Bush's advise, since this really shouldn't be considered a strategy, for covering the uninsured is to tinker with the tax code.
Many health economists say they think Bush is overstating the impact of the tax code changes, but they say he might have a bigger bang if he were to give low-income people tax credits to buy insurance, an idea the White House considered and rejected. A study released this week by the Community Research Council of Chattanooga concluded that very few of the uninsured in Hamilton County, which includes Chattanooga and its suburbs, make enough money to benefit under the current Bush plan.
In an interview, Bredesen said he is glad that Bush is starting to tackle health care more seriously but voiced doubts about the tax elements. "I get less excited about the tax deduction stuff because there are a lot of people . . . for whom that's not going to make a difference," he said.
Even as the president arrived in Tennessee, the local news was full of reports that a change in federal reimbursement policy could cost the state as much as $250 million annually for charity care, countering any relief under the president's new plan. "It certainly would be a sore blow to us," Bredesen said.
While Bredesen may show some pragmatism in his assessment of tinkering with the tax code, he also doesn't show compassion to those thousands that got cut from the TennCare rolls, leaving them uninsured.
However, Bredesen got lot's of kudos from the Decider, for the CoverTN program. This is bare-bones coverage with serious limitations. Probably a good policy for young and healthy adults.
At the health-insurance discussion, Bush commended Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen for starting Cover Tennessee, an insurance program for low-income working Tennesseans, and said it is the kind of public-private venture that is needed. Cover Tennessee, provided by BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, involves the state, workers and participating employers each paying one-third of the average monthly premium of $150.
Separating people based on their health is good for the insurance companies, but not necessarily good for the individual.
As each of us may remember the old addage, "you get what you pay for," this does not apply to health care. American's pay the most, per capita, for health care, but we don't get better health care, when you compare our system to other developed countries.
It would behoove Congress critters and state governments to take a look at countries that have universal health care and healthy populations, and compare them to people in the US. Take a look at, and compare, the cost of doing business (hospitals and doctors), and then tell me what you might come up with.
Comments