|
APRIL 2008
A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM THAT WORKS
MARY CLINE, ABC NEWS The World Health Organization
has named the French health care system the best in the world.
(The U.S. ranked 37th). It's physician-rich, boasting one doctor
for approximately every 430 people, compared with a doctor for
every1,230 residents in the U.S. (and French docs tend to charge
significantly less). The average life expectancy is two years
longer than the U.S. And while the system is one of the most
expensive in the world, costing $3,500 per person, it's far less
than the $6,100 spend per capita in the U.S.
I've had a unique opportunity to see both
systems up close and personal: I had breast cancer in California
nine years ago and a recurrence in Paris this year. I received
excellent care in both places, though looking back now my California
oncologist's office was a bit of a meat market - always packed
with patients, from the seemingly not-so-sick to some a step
from the grave - a time-consuming disadvantage of living in a
much larger country with a lower doctor-to-patient ratio. My
French doctors and nurses have been sensitive, skillful, caring
- and not so harried.
But the biggest difference has been money.
My top-level health insurance paid for most of my U.S. care,
but it was often a struggle to shake loose the money. I was frequently
stuck in the middle of disputes between the company and my hospital
and doctors over "agreed to fees."
Continually dunned by the hospital for
fees and facing multiple complaining phone calls to my insurance
company, I sometimes simply caved in and wrote checks to cover
bills that I knew were the insurance company's responsibility
- part of a wearing-down strategy I was convinced was deliberate.
Here in France I have a green carte vitale
- literally a "life card" or social security card that
provides entree to the system. It's funded by worker contributions
and other taxes. My husband (and our family) is covered through
his work with a French subsidiary of a U.S. company, and so is
everyone else; coverage is universal. The French are responsible
for co-pays, but some 80% of them have supplemental private insurance
to cover the co-pay. People least able to pay and those with
chronic or serious illnesses often have the best coverage. .
.
The effect of a system where hospitals
and doctors don't worry about getting stiffed by a patient or
an insurance company seems to be a far more relaxed, generous
system. When my surgeon discussed breast surgery here, he suggested
that I stay in the hospital five days. "Of course I can
do it the American way, kind of an outpatient situation,"
he told me, apparently not wanting to sound unsophisticated.
"But I don't like pain."
Maternity stays for a normal delivery are
a minimum of five days, not the 48 hours mandated by U.S. federal
legislation in 1998 after many insurance companies insisted stays
be even shorter.. . .
There's no question you'll be treated in
France. Everyone is. The nation pays the bills and the hospitals
don't get stiffed. It's an all-encompassing cradle-to-grave system.
My fear now is that I won't be able to even get insurance when
and if I return to the states, much less be able to afford it.
MARCH 2008
59% OF DOCTORS FAVOR SINGLE PAYER
HEALTH SYSTEM THAT OBAMA & CLINTON ARE AFRAID TO ENDORSE
MASSACHUSETTS HEALTH PLAN AGAIN SHOWS IT
ISN'T WHAT THEY SAID IT WOULD BE
FEBRUARY 2008
BLUE CROSS ASKS DOCTORS TO RAT
ON PATIENTS WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS
NINE SECRETS HEALTH INSURERS DON'T
WANT YOU TO KNOWN
REALITY CHECK: THE FAKE DEBATE
OVER HEALTHCARE
WHY BANKS LOVE CLINTON'S HEALTHCARE PLAN
ROSE ANN DEMORO, HUFFINGTON POST - Behind
the escalating debate on the health care between Senators Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama on individual mandate -- she's for it,
he's against it -- is a critical policy battle that not only
cuts across health care reform but also the neo-liberal privatization
dreams, the home mortgage crisis, and the recession that is no
longer looming, it's here. . .
Banks are already into health care in a
big way, serving as a repository for health savings accounts
and other tax credit schemes so beloved by the Bush administration
and the Republican presidential candidates. But the financiers
would like more.
Enter the neo-liberal think tanks and policy
wonks and plans they hawk to expand the reach of the market,
especially the financial market, in health care. Central to that
approach is shotgun insurance, forcing everyone not currently
covered to buy health insurance policies.
Compelling people to buy insurance, however,
is not the easiest sell. Big insurers and HMOs have a well deserved
bad reputation for heartless denials of care - that's how they
make money. And, it's pricey. Premiums the past decade have gone
up 87 percent, not to mention the ever climbing bills for deductibles,
co-pays, and a host of other transaction fees.
The finance industry is over the moon with
this scheme.
For insurers, it means millions of new
customers marched into their offices with the force of law. With
no controls on costs, many consumers will just add on more debt.
That's a boon for the credit card companies and other financial
institutions, but a heavy new burden on many of the same people
now losing their homes or struggling with other financial hardship.
. .
To shroud the colossal problems and the
real story of who actually makes out like bandits under this
scheme, the proponents, including some liberal policy experts,
have dressed it up with poll-tested rhetoric that mandatory insurance
is "universal health care."
But "having" insurance is not
the same as being able to use it. You're only being mandated
to purchase the premiums; they're not mandating the insurance
companies to make sure you get the care you need. Nor does "having"
insurance protect you from financial ruin.
It accelerates the dismantling of group
insurance plans with individuals forced to go it alone in the
individual market, and institutionalizes risk and cost shifting
on to the backs of individuals and families.
[DeMoro is executive director of the California
Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee]
JANUARY 2007
U.S. RANKS LAST AMONG INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS IN
DEALING WITH PREVENTABLE DEATHS
REUTERS - France, Japan and Australia rated
best and the United States worst in new rankings focusing on
preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading
industrialized nations. If the U.S. health care system performed
as well as those of those top three countries, there would be
101,000 fewer deaths in the United States per year, according
to researchers writing in the journal Health Affairs.
Researchers Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee
of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine tracked
deaths that they deemed could have been prevented by access to
timely and effective health care, and ranked nations on how they
did. . .
Nolte said the large number of Americans
who lack any type of health insurance -- about 47 million people
in a country of about 300 million, according to U.S. government
estimates -- probably was a key factor in the poor showing of
the United States compared to other industrialized nations in
the study.
HEALTHCARE INCREMENTALISM ISN'T
WORKING
MARK DUNLEA, COMMON DREAMS
- "Bold, new experiments in moving our state to universal
health care" have invariably withered away over time, often
in only a few years.
For instance, the media
coverage over the new "universal" health care system
in Massachusetts generally failed to mention similar pronouncements
from Governor Dukasis two decades previously that fell apart
in a few years. Because Massachusetts expanded its subsidies
for insurance premiums for low-income people, over 160,000 of
those eligible signed up this year. But only 7% of the nearly
250,000 who must buy unsubsidized insurance -- or face a fine
of $2,000 in 2008 -- purchased private health insurance this
year. Thus the plan will end its first year at least $147 million
over budget, with Massachusetts preparing to cut payments to
doctors and hospitals and ramp up out-of-pocket costs for patients.
And nearly 500,000 in Massachusetts remain uninsured. Yet the
leading Democratic Presidential contenders now embrace Massachusetts'
mandate for individual purchase of health insurance.
Maine's patchwork approach
to universal health care - the Dirigo plan - is not working.
Nor have the plans in Vermont, Minnesota, Washington and Oregon.
Tennessee's noteworthy TennCare program to help the poor and
uninsured is in the process of being dismantled. NY has added
targeted programs such as Child Health Plus and Family Health
Plus yet more than 5 million New Yorkers annually lack health
insurance.
This fall Vermont launched
"Catamount Health," a plan to cover all Vermonters
by subsidizing private health insurance from MVP and Blue Cross
Blue Shield with a combination of tobacco tax money, Medicaid
money and new taxes on employers who don't offer health insurance.
But as the plan takes its first steps, the inadequate insurance
for those who have it, with soaring co-pays, huge deductibles
and unaffordable prescription drugs has put the crisis in health
care back into the legislative agenda for 2008, front and center.
. .
Incremental approaches
evade the fundamental problems that are causing the ongoing crisis
in our health care system. Real change requires addressing the
entire structure of financing -- in which employer-based private
health insurance dominates. Without facing this, the problem
of costs cannot be solved. Most of the money spent on health
care in New York comes from government (federal and state) spending,
yet private health insurance dominates the system. As Governor
Spitzer has pointed out, NY's system of health care financing
is often not directly tied to the services being provided, its
complexity and irrationality a result of the backroom deal making
at the State Capitol.
Incremental approaches
have done little to nothing to control costs, while adding more
people to the system, thus causing more financial strain on both
the government and private sectors, especially in bad economic
times
DECEMBER 2007
MASSACHUSETTS HEALTHCARE
PLAN ALREADY FAILING
[From a group of Massachusetts physicians]
MASSACHUSETTS PHYSICIANS - In 2006, our state enacted a law designed to
extend health coverage to virtually all state residents. Political
leaders in other states as well as several Democratic presidential
candidates have embraced this model.
Massachusetts' law mandates that uninsured
individuals must purchase private insurance or pay a fine. The
law established a new state agency to ensure that affordable
plans were available; offered low income residents subsidies
to help them buy coverage; and expanded Medicaid coverage for
the very poor. (Immigrants are mostly excluded from these subsidized
programs.) Moneys that previously funded free care for the uninsured
were shifted to the new insurance program, along with revenues
from new fines on employers who fail to offer health benefits
to their workers. In addition, the federal government provided
extra funds for the program's first two years.
Starting January 1, 2008 Massachusetts
residents face fines if they cannot offer proof of insurance.
Yet as of December 1, 2007 only 37% of the 657,000 uninsured
had gained coverage under the new program. These individuals
often feel well served by the reform in that they now have health
insurance. However, 79% of these newly insured individuals are
very poor people enrolled in Medicaid or similar free plans.
Virtually all of them were previously eligible for completely
free care funded by the state, but face co-payments under the
new plan. In effect, public funds for care of the poor that previously
flowed directly to hospitals and clinics now flow through insurers
with their higher administrative costs.
Among the near poor uninsured (who are
eligible for partial premium subsidies) only 16% had enrolled
in the new coverage. And barely 7% of the uninsured individuals
with incomes too high to qualify for subsidies had enrolled according
to the official state figures. Few can afford premiums for even
the skimpiest coverage; the lowest cost plan offered for a couple
in their fifties costs $8,200 annually, and carries a $2,000
per person deductible.
Moreover, the state's cost for subsidies
is running $147 million over the $472 million budgeted for fiscal
year 2007. Meanwhile, collections from fines on employers who
fail to provide coverage are 80% below the original projections.
The funding gap will widen in future years as health care costs
escalate and insurers raise premiums. Already, state officials
speak of making up the shortfall by forcing patients to pay sharply
higher co-pays and deductibles, and by slashing funds promised
to safety net hospitals.
While patients, the state and safety net
providers struggle, private insurers have prospered under the
new law, and the costs of bureaucracy have risen. Blue Cross,
the state's largest insurer, is reaping a surplus of more than
$1 million each day, and awarded its chairman a $16.4 million
retirement bonus even as he continues to draw a $3 million salary.
All of the major insurers in our state continue to charge overhead
costs five times higher than Medicare and eleven-fold higher
than Canada's single payer system. Moreover, the new state agency
that brokers private coverage adds its own surcharge of 4.5%
to each policy it sells.
A single payer program could save Massachusetts
more than $9 billion annually on health care bureaucracy, making
universal coverage affordable. But because the 2006 law deepened
our dependence on private insurance, it can only add coverage
by adding costs. Though politically feasible, this approach is
already proving fiscally unsustainable. The next economic downturn
will push up the number of uninsured just as the tax revenues
needed to fund subsidies fall.
The lesson from Massachusetts is that we
still need real health care reform: single payer, non- profit
national health insurance.
NOVEMBER 2007
AMERICAN STYLE HEALTHCARE: HOSPICES FORCED TO REPAY
MEDICARE FOR PATIENTS WHO LIVE TOO LONG
NY TIMES - Hundreds of hospice providers
across the country are facing the catastrophic financial consequence
of what would otherwise seem a positive development: their patients
are living longer than expected.
Over the last eight years, the refusal
of patients to die according to actuarial schedules has led the
federal government to demand that hospices exceeding reimbursement
limits repay hundreds of millions of dollars to Medicare.
The charges are assessed retrospectively,
so in most cases the money has long since been spent on salaries,
medicine and supplies. After absorbing huge assessments for several
years, often by borrowing at high rates, a number of hospice
providers are bracing for a new round that they fear may shut
their doors. . .
In the early days of the Medicare hospice
benefit, which was designed for those with less than six months
to live, nearly all patients were cancer victims, who tended
to die relatively quickly and predictably once curative efforts
were abandoned.
But in the last five years, hospice use
has skyrocketed among patients with less predictable trajectories,
like those with Alzheimer's disease and dementia. Those patients
now form a majority of hospice consumers, and their average stays
are far longer - 86 days for Alzheimer's patients, for instance,
compared with 44 for those with lung cancer, according to the
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. . .
Medicare, which pays the vast majority
of hospice bills, reimburses providers $135 a day for a patient's
routine home care. The hospice is then responsible for providing
nurses, social workers, chaplains, doctors, drugs, supplies and
equipment, as well as bereavement support to the family.
Studies have reached various conclusions
about whether hospice care actually saves money, especially for
long-term patients. But a new study by Duke University researchers
concluded that it saved Medicare an average of $2,300 per beneficiary,
calling hospice "a rare situation whereby something that
improves quality of life also appears to reduce costs."
In 1998, Congress removed limits on the
number of days that an individual could receive Medicare hospice
coverage, a move that encouraged physicians to refer terminal
patients.
WHY PRIVATE INSURANCE BASED HEALTH CARE
WON'T WORK
STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER AND DAVID U. HIMMELSTEIN
- In 1966 - just before Medicare and Medicaid were launched -
47 million Americans were uninsured. By 1975, the United States
had reached an all time low of 21 million without coverage. Now,
according to the Census Bureau's latest figures, we're back where
we started, with 47 million uninsured in 2006 - up 2.2 million
since 2005. But this time, most of the uninsured are neither
poor nor elderly.
The middle class is being priced out of
healthcare. Virtually all of this year's increase was among families
with incomes above $50,000; in fact, two-thirds of the newly
uncovered were in the above-$75,000 group. And full-time workers
accounted for 56 percent of the increase, with their children
making up much of the rest.
The new Census numbers are particularly
disheartening for anyone hoping for a Massachusetts miracle.
In the Commonwealth, 651,000 residents are uninsured, 65 percent
more than the figure used by state leaders in planning for health
reform. Their numbers came from a telephone survey done in English
and Spanish. But that misses people who lack a land-line phone
- 43.9 percent of phoneless adults are uninsured, according to
other studies.
It also skips over the 523,000 non-English
speakers in Massachusetts whose native language isn't Spanish
(e.g. Portuguese, Chinese, or Haitian-Creole), another group
with a high uninsurance rate. . .
Why has progress been so meager? Because
most of the promised new coverage is of the "buy it yourself"
variety, with scant help offered to the struggling middle class.
According to the Census Bureau, only 28 percent of Massachusetts
uninsured have incomes low enough to qualify for free coverage.
Thirty-four percent more can get partial subsidies - but the
premiums and co-payments remain a barrier for many in this near-poor
group.
And 244,000 of Massachusetts uninsured
get zero assistance - just a stiff fine if they don't buy coverage.
A couple in their late 50s faces a minimum premium of $8,638
annually, for a policy with no drug coverage at all and a $2,000
deductible per person before insurance even kicks in. Such skimpy
yet costly coverage is, in many cases, worse than no coverage
at all. Illness will still bring crippling medical bills - but
the $8,638 annual premium will empty their bank accounts even
before the bills start arriving. Little wonder that barely 2
percent of those required to buy such coverage have thus far
signed up. . .
Health reform built on private insurance
isn't working and can't work; it costs too much and delivers
too little. At present, bureaucracy consumes 31 percent of each
healthcare dollar. The Connector - the new state agency created
to broker coverage under the reform law - is adding another 4.5
percent to the already sky-high overhead charged by private insurers.
Administrative costs at Blue Cross are nearly five times higher
than Medicare's and 11 times those in Canada's single payer system.
Single payer reform could save $7.7 billion annually on paperwork
and insurance profits in Massachusetts, enough to cover all of
the uninsured and to upgrade coverage for the rest of us.
Of course, single payer reform is anathema
to the health insurance industry. But breaking their stranglehold
on our health system and our politicians is the only way for
health reform to get beyond square one.
[Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David
Himmelstein co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program]
ANOTHER REASON FOR SINGLE PAYER
HEALTHCARE: INSURERS RENEGE ON AGREEMENTS
INSURANCE INDUSTRY (THAT ALL MAJOR DEMOCRATIC &
GOP CANDIDATES FAVOR) FOUND TO BE ALREADY RIPPING OFF MEDICARE
DRUG PATIENTS
ROBERT PEAR, NY TIMES - Tens of thousands of Medicare recipients
have been victims of deceptive sales tactics and had claims improperly
denied by private insurers that run the system's huge new drug
benefit program and offer other private insurance options encouraged
by the Bush administration, a review of scores of federal audits
has found.
The problems, described in 91 audit reports reviewed by The New
York Times, include the improper termination of coverage for
people with H.I.V. and AIDS, huge backlogs of claims and complaints,
and a failure to answer telephone calls from consumers, doctors
and drugstores.
Medicare officials have required insurance companies of all sizes
to fix the violations by adopting "corrective action plans."
Since March, Medicare has imposed fines of more than $770,000
on 11 companies for marketing violations and failure to provide
timely notice to beneficiaries about changes in costs and benefits.
The companies include three of the largest participants in the
Medicare market, UnitedHealth, Humana and WellPoint.
MORE THAN ONE THIRD OF AMERICANS UNDER 65 LACKED
HEALTH INSURANCE IN LAST TWO YEARS
REUTERS - More than one-third of the U.S.
population under the age of 65 went without health insurance
for all or part of the last two years. . . The nonprofit Families
USA group used data from last month's U.S. Census Bureau report
that found 47 million Americans went without health insurance
for all of 2006. Families USA broke down that figure and calculated
that 89.6 million people under age 65 -- 34.7 percent -- went
without health insurance at some point during 2006-2007. It used
a projection for the remaining months of this year.
ANOTHER REASON FOR SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE:
INSURERS RENEGE ON AGREEMENTS
VICTORIA COLLIVER, SF CHRONICLE
- Health Net Inc., one of the state's largest health insurers,
tied rewards and savings to its employees' ability to cancel
policies based on misrepresentations in members' applications,
according to documents in a lawsuit against the company.
The documents showed Health Net
saved $35.5 million in "unnecessary" health care expenses
for rescinding more than 1,000 policies between 2000 and 2006.
At the same time, a Health Net analyst received about $21,000
in bonuses for her work, which included exceeding company goals
for policy rescissions.
The information was revealed
during an arbitration hearing this week in San Bernardino County
in a lawsuit filed by Patsy Bates, a 51-year-old hairdresser
from Gardena (Los Angeles County) who is suing Health Net for
$6 million plus punitive damages for revoking her policy after
her breast cancer was diagnosed.
Health insurers in California
and nationwide have come under fire for reviewing applications
of members after they file medical claims and rescinding their
policies based on any discrepancies found in the original health
questionnaire. The issue affects members with individual, rather
than group, plans because those policies undergo medical underwriting
before an applicant is accepted.
Insurers say the practice is
legal and necessary because it protects them against fraud, and
keeps premiums lower for those members who truthfully reveal
their health history. But state regulators and plaintiffs' lawyers
have argued that the applications often are vague and confusing,
and that it's not fair for insurers to review applications only
after members file an expensive claim.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/10/BUCLT9JOV.DTL
PRIVATIZED MEDICAL INSURANCE SYSTEM
RESULTS IN UP TO 18,000 DEATHS A YEAR
PROJECT CENSORED - The Sonoma State University
Institute of Medicine estimates that as many as eighteen thousand
Americans die prematurely each year because they do not have
health insurance. This figure does not include those who die
prematurely each year because their insurers delay, diminish,
or deny payment for promised benefits. Reports about people who
die unnecessarily from services denied or delayed by insurance
companies seldom receive broad coverage in the corporate media.
Lack of media coverage has led to a nation of people uninformed
about how national health and disability policies are controlled
by the private insurance industry and how government regulators
are powerless to do anything about it.
http://www.projectcensored.org/HCDI_1007.pdf
SEPTEMBER 2007
WHY UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE IS GOOD BUSINESS
DAVID KARWACKI, SALT LAKE CITY TRIBUNE
- I'm the owner of a company in Canada and another in the United
States that distribute fresh produce around the globe. My Canadian
company has three corporate advantages over my U.S. company and
our U.S. competitors: healthy workers, lower operating costs
and better worker safety through social cohesion. In my experience,
healthy workers are more productive because they take less sick
time than those who don't, or can't afford, to take care of their
health. Lack of health-care access is a barrier to preventive
care. Those who ignore early symptoms of an illness because their
credit cards are maxed-out end up being less productive and may
have to leave the work force. Then the employer faces the expense
of training replacement workers.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development estimates that total health expenditures in Canada
amounted to 9.9 percent of GDP in 2004. In the United States
it was 15.3 percent. And even though Americans spend more on
health care, their life expectancy is, on average, two years
less than Canadians. Many U.S. companies enjoy a competitive
edge in technology because of the R&D of the military industrial
complex. In Canada it's our single-insurer health-care system
that provides us with a competitive advantage. My U.S. company
pays, on average, a premium of $9,300 per year for each employee
to provide just basic medical insurance. My Canadian firm pays
no premium. The costs are paid out of taxes and from resource
royalties. High health-care costs in the United States have been
cited as one very big reason for what some people are calling
"the outsourcing of America." Witness the steady decline
of the domestic auto manufacturing sector.
Finally, I would argue that universal health
care provides a social cohesion and increases our general security
by helping to lift people out of poverty. A healthy population
with access to health care is more likely to be productive and
beneficial to the community. The rates of violent crime in Canada
have yet to reach even a shadow of what is happening in America.
The economic reasons for universal medical
coverage are clear. Just as important, however, is what Medicare
says about our country and its people. We believe in the principle
that everyone should have access to reasonable health care. That
way life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is for all of
us - not just those who can afford it.
[David Karwacki is the leader of the Liberal
Party]
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_6594374
JULY 2007
HOW THE NY TIMES RIGS THE HEALTHCARE
DEBATE
DEAN BAKER, PROSPECT - The NYT had a piece
on the health care plans being put forward by the presidential
candidates that seemed determined to frame the issues in a set
of caricatures, where Democrats push for big government while
Republicans like the market. It makes this assertion at several
points, at one point even telling readers mockingly that "Democrats
are competing furiously among themselves over who has the bigger,
better plan to control costs and to approach universal coverage."
But is this government/market distinction
accurate? Do the Republicans favor ending the subsidies for the
private insurers operating within the Medicare program that the
Medicare Payments Advisory Commission estimates at 12 percent
per beneficiary? Isn't a government subsidy a form of government
intervention?
Do the Republicans favor eliminating government
granted patent monopolies that raise the price of prescription
drugs and medical supplies to levels that are many times the
free market price? Aren't government imposed monopolies a form
of government intervention?
In short, the NYT piece is written entirely
from the Republican perspective in which the interventions they
support, which have the effect of redistributing income upward
and making health care more expensive, are disguised as being
simply the natural workings of the market. On the other hand,
the efforts of the Democrats to restructure the market to make
it more workable (e.g. mandating coverage to eliminate the problem
of adverse section) are mocked as "big government."
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press
HOW DEMOCRATS, SEIU CON VOTERS ON SINGLE
PAYER HEALTH CARE
CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER - On Capitol Hill
today, SEIU held a rally for a couple of hundred health care
workers. The group was addressed by six Senators. . . We asked
Dawn Lee, a spokesperson for SEIU, whether SEIU supported HR
676 -- the single payer bill in the House. She said SEIU takes
no position on that bill.
SEIU does not support single payer. At
the SEIU rally, all spoke in favor of "universal health
care." That is code for keep the insurance companies in
the game. Single payer would take them out.
Martese Chism was at a similar rally in
Chicago last month. Chism is a registered nurse at Cook County
Hospital in Chicago. She also sits on the board of the California
Nurses Association. . . Chism was attending an SEIU rally in
Chicago in support of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's "universal
health care" bill that would keep the insurance companies
in the game.
Chism says that the SEIU members who gathered
for the rally were being actively misled by SEIU. "SEIU
members are being led to believe that universal health care means
free health care for all -- single payer. . .
CNA president Rose Ann DeMoro is a touch
less subtle. "Rather than being on the side of the workers,
SEIU continues to be on the side of the bosses," DeMoro
told Corporate Crime Reporter. "And it's a disgrace."
"And the problem is that SEIU is giving
cover to these Senators -- it makes them look like they are accomplishing
something when in fact they are accomplishing
http://www.counterpunch.org/ccr06262007.html
JUNE 2007
PUBLIC RANKS HEALTHCARE AS SECOND MOST
IMPORTANT ISSUE
KAISER FOUNDATION - Health care remains
the top domestic issue that the public wants presidential candidates
to address, trailing only Iraq on the public's overall priority
list, according to the latest Kaiser Family Foundation Health
tracking poll. The June poll finds that 43% of adults cite Iraq
as one of the most important issues for presidential candidates
to talk about, followed by health care (21%). Iraq ranks first
among Democrats, Republicans and independents alike.
Health care ranks second among Democrats
and independents, while Republicans rank immigration slightly
ahead of health (20% vs. 18%). Immigration rose sharply as an
issue since March and ranks third overall with 18% in the new
poll, which was taken as media attention focused on the Senate
debate about immigration reform legislation. The economy (13%)
and gas prices (12%) follow.
The poll also measures the public's perceptions
of the presidential candidates on health issues. To date, most
people don't know or can't name the candidate who they feel is
placing the biggest emphasis on health or the candidate who most
matches their own views. Across party identification, Sen. Hillary
Clinton remains the candidate that people are most likely to
name as placing the biggest emphasis on health care (23%) and
as agreeing with their views (17%). Sen. Barack Obama is in second
place (9% on each question).
Looking only at Democrats, one in three
name Sen. Clinton (33%, compared to 27% in March) as the candidate
who comes closest to their personal views on health care, compared
to 15% who name Sen. Obama (up from 8% in March) and 4% who name
former Sen. John Edwards (no change since March).
Few people name any of the Republican candidates
as placing the biggest emphasis on health care, with 2% overall
naming former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
When asked what concerns them about rising
health care costs, the poll found people are twice as likely
to cite having to pay higher premiums and increased out-of-pocket
costs (38%) as they are to say increases in spending on government
health insurance programs like Medicare and Medicaid (18%) or
increases in what the nation as a whole spends on health (18%).
A smaller share (13%) cite increases in the health insurance
premiums that employers pay to cover their workers. These views
vary little based on party identification.
MAY 2007
LACK OF NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE MAY
EXPLAIN WHY EUROPEANS ARE TALLER THAN AMERICANS
SPIEGEL, GERMANY - For years, researchers
have been wondering why Americans stopped growing. US citizens
were among the tallest in the world up until World War II. But
since then, heights have stagnated while Europeans have been
getting taller and taller, with the average American now between
two and six centimeters shorter. The correlation between wealth
and height has long been understood, the most recent example
coming as Eastern Europeans shot up following the collapse of
communism. But why, in the richest country in the world, should
growth rates be stagnating?
A new study published in the current issue
of the Social Science Quarterly by researchers from Princeton
University in the US and the University of Munich in Germany
indicates that the difference may have to do more with politics
than biology. Specifically, the study, which involved the statistical
analysis of demographic and health data collected between 1959
and 2002, concludes that the spotty US health-care system and
weak welfare net could explain why Americans have stopped growing.
"We surmise that the health systems
and high degree of social security in Europe provide better conditions
for growth than the American health system, despite the fact
that the system costs twice as much," said study co-author
John Komlos from the University of Munich in a statement. "There
are also indications that American diets are deficient in several
areas."
From the Colonial times until roughly the
1970s, Americans were the tallest people in the world. But then,
growth stagnated while Europeans spent the second half of the
20th century growing like weeds. Now, the average Dutchman is
six centimeters taller than the average American -- "almost
an exact reversal of the relationship in the middle of the 19th
century," Komlos says.
Researchers have established in recent
years that wealthier families tend to provide better nutrition
for their children and, as a result, they tend to grow taller.
The drastic differences in the United States between rich and
poor, the researchers pointed out, mean that the US average is
pulled down by those who struggle to get by. Whereas in the US,
some 15 percent of the population has no health insurance and
those on welfare can barely get by, almost all citizens of northern
and western European countries enjoy universal health care and
a generous social net. The result is that even those children
dependent on welfare in Europe have a sufficient living standard,
the researchers concluded.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,484168,00.html
LACK OF SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE IS KILLING
US
NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, NY TIMES - The medical
and insurance lobbies have been busy blocking national health
care programs since they were first seriously proposed back in
the 1920's - and the result has been millions of premature deaths
in this country because of people falling through the cracks.
Doctors fighting universal coverage have been saving lives in
their day jobs while costing lives with their lobbying. Over
all, a person without insurance is less likely to have diseases
diagnosed early, less likely to get routine preventive care -
and faces a 25 percent greater chance of dying early.
Americans with good jobs and complex needs
receive superb medical care. But a child in Costa Rica born today
is expected to live longer than an American child born today.
The U.S. now spends far more on medical care (more than $7,000
per person) than other nations, yet our infant mortality rate,
maternal mortality rate and longevity are among the worst in
the industrialized world. If we had as good a child mortality
rate as France, Germany and Italy, we would save 12,000 children
a year.
It is disgraceful that an American mother
has almost three times the risk of losing a child as a mother
in the Czech Republic. According to a new report from Save the
Children, a woman in the U.S. has a 1-in-71 chance of losing
a child before his or her fifth birthday. . .
The existing medical financing system also
creates perverse incentives for expensive procedures; that may
be why Americans are far more likely than Europeans to get C-sections.
Meanwhile, the burden of paying for these second-rate statistical
outcomes is crippling American business. By next year, the average
Fortune 500 company will spend more on health care than it earns
in net income, according to Steve Burd, the head of Safeway.
. .
There's evidence that the most efficient
financing system would be a single-payer structure, such as that
found in most Western countries. Some 31 percent of U.S. health
spending goes to administration, more than twice the rate in
Canada. . .
But universal coverage is only part of
the answer. We also need far greater attention to public health
programs focusing on prevention. Two of the most important life-saving
health interventions in recent decades weren't medical at all:
the cigarette tax and laws mandating air bags and seat belt use.
A national public health campaign on obesity (similar to the
one Gov. Mike Huckabee started in Arkansas) should be an essential
component of health care reform.
TRUE COSTS OF OUR CRAZY HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM
VIDURA PANDITARATNE, PRESSESC - A Commonwealth Fund report reveals that despite
spending more than twice as much per capita on health care as
other nations ($6,102 vs. $2,571 for the median of Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development countries in 2004) the
US spends far less on health information technology - just 43
cents per capita, compared with about $192 per capita in the
UK. . .
In Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International
Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care,
by Karen Davis, Ph. D., and colleagues, compare surveys on physicians'
and patients' experiences and views of their health systems conducted
in Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the UK, and the US
between 2004 and 2006.
Key findings include:
- On measures of quality, the U.S. overall
ranked 5th out of 6 countries. The U.S. ranked fifth in coordinated
care, and last in patients reporting that they have a regular
doctor (84% vs. 92%-97% in other countries).
- On access measures the U.S. ranked last
overall, including last on timeliness of care: 61% of U.S. patients
said it was somewhat or very difficult to get care on nights
or weekends, compared with 25%-59% in other countries.
- On efficiency, the U.S. ranked last overall,
including last on percent of patients who have visited the emergency
room for conditions that could have been treated by a regular
doctor if one had been available (26% vs. 6%-21% in other countries).
Multinational Comparisons of Health Systems
Data, 2006, by Jonathan Cylus and Gerard Anderson, Ph.D., of
The Johns Hopkins University, compares health spending data in
nine Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries:
Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, New
Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States and, where
possible, the median of all 30 OECD countries.
Key findings include:
- In 2004 the US spent the most per capita
on hospital services, and Canada and Japan spent the least. Adjusted
for differences in cost of living, inpatient acute care spending
per day in the United States was nearly three times the median
OECD country ($2,337) and over five times more than Japan ($419).
- The US spent twice the OECD median per
capita on drugs in 2004 - $752 compared with $377.
- Nearly one-third (30.6%) of individuals
in the US were obese in 2004, compared with 13 percent of the
OECD median.
- The US had about two and a half times
the OECD median for years of potential life lost due to diabetes
- 101 per 1,000 people compared with 39 per 1,000 (U.S. data
is for 2002).
APRIL 2007
STUDY FINDS CANADA'S HEALTH SERVICE
BETTER THAN AMERICA'S
CANWEST NEWS SERVICE
- Canada's health-care system is as good or better than that
of the United States and is delivered at half the cost, new research
suggests. A review in the inaugural issue of online medical journal
Open Medicine, . . . found that while the United States spent
an average of $7,129 US per person on health care in 2006, compared
with $2,956 US per person in Canada, more studies favored the
latter country in terms of morbidity and mortality.
They covered a wide range of diseases and
conditions including cancer, coronary artery disease. . .
Of the 38 studies included in the analysis,
10 were considered to be of the highest quality because they
enrolled broad populations and included extensive statistical
adjustments. Results of five of those favored Canada, two favored
the United States and three showed equivalent or mixed results.
Of the 28 remaining studies that did not
meet one of the criteria, nine favured Canada, three favored
the United States and 16 showed equivalent or mixed results.
When all the studies were combined, the
17 doctors and researchers involved in the meta-analysis found
Canadians had a five per cent lower death rate than people in
the United States.
FEBRUARY 2007
GREEN PARTY HITS DEMOCRATS FOR RUNNING
FROM SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE
GREEN PARTY - Green Party leaders have
called on Congress to reject health care reform plans that maintained
corporate-based insurance and HMO coverage, and urged passage
of a single-player national health insurance program. Greens
were especially critical of Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-N.Y.) continuing
role in obstructing needed health care reforms. "Hillary
Clinton should be banished from the room when health coverage
is discussed," said Rebecca Rotzler, co-chair of the Green
Party of the United States and Deputy Mayor of New Paltz, New
York. "Ms. Clinton's favoritism towards major insurance
companies undermined real health care reform when her husband's
administration crafted its managed-care monstrosity in 1993.
She and other Democrats remain at the top of the list of recipients
of contributions from insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies.
"Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John
Edwards, and other prominent Democrats are the greatest obstacle
to universal health coverage. Except for a few mavericks like
Rep. John Conyers [D-Mich.], who has regularly introduced single-payer
bills, Democrats have joined Republicans in favoring HMO and
insurance corporations over guaranteed publicly-financed quality
health care for every American. It's a safe bet that the 2008
Democratic nominee will -- like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John
Kerry before them -- follow the same pattern," said Kat
Swift, spokesperson for the National Women's Caucus of the Green
Party.
http://www.gp.org/newscenter.shtml
WHY THE DEMOCRATS ARE SO COWARDLY ABOUT
HEALTHCARE
CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER -
The majority of the American people want a single-payer health
care system - Medicare for all. The majority of doctors want
it. A good chunk of hospital CEOs want it. But what they want
doesn't appear to matter. Why?
Because a single-payer health care plan
would mean the death of the private health insurance industry
and reduced profits for the pharmaceutical industry.
Presidential candidates John Edwards, Barack
Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Mitt Romney and California Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger talk a lot about universal health care.
But not one of them advocates for single-payer - because single-payer
too directly confronts the big corporate interests profiting
off the miserable health care system we are currently saddled
with.
"Currently, we are spending almost
a third of every health care dollar on administration and paperwork
generated by the private health insurance industry," said
Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine
at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a
National Health Program. "Countries like Canada spend about
half that much on the billing and paperwork side of medicine.
If we go to a single-payer system and are able to cut the billing
and paperwork costs of health care, that frees up about $300
billion per year. That's the money we need to cover the uninsured
and then improve the coverage for those who have private insurance
but are under-insured."
"The idea behind single-payer is you
don't have to increase total health care spending," Woolhandler
said in an interview with Corporate Crime Reporter. "You
take the money we are now spending but cut the administrative
fat and use that money to cover people."
None of the declared Presidential candidates
- with the exception of Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)
- is supporting single-payer. Last year, Kucinich and Congressman
John Conyers (D-Michigan), introduced a single-payer bill, HR
676, which garnered support of more than 75 members of the House.
Woolhandler expects that number to grow substantially this year.
And Woolhandler says grassroots activists
have been mobilizing at the state level. "State single-payer
organizations have been very active," she said. "Early
in the process, you can get a lot of politicians interested -
they want to show up at your rallies to show support for national
health insurance. But as you get closer and closer to actual
passage of a law, it is harder to keep the politicians on board.".
. .
Woolhandler called the universal health
care law passed in Massachusetts by Governor Mitt Romney "a
hoax."
"The core idea is the individual mandate
- forcing uninsured people to go out and buy insurance,"
Woolhandler said. "And if they don't buy insurance, we are
going to fine them. The first year it is an $80 fine. The second
year, it's half the value of the lowest priced policy - we're
talking about a $2,000 fine. So, they are saying anyone who earns
more than three times poverty has to bear the entire price of
a private insurance policy."
"Romney's bill was written by Blue
Cross," Woolhandler said. "Romney was saying he was
going to offer health insurance starting at $200 a month. And
of course, that was a hoax. No insurance policy in Massachusetts
comes in at $200 a month. When Blue Cross was asked to produce
the policy, it turned out the policy was going to cost $380 a
month for a policy that had a $2000 deductible. So, you are going
to tell this poor bloke who is earning $29,400 a year that he
has to go out and spend $4,000 a year on an insurance policy.
And if he gets sick, he doesn't even have any coverage until
he has spent $2,000. And that's not family coverage. That's individual
coverage."
Former Senator John Edwards would have
a Medicare-like system compete with private insurance. "Edwards
plan is not going to work," Woolhandler says flatly. "We
know there is not going to be fair competition between Medicare
and the private plans. You have to take on the private health
insurance industry and tell them - you are out of here. This
is an entitlement program like traditional Medicare or Social
Security. We are going to get the administrative efficiencies
you get from running it as a single program and use that to expand
coverage. That's what you have to do."
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York) doesn't
want to get specific. "She is nowhere on this issue,"
Woolhandler says. Ditto Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois).
A SHORT HISTORY OF HEALTHCARE MISSTEPS
PHIL MATTERA, CORPORATE RESEARCH PROJECT
- In the late 19th Century European countries began adopting
government-funded social insurance plans, but the U.S. failed
to follow suit. When progressives made a push in the 1910s there
was opposition not only from corporate interests but also from
organized labor. AFL President Samuel Gompers denounced national
health insurance as a paternalistic reform, fearing that its
adoption would weaken the role of unions in improving the living
conditions of workers.
Consequently, Americans both rich and poor
continued to pay the vast majority of medical costs out of pocket.
That began to change in the 1930s. While the Roosevelt Administration
focused on retirement benefits and unemployment insurance at
the expense of health coverage, physicians and hospitals struggling
to survive the Depression set up private group insurance plans
to bolster demand for their services. . .
In 1945 President Harry Truman proposed
a national program establishing a right to medical care and protection
from the "economic fears" of illness. But once again,
opposition to government involvement in healthcare emerged, this
time reinforced by a Cold War hysteria about "socialized
medicine" stoked by groups such as the American Medical
Association.
As Truman's plan went down to defeat, what
grew in its place was a system of employer-provided coverage,
stimulated by aggressive bargaining on the part of unions that
had come to regard improving employee benefits as a mission as
important as increasing wages. . .
http://www.alternet.org/stories/48371/
THE CASE FOR REAL UNIVERAL HEALTH CARE.
. . .BY A RETIRED BUSINESS OWNER
JACK E. LOHMAN, WIS POLITICS - With the
vast majority of the public -- and even the "non-healthcare"
business leaders -- supporting universal health care, why are
our politicians not on board?
It makes every bit of financial sense for
businesses to get out of providing health care and to turn it
over to the most successful ever public-private venture: Medicare.
As a Medicare patient I have the same coverage and physician
choice I had before retiring. It's just managed by a single payer:
WPS in Madison.
Don't think for a moment that single-payer
is just another liberal giveaway; it is the most fiscally conservative
way possible of financing health care for Wisconsin citizens.
. .
Medicare-for-all would do wonders for businesses
by reducing labor costs by 15 percent; reducing worker compensation
costs by 50 percent; and cutting their and everybody else's auto
insurance rates in half. With these reduced costs they could
add jobs in Wisconsin rather than sending them to other countries.
Health care would no longer be a labor union negotiation and
job changes would not involve gaps in insurance, preexisting
disease exclusions or delays, or COBRA costs.
New jobs would mean new tax revenues, increased
property values, and less unemployment, welfare and associated
costs. New businesses will move to Wisconsin and old businesses
will keep their doors open. And when businesses no longer have
to add their health costs to the price of their product, we will
see lower prices at the cash register and greater competitiveness
against foreign products that aren't burdened with health care
costs.
Who wouldn't like these single-payer benefits?
For one, the insurance companies that are
currently reaping 20-30 percent of health care dollars won't
like it a bit, and neither will the politicians who receive campaign
contributions from health care interests. Nor will the board
members that sit on both health care and non-health care corporate
boards, though business associations that serve both factions
owe it to the latter to sit this issue out. The conflicts of
interest that stand in the way of good public policy abound.
If corporations are not willing to provide
employee health care at least equivalent to Medicare, they should
get out of the way and let the government do it. We don't want
their inadequately funded solutions or a mish-mash of prohibitively
expensive half-way measures. Or health savings accounts that
are time bombs waiting to explode in credit card debt and bankruptcies.
Nor do we want an incremental approach
that will not cover all citizens and is sure to fail. The public
wants it done right and wants it done now.
Think about it. For the same amount of
money we are paying to cover 85 percent of the public now, we
could cover 100 percent under a single-payer plan like Canada's
-- but without the wait times. Over 80 percent of Canadians prefer
their system to ours. Their life expectancy is two years longer
and infant mortality 35 percent less than ours -- mostly because
everybody is insured under a single-payer plan.
Canada spends 10 percent of its gross domestic
product on health care while we spend 15 percent of GDP and get
less for it. They cover 100 percent of their people and we cover
85 percent and that is shrinking. Their administrative costs
are 10 percent compared to our 20-30 percent. They have no wait
times for urgent procedures, and those for elective care could
be eliminated with a simple increase in funding by 10 percent
-- to 11 percent of GDP. While their problem is funding, ours
is systemic.
http://wisopinion.com/index.iml?mdl=article.mdl&article=6227
THROW THE RASCALS OUT
http://www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org
THE TRUE COST OF PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE
DAVID DYSSEGAARD KALLICK, FISCAL POLICY
INSTITUTE, BUFFALO NEWS - The current [health] insurance system
just isn't working. There are 2.8 million New Yorkers who don't
have insurance. For people who do have insurance, health care
is too expensive; no item in the family budget is rising faster.
As important as the effect on families,
though, is the effect on economic growth. The convoluted way
we finance health care is one of our nation's biggest job-killers.
Responsible companies that pay for health care are being crushed
by the rising cost of insurance.
The best solution would be a national single-payer
plan. But if Washington doesn't move, New York should look into
a state-based single-payer system.
Virtually all of the world's advanced economies
have universal coverage. There are models that integrate choice
of doctor, private insurance on top of the basic government plan
and the ability to pay to skip ahead of a queue.
Can we afford it? The United States spends
about 16 percent of gross domestic product on health care. Compare
that with 7.7 percent in the United Kingdom, 7.9 percent in Japan
and 9.9 percent in Canada. Universal insurance is much less expensive.
It's encouraging to see states like Massachusetts
and California moving forward on universal coverage. But their
models cost billions more, while a single-payer system would
cost billions less than current spending. According to one estimate,
cutting out administrative costs would allow a single-payer system
in New York to reduce spending by 19 percent, a savings of $23
billion.
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20070129/1039189.asp
http://www.fiscalpolicy.org
ROMNEY STYLE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE: YOU
BUY IT OR WE FINE YOU
ALICE DEMBNER, BOSTON GLOBE
- More than 200,000 people with health insurance would have to
buy additional coverage to meet proposed minimum standards under
the state's new health insurance law, according to a count completed
by insurers yesterday. Most of the individuals do not have coverage
for prescription drugs or have drug coverage that is more restrictive
than the minimum proposed by the state board implementing the
law. . . Individuals would face a fine of about $200 next year
and more in future years, if they do not have insurance that
meets the standards.
"It's very troubling," said Richard
Lord, president of Associated Industries of Massachusetts and
a member of the Connector board. "The new law was about
expanding access for people without any health insurance. I don't
think we should be forcing people who do have some coverage to
spend more."
The number of residents whose insurance
would not meet the minimum standards is more than four times
the estimate made by the board's staff earlier this month before
the board altered the proposed standards.
JANUARY 2007
SEIU, DEMOCRATS JOINING IN HEALTHCARE
CON
[It's bad enough that centrist
Democrats are falling for this, but now the leading labor union
SEIU has joined in support of phony healthcare reform, backing
a plan whose major attribute is that it will continue to permit
insurance companies to make huge profits. Instead of a logical
approach, such as expanding Medicare, a disturbing consensus
is developing around a convoluted, inadequate, corporate-friendly
mishmash and calling it - in one of the great spin lies of our
times - "universal healthcare." Steven Pearlsein, a
corporate columnist of the Washington Post, naturally thinks
it's swell]
STEVEN PEARLSTEIN, WASHINGTON
POST - There, at the National Press Club, stood the president
of the Business Roundtable, representing the country's largest
corporations; the president of the Service Employees International
Union, the country's most vibrant union and one of its fastest-growing;
and the president of AARP, the formidable seniors lobby. They
put aside their usual differences to deliver a clear, simple
message to President Bush and congressional leaders of both parties:
We stand ready to give you the political cover you need for a
centrist, bipartisan fix for a broken health-care system. Or,
if you refuse, we stand ready to embarrass you and run you out
of office.
"Washington is behind where
the rest of the country is," said Andy Stern, a labor leader.
"Democratic leaders in Congress say this is not the time.
The White House has said now is not the time. And we are saying,
'Now is the time.' "
Stern and his new friends are
right about one thing: Something's going on.
A Republican governor of Massachusetts,
working with Sen. Ted Kennedy and a Democratic legislature, hammered
out a comprehensive reform plan last year. And last week, another
Republican governor proposed a similarly bold plan for California.
Not coincidentally, both state
plans conform roughly to a consensus that has been taking shape
in Washington over the past two years, in behind-the-scenes negotiations
among health insurers, hospitals, physicians, business and labor
groups, drug companies and consumer groups such as Families USA.
The first draft of their effort will be unveiled tomorrow. And
while the "consensus" will fudge some of the most difficult
issues in an effort to keep the coalition together, the outlines
of a genuinely comprehensive reform plan are coming into focus.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011601578_pf.html
SCHWARZENEGGER'S HEALTHCARE CON
SHEILA JAMES KUEHL, CHAIR CALIFORNIA
SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE, LA TIMES - Schwarzenegger's plan. .
. mandates that every individual have insurance (not just every
worker), yet it doesn't ensure that coverage will be comprehensive
and affordable. Schwarzenegger also calls for increasing reimbursements
paid to providers under public programs by billions of dollars.
. .
How does he pay for it? Individuals
and employers will contribute, but employers are required to
spend only 4% of payroll to insure their employees, or contribute
the same amount to a state fund. This is not sufficient to purchase
insurance for the working uninsured, who will be required to
have it. This means that the governor's plan can at best provide
high-cost, low-benefit plans for many Californians; it limits
what employers pay but not what individuals must pay or what
insurance companies can charge.
A portion of the funding for
the plan would also come from federal money that is at this point
only "hoped for." There also would be a tax on providers,
such as doctors and hospitals, and the governor would redirect
public money now spent on poor people in hospitals to insurance
companies. This would create an immediate problem for hospitals,
which are already closing because of inadequate reimbursement
from private insurance companies.
Finally, the governor would adopt
President Bush's plan for individual health savings accounts
by requiring employers to "allow" employees to put
away money, pretax, to pay for unreimbursed medical expenses.
These accounts effectively shift the costs and liability of healthcare
away from insurance companies and onto consumers. Such a plan
would not benefit people who are already too strapped to meet
current expenses, and it does nothing to expand coverage or affordability.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kuehl9jan09,0,7944823.story
GOP GOVERNORS PROPOSING FAKE
UNIVERSAL HEALTH COVERAGE
WITH THE uncritical blessing
of the media, GOP governors of Massachusetts and now California
have gotten away with calling required purchase of private health
insurance "universal health coverage." Both the NY
Times and the Washington Post gave this badly misleading impression
of what appears a conservative plan to derail growing support
for real universal coverage. Much as the right and the media
have used grossly distorted phrases like "Social Security
reform," the Schwarzenegger and Romney plan create their
universality not by providing coverage but by forcing citizens
to buy it from private insurers. This falls somewhere between
being a con and being unconstitutional, not unlike being told
you have to buy telephone service from a private vendor because
it's good for you.
CHERRY PICKING HEALTH INSURANCE
COMPANIES REFUSE TO INSURE CERTAIN JOBS
LISA GIRION, LA TIMES - Health
insurers in California refuse to sell individual coverage to
people simply because of their occupations or use of certain
medicines, according to documents obtained by The Times.
Entire categories of workers - including roofers, pro athletes,
dockworkers, migrant workers and firefighters - are turned down
for insurance even if they are in good health and can afford
coverage, according to the confidential underwriting guidelines
of four health plans. . .
Such restrictions are legal in
California, and state regulators have no authority to stop them.
Health plans defend their restrictions as necessary to keep premiums
down. . .
At issue is individual insurance,
the type of coverage purchased by people who do not have job-based
group health benefits. Unlike group coverage, individual insurance
is granted case by case, meaning in effect that health plans
are free to choose whom to cover and what to charge them.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-reject8jan08,0,5668276.story?coll=la-home-headlines
DECEMBER 2006
SENATOR PROPOSES NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE
COMPANY CARE PLAN
[This plan's basic purpose is
to keep the health insurance business raking in big profits and
belongs in the same dump as Hillary Clinton's disastrous proposal.
It isn't national healthcare; it's national health insurance
company care]
MATTHEW DALY, ASSOCIATED PRESS
- An Oregon Democrat is readying a proposal to provide health
care coverage to all Americans through a pool of private insurance
plans. "Employer-based coverage is melting away like a Popsicle
on the sidewalk in August," said Sen. Ron Wyden, a member
of the Senate Finance subcommittee on health care.
Wyden's proposal, which he planned
to unveil on Wednesday, is an outgrowth of work by the Citizens'
Health Care Working Group, a 14-member panel that went to 50
communities around the country and heard from 28,000 people about
how to overhaul the nation's health care system.. . .
Wyden said his new plan would
allow workers to carry their health insurance from job to job
without penalty. More efficient administration and more promotion
of competition for health care plans, he said, would allow greater
coverage while costing no more than the government is paying
today for health insurance coverage.
Called the "Healthy Americans
Act," the plan would cover all Americans except those on
Medicare or those who receive health care through the military.
It would require that employers
"cash out" their existing health plans by terminating
coverage and paying the amount saved directly to workers as increased
wages. Workers then would be required to buy health insurance
from a large pool of private plans.
After two years, companies would
no longer have to pay the higher wages. Instead, Wyden said,
they would pay into an insurance pool, based on annual revenues
and the number of full-time workers. . .
Increases in premium payments
for individuals and families would be offset by higher wages
and subsidies provided under the plan, the report said. As an
example, Wyden cited a worker who earned $60,000 last year, and
received about $12,000 worth of health care coverage.
The worker's health insurance
would be terminated but his salary would increase to $72,000,
which would cover his health care coverage. The plan would bar
workers from buying a "bare-bones" health package and
pocketing the savings, Wyden said.
http://www.blueoregon.com/2006/12/wyden_announces.html
NOVEMBER 2006
MYTHS ABOUT SINGLE-PAYER HEALTHCARE
[From the Hunger Action Network
of New York]
Myth: The government would dictate
how physicians practice medicine.
In countries with a national
health insurance system, physicians are rarely questioned about
their medical practices (and usually only in cases of expected
fraud). Compare it to today's system, where doctors routinely
have to ask an insurance company permission to perform procedures,
prescribe certain medications, or run certain tests to help their
patients.
Myth: Waits for services would
be extremely long.
In countries with NHI, urgent
care is always provided immediately. Other countries do experience
some waits for elective procedures (like cataract removal), but
maintaining the US's same level of health expenditures (twice
as much as the next-highest country), waits would be much shorter
or even non-existent. Compared to most other countries with universal
health care, it is the US with the long waiting times - especially
for the tens of millions without health insurance. There would
be no lines under a universal health care system in the United
States because we have about a 30% oversupply of medical equipment
and surgeons, whereas demand would increase about 15%
Myth: People will over-use the
system.
Most estimates do indicate that
there would be some increased use of the system (mostly from
the 42 million people that are currently uninsured and therefore
not receiving adequate health care), however the staggering savings
from a single-payer system would easily compensate for this.
Myth: Universal Health Care Would
Be Too Expensive
The United States spends at least
40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized
country with universal health care. Federal studies by the Congressional
Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single
payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 billion dollars
per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health
care benefits. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration
than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs
the United States would have the ability to provide universal
health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still
save money.
Myth: A single payer system Would
Result In Government Control And Intrusion Into Health Care Resulting
In Loss Of Freedom Of Choice
There would be free choice of
health care providers under a single payer universal health care
system, unlike our current managed care system in which people
are forced to see providers on the insurer's panel to obtain
medical benefits. There would be no management of care under
a single payer system unlike the current managed care system
which mandates insurer pre-approval for services thus undercutting
patient confidentiality and taking health care decisions away
from the health care provider and consumer
Myth: Universal Health Care Is
Socialized Medicine And Would Be Unacceptable To The Public
Single payer universal health
care is not socialized medicine. It is health care payment system,
not a health care delivery system. Health care providers would
be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of
the government, which would be socialized medicine. Repeated
national and state polls have shown that between 60 and 75% of
Americans would like a publicly financed, universal health care
system
http://www.hungeractionnys.org/health2a.htm
PHYSICIANS FOR A NATIONAL HEALTH
PROGRAM FAQ http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#socialized
OCTOBER 2006
MORE THAN HALF OF AMERICANS DISSATISFIED
WITH HEALTH COSTS
RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, LA TIMES - The annual Health Confidence Survey,
released by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute,
found that more than half of those surveyed — 52% —
were dissatisfied with health insurance costs, a sharp increase
from 33% last year. . .
Retirement plans took a big hit,
with 36% of those who reported higher costs over the last year
saying they had reduced their contributions to 401(k) plans.
Of that group, 28% said that because of health-related costs,
they had trouble paying for such basic necessities as housing,
heat and food. . . The institute's poll found that workers regard
their employer-sponsored coverage as an ever more valuable benefit,
even as many new jobs come with no coverage and employers cut
back or drop existing plans.
Overall, the proportion of employees
covered by a company plan dropped from 81% in 2001 to 77% in
2005. Asked to choose between a $6,700 raise and employer-sponsored
health insurance, 75% of those polled picked the health plan.
Of those, 13% said no raise would
be big enough to persuade them to give up their coverage. The
average cost of employer-provided coverage was about $6,700 per
worker in 2004. It has since gone up to more than $7,100.
QUARTER OF AMERICANS SAY THEY OR FAMILY
PUT OFF MEDICAL TREATMENT BECAUSE OF COST
KAISER FOUNDATION - One in four
Americans say that they or a family member in their household
had problems paying medical bills during the past 12 months,
according to a new poll conducted jointly by ABC News, the Kaiser
Family Foundation and USA Today. That's the highest share of
Americans reporting a problem paying medical bills in a series
of Kaiser surveys taken since 1997. Among those reporting a problem
this year, nearly seven in 10 have health insurance.
- About one in four (28%) Americans
say that in the past year they or a family member have put off
medical treatment because of its cost. Of those who delayed treatment,
seven in 10 (70%) say that the care was for a serious medical
condition.
- Among those with health insurance,
most (60%) are worried about not being able to afford coverage
over the next few years, with 27% saying they are very worried.
- More than half (54%) of those
without health coverage say the main reason is because they can't
afford it, while another 15% say they can't get it due to poor
health, illness or age. In comparison, just 4% say the main reason
they lack health insurance is because they think they don't need
it.
- Eight in 10 Americans (80%)
say they are dissatisfied with the overall cost of health care
to the nation. When asked about their own concerns about the
health care system, cost comes out far ahead of quality. Four
in 10 say that they are dissatisfied with their personal health
care costs, compared with one in 10 who say they are dissatisfied
with the quality of their health care.
JULIE APPLEBY, USA TODAY - Fifty-six percent say they would prefer
universal coverage to the current system. . . In the survey,
68% said providing coverage for everyone is more important than
keeping taxes down. . .
When survey respondents were
asked about possible trade-offs that might come with a universal
program, positive responses plummeted. The poll found:
76% would oppose universal coverage
if it meant some medical treatments currently covered by insurance
would no longer be covered.
68% would be against it if it
led to limits on the choice of doctors.
DEAN BAKER, PROSPECT - USA Today
had an article this morning on rising U.S. health care costs.
It never mentions the fact that the United States pays more than
twice as much per person as the average among other wealthy countries,
yet has shorter life expectancies.
SURVEY RESULTS
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/pomr101606pkg.cfm
SEPTEMBER 2006
LACK OF HEALTH ISURANCE KILLS SIX TIMES
AS MANY AMERICANS EACH YEAR AS 9/11 DID
SARAH RUTH VAN GELDER AND DOUG
PIBEL, YES MAGAZINE - An estimated 50 million Americans lack
medical insurance, and a similar and rapidly growing number are
underinsured. The uninsured are excluded from services, charged
more for services, and die when medical care could save them
-- an estimated 18,000 die each year because they lack medical
coverage. But it's not only the uninsured who suffer. Of the
more than 1.5 million bankruptcies filed in the U.S. each year,
about half are a result of medical bills; of those, three-quarters
of filers had health insurance.
Businesses are suffering too.
Insurance premiums increased 73 percent between 2000 and 2005,
and per capita costs are expected to keep rising. . .
Employers who want to offer employee
health care benefits can't compete with low-road employers who
offer none. Nor can they compete with companies located in countries
that offer national health insurance. . .
Among politicians and pundits,
a universal, publicly funded system is off the table. . . The
United States leaves the health of its citizens at the mercy
of an expensive, patchwork system where some get great care while
others get none at all. The overwhelming majority -- 75 percent,
according to an October 2005 Harris Poll -- want what people
in other wealthy countries have: the peace of mind of universal
health insurance.
http://www.alternet.org/stories/42011/
PORTLAND PRESS HERALD - Patricia
LaMarche, the Green Independent candidate in Maine's five-way
race for governor, proposed a state-run universal health-care
plan Thursday that would tax employers to pay for the program.
. . [The] program would have no co-pays, no deductibles and no
out-of-pocket expenses for essential care. Elective procedures
would not be covered. . . Her plan, which has been described
as the cornerstone of her campaign, would impose a payroll tax
of 5 percent to 12 percent on employers, depending on the size
of their work force. Employers with no more than five workers
would pay atax equivalent to 5 percent of their payroll. The
rate would rise gradually as the number of employees increased,
hitting a maximum of 12 percent, for employers with more than
1,000 workers. State, county and municipal governments also would
be taxed, and their employees would be covered by the plan. Providers
would bill a state-appointed Maine Healthcare Authority, which
would pay the bills. . . . LaMarche said her plan would seek
a federal waiver to let state government roll Medicaid funds
into the new program, but it would not alter the Medicare program
for the elderly.
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/060922lamarche.html
PAT LAMARCHE HEALTHCARE PLAN
http://www.pat2006.com/issues/healthcare/plan.php
HEALTH INSURANCE COST RISE TWICE INFLATION
RATE
JULIE APPLEBY, USA TODAY - Workers and employers won't find much
comfort in the smallest increase in health insurance costs since
1999. The 7.7% increase this year is still more than twice the
rate of inflation. And those rising costs have so far failed
to boost the percentage of employers offering what are touted
by some, including President Bush, as an answer to health care
inflation: high-deductible insurance policies coupled with savings
accounts. Despite being the biggest buzz among benefit consultants,
the Kaiser Family Foundation says only 7% of employers offered
such policies this year, unchanged from 2005. The results come
from the non-profit foundation's annual employer survey, released
Tuesday. . . The total premium increase is up 87% since 2000.
89% INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE APPLICANTS
EITHER REJECTED OR FIND IT TOO EXPENSIVE
MEDICAL NEWS TODAY - Of working-age
U.S. residents who sought individual health coverage in the last
three years, 89% were rejected for medical reasons or felt that
the available plans were unaffordable, according to a study released
Thursday by the Commonwealth Fund, the Los Angeles Times reports.
. . According to the survey, 58% of respondents who applied for
individual coverage found the health plans unaffordable. Twenty-one
percent of those who sought individual coverage were rejected,
charged a higher premium or were offered a policy that excluded
coverage for a specific health condition they had. The study
also finds: Two in five people with individual coverage spend
at least 5% of their incomes on premiums, compared with one in
seven who have employer-sponsored coverage. More than half of
people with individual coverage pay at least $3,000 annually
in premiums, and about one-third paid at least $6,000 annually.
One-third of people with individual coverage have to pay $1,000
out-of-pocket each year before coverage takes effect;
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=51931
MORE ADULT CHILDREN RELYING ON PARENTS'
HEALTH INSURANCE
JENNIFER 8. LEE, NY TIMES - With
18- to 34-year-olds the fastest growing group of uninsured, states
are extending the time that children can be a dependent for insurance
purposes. In New Jersey, which this year enacted the highest
age limit, children can "piggyback" until they turn
30, as long as they live in the state and don't have their own
children. The trend stems from a concern that a healthy - and
profitable - segment of the population is dropping out of the
insurance pool. About half of all states have studied such proposals,
and at least nine have passed laws, eight of them since 2003
and three just this year, according to the National Conference
of State Legislatures.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/us/17insure.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
BUSINESSES SLASHING RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS
KIM DIXON, REUTERS - Most U.S.
employers are planning to further scale back health benefits
offered to retirees, as companies struggle with the upward march
in the cost of medical care and weigh increased contributions
from government's Medicare program, a survey found. Ninety-five
percent of the mostly Fortune 500 companies polled expect to
further restrict their retiree health plans over the next five
years, and 14 percent plan to stop providing coverage entirely,
the survey of 163 companies by benefits consultants Watson Wyatt
found. Employers have been exiting the retiree health business
for a decade-and-a-half. . .
About a third of U.S. employers
offered current workers retiree coverage in 2005, down from about
two-thirds in 1988, according to a recent study by the nonprofit
Kaiser Family Foundation.
MAY 2006
A DOCTOR COMES TO LIKE SINGLE PAYER
BENJAMIN BREWER, MD - It took
me a while to conclude that a single-payer health system was
the best approach. My fear had been that government would screw
up medicine to the detriment of my patients and my practice.
If done poorly, the result might be worse than what I'm dealing
with now.
But increasingly I've come to
believe that if done right, health care in America could be dramatically
better with true single-payer coverage; not just another layer
-- a part D on top of a part B on top of a part A, but a simplified,
single payer that would cover all Americans, including those
who could afford the best right now. Representatives and senators
in Washington should have to use the same system my patients
and I do were they to vote it in.
Doctors in private practice fear
a loss of autonomy with a single-payer system. After being in
the private practice of family medicine for 8 1/2 years, I see
that autonomy is largely an illusion. Through Medicare and Medicaid,
the government is already writing its own rules for 45% of the
patients I see.
The rest are privately insured
under 301 different insurance products (my staff and I counted).
The companies set the fees and the contracts are largely non-negotiable
by individual doctors.
The amount of time, staff costs
and IT overhead associated with keeping track of all those plans
eats up most of the money we make above Medicare rates. As it
is now, I see patients and wait between 30 and 90 days to get
paid. My practice requires two full-time staff members for billing.
My two secretaries spend about half their time collecting insurance
information. Plus, there's $9,000 in computer expenses yearly
to handle the insurance information and billing follow up. I
suspect I could go from four people in the paper chase to one
with a single-payer system.
It would be simpler and better
for the patient, and for me, if the patient could choose a doctor,
bring their ID card with them, swipe it in a card reader at the
time of service and have the doctor get paid on the spot with
electronic funds transfer.
Instead, patients have to negotiate
a maze of deductibles, provider networks, out-of-network costs,
exclusions, policy riders, ER surcharges, etc. Wouldn't a card
swipe be simpler? No preexisting conditions to worry about. No
indecipherable hospital bills. One formulary to deal with and
one set of administrative rules to learn instead of 300.
With a single-payer system, there
are concerns about waiting times for procedures and not getting
access to the "best doctors." These are real issues,
but not unsolvable ones. We have these disparities now. Fact
is, they are mostly a matter of geography, insurance status and
personal wealth.
A single-payer system would increase
access to care for the uninsured and the underinsured, including
the working poor. It would lower total health costs, in part
by replacing 50 different state Medicaid programs and umpteen
insurers with one system. This approach has the potential to
improve quality and lower costs by improving care for chronic
illnesses such as diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease.
. .
I used to think a single-payer
system would keep my income down and inject bureaucracy into
my medical decision-making. But with the efficiency it could
bring, it would at worst be an economic wash; more likely, the
trimmed costs would more than make up for any foregone revenue.
As for autonomy, I'm already struggling to maintain it amid the
interference of insurers.
[Benjamin Brewer is a doctor
with a family practice in the rural village of Forrest, Il]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114528925682927634.html
BUSH HAS MORE THAN DOUBLED COST OF MEDICARE
IN COVERT ATTACK ON PLAN
BLOOMBERG - The U.S. Medicare
plan will ask elderly people to pay 11 percent more in health-insurance
premiums for doctors' visits next year, the program's trustees
said in a report released yesterday. Medicare intends to charge
a monthly premium of $98.20 in 2007, up from $88.50 this year,
the trustees said. The premium has more than doubled from the
$45.50 charged in 2000. The Senate Democrats yesterday said they
want to peg the premium increases to the Consumer Price Index,
a measure used to track economic growth, to slow rate hikes.
http://tinyurl.com/ltzw6
APRIL 2006
MIDDLE CLASS WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE
SOARING
NICK TIMIRAOS, LA TIMES - The number of uninsured adults who
earn between $20,000 and $40,000 annually is rising, according
to a study released today - suggesting that fewer employers are
providing healthcare coverage. That study, along with one that
says the uninsured are likely to seek treatment only when they
become seriously ill, coincides with a national campaign, Cover
the Uninsured, to make healthcare coverage a top legislative
priority.
Research by the Commonwealth
Fund, a nonpartisan New York-based foundation that examines healthcare
issues, found that the percentage of moderate-income Americans
who were without insurance for at least part of the year had
jumped sharply over four years - from 28% in 2001 to 41% in 2005.
ROMNEY HEALTHCARE PLAN IS A CON
STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER AND DAVID
HIMMELSTEIN, PHYSICIANS FOR A NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM - The politicians
assumed that only about 500,000 people in Massachusetts are uninsured.
The Census Bureau says that 748,000 are uninsured. Why the difference?
The 500,000 figure comes from a phone survey conducted in English
and Spanish. Anyone without a phone or who speaks another language
is counted as insured. The 748,000 figure comes from a door-to-door
survey carried out in many languages (including Portuguese and
Haitian Creole, common languages in Massachusetts). In sum, the
reform plan wishes away 248,000 uninsured people who don't have
phones or don't speak English or Spanish. It provides no funding
or means to get them coverage.
Second, the linchpin of the plan
is the false assumption that uninsured people will be able to
find affordable health plans. A typical group policy in Massachusetts
costs about $4500 annually for an individual and more than $11,000
for family coverage. A wealthy uninsured person could afford
that ­ but few of the uninsured are wealthy. A 25 year old
fitness instructor can find a cheaper plan. But few of the uninsured
are young and healthy. According to Census Bureau figures, only
12.4% of the 748,000 uninsured in Massachusetts are both young
enough to qualify for low-premium plans (under age 35) and affluent
enough (incomes greater than 499% of poverty) to readily afford
them. Yet even this 12.4% figure may be too high if insurers
are allowed to charge higher premiums for persons with health
problems; only half of uninsured persons in those age and income
categories report that they are in "excellent health".
The legislation promises that
the uninsured will be offered comprehensive, affordable private
health plans. But that's like promising chocolate chip cookies
with no fat, sugar or calories. The only way to get cheaper plans
is to strip down the coverage ­ boost co-payments, deductibles,
uncovered services etc.
Hence, the requirement that most
of the uninsured purchase coverage will either require them to
pay money they don't have, or buy nearly worthless stripped down
policies that represent coverage in name only.
Third, the legislation will do
nothing to contain the skyrocketing costs of care in Massachusetts
­ already the highest in the world. Indeed, it gives new
infusions of cash to hospitals and private insurers. Predictably,
rising costs will force more and more employers to drop coverage,
while state coffers will be drained by the continuing cost increases
in Medicaid. Moreover, when the next recession hits, tax revenues
will fall just as a flood of newly unemployed people join the
Medicaid program or apply for the insurance subsidies promised
in the reform legislation. The program is simply not sustainable
over the long ­ or even medium ­ term.
What Are the Alternatives?
A single payer universal coverage
plan could cut costs by streamlining health care paperwork, making
health care affordable. Massachusetts Blue Cross spends only
86% of premiums paying for care. It spends the rest - more than
$700 million last year - on billing, marketing and other administrative
costs. Harvard Pilgrim and Tufts Health Plan ­ our other
big insurers - are little better; each took in about $300 million
more than it paid out. That's ten times as much overhead per
enrollee as Canada's national health insurance program. And our
hospitals and doctors spent billions more fighting with insurers
over payments.
Overall, Massachusetts residents
will spend $13.3 billion on health care bureaucracy this year
­ nearly one third of our total health bill. If we cut bureaucracy
to Canada's levels we could save $9.4 billion annually, enough
to cover all of the 748,000 uninsured in Massachusetts and to
improve coverage for the rest of us.
Study after study ­ by the
Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office and
even the Massachusetts Medical Society - have confirmed that
single payer is the only route to affordable universal coverage.
And single payer is popular.
The Massachusetts Nurses Association supports it along with dozens
of other labor, seniors and consumer groups; so do 62% of Massachusetts
physicians according to a recent survey. National polls find
that almost two-thirds of Americans favor a tax-funded plan like
Medicare that would cover all Americans.
But single payer national health
insurance threatens the multi-million dollar paychecks of insurance
executives, and the outrageous profits of drug companies and
medical entrepreneurs.
http://www.pnhp.org
MARCH 2006
PHARMACISTS SAY BUSH DRUG PLAN IS BAD
FOR THEM, TOO
ROBERT PEAR, NY TIMES Pharmacists say they have been losing
money under Medicare's new prescription drug benefit, and they
have taken their concerns to the White House, forcing the administration
to confront political problems caused by the rocky start of the
program. Bill C. Pittman arranged a meeting with the White House
on behalf of Texas pharmacists. In a meeting last week with Karl
Rove, the president's senior adviser, the druggists said many
independent pharmacies might have to shut their doors because
they were not being paid adequately or promptly under Medicare.
In the last two months, they said, pharmacists have given away
millions of dollars' worth of medications for which Medicare
drug plans should have paid. The pharmacists who visited the
White House were all from Texas. Several have close ties to Mr.
Rove and President Bush. But their concerns are shared by retail
pharmacists across the country, who said that Medicare drug plans
were paying them less than it cost to fill prescriptions for
the beneficiaries. . .
The pharmacists underscored the
political significance of their concerns in a report presented
to Mr. Rove and Allan B. Hubbard, assistant to the president
for economic policy. "Most independent community pharmacists
are small-business Republicans," the report said. "Pharmacists
want to be supportive of this administration, and they can play
an active role in the midterm elections. But pharmacists need
to be able to point to some corrective actions being taken by
the administration."
FIVE MYTHS ABOUT NATIONAL HEALTHCARE
[Tyler Zimmer, Campus Progress]
Myth #1: It would be too expensive
UHC would actually reduce the
cost of health care. The Congressional Budget Office estimated
that UHC could save up to $14 billion annually by spreading the
risk evenly over the entire population, eliminating deductibles
and co-pays and making preventive medicine available to the poor
and uninsured. The federal government already subsidizes private
health insurance in the form of tax deductions.
Private insurance companies also
spend billions on administration and overhead, advertising, and
determining and inspecting patient eligibility, all while trying
to make a profit. UHC would not be burdened with some of those
costs, like advertising, and unlike private business, it could
run at a loss and still be viable. . .
Myth #2: It would require a huge,
inefficient bureaucracy
The current system is already
a huge, inefficient bureaucracy! As previously mentioned, much
of the unnecessary overhead and micromanaging in the system now
could be eliminated if UHC were implemented. For example, the
bureaucracy and paperwork involved in determining patient eligibility
would be completely unnecessary if everyone were eligible and
covered. Insurance companies spend an estimated 25 cents of every
dollar on administration. Canada, which already has a comprehensive
UHC in place and still manages to pay 70 percent less per citizen
on health care, spends about the equivalent of about 12 cents
of every dollar on administration.
Myth #3: It would restrict patient
choice
UHC wouldn't directly dictate
what doctor you have to see in order to get treatment and would
thus enable more choice in selecting a physician than the current
system would for many, if not most, Americans.
Myth #4: It would be a socialist
seizure of the medical industry
It would be nothing of the sort.
Socialized medicine would entail hospitals and doctors becoming
employees of the state. UHC only provides funding for people's
health care, but doesn't provide the health care itself. . .
UHC would be no more socialist than Medicare and arguably less
so than public education.
Myth #5: UHC would impede economic
growth
An added benefit of UHC would
be that private business would no longer have to worry about
health-care benefits, and employees wouldn't have to remain in
unpleasant jobs just to keep their benefits. Benefits wouldn't
interfere with wage increases, and employers would have more
|