"In the next two decades, should the country’s legal immigration policy go unchanged, the U.S. is set to import about 15 million new foreign-born voters. About eight million of these new foreign-born voters will have arrived through the process known as “chain migration,” whereby newly naturalized citizens are allowed to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country." JOHN BINDER
Millions in U.S. Lost Someone Who Couldn't
Afford Treatment
BY DAN WITTERS
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- 34
million adults know someone who died after not getting treatment
- 58
million adults report inability to pay for needed drugs in past year
- Little
progress seen by Trump administration in limiting rising drug costs
Editor's
Note: The research detailed below was conducted in partnership with West
Health, a family of nonprofit and nonpartisan organizations focused on lowering
healthcare costs for seniors.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- More than 13%
of American adults -- or about 34 million people -- report knowing of at least
one friend or family member in the past five years who died after not receiving
needed medical treatment because they were unable to pay for it, based on a new
study by Gallup and West Health. Nonwhites, those in lower-income households,
those younger than 45, and political independents and Democrats are all more
likely to know someone who has died under these circumstances.
"Has
there been a time in the last five years when a friend or family member passed
away after not receiving treatment for their condition due to their inability
to pay for it?"
Yes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
%
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
U.S. TOTAL
|
13.4
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Race
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
White
|
9.6
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nonwhite
|
20.3
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual household income
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Under
$40,000
|
18.5
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
$40,000 to <$100,000
|
11.1
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
$100,000+
|
9.1
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Age
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
18-44
|
16.9
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
45-64
|
12.4
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
65+
|
6.6
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Party ID
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Independent
|
16.4
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Democrat
|
14.8
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Republican
|
4.9
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GALLUP-WEST HEALTH NATIONAL HEALTHCARE STUDY, SEPT.
16-30, 2019; N=1,099
|
Dovetailing with these results is a
rising percentage of adults who report not having had enough money in the past
12 months to "pay for needed medicine or drugs that a doctor
prescribed" to them. This percentage has increased significantly, from 18.9% in January 2019 to
22.9% in September. In all, the 22.9% represents about 58 million adults who
experienced "medication insecurity," defined as the inability to pay
for prescribed medication at least one time in the past 12 months. The increase
reflects a marked rise among women of over five percentage points to 27.5%,
widening the gender gap to over nine points when compared with the 18.1% rate
for men. And while data among both political independents and Republicans are
statistically unchanged since September, medication insecurity among Democrats
has risen over six points to 27.7%.
"Has
there been a time in the last 12 months when your household has been unable to
pay for medicine or drugs that a doctor had prescribed for you because you
didn't have enough money to pay for them?" (% Yes)
January 2019
|
September 2019
|
Change
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
%
|
%
|
pct. pts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
U.S. TOTAL
|
18.9
|
22.9
|
+4.0*
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gender
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Male
|
15.2
|
18.1
|
+2.9
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Female
|
22.3
|
27.5
|
+5.2*
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Party ID
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Independent
|
14.5
|
17.0
|
+2.8
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Democrat
|
21.0
|
27.7
|
+6.7*
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Republican
|
20.3
|
23.1
|
+2.5
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
* Statistically significant change (p<.05)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GALLUP-WEST HEALTH NATIONAL HEALTHCARE STUDY, JANUARY
2019 (N=3,537) AND SEPTEMBER 2019 (N=1,099)
|
Against a backdrop of millions of
Americans who know people who have died after not being able to afford needed
treatment, and millions more recently experiencing medication insecurity
personally, most respondents agree that U.S. consumers are paying too much for
prescription drugs. Close to nine in 10 U.S. adults report that the costs of
prescription drugs are "usually much higher" (69%) or "tend to
be somewhat higher" (20%) than what consumers should be paying for them,
compared with only 1% who believe them to be much or somewhat lower. These
perceptions are shared by political and demographic subgroups, with only modest
differences between groups in the percentage viewing drug prices as too high.
"Based
on everything you have read and experienced, please indicate which of the
following statements most closely align with your opinion regarding the cost of
prescription drugs in the U.S.?"
U.S. total
|
Repub.
|
Ind.
|
Dem.
|
Approve of
Trump
|
Disapprove of
Trump
|
|
%
|
%
|
%
|
%
|
%
|
%
|
|
Usually much higher than what consumers
should be paying
|
69
|
64
|
66
|
76
|
64
|
74
|
Tend
to be somewhat higher
|
20
|
22
|
21
|
16
|
20
|
19
|
About right
|
9
|
12
|
10
|
6
|
13
|
6
|
Tend
to be somewhat lower
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Usually much lower than what consumers
should be paying
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
GALLUP-WEST HEALTH NATIONAL HEALTHCARE STUDY, SEPT.
16-30, 2019; N=1,099
|
"How
much progress has the Trump administration made to limit the rising cost of
prescription drugs in the U.S. -- a great deal, a fair amount, not very much or
none at all?"
U.S. total
|
Republican
|
Independent
|
Democrat
|
Approve of
Trump
|
Disapprove of
Trump
|
|
%
|
%
|
%
|
%
|
%
|
%
|
|
A great deal
|
7
|
14
|
6
|
2
|
13
|
3
|
A
fair amount
|
20
|
49
|
16
|
1
|
43
|
5
|
Not very much
|
33
|
25
|
34
|
39
|
29
|
37
|
None
at all
|
33
|
7
|
32
|
57
|
7
|
51
|
Not very much/None at all
|
66
|
31
|
66
|
96
|
35
|
88
|
GALLUP-WEST HEALTH NATIONAL HEALTHCARE STUDY, SEPT.
16-30 2019; N=1,099
|
The substantial number of Americans
who know someone who has died after not receiving treatment because of their inability
to pay for it, coupled with the rise in the percentage who have not had enough
money to pay for their prescriptions, underscores the urgency of the U.S.
healthcare cost crisis. These realities starkly highlight the significant
practical implications of drug prices on U.S. residents, as well as the effects
of healthcare policy action -- or inaction.
With millions of residents knowing
someone who has died in the past five years after being unable to pay for
needed treatment, the ramifications to public trust in the U.S. healthcare
system could be significant. This erosion of trust is likely exacerbated by the
estimated 58 million adults who have themselves been unable to afford
prescribed drugs at least once in the last 12 months. The level of medication
insecurity is high and rising, and is doing so against a backdrop of
overwhelming public sentiment regarding the inappropriately high prices of
prescription drugs. The rise in reported 12-month medication insecurity among
women and Democrats dovetails with rising uninsured rates
for related subgroups over the course of 2018, and could be, in
part, a reflection of the decreased coverage among these constituencies.
Drug prices directly affect
consumers, and with the U.S. one year away from the 2020 election, presidential
candidates will increasingly be asked to explain and defend their policy
positions regarding rising drug costs. Only 7% of U.S. adults report that the
Trump administration has accomplished "a great deal" on the issue,
and voters are clearly expecting more from their elected officials than what
has been accomplished in the past three years. In Congress, meanwhile, the U.S.
House of Representatives is expected to vote soon on House Democrats' plan to
curb soaring prescription drug prices by allowing the federal government to
negotiate prices of certain drugs, including insulin products and single-source
brand-name drugs with no generic competition. The U.S. Senate is considering a
separate, bipartisan proposal that would cap seniors' out-of-pocket costs and
require drug manufacturers to reimburse Medicare if prices rise more than the
inflation rate.
Given these ongoing challenges,
West Health and Gallup have committed to measuring public opinion on a wide
array of issues relevant to healthcare costs on a recurring basis, providing
stakeholders and policymakers with the information they need to gauge whether
progress is being made on these most critical issues of our time.
Health Care Doom on the
Horizon
The relationship between Americans and
their health care delivery is about to make a dramatic change for the worse. Consumers
of health care are poised to vote for a federally managed
system. Why would they go down this predictably awful rabbit
hole? They'll do it because they are overwhelmed and frightened in
the current system. They'll do it because this may be the only
option that a typical voter understands. They'll do it because our
elected leaders do not have the courage to enact changes that could make things
work and don't want to give up power. And it will happen because the
media will demonize and target anyone who isn't on the socialist bandwagon.
Currently, we have a situation in America
where the insured among us are utilizing health care less than in the
past. This is because of the financial implications of
high-deductible insurance policies, most people's only affordable
option. As a result, it is arguable that the very people who bear
the financial burden for our medical care — namely, the minority among us who
are insured Americans — are among those getting the worst care in our
country. It is well known that Americans often live on the edge of
their finances. So when it comes to budgeting for our deductible
when health issues arise, we are frequently left with hard
decisions. This often results in the insured tolerating illness
rather than seeking appropriate, expensive care.
The result of this development will most
assuredly result in even conservative voters being swayed toward a federally
managed health delivery system. With the elderly freely using
Medicare and Medicaid participants getting treatment with seemingly no
debilitating financial consequences, it would be easy to desire something
similar for the rest of us. After all, what could be more messed up
than the current system, where a simple visit to the emergency room can lead to
bankruptcy?
The federal option for health care
delivery will undoubtedly be wretched. Ask any veteran or doctors
who trained at those hospitals about their experience with the V.A., the best
example of a federally run health delivery option. You'll hear
stories that will curl your toes. It is not possible for government
to provide quality care in a timely manner affordably, just as equality and
liberty can't coexist without one sacrificing itself to the
other. Add on the layers of bureaucracy in a federally run hospital
to the inefficiencies and redundancies they mandate, and the results are
predictable.
Yet the people may opt for it anyway,
because it is hard to imagine relying on the current system creating a more
affordable market. We are not using the economic tools that work to
bring down costs. There is no such thing as capitalism or a free
market in health care delivery. If a group of doctors think they can
provide better care at cheaper prices than your community hospital, they cannot
easily do so. Government regulations would not grant them
permission, because it is more "in the community's interest" to keep
the inefficient and expensive existing hospital afloat than to allow the
creative destruction that capitalism provides. Ending local government's
control over "certificate of need" would lower costs, but politics
keeps these laws going.
Additionally, hospitals are allowed to
charge much more for services than private practitioners of medicine and
surgery. This is because they have convinced local governments that
this is justifiable because they have to take care of the
indigent. A lot of the recent dramatic rise in health care costs is
a result of the incestuous relationship between hospital corporations and the
government. Doctors are getting absorbed into hospital employment
with the lure that their pay will not go down as precipitously if they are paid
the higher allowable fees that they can bill through the hospital.
You can add the insurance industry to the
hospital corporations and the government as the three players that keep the
system unaffordable and non-competitive. Many competitive options
for insurance coverage could decrease cost. But these are opposed by
the industry and are lobbied away. The laws that could make these
legal are unlikely to be enacted because power would shift from government and
insurance companies to the individual.
One such idea is insurance
pooling. Suppose that someone who would normally be almost
uninsurable, like a 33-year-old waitress with Crohn's disease, could join in
with other waitresses and shop as a group for policies across state
lines. This would put market forces to work and necessarily drive
down her costs. This is because most waitresses are young and fairly
healthy, and the actuaries in the insurance companies would jump to bid for
this business. For particularly difficult to insure populations,
there could even be federally subsidized pools. This could work for
the uninsured and unemployed.
For this concept to work, there would have
to be allowances for buying insurance across state
lines. Politicians have too many pet causes to allow this to
happen. Most insurance coverage in New York City mandates coverage
for transgender operations. Years ago in Connecticut, insurance had
to cover hair plugs. As you might suspect, insurance can run much
higher in these environments when compared to similar coverage (not including
these boondoggles) in the upper Midwest. If a resident of New York
or Connecticut could buy the Midwestern policy for similar coverage without the
local mandates, costs would go down.
Another priority would be transferring
ownership of insurance to individuals rather than through their
employers. But tax incentives encourage the
opposite. Policies that do not end when changing jobs or crossing
into other states would be preferable, but business tax deductions change the
game. If individuals could deduct insurance cost, as businesses have
traditionally done, it could work.
Tort reform would remove a lot of dysfunction
and wasteful spending. But most lawmakers are lawyers, so the
possibility of goring this cash cow is remote. (What will happen to
this sector if the federal government runs medicine?) Allowing
information technology to evolve naturally rather than instituting top-down,
central control to the medical records, billing, and other information systems
would result in savings, too. But I.T. is essential to maintaining
power, which makes any change non-negotiable.
Americans may have had enough, egged on by
progressive media. Plots to make medical care more affordable by
re-introducing the free market and capitalism through changes in the current
laws seem to have died off. The fawning hero-worship directed toward
former president Obama by the media glorified the idea of health care as a
human right, with support for this wrong-headed idea achieving his goal of
"fundamentally changing America." Medicare for all is
depicted in the press as a desirable idea despite common sense suspecting the
contrary. When it is shown that the cost of administering health
care through the existing system proves that insurance companies eat up around
a third of the health care dollar, it does seem ridiculous to maintain the
status quo. After all, the cost of administration in the Veterans
Administration is far less. But we know intuitively that care will
be worse. And, as anyone who knows history can tell you, giving them
power over our health care decision-making will be the final nail in the coffin
of our freedom.
Yet, when the simple idea of a Health
Savings Account, a necessary pillar of any health care reform, is above the
heads of many voters, we have lost. Because the media will shoot
down any politician brave enough to try anything but a federal option (remember
Tom Price, [R-GA]?), it is harder than ever to have any kind of inertia for
reasonable change. With the shortsightedness of insurance companies
and hospital corporations essentially pricing themselves out of existence for
access to more money today, it looks hopeless. And when federal debt
continues to be viewed as a "so what?" by politicians and citizens
alike, we are done.
It Pays to be Illegal in California
It certainly is a good time to be an illegal alien
in California. Democratic State Sen. Ricardo Lara last week pitched a bill to
permit illegal immigrants to serve on all state and local boards and commissions.
This week, lawmakers unveiled a $1
billion health care plan that would include spending
$250 million to extend health care coverage to all illegal alien adults.
“Currently, undocumented adults are explicitly and
unjustly locked out of healthcare due to their immigration status. In a matter
of weeks, California legislators will have a decisive opportunity to reverse
that cruel and counterproductive fact,” Assemblyman Joaquin Arambula said in
Monday’s Sacramento
Bee.
His legislation, Assembly
Bill 2965, would give as many as 114,000 uninsured illegal
aliens access to Medi-Cal programs. A companion bill has been sponsored by
State Sen. Richard Lara.
But that could just be a drop in the bucket. The
Democrats’ plan covers more than 100,000 illegal aliens with annual incomes
bless than $25,000, however an estimated 1.3 million might be eligible based on
their earnings.
In addition, it is estimated that 20 percent of
those living in California illegally are uninsured – the $250 million covers
just 11 percent.
So, will politicians soon be asking California
taxpayers once again to dip into their pockets to pay for the remaining 9
percent?
Before they ask for more, Democrats have to win the
approval of Gov. Jerry Brown, who cautioned against spending away the state’s
surplus when he introduced his $190 billion budget proposal in January.
Given Brown’s openness to expanding Medi-Cal
expansions in recent years, not to mention his proclivity for blindly
supporting any measure benefitting lawbreaking immigrants, the latest fiscal
irresponsibility may win approval.
And if he takes a pass, the two
Democrats most likely to succeed Brown – Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Los
Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa – favor excessive
social spending and are actively courting
illegal immigrant support.
COST to AMERICANS of the LA RAZA
MEXICAN OCCUPATION in CALIFORNIA ALONE: $2,370 per legal.
All that “cheap” labor is
staggeringly expensive!
"Most
Californians, who have seen their taxes increase while public services
deteriorate, already know the impact that mass illegal immigration is having on
their communities, but even they may be shocked when they learn just how much
of a drain illegal immigration has become." FAIR President Dan Stein.
Californians bear an enormous fiscal burden as a result of an illegal
alien population estimated at almost 3 million residents. The annual
expenditure of state and local tax dollars on services for that population is
$25.3 billion. That total amounts to a yearly burden of about $2,370 for a
household headed by a U.S. citizen.
Exclusive–Mo
Brooks: Healthcare for Illegal Aliens Latest Democrat Effort to Turn U.S. into
California
JOSH EDELSON/AFP/Getty Images
JOHN BINDER
5 Jul 201971
3:34
Providing free, American taxpayer-funded
healthcare to all illegal aliens is just the latest effort to use mass
immigration to turn the United States into the sanctuary state of California,
Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) says.
As Breitbart News reported, the majority of
2020 Democrat presidential candidates have endorsed a plan to force taxpayers
to pay for free healthcare for all 11 to 22 million illegal aliens living
across the country. The plan would cost taxpayers at least $660 billion a
decade.
Brooks told SiriusXM Patriot’s Breitbart News Tonight that
Democrats’ “primary motivation” behind offering healthcare to illegal aliens is
not compassion, but rather an effort to transform the U.S. into the state of
California through mass illegal and legal immigration.
LISTEN:
Brooks said:
The motivation for all for this is
even worse. They don’t have compassion for these illegal aliens. That’s not
their primary motivation. Their primary motivation is the desire to
acquire raw political power. That’s what it’s all about. [Emphasis added]
If you limit votes to American
citizens, Democrats do not fair to well with us. So what they’re trying to do
is import people who do not understand the foundational principles that have
combined to make America a great nation and who … are
much more likely to vote Democrat once Democrats give them voting rights.
[Emphasis added]
Brooks detailed how California, the
state where former President Ronald Reagan was governor, has been forever
changed due to the country’s mass illegal and legal immigration policy that
imports about 1.5 million foreign nationals a year.
“Let’s learn from history. California
used to be a purple state. Remember, Ronald Reagan came from there … the
Democrats have flooded California with noncitizens,” Brooks said. “And why do
noncitizens vote Democrat so often? Well, let’s look at illegal aliens. The
data shows that 70 percent of households that have an illegal alien in them are
on welfare. The data shows that 60 percent of households that have a lawful
immigrant in them are on welfare. So, you’ve got three different themes that
the Democrat Party now relies on: One is racism, two is sexism, and three is
socialism.”
“In California, what used to be a
purple state, now out of 53 congressional seats, only seven are Republican … 46
are Democrat and seven are Republican,” Brooks said. “So they have seen how
that strategy of importation of foreign voters has worked in California.
They’re trying to do it in Texas, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, in every state
where they can possibly do it. They want to flood the voting booths with people
who are dependent on welfare and who do not understand the principles that have
made us a great nation. That’s how they change the voter pool and they’re doing
it successfully.”
Health insurance expert Linda
Blumberg told the New York Times that any of the
Democrats’ plans that offer free health care to illegal aliens is could likely
to drive a mass migration of foreigners with “serious health problems to enter
the country or remain longer than their visas allow in order to get
government-funded care.”
Likely U.S. voters, by a majority,
said they oppose being forced to pay for the healthcare of millions of illegal
aliens living in the country, as Breitbart News reported. The latest
Rasmussen Reports poll found that 55 percent of voters said they opposed such a
plan, including 8-in-10 Republican voters, about 6-in-10 swing voters, and 62
percent of middle-class voters.
In the next two decades, should the
country’s legal immigration policy go unchanged, the U.S. is set to import about 15 million new foreign-born voters. About eight
million of these new foreign-born voters will have arrived through the process
known as “chain migration,” whereby newly naturalized citizens are allowed to
bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country.
Elizabeth Warren Releases Plan to Transition to Medicare for All
3:32
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) on Friday released her plan to transition the United States to her $52 trillion Medicare for All program, notably holding off on ending private insurance right off the bat and making it part of her second legislative push, which she claims will occur before the end of her first term.
Warren unveiled her Medicare for All plan in a Medium post this month, proclaiming, proudly, that the multitrillion-dollar plan would not require a tax hike on middle class Americans, even though experts state that it would. Rather, Warren claims she will pay for the plan, in part, via an additional tax hike on the wealthy, cuts on defense spending, and amnesty.
The presidential hopeful added to her plan on Friday, explaining how she would transition the country to a Medicare for All system. While she claims the transition would occur entirely in her first term, its enactment would occur under two legislative pushes. She describes the first as a “fast-track budget reconciliation legislation to create a true Medicare for All option that’s free for tens of millions”:
Today, I'm sharing my plan to transition to #MedicareForAll. In my first term, we will reverse Trump’s sabotage of the ACA, lower drug prices, lower the Medicare age to 50 and create a true Medicare for All option—and fully transition to #MedicareForAll. elizabethwarren.com/plans/m4a-tran …
3,458 people are talking about this
Her plan states:
Coverage under the new Medicare for All option will be immediately free for children under the age of 18 and for families making at or below 200% of the federal poverty level (about $51,000 for a family of four). For all others, the cost will be modest, and eventually, coverage under this plan will be free for everyone.
Then, “no later” than her third year in office, Warren would “fight to pass legislation that would complete the transition to full Medicare for All,” essentially eliminating the need for private insurance:
By this point, the American people will have experienced the full benefits of a true Medicare for All option, and they can see for themselves how that experience stacks up against high-priced care that requires them to fight tooth-and-nail against their insurance company. Per the terms of the Medicare for All Act, supplemental private insurance that doesn’t duplicate the benefits of Medicare for All would still be available. But by avoiding duplicative insurance and integrating every American into the new program, the American people would save trillions of dollars on health costs.
Warren believes that the methodical, step by step approach will result in “millions” of Americans paying less in health care and claims they will see the “quality of their current health coverage improve.”
“And millions more Americans will have the choice to ditch their private insurance and enter a high-quality public plan,” her plan states, reiterating that it will not result in an increased tax burden for middle class families.
“And, at each step, the changes in our health care system will be fully paid for without raising taxes one penny on middle class families,” her plan claims.
“Let’s not kid ourselves: every Democratic plan for expanding public health care coverage is a challenge to these industries’ bottom lines – and every one of these plans is already being drowned in money to make sure it never happens,” Warren wrote, adding in a jab to two of her fiercest Democrat critics, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) and former Vice President Joe Biden (D).
“Any candidate who believes more modest reforms will avoid the wrath of industry is not paying attention,” she warned.
Warren confirmed at a town hall meeting in Raleigh, North Carolina, this month that her Medicare for All plan will also cover illegal immigrants.
“Medicare for All, as I put this together, covers everyone, regardless of immigration status, and that’s it,” Warren told the crowd:
No comments:
Post a Comment