State governments ration “free” cancer screenings

When you empower government to provide “free” health care (paid by others through taxes), government gets to decide when it’s appropriate for you to receive it.  Here’s yet another example from the Associated Press:

…low-income women in at least 20 states are being turned away or put on long waiting lists for free cancer screenings, according to the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network. In the unofficial survey of programs for July 2008 through April 2009, the organization found that state budget strains are forcing some programs to reject people who would otherwise qualify for free mammograms and Pap smears.

…

New York used to screen women of all ages, but this year the budget crunch has forced them to focus on those considered at highest risk and exclude women under 50….

At least 14 states cut budgets for free cancer screenings this year: Colorado, Montana, Illinois, Alabama, Minnesota, Connecticut, South Carolina, Utah, Missouri, Washington, Ohio, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Arkansas.

Tea Party Opposition to GovernmentCare

Popular opposition to government-run health care continues as grassroots groups plan protests. For example, there will be “tea parties” in Alabama today.

A Clothing-store Riot and Today’s Health Reform

What does reform legislation envisioned in Congress have in common with a chaotic day at an Ohio clothing store? A lot, says Gary Palmer, president of the Alabama Policy Institute.

According to media reports, a woman pulled up to a Burlington Coat Factory in a Hummer limousine, walked to the store check-out counter and loudly announced that she had just won the lottery and would pay for everyone’s purchases up to $500 and she would stay until the store closed.

Not only did people flood the cash register lines, they phoned their friends and relatives to tell them the good news. According to one Columbus police officer, there were at least 500 people in the store aisles and another 1,000 outside trying to get in. Unfortunately for all those people with their shopping carts full, the lady had not won the lottery and she could not pay for everyone’s purchase.

Chaos ensued when shoppers were informed that their merchandise would not be paid for as promised. Angry shoppers trashed the store and some simply left the store with the merchandise they believed they were entitled to since someone else had promised to pay for it.

Read the whole commentary here.

Put More Reform Options on the Table

It shouldn’t have to be said, but Gary Palmer of the Alabama Policy Institute says it: Government Controlled Health-care Reform is Not the Only Option–at least outside the minds of the leaders of Congressional Democrats.

He says, in part:

Instead of one giant reform bill, health care reform should be broken into separate parts which deal with the private health insurance market and Medicaid and Medicare. As indicated above, there have been dozens of separate bills, amendments, policy papers and briefs submitted or published that together would address most, if not all, of the problems with our health care system. The issue is that not one Republican-sponsored health care reform bill has been allowed out of committee in either the House or Senate by the Democrats in control of Congress.

A real effort to bring improvements to America’s health care system would allow every idea for reform to be put on the table. But as we are seeing, it is not about improving the health care system … it is about government control of our health care.

How Does $10 a Month for Insurance Sound?

In 1985, public school teachers and retirees in Alabama paid $10 a month for single-coverage health insurance. In 1986, the amount they paid went to … $2 a month, and it’s stayed there ever since.

An outrage? Perhaps. It certainly has sheltered teachers from the realities of health insurance costs, which are by virtue of this arrangement largely obscured from their view. Over the years, state officials have tried to raise the employee payments, only to be overruled by the insurance plan’s governing board.

It’s all quite understandable, given the realities of the tax law. The secretary of the state’s teacher union said “If the state has to pick up an additional $300 on health insurance for teachers vs. giving them $300 raises, it makes more sense to pick up the health care costs because that’s a benefit they don’t have to pay taxes on.” So now the State of Alabama, which once paid $39 a month per employee, is now paying $752.

Alabama Traps More Children in Government Care

Alabama will soon make more children dependent on politics for their health insurance, and perhaps devastate the private insurance market for everyone else in the process.

According to the Birmingham News, "All Kids" will be able to enroll about 14,000 more children starting October 1, thanks to looser eligibility requirements. Right now, the program is limited to families with an income of two times the federal poverty level. It will go up to three times, so the number for a family of four will be $66,156. By contrast, the median household income in the state is under $41,000.

An advocate of increased government dependency is happy: "Jim Carnes, communications director for Alabama Arise, said the expansion takes All Kids to income levels Alabama is not accustomed to serving in public programs [emphasis added], but Carnes said that is not a bad thing."

A state official says the program–you've heard this before, haven't you?–says it's for people who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to purchase insurance on their own.

Alabama gets a significant federal match–"most of the program is funded with federal dollars"–so it's no surprise the state has signed on. It's too bad, though, that the default government route to making insurance affordable is to subsidize it. For as Medicare, Dirigo and other programs demonstrate, subsidies are not financially sustainable and may in fact drive people out of the private market.

End-of-Life Choices and Governnment

It's probably a good idea for you to talk with your loved ones about your views on what sort of health care you, or they want, as death draws near. And it may even be a good idea for a public program that pays for medical care to pay, as one service among many, physicians who provide a counseling session on such matters to patients who request it.

But will such a payment mean that a government bureaucracy shapes the discussion? Given the pattern of government programs here, there, and everywhere telling us what to eat, how to exercise, and so forth, that's not out of the question.

Gary Palmer, president of the Alabama Policy Institute, weighs in on the current controversy over the VA hospital system and the booklet, "Your Life, Your Choices," saying "It is unconscionable that American men and women who have answered the nation’s call to arms and suffered the horrors and ravages of war would return home to be encouraged to die just to save a few dollars. But it should not be surprising in light of the end-of-life counseling panels, death panels as some have called them, which target the elderly in the health care reform bill."

U.S. Index of Health Ownership 2nd Edition Is Here

Pacific Research Institute has published the 2nd edition of the U.S. Index of Health Ownership, the only ranking of health care in the states that uses criteria of individual choice.

Americans lack the basic freedom to make their own health care decisions. The Index measures the degree to which individuals, be they patients, health professionals, entrepreneurs, or taxpayers, “own” the health care in their states.

The lack of health ownership is a real problem. Almost half of the country’s health care spending is in the hands of the government, instead of patients themselves. The other half is governed by regulations inflicted upon doctors, health plans and patients.

The Index uses 24 variables to quantify how state laws and regulations affect the liberty of citizens involved in state government health plans (primarily Medicaid), the private health-insurance market, and the provision of medical services. It also assesses the effect of medical tort on people’s freedom to engage health services.

Alabama, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and New Hampshire finished in the top five, as the states that allow their citizens the highest degree of health ownership. Alabama leads the pack primarily because of a lightly regulated private insurance market, and good control of state government programs. Also, the state performs well on medical tort indicators. Alabama’s regulatory environment for providers favors competition, and government health programs run more effectively than in most states.

New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and North Carolina rounded out the bottom five, as the states in which the government has taken the most undue control of health care from its citizens. This is the second year that New York was in last place. The state suffers from government health-care programs that are out of control, a grossly overregulated private-insurance market, and almost completely uncompetitive provider markets.

A full listing of all 50 states and their rankings is contained in the Index.

The Index will give concerned citizens a good basis to demand reforms from their state politicians that will put American families in charge of American health care, instead of government and special interests.

Health Care Debate in Alabama

As in every state, there has been a flurry of activity also here in Alabama from the "grassroots" advocates of President Obama's public health care plan. I have noticed in Alabama how remarkably disciplined their messages has been through letters to the editor to radio talk shows. Language, as Frank Luntz has tirelessly demonstrated, is crucial is this long, hot summer health care debate. The public plan/single payer advocates are on message, though on a albeit dreadfully one.

Since President Obama has stressed that his public plan is, by his own account, "ambitious" we have admonished all to really take him at his word! Indeed, the Obama "ambitious" moniker is cause for great alarm.

Not to fear, those of us that have advocated a market-based, patient-centered health care are getting through despite all the bias of the mainstream press. Why? We are just very noisy, have facts on our side and have learned to use the same tools of technology that the left has so capably used in recent times.

Here is a piece I wrote specifically for Alabama, The Summer Health Care Debate: Be Careful What You Wish For.

No Home Brewing in Alabama

A beer enthusiast in Alabama is looking for a legislator to sponsor to sponsor a bill that would legalize home brewing in the state. Amazingly, making beer at home is illegal in Alabama.

One opponent of the idea says "No one ever became an alcoholic without first taking a drink." While alcoholism is a serious condition, the number of people who become alcoholics because their first beer was made at home has got to be rather small. People who brew at home are almost without exception people who already drink beer.

I suppose if you take the logic to its absurd conclusion, the state should abolish the sale of apples, since some people may follow in the tradition of George Washington and make applejack.

The ban on home brewing is to have much effect on public health. On the other hand, it makes hundreds or thousands of Alabamians into scofflaws, for no good reason.