Health care for children is a good investment

www.bradenton.com

Investing in affordable health care coverage for our nation's low-income children saves taxpayer dollars in the long run - and it's the right thing to do. Nothing is more important than the health of our children. Yet many of the estimated 47 million Americans who go without health insurance every day are children. These kids will either forego health care, which could lead to costly chronic conditions, or land in the emergency room at taxpayer expense.

In 1997, Congress approved by an overwhelming and bipartisan margin the creation of the children's health insurance program to extend health care to 6 million kids across the country. The results have been a resounding success. Since its creation, the program has reduced the number of uninsured kids in America by one-third. Nearly all of those children live in families with income levels not much higher than the federal poverty level, or about $41,000 for a family of four.

Currently 6.6 million low-income kids nationally are enrolled in the health care program. Under the program, money is sent to the states to administer the benefit. The federal match makes up approximately 70 cents of every dollar the State of Florida spends on "KidCare" to provide health insurance to some of Florida's low-income children.

Without this state and federal partnership, the children of Florida would depend on our emergency rooms and other high-cost medical coverage, which in many cases is unpaid and further burdens all taxpayers. Also, with the program providing coverage, many serious illnesses can be prevented and lives can be saved. That's why the Children's Health program is such a worthwhile investment. It gives kids from low-income families access to the care and medicine they need to live healthy lives.

"KidCare" is currently providing coverage for approximately 226,000 children in Florida who are at or below the 200 percent federal poverty level. Unfortunately, this is less than half the children who are eligible for the program. Efforts are ongoing in the Florida Legislature to streamline the process, make it more efficient, and remove barriers to enrollment so that we can provide coverage for the most children possible. But we need continued federal support to increase enrollment and provide a safety net for our children.

Recently, Congress voted to expand the program to provide coverage for up to 10 million kids nationwide. The bill was approved with bipartisan support in the House and Senate. It would reauthorize the program for five years and provide states with sufficient funding to cover an additional 4 million kids. Florida would receive $51 million more in 2008 to cover low-income children, according to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Like most legislation that emerges from Congress, this bill is not perfect. But it represents significant progress as we search for ways to reduce the ranks of the uninsured and protect our children.

In addition to covering more kids, this bill shores up dental and mental health benefits. This is particularly important given that tooth decay is the most common chronic disease of childhood, while 1 in 10 kids suffer from serious mental health problems.

The bill is endorsed by a wide range of groups, including the American Medical Association, AARP and the YMCA.

Millions of kids across the country have been given a healthy start in life thanks to this important program. We can't turn our backs on them now. Our kids are worth it.

Congressman Vern Buchanan, R-Sarasota, helped pass House legislation to renew and expand the Children's Health Insurance Program. State Rep. Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton, is chairman of the Healthy Families Committee in the Florida House and the sponsor of the KidCare reform legislation of the 2007 regular session.

Is Hillary’s health care plan good for America?

www.dailyamerican.com

By JOE BETTA

An April 27, 2004, Capitalism Magazine article, ‘Watchout for Hillary Health Care’ by Thomas Sowell says that Hillary’s legitimate reasons for government universal healthcare are “soaring health costs and millions of uninsured,’ and the government can do it better and cheaper. She also believes that our mental health systems are underfunded.

I listened to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s health care plan for everybody for free on national TV. She said that her plan had a $110 billion annual budget; but not to worry taxpayers, the business community will get tax credits or the option of joining her new federal insurance system that will cover all of their employees. Hillary said that unlike her ‘93 one-size fits all solution, the people have choices this time.

Joe Klein also analyzed her new approach to universal healthcare in a Sept. 20 ‘What Hillary has learned from ’93’ article in “Time” archives. Klein says that nearly a third of the 47 million who don’t have health insurance are healthy young people thinking that they don’t need insurance, but much like car owners, they too will be forced to buy it.

If those figures are correct and these people show up in emergency rooms with medical insurance coverage, the universal healthcare system numbers may be down to 30 million; but from where do these people come? If her proposals reflect from where they come, they must be from job losses, low salaries and the working poor above eligibility levels.

Small businesses will get tax breaks or government subsidized employee health insurance, but what do we do with folks that value immediate gratification more than buying healthcare insurance, for which they perceive no immediate need? Skepticism is rampant on how politicians can force anybody to buy anything without incentives or intimidation.

What if large numbers of patients hold off on buying insurance until they discover needs for body parts or long term expensive medical treatment, especially after the free loaders discover that insurance companies must take aboard all comers with no right of refusal?

If it isn’t a blank government check to be paid for by you and me, insurance companies will have to up the ante on our premiums. Either that or they accept the ‘out of business’ option like some hospitals had to do after they were forced to accept illegal immigrants, for free, in emergency rooms in California. Revoking Bush tax cuts may soften the blow.

Hillary intends to cancel the Bush tax cuts beginning with the rich, but what defines rich?

Despite an ABC Poll claiming that 51% of us are willing to pay more taxes for universal healthcare, what if we don’t want politicians forcing one healthcare system on all of us?

Why would she think that hard working Americans sacrificing a lifetime for lifelong care insurance would forfeit their right to choose their insurance or to select their own doctor?

Why would she even think of bundling hard working accountable folks with insurance with an estimated 47 million uninsured Americans in a single plan?

Massachusetts began by requiring most of their citizens to have healthcare coverage; but very interestingly, Maine, Vermont, and California plans cover uninsured ‘residents’ in their states. Romney already is distancing himself from his Massachusetts’ plan. They seem to be having problems, but what government plan doesn’t.

Anybody out there know of even one single government initiative that functions better or cheaper than the like business in a competitive market? What if she totally destroys our competitive healthcare system and we get left with a bunch of Walter Reed hospitals?

Why do Canadians and Brits have a six-month plus waiting time to see a specialist or get an operation that we get in days?

Why do the English and Dutch newspapers report dirty hospitals where nurses can’t even get a floor mopped after a patient vomits without checking government labor regulations? Yes, when in dire need of good healthcare they rush to the U.S., and if I was the father of a large family north or south of our border and had major medical problems, guess what? I’d probably be headed here, too, but illegal immigrants or people from other places reflect only a bit of the problem. What about you who sacrificed immediate gratification for lifelong medical coverage or chose professions guaranteeing lifetime healthcare? How many have chosen professions with lifetime healthcare coverage as one of the incentives?

Since everybody will be covered for free, what happens to current incentives that draw us to life threatening vocations such as policeman, fireman, military or any other hazardous profession requiring family separation for nights, weeks, months or a year at a time, but knowing that when it’s over, their family has earned healthcare for the rest of their life?

The wheat should be separated from the chafe; but, if we must, we have many state-run plans that can be observed and analyzed for a few years before leaping into the unknown. If all goes well with them, we can pick and choose from the best of the lot and begin by including the most deserving Americans first: Veterans according to time served are first.

Health Insurance is a Human Right, Right?

1 in 3 Americans uninsured

www.recordnet.com

Situation worse in California, study concludes

By Joe Goldeen

If 43-year-old Donald Howlin could sleep through the night, chances are his dreams wouldn't be sweet. They'd be nightmares, much like the living nightmare he's going through trying to obtain adequate health care.

The situation for Howlin, a Lathrop father of five who lives with a broken body and chronic pain, is one of millions of complex stories of formerly working Americans with debilitating injuries or illnesses who find themselves dependent on a strained health-care system.

"I don't understand the system anymore," Howlin said Thursday. A new report shows Howlin is not alone.

Approximately 89.6 million Americans - including 13 million Californians - were uninsured at some point in 2006-07, according to a report released Thursday by the health consumer organization Families USA.

Nationwide, that's more than one in three people, or 34.7 percent younger than 65, when federally sponsored Medicare kicks in.

In California, the statistics are higher. It is one of five states, including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Florida, where two in five people younger than 65 went without health insurance for some period in 2006-07, according to the report, based mainly on U.S. Census Bureau data.

The Families USA report also showed that most uninsured individuals lacked coverage for long periods: Nearly two-thirds, or 63.9 percent, were uninsured for six months or longer, and more than half (50.2 percent) were uninsured for nine months or longer.

"The huge number of people without health coverage over the past two years helps to explain why health care has become the top domestic issue in the 2008 presidential campaign," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA.

"The expansion of health coverage in America is no longer simply a matter of altruism about other people but a matter of intense self-interest," he said.

That's the case for Nou Lee, a healthy 25-year-old man from Stockton who let his health insurance lapse for one reason: "I just can't afford it, so I let it expire."

He used to contribute $200 a month for catastrophic coverage and would still like to have some insurance, but it's out of his reach. Lee indicated he wouldn't know what to do in the case of a health emergency.

"The findings of the Families USA report - the fact that nearly 90 million Americans did not have health coverage at some point in the past year - reinforces how important it is that we ensure health insurance is affordable, accessible and available to all Americans," said Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, who represents most of San Joaquin County.

"It is especially ironic that the report was released on the very same day President Bush repeated his pledge to veto health insurance for over 1.3million children in California and nearly 20,000 in San Joaquin County. I stand with Governor (Arnold) Schwarzenegger, hundreds of other local and state elected officials nationwide, and legislators from both sides of the aisle in calling on President Bush to protect health insurance for children in California and across the country," McNerney said Thursday.

The number of states where more than one-third of people younger than 65 went without health insurance for all or part of a two-year period more than doubled - rising from nine states in 1999-2000 to 20 states plus the District of Columbia in 2006-07.

"These trends document the consequences of inaction. The number of uninsured has reached crisis proportions that must be addressed by the president and Congress to ensure that health coverage is available and affordable for all," Pollack said.

Howlin considers himself a victim of the nation's health-care crisis. He has seen his health deteriorate as a direct result of first being uninsured and then hitting numerous roadblocks in the Medicaid system, known as Medi-Cal in California.

In 1983, he was caught between a large truck and a loading dock. His body was crushed, and he spent many months on the mend and in rehabilitation. Despite his injuries, he went back to work for 10 years in a physically demanding job, helping his father renovate apartments in the East Bay until he reinjured his back.

Until a year ago, his doctor visits and medications were largely covered through his wife's employer-sponsored health insurance, and his pain was under control. Then she lost her job, and the benefits eventually dried up. At one point, Howlin was taking 15 pills for everything from high blood pressure to high cholesterol to chronic pain.

Howlin said he just wants the pain to stop so he can go back to work and feed his family.

"I don't want this ... welfare system to do it. I want to take care of my own family," he said.

New Report Finds 89.6 Million Americans Were Uninsured During 2006

San Francisco expands health care program for uninsured

www.mercurynews.com

A program to provide health care for all uninsured San Franciscans was set to expand citywide Monday with the opening of 20 more clinics, despite an ongoing legal challenge from the city's restaurant industry.

More than 1,000 people have enrolled in Healthy San Francisco since two Chinatown pilot clinics opened in July. Officials said they hope the new clinics will help them reach a goal of more than 17,000 participants by the end of the year.

San Francisco has about 82,000 uninsured residents, according to city estimates.

Backers of the $196 million program unveiled last year by Mayor Gavin Newsom and Supervisor Tom Ammiano said funding would come from the city health department's budget and co-payments from participants.

If city officials have their way, another $28 million would come from city business owners who do not provide insurance for their employees. The city's Golden Gate Restaurant Association has sued over the measure, saying the employer spending requirement violates federal law.

A ruling on the lawsuit is expected by November.

San Francisco launches universal health care

Keeping Tabs on Health Insurance Check-up

By Tommye White

As health care costs continue to escalate, even families with health insurance are feeling financially pinched. According to a study done by Harvard Law School and Harvard Medical School, illness and medical bills are the leading cause of roughly half of personal bankruptcies. This is not a surprising statistic considering that Americans spent nearly $2 trillion dollars on health care in 2005, nearly $6,700 per person.

Medical debt can quickly become overwhelming and can challenge even the best financial plans and budgets. Fortunately, adequate health care coverage will ensure that your family is prepared for illness or injury. The experts at Money Management International offer the following tips on how to make sure your health insurance coverage is up to par:

• Does your plan cover pre-existing conditions? Sometimes, a plan might not cover treatments for an ongoing medical condition. Find out if there are limitations or a waiting period involved in your coverage.

• Is the coverage sufficient? Find out exactly what services are covered and learn what preventive services are offered. Ask if there are limits on medical tests, out-of-hospital care, mental health care and prescription drugs.

• What does it cost? Research your premiums and co-payments. Explore the difference in cost between using doctors in the network and those outside of it. Find out if there is a limit to the maximum you would pay out of pocket.

• What are other options? Even if your current insurance plan seems be adequate, it might be wise to review all your options. There are many types of coverage, such as HMOs, PPOs and fee-for-service. Many people are also able to get group insurance through membership in a professional association, club or other organization. You might also look into individual insurance options.

• Do not allow your insurance to lapse. Medical bills for an accident when you lack coverage can be far more devastating than the cost of paying for your own insurance for several months. Unfortunately, the number of people who have no health insurance coverage is growing. According to a U.S. Census Bureau report, there are now 46.6 million uninsured U.S. residents.

If you become unemployed and lose your coverage, you might have the right to extend your coverage through COBRA. The government also offers programs, such as Medicaid, for people with low incomes. Also check with your local state government about health insurance programs for adults and children.

Republicans Can Win on Health Care

Clinton Readies Her U.S. Health Plan as Pitfalls Loom (Update1)

www.bloomberg.com

By Edwin Chen and Aliza Marcus

Hillary Clinton, offering a new prescription for providing all Americans with health-care insurance, is seeking to avoid a repeat of her first, failed bid to revamp the system.

While Democratic presidential rivals John Edwards and Barack Obama released health-care plans several months ago, the issue is more complex for the senator from New York.

Clinton's previous effort gives her a voice of authority on health-care coverage now, with 65 percent of Americans in a July Gallup poll expressing ``a great deal'' or ``a fair amount'' of confidence in her on the issue. That's more than any other White House contender. At the same time, it evokes memories of the bureaucracy-laden, 1,342-page proposal that critics still call ``Hillarycare.''

``It's very tricky for her,'' said Robert Blendon, professor of health policy and political analysis at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. ``But she's not going to get elected president unless she can get through to people on health care,'' said Bob Laszewski, a Washington health policy analyst.

Labor unions, an important Democratic constituency, have demanded that the candidates offer specifics on the issue, which put Clinton in a particular bind.

Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, said Clinton will offer a universal plan after taking care to lay the groundwork for it and head off comparisons with her 1993 health-plan debacle.

Working Against `Impression'

``She's working against an impression,'' Stern said in an interview yesterday. ``If she came out with another huge comprehensive idea, everybody would say, `There she goes again.' You know, big government, big plan.''

When Clinton offers her proposal next week to cover the 47 million Americans who lack insurance, she will probably stake out the middle ground, appearing bolder than Senator Obama of Illinois and more pragmatic than former Senator Edwards of North Carolina.

Obama, 46, has proposed mandating health-care coverage only for children. Clinton, 59, will likely make coverage mandatory for everyone, said a campaign aide who declined to offer details because he didn't want to pre-empt her speech, scheduled for Sept. 17 at a medical center in Des Moines, Iowa.

Edwards, 54, would go further and create a government-run system to compete with private insurance. Every American would have the option of signing up for a program similar to Medicare, the U.S. program for the elderly and disabled.

Universal Coverage

An expansive universal coverage proposal by Clinton may provoke fresh attacks from interest groups, such as the insurance industry, that thwarted her last effort, while a more cautious approach would invite charges that she has subjugated her values to her White House ambitions.

Clinton's dilemma is a case study of a candidate's attempt to convert a potential liability into an asset while opponents seek to make it a fatal flaw. Clinton may have the upper hand as pressure for an overhaul of the $2.1 trillion-a-year U.S. health- care system has grown since the legislative failure of 1993-94.

Costs have continued to outpace inflation, the number of uninsured has increased and fewer employers are offering coverage to workers. The Business Roundtable, led by the chief executives of companies such as General Motors Corp., has joined union leaders in urging coverage for everyone.

The government's accepted role in health care has expanded, with Medicare adding prescription drug benefits, and the federal government subsidizing coverage for 6 million children in low- income families.

Mandates

The plan Clinton devised after her husband, President Bill Clinton, named her to head the task force in 1993 would have mandated specific benefits and required employers to offer coverage or pay a tax.

The proposal proved so complex that it invited ridicule. An insurance industry group produced a series of television ads featuring ``Harry and Louise,'' a fictional couple struggling to understand the plan. Her proposal didn't make it out of committee even though Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress.

This time, Clinton is proceeding carefully. ``I've tangled with this issue before - and I've got the scars to show for it,'' she has said repeatedly. ``But I learned some valuable lessons from that experience.''

While Edwards and Obama offered their plans for universal coverage early in the campaign, Clinton focused first on proposals to cut costs and improve the quality of care, a bid to reach out to those who already have coverage.

Need for Consensus

Clinton also is touting the need to build a consensus among all players in health care. Yet she has continued taking a tough line against insurers, vowing to ``put an end'' to the industry discrimination against consumers with pre-existing medical conditions.

``I intend to dramatically rein in the influence of the insurance companies,'' Clinton said during a Sept. 12 forum posted on the Yahoo! Inc. Web site. ``They have worked to the detriment of our economy and of our health-care system.''

Clinton's fervor all but guarantees another titanic fight over health-care issues. ``When you put out a comprehensive plan, you put a big target on your back,'' says Drew Altman, president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

``The history of health-care reform in this century is that proposals were either too big or too small,'' said Karen Ignani, executive director of America's Health Insurance Plans, successor to the organization that sponsored Harry and Louise. It is not likely the industry would find the Clinton plan to be just right.

``It's a risk for her, but a risk she has to take,'' said Doug Badger, a Washington lobbyist and formerly Bush's senior health policy adviser.

The Politics of Health-Care Reform

Health Insurance Costs Rise Again

health.usnews.com

By Michelle Andrews

Health insurance premiums rose more slowly in 2007 than at any other time since 1999, but the 6.1 percent increase still outstripped the rises in workers' wages (3.7 percent) and inflation (2.6 percent), according to a study released this week. There's no relief in sight for workers, who paid almost $3,300 on average for family coverage this year. Forty-five percent of employers polled say they're likely to increase employee premiums next year, with a significant number reporting they plan to increase employee deductibles, copayments, and drug contributions as well.

The annual survey of employer-sponsored plans, conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, has charted the upward trend in healthcare costs for years. "There's no tipping point at which health insurance becomes scientifically unaffordable," Kaiser President Drew Altman said at a press conference announcing the survey results. "But we have reached a point where it's become more unaffordable for more employers and workers."

This year's survey found that the average family policy cost $12,106, a 78 percent increase since 2001. (The typical single policy cost $4,479 in 2007.) In the past six years, the amount that families pay out of pocket in premiums has increased by about $1,500. One of the consequences of higher health insurance costs, Altman noted, has been the rise in the number of uninsured, which reached 47 million in 2006, a 5 percent increase over the previous year.

Although premium costs are widely used to gauge health plan affordability, other expenses can also take big bites out of workers' wallets. In 2007, the average family-plan deductible ranged from $759 in health maintenance organization plans to $3,596 in high-deductible health plans with a savings account option. Copayments for office visits with doctors in the health plan's network ranged from $18 to $30 on average, depending on the type of plan and doctor.

These other costs are likely to rise next year, too, according to the survey. Forty-four percent of employers said they're likely to increase how much employees pay for prescription drugs. An additional 37 percent said they planned to increase deductibles, and 42 percent said they plan to increase copayments for office visits. The good news, such as it is: Only 3 percent of companies said they were very or somewhat likely to drop coverage altogether.

About 158 million people receive health coverage through their employer. The 2007 Kaiser/HRET study surveyed more than 3,000 randomly selected companies with more than three workers.

The Bush administration has touted health savings accounts, which it says could help bring healthcare costs under control. But employers don't seem to have bought that argument. This year, just 10 percent of companies offered high-deductible health plans with a savings option, which covered about 5 percent of workers. Twenty-four percent of companies said they're at least somewhat likely to offer this type of plan next year. "The [moderate rise] in premiums hasn't pushed employers to make changes as quickly as they might have otherwise," said study coauthor Gary Claxton, a vice president at Kaiser. "But insurers are still trying to sell these. It's really their only new thing. Over the next few years we'll see if it picks up."

U.S. health-care system gets poor marks

Survey: Workers' health costs surge 6.1%

www.indystar.com

Health insurance premiums paid by workers and their employers rose an average of 6.1 percent this year, outpacing inflation and pay increases and taking a bigger chunk out of families' budgets, according to a new survey.

The Kaiser Family Foundation study doesn't provide state-by-state breakdowns. But other sources show the increase in Indiana was much higher.

In Indiana the cost of private health insurance for a family has jumped an average of more than 10 percent a year over the past six years. From 2000 to 2006, the total increase was 77 percent, with worker-paid premiums going from $1,319 to $2,495 and the company-paid portion rising from $5,309 to $9,219, according to Families USA.

According to Kaiser, premiums for employer- sponsored health insurance for the average family topped $12,000 - with employees picking up about one-fourth of that cost - although the increase in premiums slowed for a fourth straight year.

Many of the more than 3,000 companies surveyed said they plan to make significant changes to their health plans and benefits, and nearly half said they are very or somewhat likely to raise premiums.

This year, the largest health benefits company in Indiana, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, has seen health-care costs for its plans rise more than 7 percent, said spokesman Jim Kappel. The company hasn't yet firmed up the exact number.

As healthcosts continue rising, Anthem and its parent, Indianapolis-based WellPoint, have cut costs in part by using national contracts with high-volume, lower-cost laboratories and other health providers, and by targeting high-cost medical procedures for cost cuts, said Bob McIntire, senior vice president of health-care management at WellPoint.

When medical imaging costs, like brain scans and basic X-rays, began rising a few years ago for its members, WellPoint drew up clinical guidelines to reduce the number of unnecessary tests, McIntire said. Now WellPoint sees little to no increase in imaging costs for members, he said.

Another large insurer, UnitedHealthcare, said that Indiana's health-care costs remain slightly higher than the national average, but that efforts to reduce costs are paying off.

Cost-cutting is working because "employees are becoming more involved in the health-care process," while health plans are steering members to doctors who provide higher-quality service at competitive rates, said Dan Krajnovich, chief executive of UnitedHealthcare in Indiana.

The 6.1 percent increase in premiums for families is the lowest growth rate since 1999, when U.S. premiums rose 5.3 percent. Health-care premiums rose 7.7 percent last year.

The survey showed wages rose an average of 3.7 percent and inflation grew by 2.6 percent.

Price of health care coverage marches upward

Who Pays for Health Insurance?

www.ncpa.org

The number of Americans without health insurance undoubtedly deserves the attention it is getting. But the greater problem may be the plight of middle- and lower-income workers who have health coverage but pay dearly for it, say Clark Havighurst and Barak Richman, professors at Duke Law School.

In fact, many Americans would probably drop their health coverage if they knew how much it really costs them. But they don't know, because of the way the tax system treats health benefits:

• Under the current system, employers are the principal purchasers of health insurance and workers seldom know how much their employers pay.
• They also don't realize what economists have repeatedly concluded: Employer outlays for health insurance translate directly into less take-home pay for employees.

As a result:

• The tax system has induced workers to believe that someone else was paying the bills for their care; meanwhile, they have pushed for better health benefits regardless of cost.
• Weak consumer cost-consciousness has left the United States with private insurance that functions as a reverse Robin Hood scheme, taking from middle-income Americans to support a health system that benefits many elite interests.

A good way to prepare the public for needed health reforms would be to expose consumers to the true cost of health insurance. President George W. Bush's pending proposal to tax the value of employees' health benefits as income, while also providing a compensating standard deduction or tax credit, would serve the useful purpose of stimulating market and political demand for low-cost alternatives, including coverage that stops short of paying for everything seemingly mandated by professional (that is, noneconomic) standards, say Havighurst and Richman.

Oprah Winfrey and better health care