Growth in Health Care Premiums Halved in 3 Years
That is how the headline would have appeared if a Democrat were president. This is how it appeared instead:
Health Insurance Rises Twice Rate of Inflation
"Nobody's celebrating, and nobody should be celebrating," said Drew E. Altman, head of the foundation, a non-profit organization that studies healthcare issues. "A modest reduction in an already high rate of increase hardly looks like salvation to working people and businesses, who have been getting hammered by high healthcare costs year after year."
Ask people about gas prices. Do you think if gas prices were going up a buck a year, but one year only went up $0.50, they would not notice?
Posted by Aaron at 11:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bush's Breasts
I blame Bush for this travesty:
The decades-long rise in the rate of new breast cancer cases in American women appears to have leveled off, indicating that the nation may have reached a long-sought turning point in the battle against the feared malignancy.
After climbing steadily since 1980, the breast cancer rate stopped rising in 2001 and may have started to fall in 2003, according to the latest federal data. While it will take more years before it becomes clear whether the change marks the start of a lasting trend, the statistics appear to indicate a tantalizing shift, experts said.
Posted by Aaron at 07:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Prescription Drug Plan: 20% Lower Cost
Many conservatives moan and groan about the cost of the prescription drug benefit Republicans passed and President Bush signed into law. I don't like much government spending, but I always viewed this bill as an investment that could actually lower costs in the future; providing people medication now would prevent more expensive hospitalization later.
The Democrats have made headway with bashing the program, but only because they wanted to spend more and because they wanted to use the program to socialize the pharmaceutical and health insurance industry (a pit stop on the way to HillaryCare).
The Wall Street Journal reports some welcoming news:
Medicare's prescription-drug benefit will cost the government about 20% less during the next decade than was projected a year ago, but largely for reasons outside the government's control.
Most of the reduction will result from lower-than-expected growth in the nation's per capita drug spending, Medicare's actuaries said in their latest projections, which came as part of the annual release of data on the financial health of Medicare and Social Security from the trustees of the programs.
The actuaries said fewer people than expected are signing up for the new coverage. Since last year, Medicare actuaries have lowered estimates for enrollment by May 15 -- this year's deadline for signing up -- from about 37 million to 31.4 million, a move that fueled calls in Congress to give people more time to sign up.
The latest cost projection for the drug benefit is "substantially lower" than projected last year, the trustees report said. Last year, Medicare's actuaries estimated the benefit would cost a total of $997 billion over 10 years, not including savings to Medicaid. Now that estimate is $788 billion. Another reason for the reduction: The private insurers selling the new, government-subsidized coverage achieved discounts on medications sooner than the actuaries had expected. That offset a 4% increase in what the government thought it would spend on Medicare beneficiaries with costly drug bills.
"The outlook for Medicare [drug coverage] is much better," said Mark McClellan, administrator of the federal agency that runs the program. He credited the competition for customers between private insurers that resulted in lower than expected premiums for drug coverage this year. On enrollment, he and Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said they are hitting their own goals to have 28 to 30 million Medicare beneficiaries getting drug coverage.
Three things to notice:
1. Politicians like to talk about imaginary figures. Nancy Pelosi said something like Clinton (who had nothing to do but sign the budget the Republican Congress handed him) had a 3 trillion dollar surplus and now we have an 8 trillion dollar deficit which is totally ridiculous. There was only one year during the Clinton administration that there was ACTUALLY A SURPLUS where the federal government took in more money than it spent in a year (but we still had a 6 trillion dollar deficit). She pretends a 10 year budget projection was like money in the bank so she can act like Bush spent 11 trillion dollars. How stupid.
Bush was stupid in this regard by projecting costs of the war on terror which have ballooned out of that unrealistic projection. These costs must be viewed in terms of economic costs (9/11 cost about 1 trillion, how much will we spend to prevent another perhaps worse event?) But Democrats are going to run like the drug benefit has already cost us a trillion dollars--when in fact it only costs 30 billion a year (which could easily be paid for wth some fiscal restraint).
2. The market works. When you allow consumers to have choices and allow insurance companies to compete, prices will come down. The Democrats wanted a federal agency to deal directly (control) private pharmaceutical companies and negotiate prices otherwise they would gouge the consumers. But lo, the insurance companies negotiated with the pharma companies and brought prices down for their customers. When is Walmart going to start making drugs???
3. You passed the program--run on it. Conservatives will moan at the price, but we are upset about different things right now (immigration, earmark spending, judges, and the war). There is no need to avoid the subject in places like Florida and in liberal states with Republican candidates.
Posted by Aaron at 05:45 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Help Needed to Save A Life
John Hawkins has the story of a woman who's about to be taken off a respirator and life support. This is not a Teri Schiavo case:
Andrea, until a few days ago, when the physicians decided to increase her pain medication and anesthetize her into unconsciousness, was fully able to make her own medical decisions and had decided that she wanted life saving treatment until she dies naturally.
Posted by pat at 07:26 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Shame on Walgreens Pharmacy
A Florida woman is suing Illinois-based Walgreen Co. after reading notes on her prescription referring to her as "crazy" and "psycho."
Janey Karp, 53, of Palm Beach, has been fighting depression and anxiety with the help of medication, but was shocked to find a computer printout from her pharmacist with the insults.
In an entry dated March 17, 2005, the word "CrAzY!!" was entered in a field reserved for patient information. Another field from Sept. 30, 2004, stated: "She's really a psycho!!! Do not say her name too loud, never mention her meds by names & try to talk to her when ... ."
The remainder of the information was continued on another page, but was not included with the printout.
"I was devastated, humiliated and embarrassed," Karp told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. "I honestly couldn't speak. I was trembling."
I want to know if it was staff or the pharmacist responsible for this. My money is on the staff.
I take anti-depressants and CVS people always ask, "what medication?" on top of my last name when I pick up my prescriptions. It doesn't bother me because I am not not embarrassed by it, but it still gets on my nerves because I know other people could get upset by it.
Posted by Aaron at 08:02 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
CORRECTION! AIDS Factoid CORRECTION!
Thanks to a careful reader (KeithS), I realized that I read the information incorrectly on the number of AIDs deaths on the CIA factbook website.
The number 14,000 was the estimated AIDS deaths in 2003, not over 25 years. I clicked on the legend and this is what I found:
This entry gives an estimate of the number of adults and children who died of AIDS during a given calendar year.
This was an error of laziness and possibly naivety. I assumed that the number of 14,000 must be over time because in the same list, the AIDS deaths in South Africa were listed at over 300,000. So over 300,000 people in South Africa died of AIDS last year.
Does that surprise you? It did me.
I found this really surprising. As of 2003, there have only been 14,000 people to die of AIDS in the United States. Over the course of 25 years, AIDS deaths accounted for only 1/3 of ANNUAL deaths in automobile accidents.
Each AIDS death is tragic, but I am honestly very surprised at such a small number of deaths over the last 25 years. I felt it would be like 1 million. Am I naive? Does it surprise you?
Posted by Aaron at 04:44 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Blindsided By Breast Cancer
Laura Ingraham found out Friday that she has breast cancer. From her site:
You know I hate Drama Kings or Queens, but I am asking for your prayers today and for the forseeable future. On Friday afternoon, I learned that I have joined the ever-growing group of American women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. As so many breast cancer patients will tell you, it all came as a total shock. I am blessed to be surrounded by people who love me--my family, a wonderful fiance (if he thinks he's going to get out of marrying me because of this little blib, he's sadly mistaken!), my friends, and my church. I am absolutely blown away by how helpful and kind everyone has been--including total strangers who have experienced the same rollercoaster of emotions. The sisterhood of breast cancer survivors is inspiring. I am truly blessed. On Tuesday I will have an operation and within a few days will know more about the future. I am hopeful for a bright future and a "normal" life (well, scratch the "normal" part). Anyway, people have gone through much worse, and I know I'll obliterate this. I am thanking you in advance for your prayers. You are my family. And remember, I'll be back sooner than you think.
She is pictured above with her brand new fiancee (total hottie), Jimmy. Tons of prayers are needed so please include her in yours today.
I remember the day I first listened to her. It was the week of the State of the Union and it was the day after the Swimmer (aka Ted Kennedy) gave his "What Democrats Are for" speech.
She began playing everything he listed and had the sound of a cash register ringing every time he listed another program. It was hilarious. I listen to her every morning, and then again on my iPaq on the way home. She also provided the best coverage of the Terri Schiavo murder. She had me in tears the day she died sitting here at my desk. She is no Rush--she's something completely different and should be listened to daily.
Posted by Aaron at 09:33 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Canada is a Junkie's Paradise
A couple of weeks ago on my blog, I posted about Canada's new program available for heroin addicts. A rehab program? you ask. Nope. Free heroin for addicts. All addicts have to do is show up at medical centers three times a day, seven times a week, and a kindly medical professional will shoot them up with a fresh dose in a clean needle.
It seems hard to believe, but it's true.
Well, I guess I'm not the only one who thinks it's a crazy idea.
Rachel Marsden, writing for the Canadian Free Press, calls this the Junkification of Canada by the Left. Within her article, she quotes Dr. Peter Cohen, who is apparently for the idea:
“[O]piates are remarkably non toxic and impose very little health hazards. However, the junkification of users that happens to some of them is not a result of the opiates, but of the social conditions in which people land. Intense marginalization under conditions of prohibition 'creates' junkies…Now, if you supply heroin to users, you relieve them from the black market and you supply self esteem to them which creates all sorts of possibilities…But, compared to the social conditions that create junkification, the conditions inside the maintenance program are more humane and more promising.”
I see...
Marsden then uses his reasoning with her scenario of a fat woman who has difficulty in losing weight, and is given free fast food from the government:
“The lardification of fast food eaters that happens to some of them is not a result of cheeseburgers, but of the social conditions in which people land. Intense marginalization of cheeseburger scarfers under conditions of cheeseburger badmouthing as a result of movies like ‘Supersize Me’ ‘creates’ fatsos.”
Now that sounds more reasonable!
What does a bonafide, ex-heroin addict think? Billy Weselowski, a former 20-year heroin addict who now runs a rehab clinic and is working on his Ph.D., had this to say:
"Everyone has copped out to the degree of reducing a little bit of crime and a little bit of harm at the expense of human beings. They’re just throwing these people away...No one’s going to be able to maintain [their addiction on the three prescribed hits per day] because you can’t maintain heroin. You build a tolerance to it. Inside a few months, you’ll need more of it to get the same sort of punch...Someone’s going to end up killing somebody [while on government heroin], and they’re going to blame the government and use that as a legal defense. The addict has got a gun to the citizenry’s head. It’ll be, ‘You created this. You put me in this position, and now you’re going to pay for it.’”
Like any government program (those in the U.S. included) that is supposedly a temporary, stop-gap measure usually ends up being the status quo. Look at what it took to make changes to the welfare situation in this country! As Marsden says, "Leave it to the Canadian 'harm reduction' leftists to advocate in favor of using Canadian citizens as guinea pigs to essentially duplicate a failed experiment. And while the government is funding heroin injections for junkies, diabetics can’t afford needles, and addicts who want into treatment centers to get off heroin end up on a waiting list."
This last statement ties into my earlier post today on the perils of national health care.
Who pays for these drugs? Why, Canadian taxpayers, of course.
Remember this story when someone you know talks about what a great healthcare system Canada has, and how many great services are available for Canadian citizens.
Posted by at 09:36 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
The Perils of National Healthcare
For those of you who are wondering if a national health care system (such as those found in Canada, Britain and most of Europe) would be a good idea, please think again!
John C. Goodman, president for the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas, has co-written a book entitled Lives at Risk: Single-Payer National Health Insurance around the World . A paper adapted from the book can be found here.
Goodman highlights myths such as "countries with national health insurance make health care available on the basis of need rather than the ability to pay" and "countries with national health insurance create equal access to health care."
Click on the link above and read this important myth-buster regarding this piece of socialism the Left is anxious to impose on all of us.
Posted by at 09:51 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack