Considering how things are going in the world today, I thought it might be a good time to revisit the story of the rich man and Lazarus. From Luke 16: 19-31: 19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores."
22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[a] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
====================
Short version: What goes around, comes around.
And also we have Luke 18:25:
"For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
OK, so why all the dogging out of the rich? Well, I certainly am not an advocate of socialism or communism as it has been practiced, nor do I have any problem with capitalism, in theory. The issue is that when you provide for yourself at the expense of others (over and above fair and reasonable profit), then you have a problem.
Let's look at Rush Limbaugh's earnings for example. His latest contract with Clear Channel was for 400 million dollars. We know things work a bit differently in the media world than they do in other fields when it comes to money. Rush gets a piece of the advertising revenue, which even he admits is "confiscatory." (I'll point out that Rush considers himself a Christian)
Rush has about 20 million listeners a day and if an advertiser wants to tap the listenership then they pay what they are told to pay and if they do not like it then, tough. Basically, Clear Channel, like other media firms, extort money instead of charging more realistic rates for the numbers of viewers/listeners to the show in question. Rush, like most entertainers, gets his money by overcharging advertisers. There is nowhere else a radio advertiser can go to get their message to an audience of 20 million listeners other than to Rush. I heard Glenn Beck make a comment a while ago, that he felt he was worth the 25 million a year he gets because so few other people could do his job. It is this type of thinking that earns the rich their trip to the hot fire pit of hell.
So, should the rich just start giving away all their money to the poor? No, but they should understand that they do have an obligation to help those less wealthy than themselves. Once their needs have been met, they should consider distributing some of their surplus income (perhaps in the form of additional jobs or raises) to the needy....over and above the Biblically suggested minimum of ten percent. As it is, about 20% of the people in the U.S. have 80% of the wealth. Spreading some of that around could help restore the middle class. Henry Ford figured out, a hundred years ago, that you cannot make products your employees cannot afford to buy.
What ever happened to compassionate conservatism?
Friday, August 14, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
With liberty and healthcare for all.
Mass. healthcare reform is failing us
By Susanne L. King March 2, 2009
MASSACHUSETTS HAS been lauded for its healthcare reform, but the program is a failure. Created solely to achieve universal insurance coverage, the plan does not even begin to address the other essential components of a successful healthcare system.
What would such a system provide? The prestigious Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, has defined five criteria for healthcare reform. Coverage should be: universal, not tied to a job, affordable for individuals and families, affordable for society, and it should provide access to high-quality care for everyone.
The state's plan flunks on all counts.
First, it has not achieved universal healthcare, although the reform has been a boon to the private insurance industry. The state has more than 200,000 without coverage, and the count can only go up with rising unemployment.
Second, the reform does not address the problem of insurance being connected to jobs. For individuals, this means their insurance is not continuous if they change or lose jobs. For employers, especially small businesses, health insurance is an expense they can ill afford.
Third, the program is not affordable for many individuals and families. For middle-income people not qualifying for state-subsidized health insurance, costs are too high for even skimpy coverage. For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments. Low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.
Fourth, the costs of the reform for the state have been formidable. Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.
Fifth, reform does not assure access to care. High-deductible plans that have additional out-of-pocket expenses can result in many people not using their insurance when they are sick. In my practice of child and adolescent psychiatry, a parent told me last week that she had a decrease in her job hours, could not afford the $30 copayment for treatment sessions for her adolescent, and decided to meet much less frequently.
In another case, a divorced mother stopped treatment for her son because the father had changed insurance, leaving them with an unaffordable deductible. And at Cambridge Health Alliance, doctors and nurses have cared for patients who, unable to afford the new copayments, were forced to interrupt care for HIV and even cancers that could be treated with chemotherapy.
Access to care is also affected by the uneven distribution of healthcare dollars between primary and specialty care, and between community hospitals and tertiary care hospitals. Partners HealthCare, which includes two major tertiary care hospitals in Boston, was able to negotiate a secret agreement with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts to be paid 30 percent more for their services than other providers in the state, contributing to an increase in healthcare costs for Massachusetts, which are already the highest per person in the world. Agreements that tilt spending toward tertiary care threaten the viability of community hospitals and health centers that provide a safety net for the uninsured and underinsured.
There is, though, one US model of healthcare that meets the Institute of Medicine criteria: Medicare. Insuring everyone over 65, Medicare achieves universal coverage and access to care, is not tied to a job, and is affordable for individuals and the country. Medicare simplifies the administration of healthcare dollars, thereby saving money. We need to improve Medicare, and expand this program to include everyone.
A bill before Congress, the United States National Health Insurance Act, would provide more comprehensive coverage for all. The bill includes doctor, hospital, long-term, mental health, dental, and vision care, prescription drugs, and medical supplies, with no premiums, copayments, or deductibles.
People would be free to choose doctors and hospitals, and insurance would not be tied to a job. Costs would be controlled because health planning in a national health program can reestablish needed balance between primary/preventive care and high-tech tertiary care. A modest, progressive tax would replace what people currently pay out of pocket. This program would pay for itself by eliminating the wasteful administrative costs and profits of private insurance companies, and save $8 billion to $10 billion in Massachusetts alone.
We must let Congress know we want improved access to affordable healthcare for all, not more expensive private health insurance we can't afford to use when we are sick. Massachusetts healthcare reform fails on all five Institute of Medicine criteria. Congress should not make it a model for the nation.
Susanne L. King, M.D., practices in Berkshire County.
======================
OK, enough is enough. While the business of America is business, the health insurance companies are now pricing themselves out of business. Fewer and fewer companies can afford to supply health coverage.
When I started in retail even the cashiers got health insurance. Today, only the store manager usually gets full boat coverage included as a perk. Most department managers have their coverage partially subsidized and the rest of the employees have to pay the total (and totally unaffordable) premium.
Many of my conservative bretheren rightly worry about single payer health coverage, citing the obvious fact that the government screws up everything it tries to manage. Attempting to adopt the Massachusets model nationally would fail, as the above article states.
Affordable health coverage for all is not rocket science though. Doing nothing about health care reform will allow the ever greedy, but stupid, health insurance companies to simply end up offering coverage that will be affordable to only the top ten percent of the population---who knows, maybe that is the master plan to limit population growth? Just let the poor peons die.
Things do not have to be that way though. Dr. King favors some type of modified Medicare. I think she is on the right track. For proifit healthcare insurance companies should all be converted to non-profit corporations. Executive salaries should be limited and we should have mandatory tort reform. One part of the high cost of medicine is dealing with all the paperwork of thousands of different insurance companies. Simplify the paperwork by having a national health insurance policy standard where all policies issued must be identical in coverage with no exclusions for pre existing conditions.
I might even go so far as to suggest making Anthem the only health care company and make it a quasi governmental agency. Keep Medicare and expand it to include those who otherwise cannot afford health insurance.
Other people have other equally good suggestions, but as far as health insurance, the private sector for profit companies have got to go. Too bad the Dems lack the balls to ram through universal health care. Once you have it, then you can tweak it. If you never have the option, then the whole system will tank if things continue as they are.
By Susanne L. King March 2, 2009
MASSACHUSETTS HAS been lauded for its healthcare reform, but the program is a failure. Created solely to achieve universal insurance coverage, the plan does not even begin to address the other essential components of a successful healthcare system.
What would such a system provide? The prestigious Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, has defined five criteria for healthcare reform. Coverage should be: universal, not tied to a job, affordable for individuals and families, affordable for society, and it should provide access to high-quality care for everyone.
The state's plan flunks on all counts.
First, it has not achieved universal healthcare, although the reform has been a boon to the private insurance industry. The state has more than 200,000 without coverage, and the count can only go up with rising unemployment.
Second, the reform does not address the problem of insurance being connected to jobs. For individuals, this means their insurance is not continuous if they change or lose jobs. For employers, especially small businesses, health insurance is an expense they can ill afford.
Third, the program is not affordable for many individuals and families. For middle-income people not qualifying for state-subsidized health insurance, costs are too high for even skimpy coverage. For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments. Low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.
Fourth, the costs of the reform for the state have been formidable. Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.
Fifth, reform does not assure access to care. High-deductible plans that have additional out-of-pocket expenses can result in many people not using their insurance when they are sick. In my practice of child and adolescent psychiatry, a parent told me last week that she had a decrease in her job hours, could not afford the $30 copayment for treatment sessions for her adolescent, and decided to meet much less frequently.
In another case, a divorced mother stopped treatment for her son because the father had changed insurance, leaving them with an unaffordable deductible. And at Cambridge Health Alliance, doctors and nurses have cared for patients who, unable to afford the new copayments, were forced to interrupt care for HIV and even cancers that could be treated with chemotherapy.
Access to care is also affected by the uneven distribution of healthcare dollars between primary and specialty care, and between community hospitals and tertiary care hospitals. Partners HealthCare, which includes two major tertiary care hospitals in Boston, was able to negotiate a secret agreement with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts to be paid 30 percent more for their services than other providers in the state, contributing to an increase in healthcare costs for Massachusetts, which are already the highest per person in the world. Agreements that tilt spending toward tertiary care threaten the viability of community hospitals and health centers that provide a safety net for the uninsured and underinsured.
There is, though, one US model of healthcare that meets the Institute of Medicine criteria: Medicare. Insuring everyone over 65, Medicare achieves universal coverage and access to care, is not tied to a job, and is affordable for individuals and the country. Medicare simplifies the administration of healthcare dollars, thereby saving money. We need to improve Medicare, and expand this program to include everyone.
A bill before Congress, the United States National Health Insurance Act, would provide more comprehensive coverage for all. The bill includes doctor, hospital, long-term, mental health, dental, and vision care, prescription drugs, and medical supplies, with no premiums, copayments, or deductibles.
People would be free to choose doctors and hospitals, and insurance would not be tied to a job. Costs would be controlled because health planning in a national health program can reestablish needed balance between primary/preventive care and high-tech tertiary care. A modest, progressive tax would replace what people currently pay out of pocket. This program would pay for itself by eliminating the wasteful administrative costs and profits of private insurance companies, and save $8 billion to $10 billion in Massachusetts alone.
We must let Congress know we want improved access to affordable healthcare for all, not more expensive private health insurance we can't afford to use when we are sick. Massachusetts healthcare reform fails on all five Institute of Medicine criteria. Congress should not make it a model for the nation.
Susanne L. King, M.D., practices in Berkshire County.
======================
OK, enough is enough. While the business of America is business, the health insurance companies are now pricing themselves out of business. Fewer and fewer companies can afford to supply health coverage.
When I started in retail even the cashiers got health insurance. Today, only the store manager usually gets full boat coverage included as a perk. Most department managers have their coverage partially subsidized and the rest of the employees have to pay the total (and totally unaffordable) premium.
Many of my conservative bretheren rightly worry about single payer health coverage, citing the obvious fact that the government screws up everything it tries to manage. Attempting to adopt the Massachusets model nationally would fail, as the above article states.
Affordable health coverage for all is not rocket science though. Doing nothing about health care reform will allow the ever greedy, but stupid, health insurance companies to simply end up offering coverage that will be affordable to only the top ten percent of the population---who knows, maybe that is the master plan to limit population growth? Just let the poor peons die.
Things do not have to be that way though. Dr. King favors some type of modified Medicare. I think she is on the right track. For proifit healthcare insurance companies should all be converted to non-profit corporations. Executive salaries should be limited and we should have mandatory tort reform. One part of the high cost of medicine is dealing with all the paperwork of thousands of different insurance companies. Simplify the paperwork by having a national health insurance policy standard where all policies issued must be identical in coverage with no exclusions for pre existing conditions.
I might even go so far as to suggest making Anthem the only health care company and make it a quasi governmental agency. Keep Medicare and expand it to include those who otherwise cannot afford health insurance.
Other people have other equally good suggestions, but as far as health insurance, the private sector for profit companies have got to go. Too bad the Dems lack the balls to ram through universal health care. Once you have it, then you can tweak it. If you never have the option, then the whole system will tank if things continue as they are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
RSS Feed
Posts
All Comments