Op-Ed Columnist - Can It Happen Here? - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com
"What’s easy about guaranteed health care for all? For one thing, we know that it’s economically feasible: every wealthy country except the United States already has some form of guaranteed health care. The hazards Americans treat as facts of life — the risk of losing your insurance, the risk that you won’t be able to afford necessary care, the chance that you’ll be financially ruined by medical costs — would be considered unthinkable in any other advanced nation.
The politics of guaranteed care are also easy, at least in one sense: if the Democrats do manage to establish a system of universal coverage, the nation will love it.
I know that’s not what everyone says; some pundits claim that the United States has a uniquely individualistic culture, and that Americans won’t accept any system that makes health care a collective responsibility. Those who say this, however, seem to forget that we already have a program — you may have heard of it — called Medicare. It’s a program that collects money from every worker’s paycheck and uses it to pay the medical bills of everyone 65 and older. And it’s immensely popular."
Friday, August 22, 2008
Universal health makes 'cents' - Paradise Post
Universal health makes 'cents' - Paradise Post: "Reinhardt says, 'This is what some politicians cannot get through their heads. They talk about socialized medicine like it were something evil. These systems use socialized insurance to socialize the financial risk of getting sick - but the delivery system is private, often a for-profit mix. If you want to look at a purely socialized health care, you would have to go to the United States, where we have it. That's the system we reserve for our veterans.
So if I hear politicians run down socialized medicine - and I have done that before the Congress - I say, 'Do you hate your veterans? Why do you reserve purely socialized medicine - there's only the U.S. and Cuba that have that - for the veterans.' Americans keep telling me they hate government. I tell them: 'Man, I've got a country for you: Go to Afghanistan. They don't have one.'' Cheng adds, 'America is the only developed country that doesn't have universal health insurance. A country's health care system reflects its basic social values.'"
So if I hear politicians run down socialized medicine - and I have done that before the Congress - I say, 'Do you hate your veterans? Why do you reserve purely socialized medicine - there's only the U.S. and Cuba that have that - for the veterans.' Americans keep telling me they hate government. I tell them: 'Man, I've got a country for you: Go to Afghanistan. They don't have one.'' Cheng adds, 'America is the only developed country that doesn't have universal health insurance. A country's health care system reflects its basic social values.'"
Miles Mogulescu: Is MoveOn.Org Ignoring Its Core Democratic Principles in Setting its Direction on Health Care Reform?
Miles Mogulescu: Is MoveOn.Org Ignoring Its Core Democratic Principles in Setting its Direction on Health Care Reform?
"However, when it comes to health care reform, MoveOn's leaders seem to be overlooking its core democratic principles. Without asking the opinion of its members, MoveOn's leaders have elected to join the steering committee of (and pledge at least $500,000 of its members' money to) a new health care coalition called Health Care For America Now, which excludes supporters of single payer health care, many of whom are MoveOn members. HCAN instead supports preserving and reforming the private health insurance system (while offering an expensive public alternative that individuals and employers can buy into with their own money)."
"However, when it comes to health care reform, MoveOn's leaders seem to be overlooking its core democratic principles. Without asking the opinion of its members, MoveOn's leaders have elected to join the steering committee of (and pledge at least $500,000 of its members' money to) a new health care coalition called Health Care For America Now, which excludes supporters of single payer health care, many of whom are MoveOn members. HCAN instead supports preserving and reforming the private health insurance system (while offering an expensive public alternative that individuals and employers can buy into with their own money)."
Massachusetts law spurs rise in health coverage
Massachusetts law spurs rise in health coverage
"More than 250 Massachusetts doctors signed a letter this year that said public funds for care of the poor that previously flowed directly to hospitals and clinics now flowed through insurers with higher administrative costs.
"While patients, the state and safety net providers struggle, private insurers have prospered under the new law, and the costs of bureaucracy have risen," said the letter."
"More than 250 Massachusetts doctors signed a letter this year that said public funds for care of the poor that previously flowed directly to hospitals and clinics now flowed through insurers with higher administrative costs.
"While patients, the state and safety net providers struggle, private insurers have prospered under the new law, and the costs of bureaucracy have risen," said the letter."
Michigan Health Care Reform Panel Supports Universal Health Care | workforce.com
Michigan Health Care Reform Panel Supports Universal Health Care workforce.com
"Universal health insurance would eliminate the commercial health insurers that take 30 percent of every health care dollar in administration, profits and advertising, Conyers said. In comparison, Medicare spends about 7 percent of every dollar on administrative costs, he said."
"Universal health insurance would eliminate the commercial health insurers that take 30 percent of every health care dollar in administration, profits and advertising, Conyers said. In comparison, Medicare spends about 7 percent of every dollar on administrative costs, he said."
MinnPost - Harry and Louise are back -- but this time they're ready for change
MinnPost - Harry and Louise are back -- but this time they're ready for change
"Remember Harry and Louise, the couple whose ads are often credited with unraveling the Clinton administration's universal health-care proposal 15 years ago?They're baaack. And we're going to see a lot of them. Only this time around, the fictional Harry and Louise don't entirely dismiss the idea of government interference. In fact, Louise says at the end of one 30-second spot: "Whoever the next president is, health care should be at the top of his agenda.""
"Remember Harry and Louise, the couple whose ads are often credited with unraveling the Clinton administration's universal health-care proposal 15 years ago?They're baaack. And we're going to see a lot of them. Only this time around, the fictional Harry and Louise don't entirely dismiss the idea of government interference. In fact, Louise says at the end of one 30-second spot: "Whoever the next president is, health care should be at the top of his agenda.""
Geneva hearing tackles universal health care :: Geneva Sun :: News
Geneva hearing tackles universal health care :: Geneva Sun :: News
"The bill proposes abolishing private health insurance in Illinois in favor of a single-payer system. According to Nicholas Skala, author of the bill, the question to ask is not "if," but "when."
"Chances are good of changing to (single-payer)," Skala said. "Our economy can’t afford any other option for much longer."
"The bill proposes abolishing private health insurance in Illinois in favor of a single-payer system. According to Nicholas Skala, author of the bill, the question to ask is not "if," but "when."
"Chances are good of changing to (single-payer)," Skala said. "Our economy can’t afford any other option for much longer."
Why Uncle Sam is Dr No of healthcare
Why Uncle Sam is Dr No of healthcare
"There is also no question of trying to exclude people with pre-existing illnesses from insurance, nor of charging some people and small businesses cripplingly high premiums because a family member or employee has had a disease. These activities keep US insurance companies busy and cost money. All other advanced countries shun them, designing their health systems to help people who need it, not to exclude them. In the US, insurance firms also compete to sell their health plans to employers and employees, running up marketing expenses that, of course, contribute nothing to preventing or curing any patient's illness.The insurance companies have created, among other things, a claims paperwork nightmare for patients, doctors, labs and hospitals that simply does not exist in a single-payer, universal health care system. In a typical doctor's office in the US there seem to be more clerks than nurses."
"There is also no question of trying to exclude people with pre-existing illnesses from insurance, nor of charging some people and small businesses cripplingly high premiums because a family member or employee has had a disease. These activities keep US insurance companies busy and cost money. All other advanced countries shun them, designing their health systems to help people who need it, not to exclude them. In the US, insurance firms also compete to sell their health plans to employers and employees, running up marketing expenses that, of course, contribute nothing to preventing or curing any patient's illness.The insurance companies have created, among other things, a claims paperwork nightmare for patients, doctors, labs and hospitals that simply does not exist in a single-payer, universal health care system. In a typical doctor's office in the US there seem to be more clerks than nurses."
Friday, August 8, 2008
Disputations: Is Single-Payer Health Care The Best Option?
Disputations: Is Single-Payer Health Care The Best Option?
"Superficially, the model seems to be a workable compromise between those who believe that markets should provide health care coverage through competing private health plans, giving more control to the individual, and those who believe that a government insurance program would be more efficient and effective in ensuring that everyone has adequate health care coverage. Those on the right can support the private plans, and those on the left can purchase the competing public, Medicare-like program. Those in the middle can decide which model would become more prevalent, so goes the theory.
Anyone who really believes in this model understands that the private insurance plans would have to be very tightly regulated to reduce the profound deficiencies in our current insurance markets. The current private insurance business model depends on selling the insurers' products to the large numbers of us who are healthy, especially the healthy workforce and their healthy families, while avoiding the need to contribute to the risk pools that cover those who have greater health care needs. Those costs are largely passed on to taxpayers through government programs.
Other nations that use private plans require effective pooling between plans through various regulatory mechanisms, reducing the problem of adverse selection and ensuring that premiums or taxes are adequate to pay for the care for those with greater needs. Even if the pools are nominally segregated, they function more like a universal risk pool through mechanisms such as risk adjustment and post-claims inter-insurance transfers.
The United States has a unique problem that would make it much more difficult to require private insurers to participate in a quasi-universal risk pool. On a per capita basis, we pay far more for health care than do other nations. Average-income individuals in other nations that use private plans can still afford premiums (or their tax equivalents). In those countries, only low-income individuals require some form of government subsidy for their care.
Compare that with the United States. For healthy risk pools, such as those of employer-sponsored plans, premiums are no longer affordable for average-income individuals and families, whether paid directly by the insured, or nominally by the employer. Imagine a tightly regulated insurance market that ended adverse selection and required benefits at a level that would prevent financial hardship for those with health care needs. The private insurers would find it absolutely impossible to provide us with compliant products that had affordable premiums."
"Superficially, the model seems to be a workable compromise between those who believe that markets should provide health care coverage through competing private health plans, giving more control to the individual, and those who believe that a government insurance program would be more efficient and effective in ensuring that everyone has adequate health care coverage. Those on the right can support the private plans, and those on the left can purchase the competing public, Medicare-like program. Those in the middle can decide which model would become more prevalent, so goes the theory.
Anyone who really believes in this model understands that the private insurance plans would have to be very tightly regulated to reduce the profound deficiencies in our current insurance markets. The current private insurance business model depends on selling the insurers' products to the large numbers of us who are healthy, especially the healthy workforce and their healthy families, while avoiding the need to contribute to the risk pools that cover those who have greater health care needs. Those costs are largely passed on to taxpayers through government programs.
Other nations that use private plans require effective pooling between plans through various regulatory mechanisms, reducing the problem of adverse selection and ensuring that premiums or taxes are adequate to pay for the care for those with greater needs. Even if the pools are nominally segregated, they function more like a universal risk pool through mechanisms such as risk adjustment and post-claims inter-insurance transfers.
The United States has a unique problem that would make it much more difficult to require private insurers to participate in a quasi-universal risk pool. On a per capita basis, we pay far more for health care than do other nations. Average-income individuals in other nations that use private plans can still afford premiums (or their tax equivalents). In those countries, only low-income individuals require some form of government subsidy for their care.
Compare that with the United States. For healthy risk pools, such as those of employer-sponsored plans, premiums are no longer affordable for average-income individuals and families, whether paid directly by the insured, or nominally by the employer. Imagine a tightly regulated insurance market that ended adverse selection and required benefits at a level that would prevent financial hardship for those with health care needs. The private insurers would find it absolutely impossible to provide us with compliant products that had affordable premiums."
California - Harris: SB 840 saves local governments millions
Lake County News California - Harris: SB 840 saves local governments millions
"Around the state of California, these studies are being requested of local jurisdictions, by citizens who are interested in a cost-effective and fair implementation of health care delivery.
For example, the Sonoma County Office of Education calculated a savings of $1.35 million, the city of Rohnert Park calculated a cost savings of $1.4 million, the county of Sonoma calculated a cost savings of $20 million, the City of Newport Beach calculated a cost savings of $6 million. The Grey Panthers of California have made similar calculations for other jurisdictions. Of the only 15 government entities in California that have been calculated, the savings to taxpayers range from $230 to $435 million.
The Lewin Group, an independent, nationally respected health care research organization, analyzed SB 840 and California's current broken health care system. They reported that around $20 billion in premiums paid to the health insurance industry in California each year never reaches health care providers. It disappears into competing advertising and other overhead expenses, and multimillion dollar bonuses to health care industry CEOs.
The Lewin Report says that California could save around $8 billion in health care costs in the first year after SB 840's enactment. (Reference site: www.healthcareforall.org.)
Here’s how to calculate savings in four simple steps:
Step One: Multiply $7,000 (the exemption per employee) by the number of insured employees. The result is the amount of the total payroll that is exempt from SB 840 taxes.
Step Two: Subtract the result in step one from the total annual payroll of those same employees. The result is the SB 840 taxable payroll.
Step Three: Multiply the result in step two by 0.0817 (the SB 840 factor of 8.17 percent, as shown in the Lake County memo). The result is the new annual health care cost under SB 840.
Step Four: Subtract the result in step three from the current annual health care cost (include retirees' cost). The result is the potential annual cost reduction.
Taxpayers would be well advised to contact their local school boards, water boards, and city and county governments and ask those jurisdictions to calculate the savings under a single-payer health care plan.Around the state of California, these studies are being requested of local jurisdictions, by citizens who are interested in a cost-effective and fair implementation of health care delivery.
For example, the Sonoma County Office of Education calculated a savings of $1.35 million, the city of Rohnert Park calculated a cost savings of $1.4 million, the county of Sonoma calculated a cost savings of $20 million, the City of Newport Beach calculated a cost savings of $6 million. The Grey Panthers of California have made similar calculations for other jurisdictions. Of the only 15 government entities in California that have been calculated, the savings to taxpayers range from $230 to $435 million.
The Lewin Group, an independent, nationally respected health care research organization, analyzed SB 840 and California's current broken health care system. They reported that around $20 billion in premiums paid to the health insurance industry in California each year never reaches health care providers. It disappears into competing advertising and other overhead expenses, and multimillion dollar bonuses to health care industry CEOs.
The Lewin Report says that California could save around $8 billion in health care costs in the first year after SB 840's enactment. (Reference site: www.healthcareforall.org.)
Here’s how to calculate savings in four simple steps:
Step One: Multiply $7,000 (the exemption per employee) by the number of insured employees. The result is the amount of the total payroll that is exempt from SB 840 taxes.
Step Two: Subtract the result in step one from the total annual payroll of those same employees. The result is the SB 840 taxable payroll.
Step Three: Multiply the result in step two by 0.0817 (the SB 840 factor of 8.17 percent, as shown in the Lake County memo). The result is the new annual health care cost under SB 840.
Step Four: Subtract the result in step three from the current annual health care cost (include retirees' cost). The result is the potential annual cost reduction.
Taxpayers would be well advised to contact their local school boards, water boards, and city and county governments and ask those jurisdictions to calculate the savings under a single-payer health care plan."
written by Elizabeth Larson & Written by Wanda Harris
"Around the state of California, these studies are being requested of local jurisdictions, by citizens who are interested in a cost-effective and fair implementation of health care delivery.
For example, the Sonoma County Office of Education calculated a savings of $1.35 million, the city of Rohnert Park calculated a cost savings of $1.4 million, the county of Sonoma calculated a cost savings of $20 million, the City of Newport Beach calculated a cost savings of $6 million. The Grey Panthers of California have made similar calculations for other jurisdictions. Of the only 15 government entities in California that have been calculated, the savings to taxpayers range from $230 to $435 million.
The Lewin Group, an independent, nationally respected health care research organization, analyzed SB 840 and California's current broken health care system. They reported that around $20 billion in premiums paid to the health insurance industry in California each year never reaches health care providers. It disappears into competing advertising and other overhead expenses, and multimillion dollar bonuses to health care industry CEOs.
The Lewin Report says that California could save around $8 billion in health care costs in the first year after SB 840's enactment. (Reference site: www.healthcareforall.org.)
Here’s how to calculate savings in four simple steps:
Step One: Multiply $7,000 (the exemption per employee) by the number of insured employees. The result is the amount of the total payroll that is exempt from SB 840 taxes.
Step Two: Subtract the result in step one from the total annual payroll of those same employees. The result is the SB 840 taxable payroll.
Step Three: Multiply the result in step two by 0.0817 (the SB 840 factor of 8.17 percent, as shown in the Lake County memo). The result is the new annual health care cost under SB 840.
Step Four: Subtract the result in step three from the current annual health care cost (include retirees' cost). The result is the potential annual cost reduction.
Taxpayers would be well advised to contact their local school boards, water boards, and city and county governments and ask those jurisdictions to calculate the savings under a single-payer health care plan.Around the state of California, these studies are being requested of local jurisdictions, by citizens who are interested in a cost-effective and fair implementation of health care delivery.
For example, the Sonoma County Office of Education calculated a savings of $1.35 million, the city of Rohnert Park calculated a cost savings of $1.4 million, the county of Sonoma calculated a cost savings of $20 million, the City of Newport Beach calculated a cost savings of $6 million. The Grey Panthers of California have made similar calculations for other jurisdictions. Of the only 15 government entities in California that have been calculated, the savings to taxpayers range from $230 to $435 million.
The Lewin Group, an independent, nationally respected health care research organization, analyzed SB 840 and California's current broken health care system. They reported that around $20 billion in premiums paid to the health insurance industry in California each year never reaches health care providers. It disappears into competing advertising and other overhead expenses, and multimillion dollar bonuses to health care industry CEOs.
The Lewin Report says that California could save around $8 billion in health care costs in the first year after SB 840's enactment. (Reference site: www.healthcareforall.org.)
Here’s how to calculate savings in four simple steps:
Step One: Multiply $7,000 (the exemption per employee) by the number of insured employees. The result is the amount of the total payroll that is exempt from SB 840 taxes.
Step Two: Subtract the result in step one from the total annual payroll of those same employees. The result is the SB 840 taxable payroll.
Step Three: Multiply the result in step two by 0.0817 (the SB 840 factor of 8.17 percent, as shown in the Lake County memo). The result is the new annual health care cost under SB 840.
Step Four: Subtract the result in step three from the current annual health care cost (include retirees' cost). The result is the potential annual cost reduction.
Taxpayers would be well advised to contact their local school boards, water boards, and city and county governments and ask those jurisdictions to calculate the savings under a single-payer health care plan."
written by Elizabeth Larson & Written by Wanda Harris
The Pueblo Chieftain Online :: Medicare anniversary brings calls for health care reform
The Pueblo Chieftain Online :: Medicare anniversary brings calls for health care reform: "It's been 40 years since President Lyndon Johnson signed the legislation creating the Medicare health insurance program for senior citizens - an anniversary noted by several Pueblo doctors on Thursday by calling on Congress to establish a single-payer health insurance program for all U.S. residents.
'This country spends 16 percent of its total income on health care and we leave millions uninsured,' said Dr. David Zehring, of La Veta. 'Our European allies spend about 11 percent of their income on health care and cover everyone, while Canada spends about 9 percent for universal coverage. I'm confident we will get universal coverage here some day.'It's been 40 years since President Lyndon Johnson signed the legislation creating the Medicare health insurance program for senior citizens - an anniversary noted by several Pueblo doctors on Thursday by calling on Congress to establish a single-payer health insurance program for all U.S. residents.
'This country spends 16 percent of its total income on health care and we leave millions uninsured,' said Dr. David Zehring, of La Veta. 'Our European allies spend about 11 percent of their income on health care and cover everyone, while Canada spends about 9 percent for universal coverage. I'm confident we will get universal coverage here some day.'"
'This country spends 16 percent of its total income on health care and we leave millions uninsured,' said Dr. David Zehring, of La Veta. 'Our European allies spend about 11 percent of their income on health care and cover everyone, while Canada spends about 9 percent for universal coverage. I'm confident we will get universal coverage here some day.'It's been 40 years since President Lyndon Johnson signed the legislation creating the Medicare health insurance program for senior citizens - an anniversary noted by several Pueblo doctors on Thursday by calling on Congress to establish a single-payer health insurance program for all U.S. residents.
'This country spends 16 percent of its total income on health care and we leave millions uninsured,' said Dr. David Zehring, of La Veta. 'Our European allies spend about 11 percent of their income on health care and cover everyone, while Canada spends about 9 percent for universal coverage. I'm confident we will get universal coverage here some day.'"
Seeking a Health Care for All Platform - Yahoo! News
Seeking a Health Care for All Platform - Yahoo! News: "Progressive Democrats of America continues its campaign to add a firm commitment to universal health care to the 2008 Democratic platform. PDA activists were at the platform committee's gathering in Cleveland last weekend, and they plan a major presence at the key pre-convention session this coming weekend in Pittsburgh.
ADVERTISEMENT
Getting language as strong as PDA seeks will be difficult. Illinois Senator Barack Obama, whose campaign controls the platform-writing process, has been cautious about committing too firmly to the mandates that would be required to insure universal coverage."
ADVERTISEMENT
Getting language as strong as PDA seeks will be difficult. Illinois Senator Barack Obama, whose campaign controls the platform-writing process, has been cautious about committing too firmly to the mandates that would be required to insure universal coverage."
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Stewart Shaw: Our health -- A community parable : Winona Daily News
Stewart Shaw: Our health -- A community parable : Winona Daily News: "Now Jesus used parables in his teaching. He told stories about things that were easy to understand in order to help his disciples see things that were difficult to comprehend and accept. He explained some of the parables, with statements of the form, “This is like that.”
In this parable, fire insurance is like health insurance; the linkage between fire insurance companies and fire fighting departments is like the connection between health insurance companies and “in network” care providers. The fire coverage available to employees of the big corporation is like employer-based group health insurance. And the reluctance of the father to seek professional fire fighting help is like the unwillingness of people to seek professional treatment before emergency care is required."
In this parable, fire insurance is like health insurance; the linkage between fire insurance companies and fire fighting departments is like the connection between health insurance companies and “in network” care providers. The fire coverage available to employees of the big corporation is like employer-based group health insurance. And the reluctance of the father to seek professional fire fighting help is like the unwillingness of people to seek professional treatment before emergency care is required."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)