Study:Bush's Health Plan not most effective

Spider-Bite

Superhero
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
7,988
Reaction score
0
Points
31
<H1>Study: Bush's health plan not most effective
Two Congressional plans would cover all or nearly all Americans in need

Study: Bush's health plan not most effective
Two Congressional plans would cover all or nearly all Americans in need
MSNBC political calendar

Updated: 2 hours, 19 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - At least two of the health care proposals being presented to Congress would cover all or nearly all of the Americans who lack health insurance, and many would lower spending, too, according to an independent report released Monday.

Many of the plans would do more to cover uninsured Americans and lower costs than President Bush's proposals, said the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, which studies health care issues.

Health care has emerged as one of the top political issues of 2007, with groups as diverse as labor unions and major retailers teaming up to propose changes.

Several studies have found fault with the current U.S. system -- a free-for-all in which employers provide most health care, government programs provide much of the rest and 47 million Americans are left with no health insurance.

High performance health care
"If we don't move to make changes to our failing health care system, the number of uninsured in this country is projected to rise to 56 million by 2013," Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis said in a statement.

"Many of these proposals demonstrate that it is possible to move toward the high performance health care system Americans want and deserve while assuring access to health care for everyone," Davis said.

For Monday's report, staffers at the fund analyzed 10 health care plans introduced in 2006 and 2007 in the U.S. Congress, as well as Bush's proposals.

California Democratic Rep. Pete Stark's AmeriCare proposal that builds on Medicare and the employer-based system could save families with low and moderate incomes a collective $142.6 billion in 2007 and would cover 47.8 million extra Americans, the study found.

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden has proposed a bill that would also benefit low- and moderate-income households, to the tune of $78.8 billion, and would cover 45 million uninsured Americans.

Under Bush's proposal to help individuals buy their own health insurance with tax breaks, family spending on health care would fall by $31 billion.

But the Commonwealth Fund analysis found that families with annual incomes of less than $10,000 would save only $23 in 2007, while families earning $150,000 or more per year would save an average of $1,263 under the Bush plan.

Bush's plan would cover only 9 million extra Americans who now lack insurance.

The report found that the cost to administer the insurance program nationally would increase by $5.5 billion under Bush's plan, while such costs would fall under other plans.


You know before I thought that just to be on the safe side we should wait untill we lowered our debt to implement universal health care, but you know what's rescently been brought to my attention.



All of the money the country spends on health insurance right now has to be more than enough to cover everybody's medical expenses with a ton of money left over. otherswise the Insurance companies would have never made any profit.



We can actually save money here by doing this, as the study pointed out.
 
I read the thread title and immediately said to myself, "Ya think?".

jag
 
Wait, one of Bush's ideas sucks?!
*head explodes*
:o
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,563
Messages
21,761,830
Members
45,597
Latest member
iamjonahlobe
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"