Guest guest Posted August 22, 2004 Report Share Posted August 22, 2004 http://www.fightforthefuture.org/bushrecord/bush_healthcare.cfm Health Care - The Bush Record America urgently needs a national plan to fix health care, and a president who will lead the way. Under President Bush, the number of Americans without health insurance has risen by more than 4 million.1 According to the Labor Department, benefits costs are far outstripping wage gains for American workers. Benefit costs were up 1.2% in the fourth quarter of 2003, while wages were up less than half that.2 And the Consumers Union warns that the president's Medicare drug plan may accelerate already skyrocketing drug prices.3 Too often, President Bush's health care initiatives seem designed to protect the profits of drug companies and HMOs -- not to cure the root causes of our health care crisis. Insurance and the Uninsured Today, more than 43 million Americans have no health insurance -- 4 million more than when President Bush took office.4 And because of the nation's patchwork health insurance system -- in which many people temporarily lose coverage when they leave jobs -- far more than 43 million Americans are without insurance for some part of each year. A March 2003 Families USA study found that 72 million Americans had no health insurance for all or part of 2001 and 2002. That's 30% of all Americans under 65.5 Bush plans would not provide affordable health care for working families. President Bush's proposed $1,000 individual tax credit for the purchase of health insurance is not a realistic subsidy to help most uninsured people obtain health insurance. A recent Families USA investigation found that, in 48 states, there were no standard $1,000 policies available for a healthy, non-smoking 55-year-old woman. Even healthy, non-smoking, 25-year-old women could not buy a $1,000 policy in 19 states. Those plans that were available for less than $1,000 had high deductibles and very limited benefits. Services like prescription drugs, emergency services, inpatient hospital visits, and mental health were either severely restricted or not provided at all.6 See statistics on the uninsured in your state. The biggest losers in the health-care lottery are middle-income folks and the working poor, who are least able to afford to pay for medical services. In fact, if you are uninsured and are admitted to a hospital in an emergency, you will be charged at a higher rate than seniors covered by Medicare or working people with health insurance through their employers. And if you fail to come up with the money, you may lose your house or have your wages attached.7 State and Local Health Care Funding The Bush tax cuts are draining resources for state health care programs. The Bush tax cuts are causing severe budget crises in the states. That's because state tax codes are tied to the federal tax code -- so when cuts are made to the federal code it triggers reductions at the state level too. The drain of resources has forced 49 states to cut funding for Medicaid, the joint federal-state program that funds care for low-income Americans and provides vital support to hospitals, clinics and nursing homes.8 Federal tax cuts are among several policies estimated to cost states and localities about $185 billion over the four-year course of the fiscal crisis (state fiscal years 2002-2005).9 Thirty-four states, in every region of the country, have adopted cuts that are causing low-income families and individuals to lose health insurance. States have adopted policies that will lower enrollment in Medicaid, SCHIP and state-funded health programs (like MinnesotaCare or Washington's Basic Health program) by approximately1.2 million to 1.6 million people. The cutbacks that states adopted affect diverse types of low-income beneficiaries: children, parents, seniors, the disabled, pregnant women, childless adults and immigrants.10 President Bush's 2004 budget would cut Medicaid by converting it into a " block grant " program. Under the current Medicaid system, as a state's health care needs increase, federal funding rises in tandem. But block-grants give states a fixed amount of money, so even if a state's Medicaid costs rise, its federal funding won't rise to meet those costs. An analysis of 11 social service programs that were converted to block grants shows that their inflation-adjusted funding fell by an average of 11 percent between 1982 and 2003.11 The Bush administration has opposed relief for hospitals struggling to care for the uninsured. The Bush administration has repeatedly proposed eliminating important federal support for a Medicaid program that helps hospitals pay for treating the uninsured. He opposed legislation that would have prevented $1.2 billion in cuts to hospitals that care for a disproportionate share of the uninsured.12 Prescription Drug Prices President Bush's Medicare drug plan does not rein in the prices charged by drug companies, and it even forbids Medicare officials from negotiating for lower drug prices for seniors. An analysis by the Consumer's Union found that even with the new Medicare drug plan most Medicare beneficiaries will pay more out-of-pocket for prescription drugs in 2007 than they do today.13 The pharmaceutical industry will reap a $139 billion windfall profit since the legislation does nothing to control drug prices-and even forbids Medicare from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices for seniors.14 Even with the new benefit in place, the middle 20% of seniors with average annual income of $18,000 will be paying almost 60% more for prescription drugs when the bill takes effect in 2006 then they did in 2000. By 2013 middle-income seniors will be paying more than two and a half times as much for prescription drugs (adjusting for inflation) as they did in 2000.15 And low-income Medicare beneficiaries who qualify for Medicaid and now receive prescription drugs either free of cost or at a nominal fee, will have to begin paying for these drugs. Perhaps worse off are those on Medicare and Medicaid and have incomes modestly above the poverty line: they will see their co-payments rise at the same rate the drug costs rise per Medicare beneficiary, projected at a minimum increase of 10% per year. Social Security checks, meanwhile, rise with the general inflation rate, of about 2-3% per year.16 The Bush drug plan pressures seniors to enroll in risky health plans with private insurance companies and HMOs. To get drug benefits under the Bush plan, seniors are pressured to get Medicare coverage through private insurance companies and HMOs.17 The legislation essentially forces many beneficiaries who otherwise want to remain in traditional Medicare so they can retain their choice of doctors, to switch to managed care plans in order to secure the broader drug coverage and other expanded benefits that the private plans can offer.18 American seniors have already been burned once by a similar plan called Medicare + Choice that encouraged seniors to sign up for private plans. But when the private insurers found they couldn't make enough profit under Medicare + Choice, they canceled coverage for 2 million seniors.19 The Future of Medicare Medicare is being inadequately funded by the Bush administration. To justify his tax cuts, President Bush's budgets have projected an extraordinarily low rate of growth in the costs of Medicare, the federal program that funds care for America's seniors. " There is a direct link between the administration's affluent-friendly tax cuts and the growing crisis of Medicare underfunding, " Princeton economist Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times. Bush's massive tax cuts for corporations and the rich have created " intense pressure to keep actual Medicare payments low, despite rapidly rising costs in the private sector. " 20 The Bush administration would turn Medicare over to private insurance companies and HMOs. President Bush's Medicare drug plan forces seniors into private plans, turning over increasing control of Medicare to insurance companies and HMOs, and laying the foundation for privatizing the entire Medicare system.21 Starting in 2010, about 2 million seniors in six metropolitan areas will be able to choose between traditional Medicare and private plans during a six-year experiment. The test areas have not been chosen, but affected seniors might have to pay up to 5% more a year if they opt to stay in Medicare instead of switching to cheaper private insurers.22 Privatizing Medicare would not lower costs, since private insurer's administrative costs are far higher than the government's.23 Bush plans to privatize Medicare threaten to disrupt coverage for seniors. American seniors have already been burned once by an experiment with Medicare privatization called Medicare + Choice. Much like Bush's current drug plan, Medicare + Choice used the promise of expanded benefits to encourage seniors to sign up with private HMOs and insurance companies. But when the private insurers found they couldn't make enough profit under Medicare + Choice, they canceled coverage for 2 million seniors.24 Sources 1 Kaiser Family Foundation, " Rising Unemployment and the Uninsured, " January 2002; SEIU Research Department Calculations. 2 CNN, “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” 1/29/04 http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/29/ldt.00.html 3 Consumers Union, " Statement by Gail Shearer, of Health Policy Analysis, " 6/27/03. 4 Kaiser Family Foundation, " Rising Unemployment and the Uninsured, " January 2002; SEIU Research Department Calculations. 5 Families USA, " Going Without Health Insurance, " March 2003. 6 Testimony by Ronald F. Pollack, Executive Director, Families USA, at the Hearing on Covering the Uninsured, before the Democratic Policy Committee, United States Senate, January 6, 2004. 7 Time online edition, " Has your life become too much a game of chance? " 1/25/04. http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040202/bintro.html 8 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, " Why Are States' Medicaid Expenditures Rising? " 1/13/03. 9 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, " A Brief Overview of State Fiscal Conditions and the Effects of Federal Policies on State Budgets, " 12/30/03. 10 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, " Losing Out: States are Cutting 1.2 to 1.6 Million Low-Income People from Medicaid, SCHIP and Other State Health Insurance Programs, " 12/22/03. 11 Georgetown University Institute for Health Care Research & Policy and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, " Less Money, Greater Risks for States Under Medicaid Block-Grant Proposal, " 6/3/03. 12 BNA Health Care Policy Report, " Bush Administration Opposes Senate Bill's DSH, Child Health Provisions, " 6/23/03. 13 Consumers Union, " Statement by Gail Shearer, of Health Policy Analysis, " 6/27/03. 14 Report by Health Reform Program at Boston University's School of Public Health 15 Center for Economic Policy Research, " Still A Pain: the Cost of Prescription Drugs to Seniors With the Medicare Drug Benefit. " http://www.cepr.net/medicare_drug_benefit.htm 16 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, " The Troubling Medicare Legislation, " 12/8/03. http://www.cbpp.org/11-18-03health2.htm 17 New York Times, " Medicare Aide Voices Doubts on Adding Drug Benefits, " 6/7/03. 18 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, " The Troubling Medicare Legislation, " 12/8/03 http://www.cbpp.org/11-18-03health2.htm 19 Families USA, " Private Plans: A Bad Choice for Medicare, June 2003. 20 New York Times, " Wealth Versus Health, " 4/19/02. 21 New York Times, " Medicare Aide Voices Doubts on Adding Drug Benefits, " 6/7/03. 22 USA Today, " Benefits start in '06, but help available sooner, " 11/25/03 23 Families USA, " Private Plans: A Bad Choice for Medicare, " June 2003. 24 Ibid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.