I think the evidence is pretty clear that we don't. As the article points out, we're by far the biggest spender in the world, yet the quality of care we're getting doesn't measure up. If we spent that money more efficiently, we'd have the best health outcomes to go along with the best health professionals and technology. How do we do that? Single-Payer of course.
Canadians Healthier Than Americans, Survey Says
TUESDAY, May 30 (HealthDay News) -- Canadians are healthier than Americans, have better access to health care and have fewer unmet health needs, a new study of both countries reveals.
The findings come in spite of the fact that the United States spends almost twice as much per capita on health care as Canada, the researchers noted.
"This shows that you can spend much less than we [Americans] do, and deliver much more and better care then we do," said study co-author Dr. David U. Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Cambridge, Mass. ...
Read the full article
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Illinois candidates supporting national health insurance
I thought I might focus on our fine state of Illinois for a change -- afterall, the blog is named "Illinois Single Payer". I'm going to start featuring candidates who are supportive of national health insurance. Below are the first two, both trying to win seats in the U.S. Congress this November.
Dan Seals for Congress (10th District)
"I believe we need to develop a national program of health insurance that provides a basic level of health care that is portable and affordable. Making the investment in a national health insurance program will pay dividends in the future, because Americans will be healthier, worker productivity will increase, and our businesses will be more competitive globally."
Read a full description of Dan Seals' views on healthcare
John Laesh for Congress (14th District)
"Expand Medicare coverage to all Americans as a voluntary alternative to our expensive and inefficient private insurance system."
Read a full description of John Laesh's views on healthcare
Dan Seals for Congress (10th District)
"I believe we need to develop a national program of health insurance that provides a basic level of health care that is portable and affordable. Making the investment in a national health insurance program will pay dividends in the future, because Americans will be healthier, worker productivity will increase, and our businesses will be more competitive globally."
Read a full description of Dan Seals' views on healthcare
John Laesh for Congress (14th District)
"Expand Medicare coverage to all Americans as a voluntary alternative to our expensive and inefficient private insurance system."
Read a full description of John Laesh's views on healthcare
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Medicare then and now
This article compares the rollouts of the original Medicare plan and that of Part D. One went smoothly and one didn't -- not hard to guess which is which. One plan had the best interest of seniors in mind, the other that of big pharma and the insurance companies. One is a model of efficiency, the other a boondoggle of needless complexity. Bush and his group of small government (when it suits them) fanatics did a good job trying to undermine a longstanding program with a proven social benefit; one that coincidentally is an example of an efficient, public single payer system.
A tale of two Medicare plan rollouts
By Saul Friedman
Newsday.com
... "Medicare has become the most popular and successful program of the last 40 years," Hayes said, "because the president [Lyndon Johnson] believed in the efficacy of government."
And author Nancy Altman ("The Battle for Social Security") said that while Johnson and the Congress relied on professionals in government to design Medicare, President George W. Bush and the Republican leadership disdained government and Part D was written in secret by drug and insurance industry lobbyists, then narrowly passed under cover of darkness. ...
Read the full article
A tale of two Medicare plan rollouts
By Saul Friedman
Newsday.com
... "Medicare has become the most popular and successful program of the last 40 years," Hayes said, "because the president [Lyndon Johnson] believed in the efficacy of government."
And author Nancy Altman ("The Battle for Social Security") said that while Johnson and the Congress relied on professionals in government to design Medicare, President George W. Bush and the Republican leadership disdained government and Part D was written in secret by drug and insurance industry lobbyists, then narrowly passed under cover of darkness. ...
Read the full article
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
MoveOn seeking issues for "positive agenda"
MoveOn members across the country are hosting "Positive Agenda House Parties" tomorrow (May 25), where they will discuss the issues they think the organization should be active in. May I suggest that if you're going to one, you push for real healthcare reform in the form of single-payer? Because of the Massachusetts bill, universal healthcare is on a lot of people's minds, but we'll continue to get incomplete and faulty reform until we pressure the pols to enact a single-payer system. These piecemeal, incremental reforms will further delay any implementation of single payer, and true healthcare reform can't wait; too many people are suffering now.
Single-Payer healthcare is an issue religious progressives should embrace
The following article was written to take religious progressives to task for their insignificance in the current political debate. The author lists 7 issues he thinks religious progressives should fight for. One of these, as you might have guessed, is a single-payer healthcare system. I have to say I agree with the other planks of this platform as well. They're issues that both the religious and non-religious should get behind if they truly believe in social justice.
Peter Laarman: All Stand Down: Conceptual Confusion on the Religious Left
from HuffingtonPost.com
... My own list of unifying issues would include: (1) attacking domestic poverty by insisting on livable wages and the right to organize; (2) implementing a radically different energy policy designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions; (3) demanding a return to progressive taxation in the United States of America; (4) guaranteeing health care for all through some form of single payer system; (5) saving American democracy itself by separating our legislators from the corporate teat; (6) dismantling America's dysfunctional and appallingly racist prison-industrial complex; and (7) transforming foreign policy through serious development assistance for the Global South and a reversal of the "dominance doctrine" the neocons put into place following 9-11. ...
Read full article
Peter Laarman: All Stand Down: Conceptual Confusion on the Religious Left
from HuffingtonPost.com
... My own list of unifying issues would include: (1) attacking domestic poverty by insisting on livable wages and the right to organize; (2) implementing a radically different energy policy designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions; (3) demanding a return to progressive taxation in the United States of America; (4) guaranteeing health care for all through some form of single payer system; (5) saving American democracy itself by separating our legislators from the corporate teat; (6) dismantling America's dysfunctional and appallingly racist prison-industrial complex; and (7) transforming foreign policy through serious development assistance for the Global South and a reversal of the "dominance doctrine" the neocons put into place following 9-11. ...
Read full article
Monday, May 22, 2006
Excellent article on the new Vermont healthcare bill
The following is a very good article by an Vermont internist. It lays out the problems with taking an incrementalist approach to healthcare reform -- especially one that ignores the major driving force behind the escalation of healthcare costs: the private insurers that lobby to preserve their existence in every universal healthcare bill that gets passed. He lays out the most compelling arguments for a single-payer system. How long will it take before our elected officials start listening to those with the public interest in mind, not the profits of private insurers?
Catamount Health offers little in the way of reform
By MARVIN MALEK, MD
... The Medicaid program will be under sustained pressure because it serves as the bottom of the safety net. The sickest — and most expensive people to insure – end up insured through the Medicaid program when they become too ill to work and exhaust their savings.
While you're adding a new population for the state to insure by not taking on the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, you are leaving aside the best tactic to reduce costs. The current system of multiple private health insurance companies adds enormous amounts of administrative expense. I see it every day as we contend with complex insurance company policies which attempt to avoid paying any and every medical bill, and I can only imagine the parallel expense taking place at the other end of the phone line at the insurance company. And by not consolidating into one large insurer for the entire population, we fragment our ability to get serious about negotiating down the prices of medical supplies and prescription drugs — and to create a better coordinated system of care for those with chronic illnesses. ...
What does that mean to me? Yet more sets of rules for our practice to contend with. And I can only imagine the administrative burden the chronic care initiative will place on primary care practices.
Worse yet, I fear the passage of the Catamount bill will sideline the push for more meaningful health reform. We'll all be asked to give the new program a chance to work, likely putting the brakes on effective health reform for at least three, and maybe four or five years. Meanwhile, there will be ever more underinsured patients, ever higher health costs, ever greater Medicaid deficits. ...
Read full article
Catamount Health offers little in the way of reform
By MARVIN MALEK, MD
... The Medicaid program will be under sustained pressure because it serves as the bottom of the safety net. The sickest — and most expensive people to insure – end up insured through the Medicaid program when they become too ill to work and exhaust their savings.
While you're adding a new population for the state to insure by not taking on the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, you are leaving aside the best tactic to reduce costs. The current system of multiple private health insurance companies adds enormous amounts of administrative expense. I see it every day as we contend with complex insurance company policies which attempt to avoid paying any and every medical bill, and I can only imagine the parallel expense taking place at the other end of the phone line at the insurance company. And by not consolidating into one large insurer for the entire population, we fragment our ability to get serious about negotiating down the prices of medical supplies and prescription drugs — and to create a better coordinated system of care for those with chronic illnesses. ...
What does that mean to me? Yet more sets of rules for our practice to contend with. And I can only imagine the administrative burden the chronic care initiative will place on primary care practices.
Worse yet, I fear the passage of the Catamount bill will sideline the push for more meaningful health reform. We'll all be asked to give the new program a chance to work, likely putting the brakes on effective health reform for at least three, and maybe four or five years. Meanwhile, there will be ever more underinsured patients, ever higher health costs, ever greater Medicaid deficits. ...
Read full article
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Action Week for H.R. 676 begins on 06/07/06
The organization Healthcare NOW! is putting together an "action week" beginning on June 7 -- the date that corresponds to the pro-single payer Conyers Bill's number (H.R. 676). Below is some info that they've posted on their site. To see more detailed information, you can go to their June 7th page.
"JUNE 7TH WILL BE UNIQUE and a historic day. It will happen once, and only once - never to come around again. 6/7/6 corresponds with the identifying numbers on the United States National Health Insurance Act, H.R. 676.
"HELP PEOPLE REMEMBER THE NUMBER! -- 676 -- IN a national strategy meeting, Healthcare-NOW adopted the idea of using the alignment of these 676 numbers to educate people on the issue. Congressional Representatives will be stating their commitment on that date. And we are organizing hundreds of events nationwide on that date. We hope to galvanize people to action with the understanding that it is indeed possible to win a national - single payer healthcare system and soon. People should know that HR 676 is a great resource for helping us do it."
"JUNE 7TH WILL BE UNIQUE and a historic day. It will happen once, and only once - never to come around again. 6/7/6 corresponds with the identifying numbers on the United States National Health Insurance Act, H.R. 676.
"HELP PEOPLE REMEMBER THE NUMBER! -- 676 -- IN a national strategy meeting, Healthcare-NOW adopted the idea of using the alignment of these 676 numbers to educate people on the issue. Congressional Representatives will be stating their commitment on that date. And we are organizing hundreds of events nationwide on that date. We hope to galvanize people to action with the understanding that it is indeed possible to win a national - single payer healthcare system and soon. People should know that HR 676 is a great resource for helping us do it."
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Some more detail on the Vermont universal hc bill
The article below includes more detailed info about the Vermont healthcare bill that was recently passed. It, like the Massachusetts bill, does nothing to solve the main problem behind spiralling healthcare costs -- the high overhead and profit-taking that occurs when healthcare is administered by private insurers. It does allow for a review of the job these insurers are doing running Vermont's new Catamount Health program after 2 years, with the possibility of handing things over to a public agency. My cynnical nature leads me to believe that the forces currently in place won't allow that to happen, no matter how bad things are -- not without some serious grassroots pressure. It's also interesting to note that studies have been made that show costs inevitably increase when private plans duplicate services provided by public ones. See the PDF of the article National Health Insurance or Incremental Reform: Aim High, or at Our Feet?
Reform is in the eye of the beholder
By Shay Totten Vermont Guardian
The words rang out loud and clear across the Green Mountain State at the end of the legislative session — health care reform was finally achieved after nearly two years of partisan bickering.
But many long-time reform watchers say the final compromise between lawmakers and the governor will do little to actually bring down the cost of health care or health insurance in the short term. They predict that it may leave many Vermonters expecting a decrease in premiums with a bad taste in their mouths.
The compromise health care bill, which many Republicans and nearly all Progressives refused to support, puts in motion a plan, Catamount Health, aimed at covering as many as 25,000 uninsured Vermonters, helping those who are underinsured, and lowering the premiums for those enrolled in one of the Medicaid-funded plans.
In the end, Democrats agreed to let existing private insurance companies sell Catamount Health to Vermonters rather than have the plan offered through a third-party administrator (TPA). Democrats had wanted a fallback, TPA-run plan if the private insurers balked. So the Douglas administration offered a provision to require that all insurers carry the new plan, and that at the end of two years the system can be examined to determine if it is working. At that time, the Legislature could decide to have Catamount Health run by a third-party administrator. ...
Read the full article
Reform is in the eye of the beholder
By Shay Totten Vermont Guardian
The words rang out loud and clear across the Green Mountain State at the end of the legislative session — health care reform was finally achieved after nearly two years of partisan bickering.
But many long-time reform watchers say the final compromise between lawmakers and the governor will do little to actually bring down the cost of health care or health insurance in the short term. They predict that it may leave many Vermonters expecting a decrease in premiums with a bad taste in their mouths.
The compromise health care bill, which many Republicans and nearly all Progressives refused to support, puts in motion a plan, Catamount Health, aimed at covering as many as 25,000 uninsured Vermonters, helping those who are underinsured, and lowering the premiums for those enrolled in one of the Medicaid-funded plans.
In the end, Democrats agreed to let existing private insurance companies sell Catamount Health to Vermonters rather than have the plan offered through a third-party administrator (TPA). Democrats had wanted a fallback, TPA-run plan if the private insurers balked. So the Douglas administration offered a provision to require that all insurers carry the new plan, and that at the end of two years the system can be examined to determine if it is working. At that time, the Legislature could decide to have Catamount Health run by a third-party administrator. ...
Read the full article
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Some stats on national healthcare trends
One of the beautful things about the Internet is the tremendous variety of sources from which you can cull information. Today my Googling eyes discovered an article from the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder. It's interesting for a few different reasons: 1. It includes some good but sad statistics on healthcare trends in this country; 2. The first woman interviewed has a great quote that encapsulates the moral imperative to fix this problem now; 3. It includes the comments of an advocate for a single-payer system; 4. It includes a strange quote from a health insurance representative -- you tell me if you can make sense of it. I'm including the juiciest bits below -- feel free to follow the link to the full article as always.
Health insurance crisis calls for deep reform
By: Chris Nisan
“It doesn’t seem right for people to make money off of people’s suffering and sickness,” said Tina Masiee. ...
According to a January 2006 report issued by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, ... since 2000 the number of uninsured people 65 years and under has increased by six million. ...
• Employer-sponsored healthcare coverage dropped by five percentage points between 2000 and 2004.
• Two-thirds of this growth in uninsured adults occurred among the poorer sections of the working class.
• The majority of these uninsured are those who work but whose incomes don’t allow them to buy health insurance.
• Those of oppressed nationalities are uninsured at a higher rate than Whites.
• The uninsured rate among Black people is 21 percent.
... “We need a new healthcare system,” said protest organizer Joel Elbers. “Everybody in, nobody out — not the usual practice.” Elbers, a working pharmacist and health economic researcher active in the Minnesota Universal Healthcare Action Network, explained that he is for fundamental reform of the healthcare system in the United States. He explained that he stands for a universal system of federally funded health insurance for all — what he describes as a single-payer system. ...
"Our views on some important issues are identical, like universal health care,” said Lindsay, representing the position of United Health Care. “The only thing that differs is the financing mechanisms they propose. There are some who believe that the federal government should run the system, some that the system should be left in private hands. I don’t think the two positions are completely inconsistent.”
Read the full article
Health insurance crisis calls for deep reform
By: Chris Nisan
“It doesn’t seem right for people to make money off of people’s suffering and sickness,” said Tina Masiee. ...
According to a January 2006 report issued by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, ... since 2000 the number of uninsured people 65 years and under has increased by six million. ...
• Employer-sponsored healthcare coverage dropped by five percentage points between 2000 and 2004.
• Two-thirds of this growth in uninsured adults occurred among the poorer sections of the working class.
• The majority of these uninsured are those who work but whose incomes don’t allow them to buy health insurance.
• Those of oppressed nationalities are uninsured at a higher rate than Whites.
• The uninsured rate among Black people is 21 percent.
... “We need a new healthcare system,” said protest organizer Joel Elbers. “Everybody in, nobody out — not the usual practice.” Elbers, a working pharmacist and health economic researcher active in the Minnesota Universal Healthcare Action Network, explained that he is for fundamental reform of the healthcare system in the United States. He explained that he stands for a universal system of federally funded health insurance for all — what he describes as a single-payer system. ...
"Our views on some important issues are identical, like universal health care,” said Lindsay, representing the position of United Health Care. “The only thing that differs is the financing mechanisms they propose. There are some who believe that the federal government should run the system, some that the system should be left in private hands. I don’t think the two positions are completely inconsistent.”
Read the full article
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Real universal health care proposal in PA?
Kudos to Pennsylvania State Senator Jim Ferlo and his colleagues for having the guts to propose what looks like a real solution to the health care crisis ...
Healthy Choice
A Pennsylvania state senator proposes universal coverage for state residents.
by Jesse Smith, Philadelphia Weekly
Last month Massachusetts garnered national attention for legislation heralded as an answer to the state's-and possibly the nation's-problem of health coverage gaps. Requiring that all residents have health insurance, the state will subsidize coverage for the poor but will force others to purchase theirs through private insurers.
In Pennsylvania, legislators led by state Sen. Jim Ferlo and healthcare advocates are working on their own plan for universal coverage, one that would take private insurers out of the mix entirely.
"We needed a model bill out there for public debate," Ferlo says. "Change isn't going to happen in a vacuum. This is our plan, and now the legislature, governor and candidates can react to it."
Now in the Public Health and Welfare Committee, Senate Bill 1085-the Balanced and Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act-proposes the establishment of a state-run healthcare trust as a means of repairing a system Ferlo describes as a "sick patient in need of radical surgery."
Funded by a 10 percent payroll tax on employers, a 3 percent individual wellness tax on personal income and federal money, the program would cover most medical services (with the exception of cosmetic procedures) and make no exclusions of preexisting conditions. Unlike most traditional insurance plans, the proposed system would cover those services without a beneficiary copay or deductible.
Read the full article
Healthy Choice
A Pennsylvania state senator proposes universal coverage for state residents.
by Jesse Smith, Philadelphia Weekly
Last month Massachusetts garnered national attention for legislation heralded as an answer to the state's-and possibly the nation's-problem of health coverage gaps. Requiring that all residents have health insurance, the state will subsidize coverage for the poor but will force others to purchase theirs through private insurers.
In Pennsylvania, legislators led by state Sen. Jim Ferlo and healthcare advocates are working on their own plan for universal coverage, one that would take private insurers out of the mix entirely.
"We needed a model bill out there for public debate," Ferlo says. "Change isn't going to happen in a vacuum. This is our plan, and now the legislature, governor and candidates can react to it."
Now in the Public Health and Welfare Committee, Senate Bill 1085-the Balanced and Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act-proposes the establishment of a state-run healthcare trust as a means of repairing a system Ferlo describes as a "sick patient in need of radical surgery."
Funded by a 10 percent payroll tax on employers, a 3 percent individual wellness tax on personal income and federal money, the program would cover most medical services (with the exception of cosmetic procedures) and make no exclusions of preexisting conditions. Unlike most traditional insurance plans, the proposed system would cover those services without a beneficiary copay or deductible.
Read the full article
Shameless self promotion
I'll be extolling the virtues of single-payer at two upcoming public events. All are welcome.
1. Niles Township Democratic Meetup
Thursday, May 18th, 7pm
Edwardo's (back room)
9300 Skokie Blvd, Skokie IL (at the Gross Point Rd. intersection)
2. Free Symposium: Health Care for the Mind and Body
Tuesday, May 23, 5:30-9:30 pm
Lake Side Cafe, 1418 Howard St., Chicago IL
Presented and organized by Sharon Hyson, Art Therapist / Educator / Artist. Learn and experience why all elected officials and CEO's of health centers should have an art therapist on their team to facilitate arts programming for all ages which woud aid in increasing mental health / wellness in the community and learn why unversal health care is not only necessary but possible and why denial of health care today is tantamount to murder
5:30 -6:30: Health Care for the Mind - A talk and experiential art making workshop with Sharon Hyson.
7:00 -9:30: Panel discussion on Health Care including Emilie Junge, Francis Scudellari, Kathleen Gruber and Arlene Rakoncay.
1. Niles Township Democratic Meetup
Thursday, May 18th, 7pm
Edwardo's (back room)
9300 Skokie Blvd, Skokie IL (at the Gross Point Rd. intersection)
2. Free Symposium: Health Care for the Mind and Body
Tuesday, May 23, 5:30-9:30 pm
Lake Side Cafe, 1418 Howard St., Chicago IL
Presented and organized by Sharon Hyson, Art Therapist / Educator / Artist. Learn and experience why all elected officials and CEO's of health centers should have an art therapist on their team to facilitate arts programming for all ages which woud aid in increasing mental health / wellness in the community and learn why unversal health care is not only necessary but possible and why denial of health care today is tantamount to murder
5:30 -6:30: Health Care for the Mind - A talk and experiential art making workshop with Sharon Hyson.
7:00 -9:30: Panel discussion on Health Care including Emilie Junge, Francis Scudellari, Kathleen Gruber and Arlene Rakoncay.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Article on the status of healthcare reform in Ohio
The following article from the Cincinnati Enquirer details the various forces at play in the fight for universal healthcare -- politicians, small business, insurance companies, consumer advocates. So far, despite almost one million residents without coverage, they're at a stalemate. The Single Payer Action Network is trying to put a binding referendum on the ballot in 2007 to send the pols a message about how the public wants to solve the crisis.
Ohio health care needs fix
But too many varied concerns in way of insurance solution
BY KATHY BERGSTROM ENQUIRER CONTRIBUTOR
COLUMBUS - Few legislators expect the Ohio General Assembly this year to pass the kind of major health care reforms that Massachusetts enacted last month.
That's because while members of both parties, as well as lobbyists for business and consumers, see the need for change in Ohio, there are fundamental disagreements on how to improve health care here. ...
"One of the things going for us is the existing system is collapsing," said Dr. Donald Rucknagel of Cincinnati, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Cincinnati and at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center.
Rucknagel is regional coordinator for the Single Payer Action Network Ohio group, which is working toward getting a measure to create a single-payer universal health care system on the Ohio ballot in 2007. The system would create a single fund to pay for health care and would be paid for by three different taxes. ...
The current legislature may engage in "tweaking around the edges and taking a couple of shots at some interesting ideas," said House Minority Whip Rep. Steve Driehaus, a Cincinnati Democrat. "We're not talking about health care reform the way the state of Massachusetts has talked about health care reform."
Legislators in Ohio fail to see the big picture or the crisis when they talk about health care reform, he said. No one is challenging employer-based health care, Driehaus said, and no one is standing up for those without health insurance - 11.8 percent of the state's population, or roughly 970,000 people in 2004, according to the most recent Census Bureau estimate.
More states will try to take action because of the lack of leadership at the federal level, Driehaus predicted. But Ohio is not there yet, he said. ...
Read full article
Ohio health care needs fix
But too many varied concerns in way of insurance solution
BY KATHY BERGSTROM ENQUIRER CONTRIBUTOR
COLUMBUS - Few legislators expect the Ohio General Assembly this year to pass the kind of major health care reforms that Massachusetts enacted last month.
That's because while members of both parties, as well as lobbyists for business and consumers, see the need for change in Ohio, there are fundamental disagreements on how to improve health care here. ...
"One of the things going for us is the existing system is collapsing," said Dr. Donald Rucknagel of Cincinnati, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Cincinnati and at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center.
Rucknagel is regional coordinator for the Single Payer Action Network Ohio group, which is working toward getting a measure to create a single-payer universal health care system on the Ohio ballot in 2007. The system would create a single fund to pay for health care and would be paid for by three different taxes. ...
The current legislature may engage in "tweaking around the edges and taking a couple of shots at some interesting ideas," said House Minority Whip Rep. Steve Driehaus, a Cincinnati Democrat. "We're not talking about health care reform the way the state of Massachusetts has talked about health care reform."
Legislators in Ohio fail to see the big picture or the crisis when they talk about health care reform, he said. No one is challenging employer-based health care, Driehaus said, and no one is standing up for those without health insurance - 11.8 percent of the state's population, or roughly 970,000 people in 2004, according to the most recent Census Bureau estimate.
More states will try to take action because of the lack of leadership at the federal level, Driehaus predicted. But Ohio is not there yet, he said. ...
Read full article
Friday, May 12, 2006
Oregon nurses take lead in fight for universal healthcare
I found the following article on the Portland Tribune site. It details how the Oregon Nurses Association is working to put an initiative on the November ballot that promotes affordable healthcare for all.
Nurses brainstorm universal care
By SUSAN KING
... Our state seems ready to make a serious and sincere effort to improve health and health care. Oregon’s nurses are stepping up to make it happen.
We are asking that you join us. State Rep. Mitch Greenlick, D-District 33, along with state Sen. Alan Bates, D-District 3, and state Sen. Ben Westlund, I-District 27 (a candidate for governor), have proposed an initiative called Healthcare Options Provided Efficiently. It would place health care on the same level of importance as public education by making access to affordable health care a fundamental right.
The Oregon Nurses Association and many other associations of health care professionals and health care consumer groups are taking this effort into the streets in an effort to collect the signatures needed to place HOPE on the November ballot.
HOPE initiates a crucial conversation about the future of health care. Will we continue to have a disconnected, and often overlapping, quilt of services? Do we continue to pick who gets care and who doesn’t based on traits such as age, income or choice of employer? Do we accept as inevitable that the cost of health care will rise beyond the ability for most individuals and employers to pay? ...
Read the full article
Nurses brainstorm universal care
By SUSAN KING
... Our state seems ready to make a serious and sincere effort to improve health and health care. Oregon’s nurses are stepping up to make it happen.
We are asking that you join us. State Rep. Mitch Greenlick, D-District 33, along with state Sen. Alan Bates, D-District 3, and state Sen. Ben Westlund, I-District 27 (a candidate for governor), have proposed an initiative called Healthcare Options Provided Efficiently. It would place health care on the same level of importance as public education by making access to affordable health care a fundamental right.
The Oregon Nurses Association and many other associations of health care professionals and health care consumer groups are taking this effort into the streets in an effort to collect the signatures needed to place HOPE on the November ballot.
HOPE initiates a crucial conversation about the future of health care. Will we continue to have a disconnected, and often overlapping, quilt of services? Do we continue to pick who gets care and who doesn’t based on traits such as age, income or choice of employer? Do we accept as inevitable that the cost of health care will rise beyond the ability for most individuals and employers to pay? ...
Read the full article
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Michigan Gov proposes universal hc plan
Yet another universal healthcare proposal at the state level; and once again the details are sketchy. The good news is that the politicians are finally beginning to act. It remains to be seen whether the solutions they're coming up with will have any real benefit, or will end up simply feeding the bottom lines of the private insurers.
Granholm proposes health care coverage
Mark Hornbeck / Detroit News Lansing Bureau
LANSING -- Gov. Jennifer Granholm unveiled a universal health care plan for Michigan Thursday designed to cover all 1.1 million state residents who are currently uninsured.
The proposal, patterned after a law recently passed in Massachusetts, is an expansion of a plan announced in January that would provide heath coverage to the 550,000 Michiganians below 200 percent of the poverty level -- which is $38,700 for a family of four.
Her new plan also would offer health care insurance to the working poor above that level who don't have coverage. The state would subsidize premiums on a sliding scale depending on family income. It's uncertain how much participants would have to pay. ...
The Michigan plan would mirror the Massachusetts version in providing coverage to the uninsured but, unlike Massachusetts, residents would not be required to have health insurance.
Read the full article
Granholm proposes health care coverage
Mark Hornbeck / Detroit News Lansing Bureau
LANSING -- Gov. Jennifer Granholm unveiled a universal health care plan for Michigan Thursday designed to cover all 1.1 million state residents who are currently uninsured.
The proposal, patterned after a law recently passed in Massachusetts, is an expansion of a plan announced in January that would provide heath coverage to the 550,000 Michiganians below 200 percent of the poverty level -- which is $38,700 for a family of four.
Her new plan also would offer health care insurance to the working poor above that level who don't have coverage. The state would subsidize premiums on a sliding scale depending on family income. It's uncertain how much participants would have to pay. ...
The Michigan plan would mirror the Massachusetts version in providing coverage to the uninsured but, unlike Massachusetts, residents would not be required to have health insurance.
Read the full article
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
The opportunity for universal healthcare past & present
This is a good article outlining the past missed opportunities for universal healthcare, and how the issue will become a top priority with the American people again soon.
Bubba blew it. But can U.S. health care be fixed?
Other government programs, healthier nations show it's possible
By Robert Bazell
Chief science and health correspondent
MSNBC
... But Clinton refused to accept it. Instead he allowed Hillary Clinton to set up one of the great farcical bureaucratic efforts of all time — her commission to reform health care. As the months dragged on, it became the shooting gallery where every one of the myriad special interests in health care could fire off repeated rounds, killing any chance of reform.
Clinton’s missed opportunity was the third time since World War II that universal health care was on the table with a serious desire for results. Harry Truman wanted it. So did Lyndon Johnson. Truman got nothing and Johnson, with his masterful control of Congress, managed to win Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor, but universal coverage escaped him. For Truman and Johnson, the American Medical Association led the charge against what they saw as “socialized medicine.”
Thus America remains the only industrialized country where financing health is not considered a government function like building highways and supporting national defense. We have a right to clean water piped to our homes, but not access to medical care.
Why repeat this history? Because health care reform will become a big deal again soon. Right now the Iraq war and gas prices are dominating the political discussion, but lack of affordable heath care impacts so many Americans that it must rise to the top of the agenda again. ...
Read the full article
Bubba blew it. But can U.S. health care be fixed?
Other government programs, healthier nations show it's possible
By Robert Bazell
Chief science and health correspondent
MSNBC
... But Clinton refused to accept it. Instead he allowed Hillary Clinton to set up one of the great farcical bureaucratic efforts of all time — her commission to reform health care. As the months dragged on, it became the shooting gallery where every one of the myriad special interests in health care could fire off repeated rounds, killing any chance of reform.
Clinton’s missed opportunity was the third time since World War II that universal health care was on the table with a serious desire for results. Harry Truman wanted it. So did Lyndon Johnson. Truman got nothing and Johnson, with his masterful control of Congress, managed to win Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor, but universal coverage escaped him. For Truman and Johnson, the American Medical Association led the charge against what they saw as “socialized medicine.”
Thus America remains the only industrialized country where financing health is not considered a government function like building highways and supporting national defense. We have a right to clean water piped to our homes, but not access to medical care.
Why repeat this history? Because health care reform will become a big deal again soon. Right now the Iraq war and gas prices are dominating the political discussion, but lack of affordable heath care impacts so many Americans that it must rise to the top of the agenda again. ...
Read the full article
Sad but typical story of the healthcare crisis
This is a very sad story about a woman whose daughter had a fatal liver condition and couldn't find the necessary care because she was uninsured. It lead to the mother becoming an advocate for universal healthcare. Let's hope more folks see the necessity of it without having to experience these types of personal tragedies.
Daughter's death helped ignite health care push
By JILL MOON, The Telegraph
Daughter's death helped ignite health care push
By JILL MOON, The Telegraph
Vermont passes health care bill
The article doesn't provide a lot of details, and "advocates" claim it does a better job than the Massachusetts bill, but a couple details seem to indicate it's another partial solution: 1. It doesn't cover all of the uninsured; 2. The new "Catamount Health" insurance plan will be sold by private companies.
Vt. politicians agree on health care bill
By ROSS SNEYD
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
MONTPELIER, Vt. -- As many as 25,000 Vermont residents who have no health insurance will be able to get it under a reform package agreed to Tuesday by Gov. Jim Douglas and legislative leaders.
The bill would extend health care coverage to as much as 96 percent of the state's population by 2010. Currently, slightly less than 90 percent of Vermonters have health insurance.
"This gets health insurance into the hands of Vermonters who don't have it," said House Speaker Gaye Symington. "It isn't just insurance. It's quality insurance." ...
Read full article
Vt. politicians agree on health care bill
By ROSS SNEYD
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
MONTPELIER, Vt. -- As many as 25,000 Vermont residents who have no health insurance will be able to get it under a reform package agreed to Tuesday by Gov. Jim Douglas and legislative leaders.
The bill would extend health care coverage to as much as 96 percent of the state's population by 2010. Currently, slightly less than 90 percent of Vermonters have health insurance.
"This gets health insurance into the hands of Vermonters who don't have it," said House Speaker Gaye Symington. "It isn't just insurance. It's quality insurance." ...
Read full article
Monday, May 08, 2006
Labor and HMOs
I found this article on the PNHP site. It's an interesting description of how HMOs came into being in the early '70s with the support of the AFL-CIO. Now, with the push to privatize Medicare and Medicaid, will Labor step up and take the lead in fixing the mess they helped create?
Unions Should Break With Managed Care
by Kip Sullivan
... Despite solid evidence that turning Medicare and Medicaid over to HMOs raises the costs of these programs and damages quality of care, politicians of both parties continue to support the further privatization of both programs.
To give you some idea of how solid the data against privatization of Medicare and Medicaid are, consider just two studies. A 2003 study of California’s Medicaid program, which is partially privatized, by a University of Maryland economist concluded that privatization raised that program’s cost by 20 percent.
In a 1999 report to Congress, the U.S. General Accounting Office stated, “[N]umerous studies conducted by us … and others demonstrated that the Medicare program spent more on beneficiaries enrolled in health plans than it would have if the same individuals had been in FFS [‘fee for service,’ which refers to the traditional Medicare program].”
Unions do not wield as much influence with Democrats today as they did in 1971, but they remain a critical part of the Democratic base and could play a very important role in sharpening and strengthening Democratic health policy. The AFL-CIO could help the nation extract itself from this health care mess if it were to renounce its endorsement of managed care and undertake a campaign to roll back the privatization of Medicaid and Medicare. ...
Read the full article
Unions Should Break With Managed Care
by Kip Sullivan
... Despite solid evidence that turning Medicare and Medicaid over to HMOs raises the costs of these programs and damages quality of care, politicians of both parties continue to support the further privatization of both programs.
To give you some idea of how solid the data against privatization of Medicare and Medicaid are, consider just two studies. A 2003 study of California’s Medicaid program, which is partially privatized, by a University of Maryland economist concluded that privatization raised that program’s cost by 20 percent.
In a 1999 report to Congress, the U.S. General Accounting Office stated, “[N]umerous studies conducted by us … and others demonstrated that the Medicare program spent more on beneficiaries enrolled in health plans than it would have if the same individuals had been in FFS [‘fee for service,’ which refers to the traditional Medicare program].”
Unions do not wield as much influence with Democrats today as they did in 1971, but they remain a critical part of the Democratic base and could play a very important role in sharpening and strengthening Democratic health policy. The AFL-CIO could help the nation extract itself from this health care mess if it were to renounce its endorsement of managed care and undertake a campaign to roll back the privatization of Medicaid and Medicare. ...
Read the full article
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Barbara Ehrenreich on universal healthcare
Barbara Ehrenreich, the author of Nickled & Dimed and Bait & Switch: The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream, wrote the following piece for The Progressive.
President Bush, Meet Lorraine
By Barbara Ehrenreich
... The fact is there’s a big difference between the economics of health care and that of, say, costume jewelry. We the consumers control the demand for costume jewelry; we can splurge on it or leave it alone. But we have precious little control over our demand for health care. Sure, we can exercise and refrain from smoking and sky-diving and swimming with sharks. We can eat right, too (whatever that may mean, with the dietary advice fluctuating from month to month). But it’s the medical profession that determines how often we need our blood drawn, our breasts squished, our cervices scraped, or any of the other nasty interventions they have to offer.
If the medical care we consume was under our own control, I’d say, sure, save up for it and use it wisely. But it’s no more in our control than the wind and floods we insure our homes against.
You think it’s too expensive to have universal health insurance? Let’s be hard-headed about Lorraine’s case. If she’d been diagnosed earlier, she might have gotten by with a mastectomy and a bout of chemotherapy instead of burning up Medicaid dollars in an ICU. She might be out volunteering for the needy right now, instead of lying in terror in a hospital bed.
Read the full article
President Bush, Meet Lorraine
By Barbara Ehrenreich
... The fact is there’s a big difference between the economics of health care and that of, say, costume jewelry. We the consumers control the demand for costume jewelry; we can splurge on it or leave it alone. But we have precious little control over our demand for health care. Sure, we can exercise and refrain from smoking and sky-diving and swimming with sharks. We can eat right, too (whatever that may mean, with the dietary advice fluctuating from month to month). But it’s the medical profession that determines how often we need our blood drawn, our breasts squished, our cervices scraped, or any of the other nasty interventions they have to offer.
If the medical care we consume was under our own control, I’d say, sure, save up for it and use it wisely. But it’s no more in our control than the wind and floods we insure our homes against.
You think it’s too expensive to have universal health insurance? Let’s be hard-headed about Lorraine’s case. If she’d been diagnosed earlier, she might have gotten by with a mastectomy and a bout of chemotherapy instead of burning up Medicaid dollars in an ICU. She might be out volunteering for the needy right now, instead of lying in terror in a hospital bed.
Read the full article
Friday, May 05, 2006
More analysis of the Massachusetts "universal healthcare" bill
Here's another analysis of the recently passed Massachussets bill and why it won't work. I've edited it down for this post. You can read the full text of the article on the In These Times website by clicking on the headline.
Massachusetts’ ‘Universal Coverage’ Bill is No Such Thing
By Kip Sullivan
... Romney’s expectations of the law are going to be dashed, and his obituary for single-payer will prove to be premature. The fundamental flaw of the Massachusetts law is that it does little to reduce health care cost inflation. The bill attempts to improve coverage by funneling money through the bloated insurance industry. Insurance companies allocate roughly 20 percent of their revenue to cover their administrative costs (which include marketing, telling doctors how to practice medicine, providing dividends, and financing high management salaries). That is 10 times the overhead of Medicare, which allocates only 2 percent of its expenditures to overhead, and about 20 times that of Canada’s single-payer system, which allocates 1 percent. Moreover, a system of multiple insurers drives up the administrative costs of clinics and hospitals. This is especially true if all or most of the insurers practice managed care. ...
The failure of the Massachusetts law to cut health care costs will be aggravated by its method of reducing the number of uninsured: It requires all Massachusetts residents to buy health insurance. Health insurance, in other words, will be treated like car insurance—you have to have it or you’ll be in violation of state law and subject to a fine. ...
To meet their obligations under the mandate, most employed Massachusetts residents will continue to buy health insurance from their employer. But because the law does little to reduce premium inflation, employer flight from the health insurance market will continue, forcing more and more employees to purchase insurance on their own. In Massachusetts today, it costs employers about $4,000 per year to insure an employee without dependents and $11,000 a year to insure an employee with dependents.
So, how will the state’s uninsured be able to afford such a big-ticket item? ... Unfortunately, it is impossible from reading the law to know what the minimum level of coverage will be, how much insurance companies will charge for it, and how much the subsidy will be for any given income level. The law merely tells us that a state board with the odd name “board of the connector” will determine what constitutes “minimum creditable coverage,” and that this board will determine how big the subsidies have to be to make the coverage “affordable” to residents. ...
What will probably infuriate residents most will be the enforcement of this bill. The bill requires employers, providers, and residents to make reports to the government about who has insurance, and it punishes the uninsured with fines enforceable by the Department of Revenue. ...
The spectacle of hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts residents having to buy insurance with awful coverage that they cannot afford, and many refusing to buy insurance and taking steps to avoid paying their fines (such as not filing income taxes) will come into focus in the latter half of 2007 and the first half of 2008—that is, in the year leading up to the 2008 Republican national convention. The media, in short, will have plenty of time to unearth horror stories about Romney’s “model” legislation. Odds are good that Romney will rue the day he took credit for this bill.
Massachusetts’ ‘Universal Coverage’ Bill is No Such Thing
By Kip Sullivan
... Romney’s expectations of the law are going to be dashed, and his obituary for single-payer will prove to be premature. The fundamental flaw of the Massachusetts law is that it does little to reduce health care cost inflation. The bill attempts to improve coverage by funneling money through the bloated insurance industry. Insurance companies allocate roughly 20 percent of their revenue to cover their administrative costs (which include marketing, telling doctors how to practice medicine, providing dividends, and financing high management salaries). That is 10 times the overhead of Medicare, which allocates only 2 percent of its expenditures to overhead, and about 20 times that of Canada’s single-payer system, which allocates 1 percent. Moreover, a system of multiple insurers drives up the administrative costs of clinics and hospitals. This is especially true if all or most of the insurers practice managed care. ...
The failure of the Massachusetts law to cut health care costs will be aggravated by its method of reducing the number of uninsured: It requires all Massachusetts residents to buy health insurance. Health insurance, in other words, will be treated like car insurance—you have to have it or you’ll be in violation of state law and subject to a fine. ...
To meet their obligations under the mandate, most employed Massachusetts residents will continue to buy health insurance from their employer. But because the law does little to reduce premium inflation, employer flight from the health insurance market will continue, forcing more and more employees to purchase insurance on their own. In Massachusetts today, it costs employers about $4,000 per year to insure an employee without dependents and $11,000 a year to insure an employee with dependents.
So, how will the state’s uninsured be able to afford such a big-ticket item? ... Unfortunately, it is impossible from reading the law to know what the minimum level of coverage will be, how much insurance companies will charge for it, and how much the subsidy will be for any given income level. The law merely tells us that a state board with the odd name “board of the connector” will determine what constitutes “minimum creditable coverage,” and that this board will determine how big the subsidies have to be to make the coverage “affordable” to residents. ...
What will probably infuriate residents most will be the enforcement of this bill. The bill requires employers, providers, and residents to make reports to the government about who has insurance, and it punishes the uninsured with fines enforceable by the Department of Revenue. ...
The spectacle of hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts residents having to buy insurance with awful coverage that they cannot afford, and many refusing to buy insurance and taking steps to avoid paying their fines (such as not filing income taxes) will come into focus in the latter half of 2007 and the first half of 2008—that is, in the year leading up to the 2008 Republican national convention. The media, in short, will have plenty of time to unearth horror stories about Romney’s “model” legislation. Odds are good that Romney will rue the day he took credit for this bill.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Good article by Paul Krugman
I found the following story on a site called Inside Bay Area. It was written by Paul Krugman, and must have been syndicated to a few different places. There's good info in it.
Death by insurance
FOR LOWER-income working Americans, lack of health insurance is quickly becoming the new normal. Thats the implication of survey results just released by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonpartisan organization that studies health care. The survey found that 41 percent of nonelderly American adults with incomes between $20,000 and $40,000 a year were without health insurance for all or part of 2005. Thats up from 28 percent as recently as 2001.
Many of the uninsured reported spending their entire savings on health care and/or that they were having difficulty paying for basic necessities. And most uninsured adults reported cutting corners on medical care to save money — failing to fill prescriptions, skipping medications, going without preventive care.
Here's the other side of the same coin: Health insurers business is lagging, reports The Wall Street Journal, as rising premiums and medical costs push more of their traditional-employer customers to shun or curtail company health benefits. And some investors are feeling the pain. Aetnas stock price fell sharply last week on news that its medical cost ratio — a term Ill explain in a minute — rose from 77.9 to 79.4.
Taken together, these stories tell the tale of a health care system thats driving a growing number of Americans into financial ruin, and in many cases kills them through lack of basic care. (The Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, estimates that lack of health insurance leads to 18,000 unnecessary American deaths — the equivalent of six 9/11s — each year.) Yet this system actually costs more to run than we would spend if we guaranteed health insurance to everyone. ...
Read the full article
Death by insurance
FOR LOWER-income working Americans, lack of health insurance is quickly becoming the new normal. Thats the implication of survey results just released by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonpartisan organization that studies health care. The survey found that 41 percent of nonelderly American adults with incomes between $20,000 and $40,000 a year were without health insurance for all or part of 2005. Thats up from 28 percent as recently as 2001.
Many of the uninsured reported spending their entire savings on health care and/or that they were having difficulty paying for basic necessities. And most uninsured adults reported cutting corners on medical care to save money — failing to fill prescriptions, skipping medications, going without preventive care.
Here's the other side of the same coin: Health insurers business is lagging, reports The Wall Street Journal, as rising premiums and medical costs push more of their traditional-employer customers to shun or curtail company health benefits. And some investors are feeling the pain. Aetnas stock price fell sharply last week on news that its medical cost ratio — a term Ill explain in a minute — rose from 77.9 to 79.4.
Taken together, these stories tell the tale of a health care system thats driving a growing number of Americans into financial ruin, and in many cases kills them through lack of basic care. (The Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, estimates that lack of health insurance leads to 18,000 unnecessary American deaths — the equivalent of six 9/11s — each year.) Yet this system actually costs more to run than we would spend if we guaranteed health insurance to everyone. ...
Read the full article
U.S. vs. U.K. healthcare systems
I found the following article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that details a Journal of the American Medical Association study that compares the cost/quality of the U.S. health care to that of the British nationalized system. Needless to say, ours costs more and delivers worse results. The doctors quoted in the article offer differing explanations for the disparity -- judge for yourself whose is more convincing.
Excerpts are provided below. Click the headline to read the full article.
If our health care's so great, why does study say we're "sicker than the English"?
By John Fauber
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
... Compared with the British, white, middle-aged Americans are substantially less healthy, according to a study published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Pick the disease — diabetes, heart disease, stroke, cancer, lung disease, high blood pressure — and Americans are much more likely to have it than their counterparts on the other side of the pond. ...
Adding insult to injury, Americans pay more than twice as much for their medical care as the British: $5,274 a year per person in the United States versus $2,164 in England, the study notes.
Doctors not associated with the study say it is the latest evidence of befuddling health disparities in the United States compared with other industrialized countries. It also undermines the often-cited claim that America has the best health care in the world, doctors said. ...
... when the researchers divided people from the two countries by both education and income levels, Americans who had higher incomes and who were more educated often had higher rates of ailments such as diabetes, cancer and heart disease than English who were in the bottom level. ...
Even though more money is spent on health care in the United States, the emphasis is different. In England, more attention is paid on primary care and making sure everyone gets basic medical care.
"You get to the problems earlier," said Barbara Starfield, a distinguished professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University. ...
Excerpts are provided below. Click the headline to read the full article.
If our health care's so great, why does study say we're "sicker than the English"?
By John Fauber
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
... Compared with the British, white, middle-aged Americans are substantially less healthy, according to a study published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Pick the disease — diabetes, heart disease, stroke, cancer, lung disease, high blood pressure — and Americans are much more likely to have it than their counterparts on the other side of the pond. ...
Adding insult to injury, Americans pay more than twice as much for their medical care as the British: $5,274 a year per person in the United States versus $2,164 in England, the study notes.
Doctors not associated with the study say it is the latest evidence of befuddling health disparities in the United States compared with other industrialized countries. It also undermines the often-cited claim that America has the best health care in the world, doctors said. ...
... when the researchers divided people from the two countries by both education and income levels, Americans who had higher incomes and who were more educated often had higher rates of ailments such as diabetes, cancer and heart disease than English who were in the bottom level. ...
Even though more money is spent on health care in the United States, the emphasis is different. In England, more attention is paid on primary care and making sure everyone gets basic medical care.
"You get to the problems earlier," said Barbara Starfield, a distinguished professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University. ...
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
In These Times article on healthcare crisis
This is pretty long, and I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet, but it looks interesting. Click the headline to read the article.
Careless Industry
How corporate America perpetuates the health care crisis
By David Sirota
Careless Industry
How corporate America perpetuates the health care crisis
By David Sirota
More unions getting behind the Conyers Bill (HR 676)
I found the following on a site of an organization called International Labor Communications Association. It describes growing support among unions for the Conyers bill that advocates for a single-payer national health insurance system. Read more about H.R. 676 -- The U.S. National Health Insurance Act.
SINGLE-PAYER GOVT. HEALTH CARE BILL GAINS UNIONBACKERS AS ‘COVER THE UNINSURED’ WEEK RUNS
By Press Associates, Inc. Staff Writer Mark Gruenberg
WASHINGTON (PAI) – A bill establishing a government-run Canadian style single-payer health care system for the U.S., built on Medicare, is gaining union backers, coincidentally as “Cover the Uninsured” week ran from May 1-7. The measure, H.R. 676 by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), would eliminate the private for-profit health insurance industry by establishing a government-run system.
The “United States National Health Insurance Act” would be funded through the federal budget, says a fact sheet from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which covers health issues and which sponsors the week spotlighting the uninsured.
Momentum for Conyers’ bill – plus the week-long observance and a planned Senate debate the same time on health care issues – comes just after the Massachusetts legislature voted to require every state resident to buy insurance. ...
The latest backers of Conyers’ bill were the Ohio legislative board of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen/IBT, Letter Carriers Branch 3126 of Royal Oak, Mich., and Graphic Communications Conference/IBT Web Pressmen’s Local 4N of San Francisco. The Ohio BLET said it will take the cause to its conference convention in June and – if it wins – to the Teamsters convention immediately afterwards.
Their endorsements, in late April, came just after that of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, on April 6, after lobbying by USW Local 3567 member Janet Hill, who is also secretary of the Pittsburgh-area Coalition of Labor Union Women. Both the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia CLUW chapters had earlier endorsed Conyers’ legislation.
The Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, which claims 900,000 members, is the second state fed to back H.R. 676, after Kentucky’s. Conyers also has 68 U.S. House co-sponsors.
And Amalgamated Transit Union Local 825, which represents bus drivers, mechanics and other workers at New Jersey Transit, also voted to ask its parent international to back Conyers’ bill.
Read the full article
SINGLE-PAYER GOVT. HEALTH CARE BILL GAINS UNIONBACKERS AS ‘COVER THE UNINSURED’ WEEK RUNS
By Press Associates, Inc. Staff Writer Mark Gruenberg
WASHINGTON (PAI) – A bill establishing a government-run Canadian style single-payer health care system for the U.S., built on Medicare, is gaining union backers, coincidentally as “Cover the Uninsured” week ran from May 1-7. The measure, H.R. 676 by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), would eliminate the private for-profit health insurance industry by establishing a government-run system.
The “United States National Health Insurance Act” would be funded through the federal budget, says a fact sheet from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which covers health issues and which sponsors the week spotlighting the uninsured.
Momentum for Conyers’ bill – plus the week-long observance and a planned Senate debate the same time on health care issues – comes just after the Massachusetts legislature voted to require every state resident to buy insurance. ...
The latest backers of Conyers’ bill were the Ohio legislative board of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen/IBT, Letter Carriers Branch 3126 of Royal Oak, Mich., and Graphic Communications Conference/IBT Web Pressmen’s Local 4N of San Francisco. The Ohio BLET said it will take the cause to its conference convention in June and – if it wins – to the Teamsters convention immediately afterwards.
Their endorsements, in late April, came just after that of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, on April 6, after lobbying by USW Local 3567 member Janet Hill, who is also secretary of the Pittsburgh-area Coalition of Labor Union Women. Both the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia CLUW chapters had earlier endorsed Conyers’ legislation.
The Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, which claims 900,000 members, is the second state fed to back H.R. 676, after Kentucky’s. Conyers also has 68 U.S. House co-sponsors.
And Amalgamated Transit Union Local 825, which represents bus drivers, mechanics and other workers at New Jersey Transit, also voted to ask its parent international to back Conyers’ bill.
Read the full article
Final Hearing for the Health Care Justic Act
The final public hearing collecting testimony for the Health Care Justice Act (see PDF of bill) will be held in Pilsen next week. Here are the particulars:
Thursday May 11th
4 - 6 PM
Benito Juarez Community Academy
2150 S. Laflin
Chicago, IL
It's being organized by the folks at Campaign for Better Health Care.
Please go and give your testimony related to the current health care crisis, but include a demand that the politicians address it with the only real solution (implementing Single Payer), not the incomplete and ineffective legislation they've enacted up to this point.
Thursday May 11th
4 - 6 PM
Benito Juarez Community Academy
2150 S. Laflin
Chicago, IL
It's being organized by the folks at Campaign for Better Health Care.
Please go and give your testimony related to the current health care crisis, but include a demand that the politicians address it with the only real solution (implementing Single Payer), not the incomplete and ineffective legislation they've enacted up to this point.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Even Fox News is talking about Single Payer
In an article on the state of emergency care in the US, the author does a pretty respectful job of raising Single Payer as one proposed solution. That's a pretty big deal considering the article appears on the Fox News site. (I'm just posting the SP section. Click the headline to read the full article.)
In U.S Hospitals, Emergency Care in Critical Condition
Monday, May 01, 2006
By Don Snyder
...
Single-Payer Solution?
Doctors interviewed for this article unanimously decried the deterioration of emergency care and see a single-payer universal health plan as the answer. They point out that government programs could meet important health needs and operate with less overhead than private plans designed to make profits and satisfy stockholders.
For example, according to Dr. Viccellio, Medicare operates with a 3 percent overhead compared to private insurers who spend 30 percent on overhead.
Stony Brook University Hospital spends $15 million dollars a year on billing because the private plans are so different and criteria for payment so complex. A single payer system would eliminate the need for each hospital to operate its own billing department.
"I could vaccinate a lot of kids with the $15 million our hospital would save," said Dr. Viccellio.
However, the medical community is itself divided on this issue of universal health care.
In August 2003, the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association proposed a national health insurance program that had been endorsed by more than 8,000 doctors, including two former surgeons general.
The American Medical Association, the largest medical organization in the United States, immediately distanced itself from the article. It said that while JAMA was associated with the AMA, the publication is editorially independent. The AMA has historically opposed a national health insurance system.
AMA president Donald Palmisano, responding in 2003 to the JAMA proposal, acknowledged that "a solution is desperately needed." However, he said that a national health care system would "ration care, increase bureaucracy and demoralize doctors and patients."
Doctors who support a national health care plan acknowledge that a prerequisite for adoption of universal health care in the United States is a fundamental change in attitude by Americans.
"The commitment to health care is a commitment by an entire society," said Gardner. "I think at the moment Americans struggle with how much they are committed to health care for everyone."
In U.S Hospitals, Emergency Care in Critical Condition
Monday, May 01, 2006
By Don Snyder
...
Single-Payer Solution?
Doctors interviewed for this article unanimously decried the deterioration of emergency care and see a single-payer universal health plan as the answer. They point out that government programs could meet important health needs and operate with less overhead than private plans designed to make profits and satisfy stockholders.
For example, according to Dr. Viccellio, Medicare operates with a 3 percent overhead compared to private insurers who spend 30 percent on overhead.
Stony Brook University Hospital spends $15 million dollars a year on billing because the private plans are so different and criteria for payment so complex. A single payer system would eliminate the need for each hospital to operate its own billing department.
"I could vaccinate a lot of kids with the $15 million our hospital would save," said Dr. Viccellio.
However, the medical community is itself divided on this issue of universal health care.
In August 2003, the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association proposed a national health insurance program that had been endorsed by more than 8,000 doctors, including two former surgeons general.
The American Medical Association, the largest medical organization in the United States, immediately distanced itself from the article. It said that while JAMA was associated with the AMA, the publication is editorially independent. The AMA has historically opposed a national health insurance system.
AMA president Donald Palmisano, responding in 2003 to the JAMA proposal, acknowledged that "a solution is desperately needed." However, he said that a national health care system would "ration care, increase bureaucracy and demoralize doctors and patients."
Doctors who support a national health care plan acknowledge that a prerequisite for adoption of universal health care in the United States is a fundamental change in attitude by Americans.
"The commitment to health care is a commitment by an entire society," said Gardner. "I think at the moment Americans struggle with how much they are committed to health care for everyone."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)