Bold Colors Blog

Stickin’ it to the libs, one day at a time

Archive for the ‘Health care’ Category

Socialized medicine and prescription prices

Posted by Liberty on March 16, 2009

Canadians Pay 2X As Much For Generic Drugs

Take a look at Carpe Diem today.  If more people did, socialized medicine would never be imposed on the American people.

“The evidence suggests that generic retail drug prices are higher in Canada than they are in the United States because of various provincial and federal policies in Canada that are not found in the US.”

Posted in Conservatism, Educate yourself, Health care, International news, Liberalism, Obama, Redistribution of wealth, Socialist economics, Socialized medicine | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

The porno tax–why you ought not support it

Posted by Liberty on February 11, 2009

Washington lawmaker wants huge porn tax to restore GAU cuts

Have you heard about the proposed 18.5% tax on “adult”entertainment? 

“State Rep. Mark Miloscia, D-Federal Way, is prime sponsor of House Bill 2103, which would levy an 18.5 percent tax on all visual or audio pornographic materials.

But he’s not the only one.

House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam, has signed on. So have Reps. Al O’Brien, D-Mountlake Terrace, Bob Hasegawa, D-Seattle, John McCoy, D-Tulalip, and Marilyn Chase, D-Shoreline.”

The tax would apply to all forms of pornographic material–magazines, movies, phone services, photos, cable tv services, etc.  It would be used to restore funding to General Assistance Unemployable (GAU) and Alcohol and Drug Addiction Treatment Support Act (ADATSA) programs that have been cut [or failed to grow, which equals a cut in bureaucrat speak] under Queen Christine’s budget.  So, why am I opposed to this?  Why am I calling 1-800-562-6000 later today to let my legislators know that this is a bad idea?

Trust me, it’s not because I like porn.  It’s not because I think that porn is a good influence upon our society; it certainly is not.  It’s not because I think the people who create and distribute porn are worthy of being defended; they aren’t.  I oppose this on principle.  I don’t believe the State of Washington should be taking another penny from any of us, even filthy porn users.   They confiscate enough and they redistribute enough already.  Government has a seemingly insatiable appetite for our money.  Maybe filthy porn users aren’t the most sympathetic group to choose to defend but here I am, making my case because I am so fed up with the taxes.

I also think it is potentially dangerous to have government trying to influence and control our behaviors.  So they’re targeting pornography today.  Who’s to say they won’t take this concept [an exhorbitant tax on a behavior they don’t like] and apply it to other target groups.  Are we going to see higher ammunition taxes because some politician doesn’t want you shooting your guns?  A lot of kids get hurt on trampolines…maybe there should be a tax on trampolines.  They want your kids signed up on SCHIP anyway.  A trampoline tax will just pay to fix all those broken arms and bonked heads.  An extra tax on auto parts to make you re-think repairing your car instead of opting for mass transit?  Maybe I’m extrapolating too far but you never know when government is involved.

Posted in Arrogant politicians, Guns, Health care, Liberalism, Redistribution of wealth, Social engineering, Socialist economics, Stupid legislation, Washington State | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Stimulating the destruction of health care as we know it.

Posted by Liberty on February 10, 2009

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey

The Senate is poised to pass Obama’s massive “socialize America” stimulus plan.  Thanks to human jellyfish pseudo Republicans like Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, news blips everywhere will praise the bill’s passing as “bipartisan.”  The unfortunate thing is that there is policy buried in this stimulus that will change the course of our society as we know it. 

Most people don’t even have a clue–they’ve bought the Obama bill of goods that the stimulus will build roads and schools.  Obama has done this country a major disservice by doing his best to shut down discussion on this bill.  If there had been a more honest, open debate, perhaps more people would know about the back-door transition to socialized medicine that’s been included under the guise of improving our economy.  Here I reference a piece that was published yesterday on Bloomberg.com.  Betsy McCaughey has done the work that the celebutard pre-occupied main stream media has refused to do.  Debate rages about Jessica Simpson’s weight gain, Alex Rodriguez’s steriod use and whether or not some R&B artist beat up his girlfriend when it should be focused on the fraud being perpetrated upon us all.  The numbers included in the quotes I’ve pulled from Ms. McCaughey’s article are the page numbers in the  H.R. 1 EH, pdf version.

“The bill’s health rules will affect ‘every individual in the United States’ (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and ‘guide’ your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what [Tom] Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and ‘learn to operate less like solo practitioners.’”

I don’t know about you but I trust my doctor.  That’s why I go to her instead of down to the DMV when I need medical care.  If you’re wondering what exactly it means to have the federal government “guide” your doctor’s decisions, read on.

 

“Hospitals and doctors that are not ‘meaningful users’ of the new system will face penalties.  ‘Meaningful user’ isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose ‘more stringent measures of meaningful use over time’ (511, 518, 540-541).

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the ‘tough’ decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept ‘hopeless diagnoses’ and ‘forgo experimental treatments,’ and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.”

Is this what you want?  To accept a “hopeless diagnosis” like a European?  To just give up?  What about hope?  Isn’t hope the very thing we’re supposed to have now that Obama has been elected?

“Daschle says health-care reform ‘will not be pain free.’ Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.”

Quick, can somebody tell me who the AARP endorsed in the 2008 Presidential election?

The hypocrisy here is simply appalling.  These same “compassionate” liberals that don’t believe in killing terrorists and think that every child should start the day with taxpayer-funded Lucky Charms are implementing policy that will deny medical treatments for the elderly.  How long is it going to be before the doctor approaches the family gathered around dear old aunt Mary’s bedside and says, “The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research says there’s nothing more we can do.  I think it’s time to put her down.”

“If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. ‘If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,’ he said. ‘The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.'”

Arrogance!  Unbelievable arrogance!  Not only does Daschle think that he is above paying taxes, he believes you should not have a say on the implementation of socialized medicine.  Don’t comfort yourself for a second by thinking that at least Daschle has withdrawn his nomination.  That isn’t going to slow this plan down in the least.  The Senate is scheduled to vote today.  You can still call them.

Update, 11:22 am

The bill passed.  Our only hope for stopping this is in the conference committee now.  I thought of two things since I originally posted this morning.  Liberals whipped themselves into a hysteria over the Bush administration’s wire taps on suspected terrorists.  Civil libertarians were absolutely crazed over it.  Do you think they’ll have a problem with a federal bureaucracy over-seeing our health care? 

Also, what about the “my body, my choicer’s?”  They want choice when it comes to killing babies and under Obama’s plan, that’s one option that will probably always be there.  But what will your choices be when the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research dictates your treatment for diabetes, arthritis, kidney stones or any other condition to your doctor?  Why is it important for you to have the choice to kill babies but not to choose what course of treatment is best for cancer, MS or neo-natal care?

Posted in Arrogant politicians, Bureaucratic ineptitude, Celebutards, Constitutional Rights, Health care, Innate hypocrisy, Just plain dishonest, Liberalism, Main Stream Media, Obama, Slavish media bias, Social engineering, Socialist economics, Socialized medicine, Stupid legislation | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why Tie Health Insurance to a Job?

Posted by Liberty on December 10, 2008

Why Tie Health Insurance to a Job?

“Not many people are buying cars built 60 years ago. No one is watching TV on a set manufactured in the 1940s. Patients are not lining up to see a doctor who hasn’t cracked a book since before the polio vaccine was discovered. Why, then, do millions of Americans get their health care through an employer-based system from the 1940s?

Employers didn’t start offering health benefits roughly 60 years ago because they were experts in medical decisions. It was a way of circumventing the World War II wage and price controls. Barred from offering higher salaries to attract workers, employers offered health insurance instead. Aided by an IRS ruling that said workers who received health benefits did not have to pay income taxes on them, and by the fact that employers could write off the cost of the health benefits as a business related expense, this accidental arrangement became the primary way most Americans access health care.”

So the government’s involvement helped create the health care situation that we have now?  Why am I not surprised?

“…the employer-based system is inefficient. Each employer purchases health insurance separately. According to a recent estimate by the McKinsey Global Institute, this adds more than $75 billion in underwriting, marketing, sales, billing and other administrative costs that offer no health benefits. More than half of all American employers who offer health-care benefits don’t offer their employees a choice. Consequently, most Americans don’t have the option of giving their business to insurance companies that treat them well and only cover what they need. This prevents the usual market forces from holding down costs.”

This is thought-provoking, in the least.  I’m a little skeptical about their conclusion that state or regional insurance exchanges are necessary (you’ll have to read the article) but this article definitely makes the case that our current system is outdated.  Oh, and in the spirit of the Fairness Doctrine, one of the authors is a confessed Democrat.

Posted in Health care | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

“What’s Good for GM Could Be Good for America”

Posted by Liberty on December 2, 2008

What’s Good for GM Could Be Good for America

In this article (Wall Street Journal, 12/02/2008), William McGurn writes about how Conservative, free market solutions for health care could help the Big Three Automakers and the rest of us.  John McCain touched on the idea of separating health insurance from employment a little bit during the campaign but he failed to really sell his ideas for reforming health care.

“For companies, such an arrangement would help shift the responsibility for health care from employers to employees. And because these plans give health-care consumers more control over spending decisions, they also help restore some price-discipline to the market.

For employees, benefits that might not have been as obvious when times were fat are now easier to see. A worker who owned and controlled his own plan would not be trapped at a job simply because of its health benefits. A worker who owned and controlled his own plan would not be at the mercy of business managers and union leaders who agree to cut health benefits as part of a corporate rescue. And a worker who was unfortunate enough to be laid off wouldn’t have to worry about his family losing their health coverage along with his job.”

I purchase my own individual health insurance plan.  I do think that this could be part of a solution to our health care problems in the U.S.  My plan isn’t dependent on an employer–it’s something that I take responsibility for.  For plans like this to become more common and functional for more people, I do think that significant changes do need to take place but at this particular time, it’s what works best for me.  Increased competition between plans, increased transparency into the costs of medical services and more competition between medical providers are all things that need to happen through the free market.  Employer-provided plans serve to remove the consumers of medical services from the costs associated with their plans.  I think what we need is more individuals taking responsibility and control.

Posted in Health care | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »