R
Raymond
Guest
Of course Vice President Bush is going to oppose extended healthcare
for low income children! Bush apparently would rather protect
insurance companies than kids.
Taxpayers pick up Bush's bill
"Why are we the only ones that are so uncivilized?"
By David Lazarus
San Francisco Chronicle
July 25, 2007
Democratic lawmakers in Washington say they're drafting a health care
reform bill that would expand coverage for low-income kids.Vice
President Bush says he'll veto any such legislation, warning that it
would lead the nation "down the path to government-run health care for
every American."
Like that would be a bad thing.
What's particularly galling about Bush's position is that it's coming
from a man who just underwent a colonoscopy performed at the taxpayer-
funded, state-of-the-art medical facility at Camp David by an elite
team of doctors from the taxpayer-funded National Naval Medical Center
in Bethesda, Md.
If anyone understands the benefits of government-run health care, it's
the vice president.
But let's not get sidetracked. Bush wasn't being entirely accurate
when he derided the notion of government-run health care for every
American. That might make for a fine little sound bite, especially
among those who fear the specter of "socialized medicine," but it's
not really what's at stake.
Rather, advocates of health care reform are seeking government-run
insurance for every American, leaving the health care part to those
who know best - doctors and nurses.
This is a crucial distinction at a time when 47 million Americans lack
medical coverage and, according to researchers at Harvard University,
about a third of the $2 trillion spent annually on health care in this
country is squandered on bureaucratic overhead.
"Cuba is socialized medicine," observed Dr. Kevin Grumbach, who heads
the Department of Family and Community Medicine at UCSF. "The
government employs all the physicians and owns all the hospitals.
That's not what anyone is talking about for this country."
Rather, the focus here is on two indisputable facts: that the United
States spends about twice as much per person on health care as most
other industrialized democracies, and that Americans on average do not
live as long as people in countries that guarantee medical coverage to
their citizens.
"Why have all other countries figured out a way to do this?" Grumbach
asked. "Why are we the only ones that are so uncivilized?"
The United States spent an average of $6,102 per person on health care
in 2004 (the latest year for which figures are available), according
to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Canada spent $3,165 per person, France $3,159, Australia $3,120 and
Britain a mere $2,508. Life expectancy in the United States was lower
than in each of these other countries and infant mortality was
higher.
Looking at the numbers another way, the Kaiser Family Foundation
determined earlier this year that health care spending accounts for
15.2 percent of the U.S. economy.
By contrast, health care spending represents 9.9 percent of Canada's
gross domestic product, 10.4 percent of France's, 9.2 percent of
Australia's and just 7.8 percent of Britain's.
And again, the citizens of these countries on average live longer than
we do.
In Washington, Democratic lawmakers are crafting legislation to expand
the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which subsidizes
insurance for low-income kids.
The Senate Finance Committee last week approved a five-year plan to
increase funding for the program through a 61-cents-per-pack increase
in the federal cigarette tax. This would maintain coverage for 6.6
million recipients while adding 3.2 million uninsured kids to the
system.
Bush told an audience in Nashville last week that the Senate bill is
"the beginning salvo of the encroachment of the federal government on
the health care system." He said he'd veto any such legislation making
its way to his desk.
That's a fine how-do-you-do for a guy who had five growths removed
from his colon on Saturday largely at the government's expense and had
them promptly examined by government experts at the government-run
National Naval Medical Center.
Happily, the tests showed no sign of cancer. So Bush can rest easy for
another few years, thanks to all that government health care.
No one at the White House could be reached to discuss how much the
vice president paid out of his own pocket for the colonoscopy and
subsequent testing.
Presidents typically have their own health insurance, although the
first-class treatment they receive is largely defrayed by taxpayer
funds. In other words, they're prime beneficiaries of government-run
health care - just like in Cuba.
In a paper found on the Web site of the Defense Department's Armed
Forces Institute of Pathology ( www.afip.org ), former White House
physician George Fuller outlines the mission of the taxpayer-funded
White House Medical Unit.
He writes that a primary purpose of the group is to provide
"confidential, immediate and private access to preventive, routine and
urgent care for the principals." This, Fuller adds, "is a 24-hour,
seven-days-a-week commitment with no exceptions."
The quality of health care is so exacting, he observes, "that the vice
president cannot even ride an elevator in the Eisenhower Executive
Office Building without a physician escort."
According to Fuller, the vice president enjoys the benefits of medical
and dental clinics in the White House, as well as "a fully equipped
and supplied outpatient clinic" at Camp David, where Bush's colon was
explored.
He says the White House Medical Unit also "keeps a unique and
extensive library of medical facilities throughout the world" to
provide for the vice president's health care needs during overseas
travel.
All in all, Bush is the last person with a right to complain about
government-run health care for every American. We should all be so
lucky.
David Lazarus' column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. He also
can be heard Saturdays, 4 to 7 p.m., on KGO Radio. Send tips or
feedback to dlazarus@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/25/BU44R6ES62.DTL
This article appeared on page C - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
for low income children! Bush apparently would rather protect
insurance companies than kids.
Taxpayers pick up Bush's bill
"Why are we the only ones that are so uncivilized?"
By David Lazarus
San Francisco Chronicle
July 25, 2007
Democratic lawmakers in Washington say they're drafting a health care
reform bill that would expand coverage for low-income kids.Vice
President Bush says he'll veto any such legislation, warning that it
would lead the nation "down the path to government-run health care for
every American."
Like that would be a bad thing.
What's particularly galling about Bush's position is that it's coming
from a man who just underwent a colonoscopy performed at the taxpayer-
funded, state-of-the-art medical facility at Camp David by an elite
team of doctors from the taxpayer-funded National Naval Medical Center
in Bethesda, Md.
If anyone understands the benefits of government-run health care, it's
the vice president.
But let's not get sidetracked. Bush wasn't being entirely accurate
when he derided the notion of government-run health care for every
American. That might make for a fine little sound bite, especially
among those who fear the specter of "socialized medicine," but it's
not really what's at stake.
Rather, advocates of health care reform are seeking government-run
insurance for every American, leaving the health care part to those
who know best - doctors and nurses.
This is a crucial distinction at a time when 47 million Americans lack
medical coverage and, according to researchers at Harvard University,
about a third of the $2 trillion spent annually on health care in this
country is squandered on bureaucratic overhead.
"Cuba is socialized medicine," observed Dr. Kevin Grumbach, who heads
the Department of Family and Community Medicine at UCSF. "The
government employs all the physicians and owns all the hospitals.
That's not what anyone is talking about for this country."
Rather, the focus here is on two indisputable facts: that the United
States spends about twice as much per person on health care as most
other industrialized democracies, and that Americans on average do not
live as long as people in countries that guarantee medical coverage to
their citizens.
"Why have all other countries figured out a way to do this?" Grumbach
asked. "Why are we the only ones that are so uncivilized?"
The United States spent an average of $6,102 per person on health care
in 2004 (the latest year for which figures are available), according
to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Canada spent $3,165 per person, France $3,159, Australia $3,120 and
Britain a mere $2,508. Life expectancy in the United States was lower
than in each of these other countries and infant mortality was
higher.
Looking at the numbers another way, the Kaiser Family Foundation
determined earlier this year that health care spending accounts for
15.2 percent of the U.S. economy.
By contrast, health care spending represents 9.9 percent of Canada's
gross domestic product, 10.4 percent of France's, 9.2 percent of
Australia's and just 7.8 percent of Britain's.
And again, the citizens of these countries on average live longer than
we do.
In Washington, Democratic lawmakers are crafting legislation to expand
the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which subsidizes
insurance for low-income kids.
The Senate Finance Committee last week approved a five-year plan to
increase funding for the program through a 61-cents-per-pack increase
in the federal cigarette tax. This would maintain coverage for 6.6
million recipients while adding 3.2 million uninsured kids to the
system.
Bush told an audience in Nashville last week that the Senate bill is
"the beginning salvo of the encroachment of the federal government on
the health care system." He said he'd veto any such legislation making
its way to his desk.
That's a fine how-do-you-do for a guy who had five growths removed
from his colon on Saturday largely at the government's expense and had
them promptly examined by government experts at the government-run
National Naval Medical Center.
Happily, the tests showed no sign of cancer. So Bush can rest easy for
another few years, thanks to all that government health care.
No one at the White House could be reached to discuss how much the
vice president paid out of his own pocket for the colonoscopy and
subsequent testing.
Presidents typically have their own health insurance, although the
first-class treatment they receive is largely defrayed by taxpayer
funds. In other words, they're prime beneficiaries of government-run
health care - just like in Cuba.
In a paper found on the Web site of the Defense Department's Armed
Forces Institute of Pathology ( www.afip.org ), former White House
physician George Fuller outlines the mission of the taxpayer-funded
White House Medical Unit.
He writes that a primary purpose of the group is to provide
"confidential, immediate and private access to preventive, routine and
urgent care for the principals." This, Fuller adds, "is a 24-hour,
seven-days-a-week commitment with no exceptions."
The quality of health care is so exacting, he observes, "that the vice
president cannot even ride an elevator in the Eisenhower Executive
Office Building without a physician escort."
According to Fuller, the vice president enjoys the benefits of medical
and dental clinics in the White House, as well as "a fully equipped
and supplied outpatient clinic" at Camp David, where Bush's colon was
explored.
He says the White House Medical Unit also "keeps a unique and
extensive library of medical facilities throughout the world" to
provide for the vice president's health care needs during overseas
travel.
All in all, Bush is the last person with a right to complain about
government-run health care for every American. We should all be so
lucky.
David Lazarus' column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. He also
can be heard Saturdays, 4 to 7 p.m., on KGO Radio. Send tips or
feedback to dlazarus@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/25/BU44R6ES62.DTL
This article appeared on page C - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle