Abort or Not to Abort

This week in my research I came across what is an interesting consideration, in my opinion. Should Federal money finance abortions? In reading the article "Health care debate likely to extend into next year" at http://www.examiner.com/ I learned that Congressman Stupak of Michigan is leading a group of about 40 politicians who will not allow the health care reform legislation to come to the floor unless there is allowed to be a vote on whether or not the legislation allowing federal funding for abortion be amended.

As we know there are those who are pro-life, and those who are pro-choice. Regardless of what your stand is on the issue in Ohio abortion is legal. Why would federal money NOT go to assist in paying for insurance that covers abortion, at least for the first one? With the exception of rape there should not be a second abortion unless medically necessary. Insurance pays for addiction clinics. Federal money would be spent to get people off of illegal drugs, for a month or so, so why not abortions? Again, only once, for any preventable reason. Abortion, addiction, whatever. You mess up the first time, I'm sorry, let me help you out. You mess up the second time, I'm sorry, help yourself out. Nobody learns from their mistakes if their mistakes have no consequences.

I say leave it to the states. If a state wants have abortions be legal, fine, if not, outlaw them then put a stipulation in the insurance that it will not cover abortions outside of the state. Is Congressman Stupak concerned about the taxpayers money being spent in ways he believes they won't approve, such as for abortions, or is he simply trying to force his opinion on the rest of us? By the way, Congressman, Medicaid pays for abortions every day.


(For statistics on abortion go to http://www.abortionfacts.com )

A new kind of insurance?

This week I found a website I had not visited before, and I'm sure I will be utilizing a lot in the months to come. It seems like a fairly obvious place to start looking at health care issues, www.barackobama.com , but for whatever reason I just took a look at it this week, and found a couple of interesting things.

First, there is an issue that is addressed that goes a little something like this:
* Requires large employers to cover their employees and individuals who can afford it to buy insurance so everyone shares in the responsibility of reform.
Now to me this is saying that all people who can afford to buy health care insurance HAVE to buy health care insurance. This concerns me for two reasons. First, on paper we have an ample income, however on paper we don't have a Vectren bill that skyrockets to $800 a month, dance classes, gas for the vehicles, car insurance, homeowner's insurance, and whatever else the government says doesn't count in our monthly expenditures. On paper we have money to burn, in reality, not so much.

Another little item is that the plan:
* Creates a new insurance marketplace — the Exchange — that allows people without insurance and small businesses to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive prices.
ummmmm, what? Was I wrong in thinking that health care reform was for all of us who didn't have it because we couldn't afford it, but we still have to buy it? I thought the socialized health care system was all about using a 'free' socialized health care system, much like the one in England and other countries, (which doesn't cost the English a pence out of pocket, other than taxes). So, we are supposed to pay for the insurance, plus pay more in taxes, plus be told where to go, what we can have done, and there will be limits to procedures, etc.? Am I the only one who has a problem with this?

Since I don't want to be the bearer of everything gloomy and doomy, and since I am trying very hard to support the President of the United States, I have found comething positive:
* Orders immediate medical malpractice reform projects that could help doctors focus on putting their patients first, not on practicing defensive medicine.
I completely agree there needs to be medical malpractice reform, as I have said in previous postings. It would be a great thing for the doctors to worry about their patient's rather than how much they think their patient's will sue them for if they say or do the wrong thing.

On another website, www.healthreform.gov , the issue of passing on the debt of people who don't pay to the people who do in the form of a tax. This brings to mind a story. In 2003 my husband and I were blessed with twins. Miami Valley Hospital, in all it's wisdom, double charged us for everything. I can see charging for two babies in the N.I.C.U., but two delivery charges, two room charges, two ultrasound charges, double everything. Well, needless to say we only paid half of what we were told we owed. The insurance company denied the charges, and when I asked for proof of the charges they charges of course they couldn't give us any. These charges, and charges like them, are part of what is being added in taxes to others accounts. These are the kinds of things that need to be changed in the healthcare system, the kinds of things that need to be address and resolved, and the issues that need reform.

A Look at the State Opt Out Plan and Wheelchairs.

On October 2, 2009 at http://voices.washingtonpost.com there is an article titled Senate Finance Committee Releases Its Final Text of Health-Care Bill. Within this article is the text of the health care bill that committee members will be voting on next week. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/Americas_Healthy_Future_Act_amended_100209.pdf
This is a very good document to look at if you are curious about just what it is that will be voted on. I, however, had a little trouble understanding all of it.

One thing I did notice was the state opt out plan. This allows for the individual states to come up with their own healthcare options for their residents and, if the Federal government approved it, that could be offered instead of the Federal plan. One prerequisit was that the insurance must be available to all residents in the state. That is good, I suppose, although I am still undecided about illegal immigrants being eligible for free medical care. Children, absolutely, the adults, if it is life threatening, absolutely. Otherwise, I'm undecided. Sounds harsh, I guess, but as an American citizen I am not eligible for healthcare unless I have insurance, unless it is a life threatening condition, so why should the standards be different for others?
There is also a condition of the state opt out which is that a ten year budget must be introduced that is neutral to the Federal government. There is to be no cost to the Federal government for the state provided insurance. Really? Does that not make sense to anybody else? It seems to me that if there is a plan in place through the government and they are planning to use the money in those states for healthcare regardless, shouldn't that money be given to the states then? Maybe the Federal taxes in those states will be lower because we all know taxes are going to go up to pay for this healthcare if is to be provided. It would really be not right to have to pay the taxes then get no benefit. Almost unAmerican. Almost.

Another item I found interesting is regarding wheelchairs. At present a person may get a wheelchair through medicare and it will be paid for through either a monthly rental, or in one lump sum. I would think if you are a person who knows you're going to be in a wheelchair for an extended period of time the lump sum would be the way to go. Apparently the government and I disagree on this too. On pages 184 and 185 the issue of wheelchair rental versus lump sum payments is addressed. All wheelchairs, with the exception of the complex, rehabilitative wheelchairs, are to be rented on a monthly basis. Only these heavy duty, costly, do it all for you wheelchairs would be paid off in a lump sum.
Again, I am no financial genius, but it seems to me it is a lot more cost effective to pay something in a lump sum than to pay monthly payments for many, many months. Perhaps the government has paid for a lot of wheelchairs in a lump sum when they were only necessary for a few months so the government lost money. I guess a look at the prognosis and an estimation of the amount of time the wheelchair was necessary should have been looked at. I know that would have occured in a private insurance scenario.

Just a note with regard to last week's blog about medical malpractice. There is mention of that in this document on pages 207 and 208, however it says that is up to the states to deal with.