Bush's plan for addressing our health care crisis: tax breaks Posted by Liz at 01/24/07 09:09 AM

Tax breaks isn't much of a solution at all in dealing with rising health care costs. What we need is a real plan to address our health care crisis. Most uninsured families would not have enough income to purchase their health insurance, even with tax breaks.

And in looking at what states have proposed in addressing their uninsured, the Sacramento Bee looked that how Bush's plan may complement or conflict with what Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed.

Adam Mendelsohn, Schwarzenegger's communications director, said Bush's proposed tax changes would likely complement the governor's efforts, if both were enacted.

But Mendelsohn said the Schwarzenegger administration was still analyzing how the governor's proposal would be affected by the second part of the president's plan: encouraging states to use billions of dollars in federal Medicaid funds that now go to treat the uninsured to instead insure the poor.

comments (5)

1 Posted by charlie at 02/01/07 10:53 AM

The shrubbery's new health care plan is just a big scheme. This is a ploy to enable this administration and their wealthy benefactors to control the finances of America's health care industry.
Wake up America, not only are these people trying to gain control of the world's natural resources, they are also attempting to plunge non-wealthy Americans into a third world crisis.

2 Posted by Em at 02/01/07 03:29 PM

Bush's plan will not help most of the Americans who do not have any health insurance because they cannot afford to buy their own, even with a tax deduction.

This is just like Bush's plan to "save" Social Security: by pretending to "fix" things, Bush will make things worse.

We need universal health care. Maybe even a single provider system, like they have in Europe. I never believed this until recently.

The costs for insurance, doctors, hospitals, drugs, are out of control. More and more Americans are losing their coverage as it gets more expensive. The red tape is horrible - gets worse every year, as the insurance companies make it so hard to collect it is like a part-time job to manage one's claims.

There is no excuse that everyone has paid-for health care in a country like France, and in America, the richest country in the world, we have to struggle. It is inexcusable. It is just one more way the Republicans have made America worse for Americans.

3 Posted by Robert T at 02/01/07 09:10 PM

If you think your company-provided health care is expensive, try buying it on your own, as an individual. These plans are through the roof! And if you think your boss will increase your salary if you buy your own insurance, better think again.

Admittedly, Ford and GM have backed themselves into a corner, paying for health care for their workers AND retirees. But, you know what? It's their own fault. Well, them and the unions. The unions demand more and better benefits for their members, and just drives the jobs right out of this country. And this stupid plan where they lay people off but continue to pay them the same salary! That is just lunacy. No wonder they are going broke.

We need some sort of plan, government sponsored, maybe, that can give everyone decent and affordable health coverage. I don't like the socialism aspect of it, but it is time to do something. Before long we will all be uninsured. (Except for the rich.) Then what?

4 Posted by Bonnie-O at 02/14/07 08:15 PM

This is a study done in Canada, as reported by the Canadian press.

Poor heart attack patients treated differently: study Last Updated: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 | 2:18 PM ET

CBC News

Poor people are less likely to be treated aggressively after a heart attack than wealthier people, suggests a new study by researchers at the University of Alberta.

The study, published in the January issue of the American Journal of Medicine, also suggests people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who suffer a heart attack enter the emergency department more often but have higher mortality rates a year after an attack.

"We found a clear discrepancy when it comes to socioeconomic status," Dr. Padma Kaul said in a news release.

Kaul is in a group of University of Alberta researchers who tracked 5,622 patients in Alberta. The patients had entered a hospital emergency department with a first heart attack between 1998 and 2002.

"We may have equal access health-care coverage in Canada, but the bottom line is that people may not be getting equal treatment."

Rates of invasive procedures such as open-heart surgery or angioplasty were lower for the poor (36 per cent versus 48 per cent) and death was higher at one year (19.1 per cent versus 9.1 per cent).

5 Posted by Mike at 03/14/07 09:31 AM

I worked under employer provided health insurance coverage for 30 years. I was never satisfied, and I do not like being trapped in a job to keep my family covered. I now have my own high deductible health insurance plan which gives me the control I want over my medical expenses while protecting me against a health disaster. I get a deduction for the money I contribute to my HSA which helps. As an individual I suffer a disadvantage relative to employer sponsored health plans because my insurance premiums are not tax deductible.

Changing the tax code to make my health insurance premiums deductible would be a step in the right direction for tax fairness and for freeing individuals from an unhealthy dependence on their employers. All I want from my employers are a ethical and safe work environment, appreciation for the work I perform, and cash. It is liberating to be free of employer sponsored health insurance.