinguishes an entitlement and a tax in The United States is at the very least, a blurry and costly one to the individual tax payer. The proper definition of what an entitlement is and how it relates to the “taxes” used to perpetuate that entitlement can be helpful to the voter.
An entitlement is a tax until and only if you are eligible to achieve that entitlement and then and only then is it an entitlement. Until then, it is a tax and it should be considered as a tax when you make a determination of how much is leaving your pay along with federal and state taxes.
Copyright © William Thien 2019
Sign up to receive updates. It is easy and safe. We will never sell your contact information to anyone. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address in the “Email Subscription” box and click “Sign me up!”
Share this: