Health Care Hypocrisy

[McCamy Taylor]

The hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself. What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core. ~Hannah Arendt, On Revolution, 1963

I. AMA Hypocrisy: "We Like Our Government Sponsored Health Program The Way It Is"

As the health care debate heats up, the American Medical Association is letting Congress know that it will oppose creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html

Now, where have I heard this before? Ah, I remember. Back in 1964, the AMA objected to the creation of a government sponsored insurance plan. That plan? We know it by the name of Medicare. According to this document, Medicare and Medicaid are close to accounting for half of all health care spending in this country.


Those who are fighting against a government financed health care system ignore the fact that the United States already has a huge, government financed health care system. Dollar for dollar, the federal government matches the spending by private health insurance companies. And states match the dollars that people spend out of their own pockets.

In 2004, private insurance paid for 36% of personal health expenditures, private out-of-pocket 15%, federal government 34%, state and local governments 11%, and other private funds 4%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

More numbers are available at the next site, including this fun fact:

In just three years, the Medicare and Medicaid programs will account for 50 percent of all national health spending.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

The U.S. public health care program (this excludes self pay and private insurance) is as large as the whole health care system of France---which covers everyone in the country.

So, the question is not whether or not we will get a government run and financed program---we already have one of those. We need to decide how we will spend all those tax dollars. The U.S. has a poorly designed health care system which discourages preventive care in early life. Children, young adults and even a fair number of middle aged Americans have limited access to care. Therefore, their chronic medical problems go untreated. By the time these folks reach 65---and qualify for membership in our massive, federally funded Medicare program---they are much sicker than their counterparts in Western Europe. This keeps Medicare costs high---and leads to poor outcomes since disease treatment never produces results as good as disease prevention.

The bad news for seniors is good news for the folks in the Medical Industrial Complex who make a whole lot of money providing overpriced and often futile rescue care at the end of life. Cardiologists now average half a million dollars a year performing cardiac catheterizations on hearts that could have been kept healthy if people watched their cholesterol and blood pressure. Orthopedists insert artificial knees in seniors who would be able to walk just fine if someone had helped them control their weight when they were young.

So, it is no wonder the AMA does not want to see things change. However, I think they should rephrase their objections. They do not want another government sponsored insurance plan, one that might make Medicare less profitable for them.


II. Red State Hypocrisy: “More Free Federal Money, Please”



As I have pointed out before, the Republican states use up more than their share of federal funds. In particular, they are much more likely than Blue states to get federal funds to cover their health care related expenses. This is why they do not want the current system to change. If you were getting more than your fair share, you might want to keep things the same, too.

Take the case of Medicaid. Medicaid is a unique public health program in that states decide how much money they will spend and how they will spend it. Programs vary from state to state. But one thing remains the same. If you live in a Republican state, you are likely to collect federal funds adding up to three times as much as you pay yourself to help cover the care of your poor.

This document will give you an idea of the size of the Medicaid program.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?Counter=3311

Under current law, spending on Medicaid is expected to substantially outpace the rate of growth in the U.S. economy over the next decade, according to a new annual report released today by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

The report projects that Medicaid benefits spending will increase 7.3 percent from 2007 to 2008, reaching $339 billion and will grow at an annual average rate of 7.9 percent over the next 10 years, reaching $674 billion by 2017. That compares to a projected rate of growth of 4.8 percent in the general economy.

And this was before the recession and the mass lay offs.

This Kaiser document breaks down Medicaid state and federal spending by state for 2007. Note that the hard Red or Republican states tend to have a high percentage of their Medicaid costs paid for by the federal government.

http://statehealthfacts.kff.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=186&cat=4&print=1

Since seeing is not always believing, I decided to do the math. Using Wiki’s Blue state/Red state map (based upon Congressional representation), I analyzed the ratio of federal dollars to state dollars spent by each Red and each Blue state. Here are the numbers:

Red states

Alabama 6:1
Arizona 3:1
Georgia 2:1
Idaho 2:1
Kansas 1.5:1
Kentucky 3:1
Louisiana 5.3:1
Maine 2:1
Mississippi 8:1
Oklahoma 2.5:1
South Carolina 4:1
Tennessee 2:1
Texas 2:1
Utah 3:1
Wyoming 1:1
Total 3.17:1



Blue states
Arkansas 3:1
California 1.5:1
Colorado 1:1
Connecticut 0
Delaware 1:1
Hawaii 1:1
Illinois 1.4:1
Maryland 1:1
Mass 0
Michigan 2:1
Minnesota 1:1
New Hampshire 1:1
New Jersey 1:1
New Mexico 2.5:1
New York 2:1
North Dakota 2:1
Oregon 2:1
Pennsylvania 1.5:1
Virginia 1:1
Washington 1:1
West Virginia 4:1
Wisconsin 1.5:1
Total 1.47:1

Note that Red states spend an average of over 3 times as many federal dollars as state dollars to provide health care to Medicaid beneficiaries. Blue states, in contrast, only get 1.5 times as much from the feds in matching funds. This means that Red states are twice as dependent upon federal government medical spending for Medicaid. No wonder they do not want to change the current system.

III. Christian Coalition Hypocrisy: "We Hate Abortion and Therefore, We Want to Protect Private Insurers....Because They Cover Abortion?"

Conservative Christian groups are rallying to oppose health care reform and raising their concerns about abortion in reform. The Washington Post reports: "The Christian right, facing questions before the presidential election about its continuing potency as a force for cultural and political change, has found new life with Barack Obama in office, particularly around health care."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/163524.php

Uh…say what? Earth to the right wing Christians. Private health insurers cover abortion. Because it is cheaper to flush out the fetus than to pay for a woman’s obstetric care and delivery.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/abortion-care-coverage-health-care-reform-getting-facts-straight-29733.htm

Right now, the only major insurers that do not cover abortion are federal government sponsored programs. You know, Medicaid. If Right to Life really wanted to restrict women’s financial access to pregnancy termination, they would rally behind the public option, since they would have a much better chance of persuading Congress to exclude abortion coverage than they will ever have with the number crunchers at Blue Cross and United.

But we have already figured out that the leaders of the Christian Coalition represent Joe Business, not Jesus Christ.

IV. The Ultimate Hypocrisy: "Jesus Only Loves You If You are Unborn or in a Permanent Vegetative State...And Have Health Insurance"

" I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory..." Pope John Paul II

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/catholic_church_and_health_car.html

One of the biggest, most hypocritical public scams being run by the Medical Industrial Complex is the lie that under health care reform, people will be left on the streets to die. The truth is that we are letting people die right at this very moment ...if they do not have health insurance.

Take the case of Sun Hudson, a 6 month old boy who was being kept alive in a ventilator. Turns out that Texas Governor George W. Bush signed into law a bill that would allow hospitals to pull the plug on folks with no insurance--over the objections of the family--hastening their deaths.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Texas_baby_removed_from_life_support_against_mother%27s_wishes

Michael Schiavo, husband of Terri Schiavo, was asked about the Hudson situation on the March 21 edition of CNN's Larry King Live. When King asked how Mr. Schiavo felt when he learned that President Bush had signed such a law in Texas while he was governor, Schiavo was at a loss of words.

But Schiavo's lawyer did respond, saying, "Obviously, there's a tremendous amount of hypocrisy there ... it would lead one to believe that a lot of this was politically motivated, and I think that's what the American people have concluded."

Would it surprise anyone here to know that George Bush Sr. signed the Patient Self-Determination Act in 1990? And that this law requires medical facilities to inform all patients of their right to have a living will? And that the Republicans who controlled Congress from 1995 to 2006 never bothered to change the law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Self-Determination_Act

That is because self determination is valued in the United States. People want to have a say in how they will be treated by their doctors. Republicans know that, and they know that any law that seeks to restrict the use of living wills would be massively unpopular. Plus, hospitals do not like providing expensive care to people without insurance. They want a way out of their obligation. So, instead of acting upon the conscience (of the Pope) the GOP gives lip service to the notion that advance directives are a form of "death panel". And meanwhile, the reddest of red states will toss you out in the street to die, if you can not pay for your care or find another hospital to accept you. Keep in mind that the Catholic Church runs some very profitable hospital chains, which raises the question "If they are so bound and determined to keep us all alive against our wishes, why aren't they willing to suck up the cost of an uninsured baby's terminal medical care?"

If that is not hypocrisy, I don't know what it.

[D-Lee]

1. Another fabulously informative post!

[druidity33]

2. Thank You!

Spectacularly informative.

Bookmarked.

K&R.

:)

[Demeter]

3. The Ignorance Behind That Sign!

Where's her anti-war sign, if she's so worried about cost?

With the end of just ONE of our illegal wars, we could buy the nation's health and prevent disabled vets and the associated health care and societal costs.

Think what profits could be had by ending ALL the illegal war activities!

[AzDar]

4. K & R

:kick:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

5. awesome. Love the one about private ins DOES pay for abortion

let the wingnuts go mad over that!

And what's up with them wanting to block coverage of birth control?
Birth control is a cost saver big time for the entire economy.

Sheesh, these perverts.

They screw around in the dark, the congressmen f the boy pages, they dump their wives
when they are in the hospital dying of cancer, and some of them even like
to have sex while wearing a fracking diaper!

Sheesh, we need some more GOP sex scandals to beat them down even further.

But hell, what would one have to do?

[Mithreal]

6. K&R nt

[emsimon33]

7. The irony is that insurance companies will go after doctors next

as they ship surgeries overseas and have diagnoses at a distance, say India or China (sound familiar). You gotta love their arrogance and stupidity (and cupidity!!!).

[WeCanWorkItOut]

8. Why are Americans much sicker than their counterparts...?

I wish more people would look at the education issue
and the matters of cost and monopoly power.

For example, most of the people I know who've developed Type 2 diabetes
have had access to primary care. What they did not have was
good information and healthy lifestyles. And money was
certainly a factor in the lifestyles. Overwork was
another factor. There are similar problems with
high blood pressure.

So I'm troubled by proposals that we just give more money
to primary care physicians. That won't help much with
medically underserved areas, for one thing.
It also hurts people with more complicated cases.
And it's simply too costly.

An alternative would be to improve access
to nurse practitioners. This would give a broader range
of people access to the information at a better price,
would bring more care to the underserved areas, and
would provide more middle class jobs.

(I once had an inexperienced primary care doctor tell me
that I had cancer. The nurse practitioner knew better;
the lab proved she was right. I imagine that many people
would be able to tell stories of NP excellence
if more people were able to see NPs. But half the states
have laws to protect the doctors' monopoly.)