Tag Archives: health care

Yet Another Veterans Administration Failure

Posted on by
Reply

Here is another failure of the VA to take care of our veterans as they are charged to do, and as the VA’s motto promises they’ll do.  Here is another casual dishonor of that promise [emphasis added].

More than 1,000 Department of Veterans Affairs patients in Kansas didn’t get proper follow-up care after initial colonoscopies last year, a problem that was addressed only after a whistleblower repeatedly reported it, according to a government watchdog.
The watchdog found patients didn’t get follow-up screenings on time and when they did, often didn’t get the results in a timely manner because of [a string of excuses].

Here’s that motto which the VA has so routinely dishonored:

To care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan

After all this time, and with VA failure rate continuing unabated, it’s time to get off the dime and get rid of the VA altogether.  As I’ve said many times, commit this Failure Administration’s current and putative future budgets to vouchers for our veterans so they can get the care they need and want from the doctors they choose, the clinics they choose, the hospitals they choose.  It’s time to unshackle our veterans from the VA’s determined resistance to perform.

 

Veteranos Administratio delende est.

A Thought on Medicare for All

Posted on by
Reply

University of Massachusetts-Amherst Economics Professor and Co-Director of the Political Economy Research Institute, Robert Pollin, had a thought on this.

Of course, so do I.

Pollin opened his tract with this:

All Americans would be able to get care from their chosen providers without having to pay premiums, deductibles or copayments.

No, we’ve already seen the lie in this. We experienced the broken, falsely presented promise with the sales job on Obamacare and the oft-repeated lie that if we liked our doctor, we could keep him and the associated lie of lower premiums.

Roughly 30 million people, 9% of the US population, are uninsured. Another 26%, 86 million people, are underinsured…

With millions of those Americans thrown off insurance plans they preferred because Obamacare made them illegal. This “economist” carefully elided that small fact.

We propose that all businesses that currently purchase health insurance for their employees be mandated to pay 92% of what they now spend into Medicare for All—saving 8% of their health-care expenditures.

Thereby throwing even more people off the plans they prefer.

This person also ignores another salient fact: the complete failure that is an existing single-payer plan, the VA.

And one more: even now, folks with surgical needs or prompt-but-expensive care needs or any other non-cookie cutter needs in other nations’ “free for all” health programs come here for those needs’ satisfaction rather than bear the interminable delays in getting that care in their nations’ programs.

Disruption

Posted on by
Reply

And the widening gyre may be dissipating, finally.

Recall that a Federal judge in the 5th Appellate district ruled rump Obamacare unconstitutional because the tax imposed on not having health insurance was rescinded and the law had no severability clause—making the law itself an unconstitutional demand that private citizens buy something they did not want.

An outcome of this is feared by the NLMSM and Progressive-Democrats to be

particular disruption within the industry as no replacement system would be put in place.

It’s certainly true that there will be disruption—but no greater than the disruption from the imposition of Obamacare in the first place, which entailed the Federal government seizing control of the health care provision and health care coverage industries—a full sixth of our economy—and throwing millions of Americans off the health insurance plans they had and wanted to keep by making those plans illegal.

The disruption will be considerably less than the current plans of Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidates, whose aim is to make illegal all hints of private health insurance and to seize the rest of those two industries through “Medicare for all” plans, forcing Americans to participate in—and to pay for—yet more programs that they don’t want.

Indeed, both Obamacare and the current Progressive-Democrats’ plans have nothing to do with insurance, health or otherwise; they were and are nothing but Government mandated and privately funded—lately proposed taxpayer funded—welfare programs overlain like a new room on a settler’s prairie house on the existing ramshackle house of welfare programs.

The disruption will be short-lived, too.  The “no replacement system put in place” is only technically true: the Federal government isn’t mandating a particular system (whether by design or by Republican fecklessness).  The resulting newly unfettered health free market will very quickly fill that niche.  The freed-up industries will rapidly produce plans that fit the customers’ needs and wants for their personal health care and true health insurance plans.

The new insurance plans will be based off the plans extant prior to the Obamacare debacle, and then they’ll be tailored to current customer wishes rather than Government one-size-fits-all coverages.  No longer will Americans be required to pay for coverages they don’t need or don’t want, no longer will young and healthy Americans who don’t need or want coverage be required to pay for any sort of it, no longer will grown, adult human beings be treated like children barred from making their own risk-related decisions concerning their own health and the specific insurance coverages they want.

It Isn’t Pro-Choice, Anymore

Posted on by
Reply

Now it’s pro-infanticide.  That’s the position of the Progressive-Democratic Party after Party Senators voted—unanimously—to kill a bill that would have outlawed immediately post-birth infanticide.

Senator Ben Sasse’s (R, NE) bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, would have required doctors to work to save a baby’s life if an abortion attempt failed and the baby was born alive despite the attempt.  All Progressive-Democrat Senators, every single one of them, voted to kill the bill and thereby to let abortion doctors finish killing the baby.

As Sasse put the situation after those Progressive-Democrat Senators had had their way,

I want to ask each and every one of my colleagues whether or not we’re OK with infanticide[.]

Indeed.

On the other hand,

Opponents, noting the rarity of such births and citing laws already making it a crime to kill newborn babies, said the bill was unnecessary.

How cynical. Statistica reports that

There were a total of 17,284 reported murder and non-negligent manslaughter cases in the US in 2017.

Out of a population of some 325 million, that works out to about 0.005%.  That’s pretty rare, too.  Maybe we don’t need those other anti-murder laws, either.

Never mind that the bill would have been an easy way to reduce the post-failed abortion infanticide rate even further.  It still would have been too much like moral work.

Remember this in the fall of 2020.

A Judge’s Error

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration had expanded rules allowing employers to opt out of being required to provide birth control coverage to their employees at no cost to the employees, so long as the opting out was convincingly based on religious or moral grounds.  Federal District Judge Haywood Gilliam of the Northern District of California has issued an injunction blocking enforcement of the expansion while an underlying lawsuit against the expansion is underway.

Ordinarily, blocking an enforcement while the underlying case proceeds is no big deal, but this one is just plain wrong.  Gilliam based his ruling in significant part on the premise that

the [expansion] would result in a “substantial number” of women losing birth control coverage, which would be a “massive policy shift.”

For one thing, given how cheap birth control drugs and devices are and how easily obtained prescriptions for them are, it’s not at all clear that a “substantial number” of women would be unable to obtain birth control drugs or devices.

But the larger, vastly more important matter is this.  As Gilliam himself noted, the expansion would be a policy shift (massive or not, that’s irrelevant here).  Policy matters are political matters, and so they clearly are outside the purview of the courts.  Policy—political—matters are the exclusive province of the political arms of our government and of We the People.  A judge who intrudes, from his bench, into political matters clearly violates his oath to uphold the law.  Making policy has no place in his oath.