₦airaland Forum

@Ibime,

Without people like Ted Kennedy, Tayo-D would be nothing but a two-bob nigger whose life would be at the mercy of the feelings of his white benefactors. . . . and anytime they change their mind, they can give him the Emmet Till treatment.

Tayo-D is a despicable waste of human seminal fluid who had the ill-fortune to collide with an egg.

As for Je-Soul, she is not a total waste. We can still put her to work in the bedroom or kitchen!

Who let you out of the asylum and forgot to give you your meds? Or are you still waiting in line for the NHS to determine if you are worthy of the $5 meds it takes to give you some lucid moments of sanity?

@naliakar,

As a leading advocate of sexual and reproductive health. Kennedy should be lauded for helping expand choices in reproductive health. You know you are lying through your teeth by accusing him of such macabre. Conversely, this thread could do with humorous paranoia so lets keep on the act. How are the twin cities treating you?

What are the consequences of the so called reproductive health you are talking about? It is the mass-killing of innocent babies. Do you think Kennedy should be held accountable for the consequences of his action or should we only judge the good intentions?

@pres-elect,

the young lady that died in his car was an accident(unlike the over I00,000 people who died in irak which was not an accident but a stupid invasion fuelled by greed from the republicans), he messed up, he was panicky and took the wrong decisions with fatal, debatably unforgiveable conseguences. he was in a f-cked up situation and his family came to the rescue. too bad. but that was 40yrs ago, get over it

What about the millions of babies that have been killed through his support of the so-called reproductive health? Do you think those deaths were by accident too? Or should we ignore the consequences of that action too?

@Aloy-Emeka,

Do you think George Bush will be held accountable for the many innocent women and children murdered in Iraq in the name of war on terror?

Absolutely! Next question!

@naliakar,

It was despicable but if nothing punitive and/or retributive could be done in his life time, it would be pointless bringing it up now. For God,s sake he may be standing face to face with his comeuppance even if spiritually.

Do you think he will be held accountable, albeit spiritually, for the many innocent babies that were slaughtered in the name of reproductive health that he also championed as a liberal?

@David,

Looks like we have now agreed on something.  There is nothing wrong with our healthcare system in terms of delivering healthcare.  However hard we try, we will never find those nightmarish cases we see in Britain in the U.S. under the present system.  Such may, and will definitely happen if we have a govt-controlled healthcare.  Infact, similar cases close to those will be found in the Govt controlled VA health services.

So if the problem is about cost, how do we solve it? First, it may be good to know that while Britain's overall healthcare cost has gone up tenfold in the last decade, America's insurance premium by comparison has only doubled. Trying to compare how much the US spends per head to Britains is also mute because Americans' lifestyle is way different that the British.

Two of the most important factors affecting the health industry is litigation and lack of competition.  Both need to be reformed.  State mandates should be removed so there can be true competition, while Doctors should be spared the overiding fear of malpractices which drives up the malpractice insurance and the unncessary procedures that Doctors do just to cover their behinds.

I'll delve deeper into these issues some other time. I got to go now.

@David,

Reform of the health industry is required, but what the Dems are offering is not the way to go at all.

I have said before, let there be Tort reform and removal of State mandates and you will see the price of health insurance drop like a stone in water. Why are the Dems afraid to adopt this option? Why must the govt be involved when it is known to be a waster of both human and material reasources?

@Davidylan,

Your reasoning can be so funny sometimes.  So we should ignore sound financial advise concerning the so-called healthcare because we ignored same regarding Iraq? What a logic. The cost of the Iraqi war in terms of finances will come to an end the day the Iraq war ends. When will the spending on the so-called healthcare end?

I pasted a story above regarding Britains NHS. The cost of running the program has gone up more than 10 times what it was a decade ago with no end in sight and superior service wanting (women are giving births to babies in the toilet). Doesn't this and other reasons appeal to your superior sense of reasoning that having the govt incvolved is not the way to go?

@davidylan,

Dont bother asking . . . you're never going to get a straight answer from repugs.

If you care so much about what the CBO had to say about the Iraq war and how it is relevant to this discussion, you might want to investigate the publicly availbale information either for your use or to share with the rest of us.

But of course, you now care about what the CBO said as long as an elelment of it favours your position.

@adconline,,

You see someone said that it seems someone ran out of ideas. Always attacking intellectuals and intellectual institutions. Its like what Carl Rove said about Justice Sotomar's graduation from Princeton, he implied that not everyone who goes to IVY league is smart" I thought he was talking about his boss President Bush.
One thing is for sure political commentators like Rush and Co are not thinkers and problem solvers, they are just entainers like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton following the money trail. Its only the eggheads and thinkers that will come up with solutions. Get it.

See hypocrisy in action. You just accused another person of attacking personalites and yet in the next sentence, you did the same thing. I guess you are no different from most liberals. Hypocrisy is the order of the day.

I am not excusing what Rove said, but did you miss the part where Sotomayor herself declared that she performed below par and would not have qualified for the school if not for affirmative action? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/11/sotomayor-affirmative-action-sent-princeton/

@adconline,

Folks on the extreme right like you have selective amnesia. Bush gave Americans real money on several occasions during his presidency. Even Sarah Palin -your cheer leading expert gave Alaskans money. Its OK to bail out big companies and its socialism when it benefits smaller folks. I guess some of us need to retake ECONS 101 to really understand what socialism means. Next time you use Amtrack,USPS, Public Transport, Section 8,medicare,Medic-aid, Fafsa and rest of them remember socialism,

So it is okay for Obanma to do it because Bush did it? The kind of reasoning one ses on nairaland is so funny sometimes.

As for Sarah Palin, what she gave to Alaskans was their money. Alaska laws say the citizens must be given the money derived from their natural resources. The money was not taken from the rich and redistributed to the poor, rather, the money was shared mongs ALL Alaskans alike. You might want to know some of these facts before you try to compare both.

And by the way, whcih one of Bush or Palin put the taxpayers in the kind of debt that Obama has incurred. We all harped about deficits whne Bush was in Office. Obama on the other hand is on track to incur more deficits in one year than Bush did in 8 years of governance. Keep excusing the inexcusable, okay?!

@adconline,

can you also tell us what the Congressional Budget Office said on Iraq when Bush and his cohorts said that it would cost less $300 billion. Any CBO report on TARP. Its only when we talk about health care that we rememeber that US is broke, but everybody with insurance pays for folks who dont have when they go to ER

If you are interested, you might go find out yourself and try and force-fit that into this discussion.

@topic (helathcare anyways),

The babies born in hospital corridors: Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets

Thousands of women are having to give birth outside maternity wards because of a lack of midwives and hospital beds.
The lives of mothers and babies are being put at risk as births in locations ranging from lifts to toilets - even a caravan - went up 15 per cent last year to almost 4,000.
Health chiefs admit a lack of maternity beds is partly to blame for the crisis, with hundreds of women in labour being turned away from hospitals because they are full.
Latest figures show that over the past two years there were at least:

63 births in ambulances and 608 in transit to hospitals;

117 births in A&E departments, four in minor injury units and two in medical assessment areas;

115 births on other hospital wards and 36 in other unspecified areas including corridors;

399 in parts of maternity units other than labour beds, including postnatal and antenatal wards and reception areas.
Additionally, overstretched maternity units shut their doors to any more women in labour on 553 occasions last year.
Babies were born in offices, lifts, toilets and a caravan, according to the Freedom of Information data for 2007 and 2008 from 117 out of 147 trusts which provide maternity services.
One woman gave birth in a lift while being transferred to a labour ward from A&E while another gave birth in a corridor, said East Cheshire NHS Trust.
Others said women had to give birth on the wards - rather than in their own maternity room - because the delivery suites were full.
Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley, who obtained the figures, said Labour had cut maternity beds by 2,340, or 22 per cent, since 1997. At the same time birth rates have been rising sharply - up 20 per cent in some areas.
Mr Lansley said: 'New mothers should not be being put through the trauma of having to give birth in such inappropriate places.

'While some will be unavoidable emergencies, it is extremely distressing for them and their families to be denied a labour bed because their maternity unit is full.
'It shows the incredible waste that has taken place that mothers are getting this sort of sub-standard treatment despite Gordon Brown's tripling of spending on the NHS.
'Labour have let down mothers by cutting the number of maternity beds and by shutting down maternity units.'
The NHS employs the equivalent of around 25,000 full-time midwives in England, but the Government has promised to recruit 3,400 more.
However, the Royal College of Midwives estimates at least 5,000 more are needed to provide the quality of service pledged in the Government's blueprint for maternity services, Maternity Matters.
At the same time almost half of all midwives are set to retire in the next decade.

Jon Skewes, a director at the Royal College of Midwives, said: 'The rise in the number of births in other than a designated labour bed is a concern. We would want to see the detail behind these figures to look at why this is happening.
'There is no doubt that maternity services are stretched, and that midwives are working harder and harder to provide good quality care. However, we know the Government is putting more money into the service.
'The key now is to make sure this money is spent by the people controlling the purse strings at a local level.'
Care services minister Phil Hope said: 'The number of maternity beds in the NHS reflects the number of women wanting to give birth in hospital. Giving birth can be unpredictableand it is difficult to plan for the exact time and place of every birth.
'Local health services have plans to ensure high quality, personal care with greater choice over place of birth and care provided by a named midwife.
'We recognise that some parts of the country face particular challenges due to the rising birth rate and that is why last year we pledged to increase funding for maternity by £330million over three years.
'We now have more maternity staff than ever before and we have already met our target to recruit 1,000 extra midwives by September.'

For those of you who can't wait to see this and many more brought to the U.S., please visit: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209034/The-babies-born-hospital-corridors-Bed-shortage-forces-4-000-mothers-birth-lifts-offices-hospital-toilets.html

@Richy,

Are you the one deleting my posts? Wetin now?

@Davidylan,

we've run out of valid points i guess its time to start copy-pasting the flawed analysis of others?   I saw somewhere on the last article the claim that medicaid is consuming a portion of the GDP, the author forgot to tell us that the US is the only industrialised nation on earth whose healthcare spending (outside of medicare/medicaid) is in the single digits already and rising.

There was a reason why I started with the Congressional Budget Office.  This is the office responsible for analysing every Bill proposed or passed by congress.  They rely on facts and are usually immune from political persuasion.  It's so funny that you have done no analysis but you are here condmning the one done by professionals. I guess anything that does not alighn with Chris Matthews is faulty in your opinion.

@Richy,

We have the government already running:
1. Tricare - military
2. VHA - veterans
3. Medicaid - qualified poor
4. Medicare - elderly

The Top Ten Reasons for Medicaid Reform - http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm718.cfm

Medicaid’s mission to the poor has been compromised. The Medicaid program has grown to cover an extremely broad and very diverse group of individuals. It provides care to over 46 million children, parents, pregnant women, disabled, seniors, and even some childless adults. It also increasingly provides long-term care services to middle-class Americans. Such a diverse group makes the program’s one-size-fits-all design inadequate to meet the needs of very different enrollees. Policymakers should reevaluate the purpose of Medicaid and consider ways to better address the needs of these various populations.

Medicaid’s benefit-setting process is outdated. Under Medicaid, states must provide certain benefits to all enrollees. States may also provide additional benefits above this mandatory level.[2] The line dividing mandatory and optional benefits, however, is no longer realistic. For example, prescription drugs are considered an optional benefit, though few would consider prescription drugs optional. Policymakers should remove these distinctions and allow flexibility in creating benefit packages that meet the specific needs of groups of enrollees.

Medicaid limits access to quality care. Due in part to Medicaid’s low reimbursement rates and burdensome bureaucracy, fewer physicians are agreeing to accept Medicaid patients. A 2002 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPac) survey found that “approximately 40 percent of physicians restricted access for Medicaid patients…”[3] Policymakers should consider integrating market-based solutions, such as modified Health Savings Accounts for enrollees, into Medicaid so that participating physicians can receive full payment at the time of care. This would encourage better physician participation.

Medicaid rations treatments and services. In order to control spiraling costs, many Medicaid programs restrict access to treatments and services. This is particularly visible in how states ration access to prescription drugs within Medicaid. States have devised a variety of approaches, such as restricted formularies and monthly limits, to impede enrollees’ access to prescription drugs.[4] This can be especially problematic for enrollees with multiple health problems. Those with mental illnesses, for example, may find that the limited formulary restricts their ability to find the best choice for them within a class of similar drugs. Policymakers should find ways to give enrollees, and their physicians, greater control over treatments and services.

Medicaid is less desirable than private coverage. The vast majority of Americans take advantage of private health care coverage. It is not surprising that most Americans would prefer private health care coverage to Medicaid. A Commonwealth survey found that 65 percent of Americans, whether insured or not, would prefer private coverage, where only 10 percent would want Medicaid or Medicare.[5] Policymakers should help Americans get the private coverage they want instead of tinkering with inferior government programs; and they should promote ways, such as premium assistance, to allow those eligible for Medicaid to purchase the private health insurance of their choice.

Medicaid discourages long-term care planning among the middle class. Medicaid is quickly becoming a welfare program for middle-income families. With cleaver estate planning and asset protection schemes, individuals can qualify for Medicaid and receive long-term care services at taxpayer expense. Research has shown that Medicaid dramatically undercuts the demand for private long-term care insurance.[6] Policymakers should strictly enforce current laws on asset transfers and close loopholes that make it too easy to qualify for Medicaid. In conjunction, policymakers should create incentives to encourage individuals to plan and save for their long-term care needs. Moving away from long-term care for the middle class would allow Medicaid to return to its proper mission: providing a safety net only for those who truly need it.

Medicaid encourages improper state financing gimmicks. The open-ended federal match states receive for their Medicaid spending encourages them to game the federal government. States use a variety of tactics to leverage federal matching dollars, many of which have been found to be inappropriate or deceitful.[7] Policymakers should clamp down on these gimmicks to bring accountability and credibility to Medicaid.

Medicaid is quickly draining state budgets. Most states must maintain a balanced budget, and many are facing serious and worsening fiscal problems. Medicaid consumes an increasing portion of state budgets and is squeezing out other priorities. For the first time ever, Medicaid surpassed education as the largest part of state budgets in 2003, according to the National Governor’s Association.[8] That year, Medicaid consumed 22 percent of state budgets.[9] Policymakers should consider slowing Medicaid’s growth by giving states the flexibility to make changes to their programs beyond what is currently allowed.

Medicaid is contributing to federal budget problems. Entitlement programs, including Medicaid, consume a growing portion of federal spending. As the Medicaid program grows, the cost to the federal budget increases. In FY 2006, Medicaid will cost the federal government $193 billion, according to projections, and from 2006 to 2014, Medicaid is expected to grow at an annual rate of between 7 to 9 percent.[10] Policymakers should take steps to bring these spending trends under control, starting with eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse in the system.

Medicaid is creating huge, long-term budgetary problems. Without reform, Medicaid will consume an even larger share of GDP. The Congressional Budget Office reports that the major entitlement programs—Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security—account for approximately 42 percent of federal spending.[11] By 2050, Medicaid and Medicare alone could account for between 11.5 to 21.3 percent of GDP.[12] Policymaker must take serious steps today to regain control of these looming fiscal problems. The longer policymakers wait, the harder the decisions policymakers will have to make.
Conclusion
It is time for policymakers to address the Medicaid crisis. Policymakers should make reform a priority and take serious action this year. Specifically, Congress should work with state officials to create consumer-driven options within Medicaid and to mainstream low-income Americans into private health care coverage. This could be accomplished with refundable health care tax credits and by bringing consumer-directed and innovative care management to the populations that depend on Medicaid. In this way, Medicaid could be made to better care for those it is intended to serve, while improving its overall performance.

@Richy,

Now you've deleted my posts.

@Richy,

We have the government already running:
1. Tricare - military
2. VHA - veterans
3. Medicaid - qualified poor
4. Medicare - elderly

The Top Ten Reasons for Medicaid Reform - http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm718.cfm

Medicaid’s mission to the poor has been compromised. The Medicaid program has grown to cover an extremely broad and very diverse group of individuals. It provides care to over 46 million children, parents, pregnant women, disabled, seniors, and even some childless adults. It also increasingly provides long-term care services to middle-class Americans. Such a diverse group makes the program’s one-size-fits-all design inadequate to meet the needs of very different enrollees. Policymakers should reevaluate the purpose of Medicaid and consider ways to better address the needs of these various populations.

Medicaid’s benefit-setting process is outdated. Under Medicaid, states must provide certain benefits to all enrollees. States may also provide additional benefits above this mandatory level.[2] The line dividing mandatory and optional benefits, however, is no longer realistic. For example, prescription drugs are considered an optional benefit, though few would consider prescription drugs optional. Policymakers should remove these distinctions and allow flexibility in creating benefit packages that meet the specific needs of groups of enrollees.

Medicaid limits access to quality care. Due in part to Medicaid’s low reimbursement rates and burdensome bureaucracy, fewer physicians are agreeing to accept Medicaid patients. A 2002 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPac) survey found that “approximately 40 percent of physicians restricted access for Medicaid patients…”[3] Policymakers should consider integrating market-based solutions, such as modified Health Savings Accounts for enrollees, into Medicaid so that participating physicians can receive full payment at the time of care. This would encourage better physician participation.

Medicaid rations treatments and services. In order to control spiraling costs, many Medicaid programs restrict access to treatments and services. This is particularly visible in how states ration access to prescription drugs within Medicaid. States have devised a variety of approaches, such as restricted formularies and monthly limits, to impede enrollees’ access to prescription drugs.[4] This can be especially problematic for enrollees with multiple health problems. Those with mental illnesses, for example, may find that the limited formulary restricts their ability to find the best choice for them within a class of similar drugs. Policymakers should find ways to give enrollees, and their physicians, greater control over treatments and services.

Medicaid is less desirable than private coverage. The vast majority of Americans take advantage of private health care coverage. It is not surprising that most Americans would prefer private health care coverage to Medicaid. A Commonwealth survey found that 65 percent of Americans, whether insured or not, would prefer private coverage, where only 10 percent would want Medicaid or Medicare.[5] Policymakers should help Americans get the private coverage they want instead of tinkering with inferior government programs; and they should promote ways, such as premium assistance, to allow those eligible for Medicaid to purchase the private health insurance of their choice.

Medicaid discourages long-term care planning among the middle class. Medicaid is quickly becoming a welfare program for middle-income families. With cleaver estate planning and asset protection schemes, individuals can qualify for Medicaid and receive long-term care services at taxpayer expense. Research has shown that Medicaid dramatically undercuts the demand for private long-term care insurance.[6] Policymakers should strictly enforce current laws on asset transfers and close loopholes that make it too easy to qualify for Medicaid. In conjunction, policymakers should create incentives to encourage individuals to plan and save for their long-term care needs. Moving away from long-term care for the middle class would allow Medicaid to return to its proper mission: providing a safety net only for those who truly need it.

Medicaid encourages improper state financing gimmicks. The open-ended federal match states receive for their Medicaid spending encourages them to game the federal government. States use a variety of tactics to leverage federal matching dollars, many of which have been found to be inappropriate or deceitful.[7] Policymakers should clamp down on these gimmicks to bring accountability and credibility to Medicaid.

Medicaid is quickly draining state budgets. Most states must maintain a balanced budget, and many are facing serious and worsening fiscal problems. Medicaid consumes an increasing portion of state budgets and is squeezing out other priorities. For the first time ever, Medicaid surpassed education as the largest part of state budgets in 2003, according to the National Governor’s Association.[8] That year, Medicaid consumed 22 percent of state budgets.[9] Policymakers should consider slowing Medicaid’s growth by giving states the flexibility to make changes to their programs beyond what is currently allowed.

Medicaid is contributing to federal budget problems. Entitlement programs, including Medicaid, consume a growing portion of federal spending. As the Medicaid program grows, the cost to the federal budget increases. In FY 2006, Medicaid will cost the federal government $193 billion, according to projections, and from 2006 to 2014, Medicaid is expected to grow at an annual rate of between 7 to 9 percent.[10] Policymakers should take steps to bring these spending trends under control, starting with eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse in the system.

Medicaid is creating huge, long-term budgetary problems. Without reform, Medicaid will consume an even larger share of GDP. The Congressional Budget Office reports that the major entitlement programs—Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security—account for approximately 42 percent of federal spending.[11] By 2050, Medicaid and Medicare alone could account for between 11.5 to 21.3 percent of GDP.[12] Policymaker must take serious steps today to regain control of these looming fiscal problems. The longer policymakers wait, the harder the decisions policymakers will have to make.
Conclusion
It is time for policymakers to address the Medicaid crisis. Policymakers should make reform a priority and take serious action this year. Specifically, Congress should work with state officials to create consumer-driven options within Medicaid and to mainstream low-income Americans into private health care coverage. This could be accomplished with refundable health care tax credits and by bringing consumer-directed and innovative care management to the populations that depend on Medicaid. In this way, Medicaid could be made to better care for those it is intended to serve, while improving its overall performance.

@Richy,

We have the government already running:
1. Tricare - military
2. VHA - veterans
3. Medicaid - qualified poor
4. Medicare - elderly

Veterans enrolled in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care programs have long complained of receiving inadequate treatment at poorly funded facilities. According to a 2003 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, veterans were forced to travel long distances to receive care — about 25 percent of the vets lived more than a 60-minute drive from a VA hospital. They also had to endure long waits for appointments, especially in regions like Florida, home to a large number of aging veterans. Nursing homes for veterans were notoriously understaffed, making it difficult to keep up with the increasing population of older vets who need care. But the strains imposed by new veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan exposed a whole new litany of problems for the VA and the military. Citizens and lawmakers were outraged after The Washington Post exposed dismal conditions for veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in 2007. Several high-ranking Defense Department officials were fired or stepped down under pressure, and stories soon emerged about other medical facilities where veterans were placed in rooms teeming with fruit flies, slept on broken hospital beds or faced unprofessional staff. A subsequent investigation of 1,400 hospitals and other facilities for vets found more than 1,000 incidents of substandard conditions. The VA has also struggled to deal with the many young veterans complaining of mental health problems, especially post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Treatment for PTSD was found to be inadequate in 2005, when only half of VA medical centers had a PTSD clinical team. Congressional testimony indicated that VA examiners felt pressure to conduct exams of veterans in as little as 20 minutes. The larger problem is that the VA’s patient workload has nearly doubled in the past 10 years; there are now 7.8 million enrollees in the VA health system. The VA “has faced difficulties in managing its resources” in the face of this rising workload, concluded the GAO. While the agency has dealt with challenges in recruiting and retaining health care professionals, it has also encountered problems in its internal budget process, the GAO found. Those issues have been exacerbated by an often-unpredictable Congressional appropriations process, which has frequently been late in delivering a finalized VA budget. The result is considerable confusion and inconsistency in the timely delivery and quality of care. A VA spokesman did not respond to a request for comment, but Gerald M. Cross, acting principal deputy under the secretary of health, told Congress in 2007 that the department is committed to “providing timely, high-quality health care to those who have helped defend and preserve freedom around the world.”

Follow-up:
Overall funding for VA health care has improved dramatically in recent years. In response to the Walter Reed scandal, President Bush appointed the Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors, a group chaired by former Senator Bob Dole and former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala. The administration has now enacted most of the commission’s recommendations, including an overhaul of the disability determination system, a comprehensive recovery plan for patients, enhanced family support and improved mental health services, especially for PTSD. Nonetheless, the GAO still calls “care for service members” one of the “urgent issues” confronting the incoming Obama administration, and reports that key challenges include disability benefits, health care delivery, property management, and information technology. President-Elect Obama has indicated that he wants to make the VA a leader in health care reform, and hopes to establish a first-rate VA planning division that will help avoid future budget shortfalls. http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/broken_government/articles/entry/1041/

@RichyBlack,

We have the government already running:
1. Tricare - military
2. VHA - veterans
3. Medicaid - qualified poor
4. Medicare - elderly

With the growth of health care costs outstripping the rate of growth of the economy,
many policymakers worry that the current TRICARE program—which provides health care
for the uniformed services, military retirees, and their families—will become unaffordable in
the future. In its budget submissions for 2007, 2008, and 2009, the Department of Defense
(DoD) proposed that the enrollment fees, deductibles, and copayments of some TRICARE
beneficiaries be increased to encourage more efficient use of the system and to reduce medical
spending. The President’s budget request for fiscal year 2010 did not include a similar proposal,
but the issue of how to address the military’s growing health care costs remains
unresolved.
At the request of the Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) examined the potential effects of increased cost sharing in the
TRICARE program. As a basis for its analysis, CBO used DoD’s most recent proposal—the
President’s budget request for fiscal year 2009—and the recommendations of the Task Force
on the Future of Military Health Care, issued in December 2007. CBO found that the higher
out-of-pocket costs that DoD proposed reflected the growth seen in civilian health care
spending. In addition, CBO determined that, on the basis of currently available research,
DoD had used reasonable assumptions about the responses of TRICARE beneficiaries to
some of the proposed changes but that those responses might actually be stronger, leading to
larger reductions in spending than DoD had estimated. CBO also found, however, that
DoD’s estimates did not include the possible effects that increased cost sharing for TRICARE
might have on other federal programs (such as Medicaid and the Federal Employees Health
Benefits program) and on federal revenues. Those effects would reduce, though only modestly,
the potential savings to be realized from increasing TRICARE beneficiaries’ costs.
Carla Tighe Murray of CBO’s National Security Division wrote the paper under the general
supervision of Matthew S. Goldberg and J. Michael Gilmore, with contributions from
Adebayo Adedeji and Matthew Schmit. David Auerbach, Paul Cullinan, Philip Ellis, Sarah
Jennings, and Allison Percy, all of CBO, offered helpful comments, as did Paul F. Dickens III,
formerly in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. (The assistance of an outside reviewer
implies no responsibility for the final product, which rests solely with CBO.) - http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10261/TRICARE.pdf

@Pres-elect,

This debate is keeping me longer at work than I want to.  I'll respond to your last post before calling it a day.

yeah, i'm very emotional about this healthcare thing. here is part of the reason why. . .
i worked in owerri in imo-state b4 i left for the UK. i had a terrible time with patients, especially children who i watch die b/c their parents are unable to afford simple medicine. i was shocked even further by the apparent lack of emotion by the nurses and senior doctors in worked with. i could not stand it, it was one of the reasons why i left nigeria as i could not imagine being the one to deliver bad news everyday to some crying parent/relative.

The truth is life can be unfair at times. There is nothing you or anyone can do about it. And God in His infinite wisdom has decided that this will go on until He comes and make everything right. The emotion of the Doctors and Nurses to me is oirrelevant as long as they do their jobs right.  I was at the Hospital last week where a friend's brother  basically drowned while holidaying with his 3 kids and wife.  The guy was in a comma when I got to the Hospital and still is.  Don't you think it will be out of place for the Doctors to lose all control as his family did on seing him in the hospital bed? Emotions ned to be set aside in that profession.

Perhaps you think emotion is the same thing as compassion.  It is not.  The Doctors and Nurses I'm sure are compassionate even if they were not emotional about it.

i was shocked to realise that such things are possible in the united states . . call me mad. . but i do believe. . .at least it is my own opinion . . that health care is a human right. . . yes . . .that's how i feel.

What is possible in the United States? I've asked you to point out just one case when anyone was denied healthcare for lack of medical insurance.

and i know US has the money, why cant it spend it to give care to the poorer ones? have u lost a loved one b4? i have lost my mum and i strongly believe it was due to poor healthcare. the pain lives with me even as i make this posts. it is very painful, you wont wish it even for ur enemy. i tell u, and i pray u never have such experience.

The US has the money?  Breaking News.  The US is basically bankrupt now.

tayo and kobojunkie, i do believe that america can get every person, at least all legal residents(to start with) covered. it is moral, it is the right thing to do, it makes sense and it will make a healthier population which begets a more productive economy. and it wont affect your lifestyle negatively, especially as ur tax wont be increased . . unless u get above $250,000/yr

The laws of economics can never substantiate this position!

@Pres-elect,

i live in the UK.

if a parent dies b/c of an untreated illness secondary to lack of healthcare coverage, secondary to poverty . . . i guess his children will be in a good position to benefit from the do-nothing policies that tayo is proposing.

i guess there is universal coverage for pregnant women incase of a complication from pregnancy that needs medical attention.

Please stop talking rubbish that you don't know. You just made an allegation which you've been asked to prove. Rather than take the coming out clean approach, you are here making some other allegations and trying to demonise other people.

Please debate if you are here for one. This emotionalism which can be faked by anybody who may not truly empathise with the folks does not score you any poiint in my book.

@pres-elect,

tayo, when you guote the bible, i get scared. pastors use this to do a lot of damage, republicans use it to do damage, politicians in nigeria, and even the devil used the bible to do damage . . only christ was too much for him.

the bible is against a reform that will help poorer people abi. ur love for children does not reach those children who may grow without parents b/c their parents died due to lack of healthcare

and ur bible is also against those children who may die b/c their parents are not covered. remember ur child(God bless him/her) needed some medical attention at birth that cost $30,000 which was paid b/c u were covered. some other kids would have died if their parents were not covered . . that is what ur bible teaches abi

could u mail me which version of the bible you read?
never mind, i wont read it anyway

It is obvious you are very emotional about this.  Unfortunately, it is not with emotions that issues are resolved.  They are resolved by critical thinking that is undergirded by basic principles.  I wish you'd show me where I have ignored any biblical injunction.

By the way, can you tell me how many children have been left to die in the US because they could not afford to pay thier medical bills?  Stop playing on people's emotions and try to be objective here.

Thank God for the insurance company (which you have been villifying here). They paid the $30,000 bill that we incurred.  Do you think Obama can give $30,000 to a complete stranger?  I think not.  Go ask his step brothers and aunt if you are not sure!  

@pres-elect,

this issue of healthcare is not about what is liberal option or conservative option but what is the moral option. all these opinions-a side effect of freedom of speech and expression- can really be misleading. in every issue in human history there will always be those who are for it or against it.

So is the govt supposed to be a moral entity or one who ensures that justice is served? You are getting this issue twisted into what it is not.

if the US should want to pass a law that all men should kill themselves at 40yrs of age, believe me, there are those who will support it. dont be shocked. people opposed the US revolution, ending slavery, civil rights, women rights,  medicare, bank of england, even forming the federal govt. all these proposals were opposed by human beings with ''sound'' arguments including facts from the bible.

Let me mention some basic principles in the Bible that these your welfare proposal violates. A parent should lay up for their children and not vice versa. The curent proposal means children will be burdened with what their parents consume.  That is morally wrong.  It is also morally wrong that one person should be deprived of the fruits of his labour to give to another.  The one who sowed and reaped must have the free choice to determine whom he chooses to bless with the fruits of his labour.

is it important, from our heart, to help people who cannot afford healthcare?

Of course it is.  Question is it is right or even necessary to leave the power to the govt? My answer is NO.

is it important, from our heart, to stop the insurance guys from denying treatment to people whom they are covering?

There is a limit to every insurance, whether it is automobile, life, property etc. If you want more coverage you should pay more.  It is only logical.  I don't know why a lot of people have no problem with their car insurers but will villify their health insurer.  

is it important, from our heart, to reduce healthcare cost? these are the issues. if the answer to these are yes, then there should be reform. but any reform without a public option will be a political display of the-more-you-look

There are ways to reduce healthcare cost without giving it over to the govt. Ask your friends in power to start with Tort reform, then remove the limits on inter-state purchase of health insurance. Also tell them to ease restriction on the king of inusrance that can be offered and you will see a great change in the cost.

it's also an illusion to think govt involvement will reduce cost. The NHS cost is ten times more expensive than it was a decade ago.  Compare that to the average American health insurance that has only doubled in the last decade.

finally, what is it in healthcare reform that gets special interests fighting hard for almost a century? from teddy roosevelt, to FDR, to Harry Truman, Kennedy,LBJ down to Bill Clinton and Obama. what scares special interests about healthcare.

Tell me where there is no special interest. Even the people who gave you Medicair did it for political reasons. And as for the intentios of Medicare and Medicaid, please check out what Wilbur Mills told Johnson about the medicare Bill: "I think we've got you something that won't only run on in '66 but we'll run on from here after." http://www.larrydewitt.net/Essays/MedicareDaddy.htm

even the conservative politician from UK has been chided by the conservative party here for running down the NHS.]even the conservative politician from UK has been chided by the conservative party here for running down the NHS.

You wonder why.  Could it be for political reasons?

the british are happy with their NHS, though it aint perfect, and the British are healthier than the Americans.

Americans are also more happy with their Medical situaion than they are with the Govt. So what needs to change is the govt ahead of the health industry.

What are the factors used to determine who was relatively healtheir. If you chomp down McDonlds every day and eat the way Americans do, you will have the same health issues that they have. This has nothing to do with healthcare!

@JeSoul,

Eya lol that must have been rough lol.

Yep. And even though we paid for the IKEA furniture the first night we got to Malden, they did not arive until 2 days later.  I had to make do with the rug for the 2 to 3 hrs sleep I was having each night.

Yeah you're right. The immediate suburbs around boston don't have much 'night life' unless you go far west enought to Worcester/Fram.

I thought this will change when students are back in schol full time. May not sha.

$1200?      If your sis needs any help with anything, questions? where the nearest naija parties are (even tho I don't attend them lol) etc . . . have her email me @ charissa911@hotmail.com and I'll give her my cell#. I know how tough it can be out here by urself.

My Sis like me, is not a party person.  She is very reserved and never minds a cycle of school, home and church.  She'll probably needs to find a Church in the area.

Thanks for the offer.  I'll give her your email address.  What are you doing now in Boston? Working or schooling?

@Kobo,

I disagree! This has little to do with race, in my opinion, but more to do with the fact that

Is it not pathetic how peopl attibute everything to RACE? Even after Americans elected its first Black President, the Left still feels the only way to maintain relevance to to continue their age-long RACE politics. One of the reasons why I just can't stand the DEMS.

@JeSoul,

You missed. I would have treated you both to proper dinner

Kai, my loss.  To think all I eat for 4 days was McDonalds and KFC.

Out in Malden, nah sorry I don't know any. Most of the african stores are west of boston along with most of the african communities.

That's one other problem I had with Boston/Malden area as a whole.  The area seems to go to sleep very quickly and important stores are few and far betwen.  On my first night, we had to travel about 30 miles to Stoughton just to find an IKEA store where we could purchase some furniture.  On the second night when we needed some supplies, we had to travel another 40 miles to find a 24 hrs Walmart Store. the roads too aren't user friendly I'd say.

Well if you were in Malden 'proper' I wouldn't like it too    Boston metro is cool, I like it, but the surbs get very 'country' once you head outside. Even me self na "country" I dey live and I love it! lol In my experience working in Boston is not for the faint of heart or insecure of color.

Actually, my sister really likes her apartment (Granada Highlands).  I kinda like it too and the ares seems like a good one.  With a studio going for over $1200 a month, it better be good.

@RichyBlack,

1. Support unrestricted purchase of any kind of firearm, even those that categorized as "assault rifles"

What is wrong with that?

2. They love the death penalty and even work against using DNA to exonerate death row inmates

The death penalty is appropriate under certain circumstances. The Bible declares an eye for an eye, meaning the punishment must fit the crime. If you deserve to be killed for your crime, then you should get what's coming to you.

3. Totally support bombings that kill innocent men, women and children

That's not true. Do you support all the innocent lives that have been killed by the US since Obama became President?

4. Fight against giving welfare to that woman who is poor, refused to do an abortion and raising her child all by herself

Again that is not true. We help people as much as we can. We don't believe in institutionalising poverty which is what most govt do for political advantage.

5. Have no sympathy for illegal immigrants and willing to deport them, forgetting that they are all destructive immigrants

That simply is not true as well. You are sounding very much like Chris Matthews.

6. Are very happy that over 40 million Americans are uninsured and millions more are under-insured

Happy about it? So you see them rejoicing in Church that 40 million people can't help themselves with the current govt regulation? Common.

@JeSoul,

I didn't realise you were in Boston sha. I was there over the weekend (Thursday to Sunday) to help my sister settle in for her studies at the Tufts University.

Do you know any African Stores around Malden area? I just sent some foodstufs to my sister from Minneapolis. We couldn't locate any while I was out there.

I went there think I may give serious thoughts to a kind of job offer in the Boston area, but I came back saying a Capital NO. For whatever reason, I don't like the place.

@pres-elect,

Okay let me tackle what appears to be your fundamental concern in starting this thread. I'll respond to your initial post.

i've been wondering, with all these talk about healthcare reform, with all the vibe about the uninsured, access to good healthcare for all, etc. . . there is a deafening silence from the men of god in the evangelical right.

Come to think of it, you are right. The so-called MOGs have been silent. Perhaps, they believe that elections have consequences, and its time to face the consequences of the last election.

these are people who wont waste a second to condemn gays and lesbians(understandably) , condenm democratic presidential candidates, claim holiness etc . . . but why are they not showing concern for those poor and underprivileged members of the society who cant afford healthcare.

I tire when people go from judging actions/fruits to judging people's motives. Only God has such exclusive preserve. You need to back-off from such. How many of the works they do for the underpriviledge do you ever hear about? Because you have a passion for providing free healthcare, you expect everyone else shold make that their priority? Come to think of it, Jesus wasn't out giving out Herod issued insurance cards, He was Himself healing the faith-full sicks.

where are the rick warrens, the paisleys, the hagees etc . . where are these guys? many wont waste a minute to show themselves helping some poor africans in some war torn 3rd world country but are astonishingly silent in this heated debate that concerns poor americans and indeed even middle class americans who think they have healthcare coverage. . . .

Again, you are delving into the realm of motives. What each man does is per what he is led to do. You are not their Master and are not in the position to declare what they should focus on.

can someone educate me on what i dont know. with all humility . . i'm ready to be educated on the evangelical perspective of the healthcare debate

My perspective according to the scriptures? It's none of the Govt's bsuiness to provide healthcare for its citizens! The Bible clearly states that the role of the Govt is to administer justice and do it by brute force if necessary. Jesus didn't dump the cik at Hrod's palace nor did any of the Disciples do same. Peter showed us what the priciple is when he approached the lame man at the temple gate. "Such as I have, give I thee." Each man should help his neighbour with what he has and out of his own volition. It is such willing sacirfices that God finds acceptable.

_________Dafur

Whatever.

@pres-elect,

i think i have evidence that perhaps those guys are not operating under the power of God. because when those guys endorsed old john (at least parsley didnt withdraw his endorsement, and lots of others endorsed old john even from the pulpit) and old john lost the election . . . does it not show that those guys were not operating under the influence of God?

b/c if God was the one who sent them to endorse old john, old john would definitely have won, b/c God is a Winner . .all the time.

one day we will know

Honestly, this is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard/read! I can't believe it was written by you, pres-elect!

@pres-elect,

I've always known that you were biased, but to blame the violence at the Town Halls to a person who was out there peacefully handing out souvenirs and not the Democrat thugs who beat him up is absurd at best. You are obviously too jaundiced to see reason.

@Ikomi,

Your problem is not only lack of understanding it has something to do with English as well.

Oh please, educate me.

I cry for you.

Who wouldn't. What with your inability to learn the simple issue I am bringing your attention to.

The term ethnoreligious (or ethno-religious) refers to an ethnic group of people whose members are also unified by a common religious background.

Okay. You didn't refer to the dictionary where you got this. Are you sure this information is for me or you?

Must I spell it out for you.

No you mustn't. I was the one who first refered to ethnoreligious ethnic diversities of the ME people. Good to know you checked the dictionary to understand its meaning.

My last post on this subject though, its like playing chess with a dabbler, it makes the game boring.

I doubt it. I'm sure you'll be back here. A dog always returns to its vomit.

Ayathollah Ikomi. What non-sence, is that inventive?

No its not. It's a worthy title befitting your status. You villify dissent and never accomodates contrary opinion. You consider yourself an expert and others wshould just learn from your wisdom and shut up. And by the way, Ayatollahs are titles bestowed only in the Shia sect of Islam.

Please stop coming to threads where am engaged in reasonable discussions, like I told you from the start its a distraction.

Reasonable discussions? You flatter yourself. You come discussing an issue that you have no clue of the underlying dynamics. You've villified the person who was pointing you to facts and yet you talk about reason? Now that is my laugh of the day.

@Ikomi,

Now I understand where you are coming from, enemies.

Yep.  I am an enemy against ignorance, especially when the ignorant one poses as enlightened.  If care is not taken, those who do not know better will think you know what you are writing about.  What with the effrontery with which you write such!!!

Go and draw your own map and put up that non-sence you wrote up there lets see how many persons would agree with you.

Who agrees with me does not matter, as long as I am in agreement with facts.  Are you now trying to blame the people who gave you free information online?  Is it their fault to assume you are intelligent enough to know the difference between an ethnic group and an ethnoreligious group?  Must we blame MSNBC for refering to the ethnoreligious group even though they later made the distinction betwen the faith and the ethnicity in the same article? 

I never knew am making enemies for expressing my clear sincere views.

Expressing your views does not make you enemies. Again you are getting things wrong. Does it occur to you that it is the misinformation you are spreading that people are against and not your person?

LoL. Ikomi has Nairaland enemies.

Whatever rocks your boat, my 'enemy'.