Blessed are the Poor...
According to a recent Census Bureau report, the number of Americans without health insurance has increased from 1.3 million to 46.6 million!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And a snippet via Common Dreams....
Children accounted for 8.3 million of the uninsured, up from 7.9 million in 2004. Nearly 1 in 5 impoverished children lacked coverage in 2005, and 22 percent of Hispanic children were uninsured.
The new estimates, part of an annual census survey, mark the fifth straight year that the ranks of the uninsured have increased. The new data, which show that nearly 16 percent of Americans lack health coverage, caught many by surprise because unemployment rates were fairly stable last year.
In addition to Iraq and Katrina, add these numbers to the legacy of George W. Bush
Having just returned from a 15-night hospital stay, I know first hand that hospital costs are out of control. The metal rod surgically placed in my left leg cost nearly 3,000 dollars. The screws which hold the rod in place run for nearly 400 bucks apiece. My total bill equaled close to 100,000 smackers. Luckily, I'm insured.
But what about those 46 million uninsured Americans???
Let's rally together and Vote for Change this November.
George Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress must be held accountable!!!
posted by Big Daddy Weave at 10:13 PM
8 Comments:
Honestly man, I am tired of hearing that it is all George Bush's fault. He doesn't sue anyone for malpractice, which drives up the cost of insurance. He probably isn't on prescribed sleeping pills, ritalin, prozac, or a hundred or so thousand other drugs that send ridiculously hypercondriatic people to the doctor 2-3x a week that aids in driving up health insurance. He didn't start the problems with insurance companies who are money-hungry (this started way back before you or I were born) and he doesn't have anything to do with skyrocketing costs of medical school, which also drives up the cost of insurance.
Medical treatment has always been and probably will always be more available to those who have more money (or in most cases, better jobs). This is actually not a new phenonmenon (and there have always been charity hospitals -- now they are just packed to the rafters). And before you assume that universal health care is going to fix everything, talk to some Canadians who are angry about their own health care system that can't treat anyone nearly enough. And now we are learning that Canadian doctors are beginning to slowly trickle out of Canada to find more gainful employment elsewhere.
With apologies to Billy Joel, George Bush didn't start the fire, it was always burning since the world's been turning. So let's be honest here. And maybe place some blame on the Clinton's who were all talk and very little action, even though they saw this coming long ago.
11:01 PM
What is the role of the President? What is the role of the Republican-controlled Congress?
PASS LEGISLATION.
Come on, you and I both know that this Adminstration has failed miserably when it comes to helping middle class Americans.
Don't act as if the Bush Administration is blameless?
Show me that increase in the minimum wage!
It doesn't always go back to Bill Clinton....
11:06 PM
I'm not trying to dismiss blame, I am trying to point out that your assigning of blame is majorly overexaggerated. Sure our representatives are at fault in some ways in regard to this issue, but neither the Democrats, nor the Republicans are to blame solely for this crisis and we cannot trace its roots to them.
My comment about Clinton was not to be taken as a poke at he or his wife individually, but merely to point out that the problem extends well beyond this current administration. Clinton just happens to be the last one and a Democrat as well. I think if you really ever want any true communication to occur between those on your side and those on mine you have to stop assigning all the blame to "the other side of the aisle" and start taking some upon yourself and your own party. Compromise is needed, not more mudslinging and finger pointing.
An example of this is the one you bring up about the minimum wage. Republicans called for compromise with the minimum wage in several ways. One was to reduce the amount the Democrats wanted to raise it -- they shot it down (though a 40% minimum wage increase has never been passed in Congress and probably shouldn't since it would have major ripple effects in the economy that would end up damaging the poor rather than helping them). Another was to eliminate the death tax for a larger group of people. You would have thought that the Republicans called for an elimination of the income tax for the rich -- it was incredible how the Democrats responded! So, let's talk in a civilized manner about what should be done and quit pointing fingers about who is more to blame. Then something might actually get done.
9:21 AM
Pardon my "Give me a Break" attitude as seen in my last post. It was late and the hydrocodone was making me groggy...
I'm not looking to trace the roots of the health care crisis - but looking for solutions instead. We do have a crisis and the responsibility rests on the shoulders of those in control to find solutions. Republicans have been in control for nearly 6 years. Actions speak louder than empty words.
Republicans rubber stamped a Medicare prescription drug law which gave a slush fund to the pharmaceutical companies and which prevents the federal government from negotiating cheaper drug prices for our senior citizens. Did I forget to mention that Congress allowed lobbyists and special interest groups to write this law? Something terribly wrong with that scenario...
I admit a few Democrats are guilty. Likewise, not all Republicans deserve to bear the burden of blame. More Republicans like Chafee, Hagel, and McCain are needed to combat this crisis in a bipartisan manner. As a Democrat, I cherish the strong and consistent stance that the Party has taken on domestic issues such as health care, support for public schools, raising the minimum wage, and keeping Social Security from being privatized.
Politics have become so polarized in recent years - and that is not good for our country. Democrats are willing to compromise but attaching to the minimum wage increase a clause that would eliminate the estate tax is not acceptable. How is that a fair compromise? An elimination of the death tax will only benefit the rich and hurt the poor. Over 10 years, $753 billion in overall government income will be lost. Eliminating the estate tax will force lower spending for Medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment insurance. Thus, the minimum wage increase becomes a moot point.
I'm all for compromises and bipartisanship. I supported Bush & Ted Kennedy's bipartisan compromise on immigration...
Seriously, a hike in the minimum wage is long overdue. 7.20 an hour? The Bush administration spends and spends and spends but can't raise the minimum wage $2 over 3-4 years? A part-time student-worker at Baylor earns less than $100 per week. After a tank of gas, a handful of microwavable meals, and a 12-pack of diet beverages - that student is left with a few bucks to spare.
In 2005, health care costs exceeded the annual minimum-wage earnings for a full-time working adult. The cost of health care premiums keeps rising but the minimum wage stays the same...
Surely, a Living Wage isn't out of the scope of possibility??
1:21 PM
Pardon my "Give me a Break" attitude as seen in my last post. It was late and the hydrocodone was making me groggy...
I'm not looking to trace the roots of the health care crisis - but looking for solutions instead. We do have a crisis and the responsibility rests on the shoulders of those in control to find solutions. Republicans have been in control for nearly 6 years. Actions speak louder than empty words.
Republicans rubber stamped a Medicare prescription drug law which gave a slush fund to the pharmaceutical companies and which prevents the federal government from negotiating cheaper drug prices for our senior citizens. Did I forget to mention that Congress allowed lobbyists and special interest groups to write this law? Something terribly wrong with that scenario...
I admit a few Democrats are guilty. Likewise, not all Republicans deserve to bear the burden of blame. More Republicans like Chafee, Hagel, and McCain are needed to combat this crisis in a bipartisan manner. As a Democrat, I cherish the strong and consistent stance that the Party has taken on domestic issues such as health care, support for public schools, raising the minimum wage, and keeping Social Security from being privatized.
Politics have become so polarized in recent years - and that is not good for our country. Democrats are willing to compromise but attaching to the minimum wage increase a clause that would eliminate the estate tax is not acceptable. How is that a fair compromise? An elimination of the death tax will only benefit the rich and hurt the poor. Over 10 years, $753 billion in overall government income will be lost. Eliminating the estate tax will force lower spending for Medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment insurance. Thus, the minimum wage increase becomes a moot point.
I'm all for compromises and bipartisanship. I supported Bush & Ted Kennedy's bipartisan compromise on immigration...
Seriously, a hike in the minimum wage is long overdue. 7.20 an hour? The Bush administration spends and spends and spends but can't raise the minimum wage $2 over 3-4 years? A part-time student-worker at Baylor earns less than $100 per week. After a tank of gas, a handful of microwavable meals, and a 12-pack of diet beverages - that student is left with a few bucks to spare.
In 2005, health care costs exceeded the annual minimum-wage earnings for a full-time working adult. The cost of health care premiums keeps rising but the minimum wage stays the same...
Surely, a Living Wage isn't out of the scope of possibility??
1:24 PM
A couple more thoughts.
1. I agree health care is an important issue, but I think you are unwilling to be honest here and see that Republicans are not the only ones stalling the process. I have only heard lip service paid to health care by Democrats since Clinton left office. And only this year (an election year at that) have Democrats really been working hard on the "Living Wage". You might be proud of the Democrats, but they are politicians nonetheless who are not at all less at fault than Republicans.
2. As for the compromise that you say isn't really a compromise on the death tax (which is really what it is -- after all estate tax is a misnomer since the estate has been taxed again and again over the course of the time it was accrued and is only again taxed at 40+% - yikes!), they Republicans did not propose an end to it, but rather a scaling down of it. They proposed no taxes up to $10 million and then from $10-25 mill one would be taxed at the capital gains rate (I believe 30%). After that at the standard rates now (which for that amount would currently be 46%. Right now the maximum taxed "estate" is $2 million, which in reality is a small farm in most places and almost a middle class residence in California and New York. At a 40% tax rate the children get nothing, which is completely unjust (where's the civil rights advocation for the rich -- do they not deserve it because they are rich?).
3. Here is a quick summary of the history of the death tax. In another article I found it stated:
The permanent estate tax, after a generation of agitation, got a final push toward passage as part of preparations for World War I. The Emergency Revenue Act of 1916 included an estate tax and also increased income taxes and instituted an excess profits tax to discourage war profiteering. The first estate tax was imposed on the value of an estate over $50,000 (roughly $850,000 in today’s dollars) at a graduated rate of one to five percent.
4. So the compromise brought to the table would not have lost $700 billion in tax revenues, but only a fraction of that and would have given those who make up the majority of the tax payers a fair shake when they inherit from their hard working parents. Additionally, the revenue adjustment would have balanced out inflation by providing those who spend the most more money to put back into the market, thus balancing out the economy. It would not have put an undue burden on the poor at all (those who actually live on minimum wage) since those who do so still pay an almost minimum amount of tax (some none at all). Also, the increase in minimum wage for others would have boosted them into a higher tax bracket and thus subject to more taxes, ultimately providing little help, especially with the corollary inflation rates that would be certain to soar in increasing minimum wage by 40%.
5. Finally, a better strategy has not been proposed by the Democrats at all, which should be a graduated increase of the minimum wage over the next 5-10 years. If it was over 10 years a living wage of over $8/hr might actually be feasible without throwing the markets into chaos with such a huge increase all at once. Also, only a fraction of employers now pay exactly minimum wage. It might be better for human rights groups to lobby for higher wages to some of the larger of those companies, especially when those companies employ workers who suffer because of it.
6. Which brings us to college students (and high school students at that) who often don't need a living wage and are the most unskilled workers in the workforce (thus not deserving of the same pay as say a 30-year old who have been in the workforce for 12+ years). College students, if they really need to make higher amounts of money, don't have to be working for minimum wage since they have the most flexible schedules and usually the most energy. I am sorry to say this and I mean no disrespect, but you have to be an idiot to work at Baylor for minimum wage when you easily work at McDonalds in Waco and make $7-9/hr working the night shift. You can make at least $6/hr working at Blockbuster, Barnes and Nobles, and any of a number of other places. And if you don't have a car to have access to that, what are you doing paying $20,000+ for tuition at a private institution, going in debt, and trying to survive off of $5/hr anyway? We shouldn't be encouraging people to make stupid financial decisions like that anyway.
Picking up the paper yesterday to look at the classifieds showed me that the job market is wide open right now. Most people don't need to settle for crappy jobs and the economy is stronger than ever. That is another reason why I think the Democrats move here is purely political and that is why they were unwilling to compromise. If poor workers are the most important thing on their agenda, then why are they so worried about a shortage in tax revenues that can easily be made up when more people have jobs, which would be created by more spending money in the marketplace? It seems like simple economics to me, but what do I know, I am just a theologian, right?
10:31 PM
Sorry, on that article I quoted about, I forgot to cite the first sentence of the next paragraph, which was really the focus on my point. It reads, "Facing a budget crisis during the Great Depression, Congress raised the top estate tax rate to 70% on fortunes in excess of $50 million ($666 million in today’s dollars)."
Sorry to get off subject and talk about something other than health care, but it seemed relevant to a discussion on economics and political views.
10:36 PM
I agree with d.r. regarding our healthcare crisis. Has any administration attempted to limit how much hospitals and doctors can charge? Yes our presidents should push for laws for the common man;
but it seems that they always respond to voter influence as expressed to them by "lobbyists and special interest groups".
Therefore, WE, as Americans need lobbyists and special interest groups! I have been searching the internet but have not found any PACs that try to limit hospital costs. [The hospitals and doctors have at least ten -- they put there money toward the source of their extravagent income]. We need a PAC too. Write me at phutsteiner@hotmail.com if you find one. Thanks --Paul
9:25 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home