"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