Lack of health insurance kills

Via Echidne, Medical News Today reports:

A new report by a major US cancer charity has found that uninsured Americans are less likely to survive cancer, less likely to be screened for it, and more likely to have an advanced stage of the disease once they are diagnosed, compared with Americans on health insurance.

The study, which examines the link between health insurance status and cancer treatment and survival, will appear in the January-February edition of the journal CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians and is the work of researchers from the American Cancer Society (ACS), led by Dr Elizabeth Ward, managing director, surveillance research at the ACS.

Other studies have already suggested that Medicaid and uninsured patients are more likely to be diagnosed with cancers that are more advanced, mostly because they can't afford to buy preventative services such as cancer screening.

This report from the ACS takes a closer look at the link between insurance status and cancer care, and takes into account a number of demographic, race, and socioeconomic factors.

More Arnold

Oakland Tribune:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his allies are scrambling to keep his health care reform plan from collapsing amid an ever widening — and increasingly contentious — rift between two of the most politically important special interests in the state: labor and business.

Earlier this week, the California Labor Federation — having walked out of negotiations earlier — launched an aggressive campaign accusing Schwarzenegger's plan of gouging the working class by requiring people to buy health insurance without enough subsidies.

Business groups lashed back, warning that unions risked blowing up nearly a year's worth of work on what many in Sacramento consider potentially the most significant legislation in decades.

The division has created a form of political checkmate for Schwarzenegger, who can either hold the line on employer taxes or try to subsidize more uninsured workers, which would likely require more taxes on employers. Either move willalienate someone.

"Health care is on life support," said Jack Pitney, political science professor at Claremont McKenna College. "I can't figure out how the governor can salvage this. It's difficult to reconcile the competing interests of business and labor."

Well, he could decide that people are more important than business, but this is Arnold we're talking about...

Bush To Veto Children's Health Insurance

It seems that not a day goes by without more evidence emerging that the Bush Administration is without human conscience. The New York Times has the story:

The White House said on Saturday that President Bush would veto a bipartisan plan to expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program, drafted over the last six months by senior members of the Senate Finance Committee.

The vow puts Mr. Bush at odds with the Democratic majority in Congress, with a substantial number of Republican lawmakers and with many governors of both parties, who want to expand the popular program to cover some of the nation’s eight million uninsured children.

The program expires on September 30. Last year, some 7.4 million children were, at some point, covered by it. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill Bush will veto would reduce the number of uninsured children by 4.1 million.

So, why would Bush want to deny 4.1 million children health insurance coverage? According to a White House spokesman, part of the reason is that it would be funded through an increased cigarette tax. Another reason:

“The proposal would dramatically expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program, adding nonpoor children to the program, and more than doubling the level of spending,” Mr. Fratto said. “This will have the effect of encouraging many to drop private coverage, to go on the government-subsidized program.”

Because we all know that nonpoor children can easily afford private health insurance. This is the 2007 Health and Human Services Poverty Guideline:

Persons in Family or Household	48 Contiguous States and D.C.	Alaska	Hawai
1	$ 10,210	$12,770	$11,750
2	13,690	17,120	15,750
3	17,170	21,470	19,750
4	20,650	25,820	23,750
5	24,130	30,170	27,750
6	27,610	34,520	31,750
7	31,090	38,870	35,750
8	34,570	43,220	39,750
For each additional person, add	3,480	4,350	4,000

Now, consider that any families making more than that are considered by the Bush Administration as too affluent to need public health insurance for their children. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compared the relative benefits of public and private health insurance plans. This was their conclusion:

All children covered by Medicaid and SCHIP receive relatively comprehensive health benefits, including preventive and primary medical care, inpatient and outpatient care, laboratory and x-ray services, prescription drugs, and immunizations. Almost all publicly-insured children have coverage for dental, vision and mental health care. (Medicaid standards are more rigorous and require that these services be available for children. They are not required in SCHIP, but most states do cover them.) In comparison, private health insurance benefits vary widely and are typically less comprehensive. Many private plans do not offer dental or vision care, services that are important for children, and some low-cost private plans do not even offer basic services like prescription drugs or preventive care.

The bottom line is this: to the Bush Administration, protecting the tobacco industry and the private health insurance industry is more important than protecting the health of children. Moral values, and family values, indeed.