There is a wealth of opinions on how to spend the cash, but no one seems to have the basics down yet.


WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 — A new federal study shows huge variations in personal health spending among states, ranging from an average of nearly $6,700 a person in Massachusetts to less than $4,000 in Utah.

The study, published on Monday in the Web edition of the journal Health Affairs, said that Massachusetts, Maine, New York, Alaska and Connecticut had the highest per capita spending on health care in 2004.

The lowest-spending states were Utah, Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico and Nevada. Per capita spending in Utah was 59 percent of that in Massachusetts


LINK

Not only is health care expensive in the Northeast, in rurual areas it literally sucks in Maine.

Same in the South, Tumble and very few are covered, that is why EWRs are so crowding all the time.

Here is a report on just what Tumble was talking about.


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - People who live in the U.S. Northeast, including New England and the mid-Atlantic states, have significantly higher health care bills than other Americans, federal researchers said on Tuesday.

Insurers and individuals spent on average $1,000 more per person in 2004 -- $6,345 per capita versus $5,283 per capita in the other states, the team at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services found.

The researchers said it is not entirely clear why but noted that many of the states have high average incomes, as well as lots of physicians.


LINK

They said states with generous Medicaid programs also tended to have the highest spending. Massachusetts spent an average of $9,150 in 2004 on each client of Medicaid -- the state-federal health insurance program for the poor.

And Romney is running around the country telling everyone how great the plan in Massachusetts is. He's advocating high health care costs.

It is worded to sell people on the idea, so it will appear appealing, when actually it is a pile of crap. That is typical politics.

A govenor is blasting Bush on the policy.



WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, in a Democratic response to President Bush's weekly radio address, ripped Bush for threatening to veto a child health care bill.

Congress is considering the re-authorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Legislation which has already passed the House and Senate, but needs to be worked out in committee, would expand the $35 billion program. The program covers 6.6 million low-income children, and the bill would add an additional 4 million by 2012.

Rendell said 15 states will be out of SCHIP funding and thousands of children will lose their coverage if the president doesn't sign the bill by the end of the month.


SOURCE

They make the price tag of $$35 sound like a big sum of money just to make folks think it is an outrageous amount. The truth is it's being paid for by taxes and the per year cost could easily be covered if they were to decide to do something about the fraud that is seen in other federally funded programs like medicade and medicare.

I listened to Leavitt, Sec of DHHS, on TV and he did not answert one question with an upofront answer. He spouted vague and incoherent bs. There is the Bush health plan.

More on the SCHIP.


If ever there was a motherhood-and-apple-pie issue, reauthorizing the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) is it. Yet the Bush administration, right-wing think tanks and health insurance companies have managed to turn a no-brainer into a pitched battle over the direction of healthcare reform, jeopardizing the future of S-CHIP itself. The fight over S-CHIP, which must be renewed by September 30, reflects deep divisions in Washington and shows the difficulties of making improvements in the healthcare system.

By every measure, the ten-year-old program - passed during the Clinton administration as a bipartisan, incremental effort to expand health coverage to millions of poor kids - has been a success. Thanks to S-CHIP, the number of low-income uninsured kids dropped by one-third over the decade, even as the number of uninsured adults went up. Three out of four eligible kids participate, and studies show they receive preventive care and have improved health outcomes and school performance. "It has been the only success story in initiatives to improve healthcare access," says Cindy Mann, who directs Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families.


LINK

By every measure, the ten-year-old program - passed during the Clinton administration as a bipartisan, incremental effort to expand health coverage to millions of poor kids - has been a success.

No it hasn't. The States are failing to fully implement the program. It's only been a success for those kids lucky enouigh to be enrolled in the program. The States are dropping the ball by the way they run the program.

Will Bush veto or has a deal on funding the war already been worked out?


The US Senate has overwhelmingly passed a bill to expand a children's health care insurance scheme, setting up a policy showdown with President Bush.

Mr Bush has threatened to veto the bill which he argues takes the programme beyond its original purpose of insuring children from low-income families.

The legislation would raise tobacco taxes to provide an extra $35bn (£17bn) to insure some 10 million children.


LINK

They need a couple of dozen votes yet in the House to override the veto. Bush could still kill it.

If it passes, I have said and still believe, that a deal has already been hammered out on another bill that Bush wants to pass. Kinda like the War funds or something similar.

You could be right CHUQ. There are so many special interest bills out there it's hard to tell why any of them are for or against a bill these days.