Monday, March 8, 2010
Dress up Games by Politicans
Remember last week when Obama appeared with a group of folks dressed in white lab coats appearing to be doctors? Well it seems that perhaps that he (Obama) and Kevin Rudd (PM of
) are reading from the same script. It makes it all really laughable when they go to such extremes as trying to dupe folks into thinking that Doctors are backing their ridiculous plans. This week Kevin Rudd appeared wearing a surgical gown and revealed that he is handy with a defibrillator. He also is known for telling tales of woe when it comes to health care which of course we all know that Obama is a master at doing even though most of his tales have been debunked as pure Barnyard Bovine Excrement. Australia
KEVIN Rudd faces growing distrust among premiers over his proposed health funding shake-up, reducing the chance of a negotiated agreement on a federal takeover of public hospitals.
Western Australia and Victoria already openly hostile to the Prime Minister's plan to seize 30 per cent of state GST revenues to bankroll the move, hardened its attitude yesterday by linking its co-operation to a major increase in funding for aged-care services. Queensland
Victoria's case, that would mean close to $1 billion a year extra for our state from the commonwealth," Mr. Brumby(Premier from ) said. Victoria
"The reality is, I think as all the independent commentators have observed, the heavy lifting and the extra effort in health in the last decade on health has been done by the states.
"The Prime Minister is probably frustrated. I think he is frustrated that he has announced a major health reform and, to be honest, he hasn't got too many supporters out there." One might add here that Obama has few supporters for his plan as well. According to Rasmussen Reports 65% of the American people do not support his NOCARE plan. It is also noted that down the road that States will be saddled with even more of the cost.
Sounds a bit familiar doesn’t it. But yet Rudd gives the same reply to those who speak against his plan as Obama does. His most recent reply was, "It's time to get on with it,". Obama keeps saying, “it must be done NOW”.
Why is it that liberals are so arrogant when it comes to those who oppose their agenda? I have come to the conclusion that that is all they have--arrogance. They have no real plan that will pass the smell test but are insistent that theirs is the only answer. It is like insisting that even though there may be five hammers in a tool box of all colors and sizes, their red hammer is the only hammer to use be it for nailing a picture hanger to the wall or knocking down a concrete wall. It makes no difference if it is a sledge hammer, at least to liberals it doesn’t.
Rudd stated that "In terms of hospitals, beds, doctors, nurses, aged care, dental health, mental health, let me just say this: we now have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get hospital reform right. Doctors want reform of our hospitals to happen, nurses want it to happen, working families who can't find a place with elective surgery want it to happen." What he forgot to say is that it is going to cost states more and more. Sounds very familiar since Obama is not telling the American People the true cost of his fiasco.
Rudd does tell the truth about elective surgery since it has a long waiting list for such things. There are extensive waiting times for elective surgeries at public hospitals. Although waiting lists for the most urgent elective surgery for heart disease and cancer are almost nonexistent, there are long waiting lists for orthopedic surgery (median wait for total hip replacement is 88 days; 10% of patients waited over 345 days in 1999 to 2000), and cataract surgery (median is 73 days; 10% waited more than 316 days). One of the attractions of health insurance is the ability to bypass public hospital waiting lists. Notice that those with private health insurance are not subjected to the long waits as those who are on government controlled medical treatment. Of course under the Obama fiasco there would be no real thing as private insurance. It would all be controlled by the government.
The cost for health care in
Australia is actually less than in the US but then taxes are lower in the US than they are in . Australia Australia spends about 8.5% of gross domestic product while the spends somewhere in the area of 13.7%. Waiting times for surgery is almost non-existent in the US but is common in countries with Government health control. US
Under Australian Medicare all citizens are covered. There is no limit on fees charged by doctors. There is, however, a government-set fee schedule. Doctors can bill patients or send their bills directly to the government insurance authority, the Health Insurance Commission (HIC). If sent to the HIC, the payment is 85% of the government-set fee for out-of-hospital expenses and 75% of the government set fee for in-hospital services; the money is paid directly to the doctor, and the doctor is not allowed to charge the patient an additional fee. About 75% of family physician services are directly billed to the HIC. If a doctor bills the patient directly, the patient then applies for the rebate of the government set fee.
Of course this is not true of the Obama fiasco. Fees will be set and will be lower than they are now according to studies done by independent groups and the Senate bill calls for a 20% reduction in fees paid to doctors. Why? Control is the only reasonable answer that one can offer. Rudd in
Australia is seeking a greater control of medical care in Australia and a greater slice of the economy just as Obama and his Democrat minions are seeking to achieve here in the . US