TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Hernando Today

Guns, health-care reform may go hand in hand

ADVERTISEMENT

By RON RAE

The Rae Way

Published: June 27, 2009

All bets are on! Your bet's as good as any to what might eventually come out of the 10 health-care reform proposals floating around Washington, D.C., at this very moment: The Senate Finance Committee; the Senate HELP Committee; the House Tri-Committee; and proposals by Rep. John Dingell; Sen. Bernie Sanders; Rep. John Conyers; Rep. Pete Stark; Sens. Ron Wyden and Bob Bennett; Sens. Tom Cobern and Richard Burr; and Reps. Paul Ryan and Devin Nunes — count 'em.

If you sift through all the commas and semi-colons, you'll find nine proposals, but the one that tops the list is the one favored by Daddy Big Bucks Obama. The Kaiser Family Foundation has a 26-page layout of comparison information at www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm.

Estimated costs of health-care reform range from $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion over 10 years but tens of millions of Americans would still be left without coverage. Those with employer subsidized health coverage could see higher premiums, deductibles, co-payments and/or have their benefits taxed. When, or if, Congress passes legislation, the outcome will be a redistribution of health, thus wealth, to provide universal health care.

The health-care industry in general acknowledges the need, if only forcibly so, to bring costs down, but the different factions in the medical field will fight tooth and nail, and contribute lobbyist to legislator, to be less affected than other competing segments of healthcare — doctors, hospitals, insurance carriers and pharmaceutical companies.

As an example, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a lobbyist group for drug companies, has pledged $80 billion over 10 years, $30 billion of which would help defray up to 50 percent of the "doughnut hole" in annual Medicare drug coverage that stops at $2,700 then begins again at $6,100. The remaining $50 billion would go toward other unspecified aspects of health care reform.

The catch? The pharmaceutical group insists there be no ban on "pay for delay" to keep generic drugs off the market. Obama calls them "anticompetitive agreements."

A Deloitte Center for Health Solutions survey showed only "25 percent favor increasing taxes to help cover the uninsured. Forty three percent opposed and 32 percent are lukewarm." The New York Times/CBS poll found that 57 percent "said they would be willing to pay higher taxes for universal care" — 4 in 10 as much as $500 per year. Deloitte surveyed 4,001 adults Oct. 2-10 last year; The New York Times/CBS polled 895 from June 12-16 this year. Although there's always plus or minus percentages of sampling errors, the conflicting attitudes, as suggested by the different polls, don't quite meld.

Rasmussen Reports surveyed 1,000 adults from May 13-14, reporting that "32 percent American adults say they'd be willing to pay higher taxes" to provide all Americans with health insurance; 54 percent said, no way. The report also states 77 percent oppose taxing health insurance benefits.

A University of Michigan survey taken earlier this month suggests the uncharitable disposition of so many Americans may center on the 23.6 percent who fear losing health insurance in the next year, or the 46 percent who worry they won't be able to pay for future health care needs, or the 22.7 percent who already experience trouble paying off medical bills incurred during the past year.

The monthly survey, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, showed 88 percent of the 500 households have health-care benefits.

There's also a lot of doubt that health care reform will actually lead to lower costs — 45 percent foresee higher rates while only 19 percent expect a reduction. And 45 percent feel reform should wait until the economy improves, and 42 percent view deficit reduction as the top priority. But a whopping 63 percent feel it very unlikely that Obama will cut the national deficit in half by the end of his four-year term. For sure.

The costs of providing universal health care aren't necessarily the primary concern of all Americans.

While researching for this column, I happened upon the Gun Owners of America Web site requesting interested readers take action to "Urge your two U.S. senators to oppose Sen. Ted Kennedy's mandate that will result in the registration of all your gun information."

The concern turns to an assumption that any legislation "will allow radical left Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to determine the fine print" and that, because of a $20 billion provision in the stimulus bill, "… the government is rapidly moving in the direction of computerizing all of your confidential medical records and putting them into a federal database."

There you have it. Just as credit-card legislation was passed only after negotiating gun rights that allows concealed weapons in national parks, the solution to health care costs may only be realized with Second Amendment rights extended to allow guns in doctor offices, hospitals, pharmacies and insurance companies.

Concealed or not, straight shooters would get "something for nothing" and Republicans could take credit for passage of health care reform legislation.

Ron Rae, a regular columnist for Hernando Today, lives in Spring Hill. He can be contacted at hernandoron@yahoo.com.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT