Illinois Single Payer

James Ginderske -- Candidate for 49th Ward Alderman

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 05:48:00 +0000

My friend Jim Ginderske, who was an active supporter of the Single Payer referendum here in Illinois, is running for 49th Ward Alderman against the incumbent Joe Moore. Anyone who wants real healthcare reform and lives in the ward should support Jim's candidacy. To read more about what he's done to improve healthcare in Rogers Park and what he'll do to address the neighborhood's status as a medically needy community, check out the James Ginderske 2007 website.

Sen. Feingold proposes legislation for pilot projects

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:27:00 +0000

Here is an article that outlines a new proposal from Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold. It basically is meant to encourage state governments to experiment with Universal Healthcare models. The positive aspect to it is that if a state wanted to implement a single payer system, there would be funding available to pursue that.

Feingold unveils health-care plan
BY FREDERIC J. FROMMER
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON - Sen. Russ Feingold said Monday he will push legislation that would set up pilot projects to help states provide universal health coverage, delving into an area that could help broaden his appeal as he contemplates a presidential run.

"The time has come to see if we can get across our ideological differences -- which are serious -- and to see if we can at least get off the dime with the idea of pilot projects," Feingold, D-Wis., said. "I thought it was time basically to break a logjam."
An estimated 46 million Americans lack health insurance.

Feingold plans to introduce the legislation in Congress later this week or early next week. He acknowledged it has no chance of passing this year but said he wants to have something ready for when a new Congress takes over next year.

Under Feingold's bill, the federal government would set up a program that would allow selected states to design their own health coverage plans. Feingold estimates the legislation would cost $32 billion over 10 years, and two or three states could participate, or groups of states could apply together.

Ann Marie Hauser, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, suggested Feingold instead join Republican leaders and "mainstream Democrats" on expanding health-care savings accounts.

Under Feingold's bill, a federal task force would select which state proposals to fund and oversee their implementation.

To pay for the program, Feingold calls for savings in other areas of government, including:
• Increasing the rebate that drug manufacturers pay to Medicaid, which would yield an estimated $8.3 billion over 10 years.

• Increasing the passenger security fee collected by airlines from $2.50 for nonstop travelers to $5, which President Bush has proposed for next year's budget. The plan estimates this would bring in $15.5 billion over 10 years.

• Extending customs and border fees, set to expire in 2014, for two years, which would bring in an estimated $6.25 billion.

Corporate hospitals: looking to profit from illness

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:05:00 +0000

This is a very interesting article that deals with corporate run hospitals and how they benefit from the current system dominated by private insurers. One interesting point it makes is that investors could be taking encouragement from the Massachusetts "universal healhcare" bill that funnels more people into private health plans. It also details a twisted system where profit is made by closing facilities and decreasing hospital stays -- regardless of the patients actual health needs. Of course, a single-payer system would be very bad for this system, and the prospect of the Massachusetts model of universal healthcare spreading in its place was very good news for those who invest in it.

Betting on a sick boom
By David Lazarus
San Franciso Chronicle

... "The Wall Street guys are betting that hospital utilization is going to go through the roof," said Sue Houck, a Boulder, Colo., health care consultant. "But their accountability will be less because they've gone private."

HCA operates 176 hospitals and almost 100 surgical centers in 21 states. In the Bay Area, it owns San Jose's Good Samaritan Hospital, Regional Medical Center of San Jose and Los Gatos Surgical Center.

"This deal augurs continued increases in health care prices, continued problems with access and continued frustration," Houck said. "It doesn't bode well for the consumer at all." ...

But health care experts say the only reason investors would funnel serious cash into hospitals is if they expect significant returns on their investment -- and that can only mean higher profits resulting from more medical spending, increased patient volume or both.
"Everyone in the industry is waiting for the Baby Boomers," said Paul Szklarski, chairman of the Health Industry Research Group, a New York consulting firm. "The presumption is that we're all going to be in the hospital soon.

"Probably not a bad bet," he added. ...

"If health insurance expands, this would be very positive for hospitals," Ginsburg observed.

It wouldn't address the underlying problems that cause health care costs to post double-digit increases year after year. But it would potentially allow millions of people now lacking coverage to seek medical treatment they might not otherwise pursue. ...

Transition to a single-payer system would almost certainly usher in a period of intense uncertainty for hospitals and other medical facilities as funding switches from private insurers to government coffers.
James Kahn, a professor of health policy at UCSF, said the buyout of HCA suggests that the money men behind the deal don't foresee a single-payer system being created in the United States anytime soon.

"I would assume that they're more comfortable with a future that's more like the present," he said.
That's what they're buying.

Still more details on SF universal healthcare plan

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:53:00 +0000

The San Francisco universal healthcare plan recently passed, catching the attention of local and state governments around the country who may try to model their own proposals on it. Here are some of the details of the plan written about in the Contra Costa Times:

All eyes on S.F.'s ambitious universal health care plan
By Sandy Kleffman
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

If it succeeds, other cities and counties may attempt a similar move toward universal health care. But it will not be easy to follow suit.

San Francisco has unique qualities that make it the perfect place to launch such an experiment, many say. ...

San Francisco is both a city and a county, which means it has just one set of leaders to grant approval for such a plan.
It also has a well-established primary care system, a sizable amount of health-care dollars it can redirect, and disproportionately fewer uninsured than many other areas. ...

The goal is to offer health care services to the 82,000 uninsured adults who earn too much to qualify for Medi-Cal, which serves the state's poorest residents.

The program would be open to everyone, regardless of immigration status, income or a pre-existing medical condition.

It differs from typical universal health care proposals in one key aspect: It would provide access to services, rather than insurance. ...
Under the new program, participants would receive preventive care and screening to help ward off chronic conditions or at least identify them early enough so they can be kept from getting worse.

Not only does this result in healthier people, but it also helps lower costs ...

Firms with 20 or more workers have to kick in $1.06 for each hour worked by an employee. Those with more than 100 workers will pay $1.60 per hour.

Companies that already provide health insurance to their employees will be exempt, as long as they spend at least as much as the mandatory contributions. ...

Participation would be optional for the uninsured. Those who do join will have a co-pay based on their income.

The co-pays would range from $3 per month for those at the lowest income levels to $200 per month for those at the highest. ...

Unions, corporations & the fight for universal healthcare

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 02:33:00 +0000

The following article appears at TomPaine.com. It references a Wall Street Journal piece written by Andy Stern from SEIU calling for corporate support for single payer. The article is short, but it makes a good point that not enough of the unions themselves are supporting single-payer as the answer to the healthcare crisis. And it's going to have to be Labor, not corporate execs, who lead on this issue.

Push For Universal Care
By Alexandra Walker

While the rest of the world was distracted by the powder keg in the Middle East, the Service Employees International Union's Andy Stern quietly fired an opening shot yesterday in the battle for universal health care.

The movement for universal health care is decades old, of course. But the battle to get corporate America to join it is just beginning. Writing yesterday in the Wall Street Journal , Stern declared the era of employee-based health care over, and made a direct appeal to U.S. business leaders to "make health care their national priority."

With balance sheet after balance sheet showing companies spending more on health care than any other expense, it's hard to believe corporate America isn't already bankrolling an advocacy group in Washington to push a government health insurance program. And yet just last week, the CEO of the company that is arguably most affected by health care costs—GM—arguing against government-run health care, in favor of cost-efficiency and consumer education. ...

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 03:27:00 +0000

That might be Hillary Clinton's motto regarding healthcare reform. The NY Times reports (see link below) that the very groups that attacked Clinton's attempt at universal healthcare back in th '90s are now filling her campaign coffers with donations. Or maybe her motto could be, "whatever it takes to get elected." She's got a pretty good track record for not sticking by her principles when there's an office to be won, that is if she even has any principles at this point. Let's hope that someone with a legitimate interest in universal healthcare and without the bias that health insurance and pharmaceutical dollars buy will be the Democratic nominee in 2008.

Clinton wins over health care industry
Contributions roll in as senator mends rocky start from '90s initiative
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ and ROBERT PEAR
New York Times

... As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers.

Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

Some of the same interests that tried to derail Clinton's health care overhaul are providing support for her Senate re-election bid. ...

Update on SF universal healthcare plan

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:01:00 +0000

Here is a link to a San Francisco Sentinel article that updates the status of the universal healthcare plan being proposed there and gives some more details as to how it would work:

Newsom and Ammiano unite on San Francisco universal health care

It doesn't state who will administer the healthcare coverages provided by the plan(s), but it's a pretty easy guess that it will be private insurance companies. The range of possible worker copays is huge ($3 to $201 monthly), which seems pretty steep on the high end. Maybe we should start emphasizing the point with these public officials that we need "affordable comprehensive" universal healthcare. They seem to be more concerned about arranging it so that everyone has health insurance, no matter how expensive or how bad the actual coverage is.

San Fran Universal Healthcare proposal

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 03:17:00 +0000

San Francisco's mayor proposed a universal healthcare system for the city. I haven't seen many details yet, but it's said to include a mixture of public and private coverages. One sticking point, as the article below discusses, is how to fund the proposal. One funding proposal involves getting businesses to cover some of the costs. I guess the business community isn't too fond of that. God forbid they have to contribute anything to the communities they get so much from.

Newsom-Ammiano Health Care Proposals Merged

The Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee voted unanimously yesterday to merge two proposals aimed at provided universal health care to San Franciscans. Mayor Gavin Newsom's proposal, which he co-wrote with a panel of experts and some Supervisors, contained the framework for the plan, but according to testimony from both the Budget Analyst and Public Health Director Mitch Katz, it lacked sufficient funding to work. Supervisor Tom Ammiano's proposal solves that problem by requiring businesses with more than 20 employees to cover part of the cost of their employee's health care. All eyes now turn to Newsom, who must choose between passing universal healthcare to win national acclaim or opposing the measure to satisfy the city's business community. ...

IL Representatives who have co-sponsored H.R. 676

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 01:28:00 +0000

Along with its original sponsor, John Conyers Jr (MI), 72 of the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have now signed on to The National Health Insurance Act (H.R. 676): "To provide for comprehensive health insurance coverage for all United States residents, and for other purposes." Six of these are from Illinois.

Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 5/26/2005
Rep Evans, Lane [IL-17] - 6/7/2005
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 5/18/2005
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 5/25/2005
Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] - 12/15/2005
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 12/13/2005

If your representative is on the list, send them a note thanking them for their support. If they aren't, let them know why you think they should sign on.

Note: if you click on the names above, it will show you every bill that they've co-sponsored. It's a lot of info, but still pretty cool.

NPR story on healthcare in Tennessee

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 01:51:00 +0000

You can click the link below to listen and/or read a story that aired on NPR about the 200,000 residents of Tennessee who were dropped from the TennCare healthcare plan to solve the state's budget crisis. It documents some pretty sad stories about the hard choices people are forced to make when they lose their health insurance. People are forced to decide between food and medicine, can't seek treatment for chronic illnesses and rely on emergency care. It's an outrageous situation that's too typical these days.

Tennessee Health-Care Cuts Roil Poor Community
by Julie Rovner

A joke from a friend

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 01:36:00 +0000

American Health Care

Two patients limp into two different American Medical clinics with the same complaint. Both have trouble walking and appear to require a hip replacement.

The first patient is examined within the hour, is x-rayed the same day and has a time booked for surgery the following week.

The second sees the family doctor after waiting a week for an appointment, then waits eighteen weeks to see a specialist, then gets an x-ray, which isn't reviewed for another month and finally has his surgery scheduled for 6 months from then.

Why the different treatment for the two patients? The first is a Golden Retriever..... The second is a Senior Citizen.

Some good arguments for Single Payer

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 05:52:00 +0000

This article from the Asheville Citizen Times makes a good case for exploring Single Payer. The mainstream media seems to have gotten over its reluctance to talk about national health insurance as a viable alternative.

We can address our health care crisis, or we can outsource it

... Recent data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that compared health care spending in 30 industrialized nations put the annual average health bill for an American is $5,267. That’s more than double the world median of $2,193.

Now, the U.S. has the best doctors, nurses and health care professionals on the planet. But we are nowhere near having the best health care system. Despite the aforementioned lavish spending, millions of our citizens are underinsured and a growing number – 46 million – have no insurance at all.

Further, we’re toward the bottom on infant mortality, life expectancy and a host of other measures among industrialized nations.

What’s more, a relatively new phenomenon, medical debt, is reaching alarming levels. A study by the Commonwealth Fund showed nearly 20 percent of Americans are paying off medical debts. Among middle class Americans who are underinsured, according to a survey conducted by Reader’s Digest, almost half have refused or delayed medical treatments for serious conditions, or put off or didn’t renew prescriptions for drugs. Half had used credit cards to pay health costs.

This is despite health spending in this nation that represents 14.6 percent of the Gross National Product (compared to 7.7 percent in the United Kingdom).

We’re spending plenty. We’re not spending wisely. ...

Read full article

Businesses seeing appeal of Single Payer?

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 05:38:00 +0000

This is an article from Crain's Cleveland Business regarding the changing auto industry, and the comments of UAW's president at their convention last week in Las Vegas. It ends with a call to explore the viability of instituting a single-payer system in this country in order to keep manufacturers competitive.

Getting real

... To be specific, the Bush administration and Congress should examine the ramifications of instituting a single-payer national health plan. As Mr. Gettelfinger correctly noted last week in his speech, the high concentration of older workers and retirees at Ford and GM is causing the automakers to feel the impact of rising health care costs in a big way. However, those two companies are far from alone in their struggles with the medical component of their business expenses.

The challenge of covering those costs is particularly acute among employers with stagnant or shrinking rosters of active workers but growing rolls of retirees. Without a way to spread those costs and those risks beyond their own pools of insured lives, many companies face a daunting future. It is why we believe a single-payer system deserves a fresh look.

Read the full article

Interesting article on the conflict between profits and health

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 04:39:00 +0000

Someone forwarded me the following article from Asia Times Online. It deals with a struggle within the World Health Organization (as provoked by the US government) over whether countries should be able to circumvent intellectual property rights and produce low-cost generic drugs in order to deal with the health crises they face. It's as direct a conflict as you can get between those who view government as the protector of corporate profits and those who view it as the guarantor of public well being.

Pharmaceutical companies explain that the cost of their drugs is the direct result of the amount they spend on R&D. The irony is that a lot of their research is done with public funding at public universities. The high costs also reflect the tremendous amount of money spent marketing the drugs they develop. Also, the decisions on what drugs to R&D isn't based on public health needs, but on expectations of profit.

The conflict between private wealth and public health is the same we see here in the US, where the pharmaceutical and insurance industries dictate public policy, to the detriment of our health as a nation. To me, it is an issue of morality and social justice: how can we justify the amount of human suffering that is being created in order to feed the ever-expanding coffers of private companies?

Anyway, the article is interesting on many levels, including the way the US (in service of corporations) tries to control international bodies and bully its critics.

World health: A lethal dose of US politics
By Dylan C Williams

BANGKOK - When World Health Organization (WHO) director general Lee Jong-wook died of a cerebral hemorrhage last month before the start of the United Nations agency's annual World Health Assembly, the world's most prominent public-health official was arguably of a conflicted mind.

The WHO veteran was caught in the middle of an intensifying global debate over how to reconcile intellectual-property protection with the pressing public-health need to expand access to expensive life-saving medicines, a hot-button issue that has sharply divided WHO member states along developed- and developing-country lines.

An Asia Times Online investigation reveals that at the time of his death, Lee, a South Korean national, had closely aligned himself with the US government and by association US corporate interests, often to the detriment of the WHO's most vital commitments and positions, including its current drive to promote the production and marketing of affordable generic antiretroviral drugs for millions of poor infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which can cause AIDS.

Read the full article

Upcoming Chicago event on healthcare reform

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:42:00 +0000

A Panel Discussion sponsored by
DL21C and GSB Government and Politics Group

Tuesday, June 20, 2006, 6:00 to 8:00 pm
University of Chicago, Graduate School of Business
Gleacher Center, Room 600
450 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Chicago, Illinois

Come hear experts and leaders share their political and policy-related ideas for reforming healthcare in Illinois

Distinguished Panelists:

Barry Maram
Director, Illinois Healthcare and Family Services

The Honorable Mary Flowers
Member of the Illinois House of Representatives

John Bouman
Director of Advocacy, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law

Dr. Quentin Young, M.D.
Founder, Health and Medicine Policy Research Group

Ian Doughty (Moderator)
Director, Office of Professional Development at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago

Refreshments: Appetizers, non-alcoholic drinks, and a cash bar.

Free to members of the GSB Government and Politics Group and the DL21C
$5 for non-members, payable at the door.

RSVP at gdiephou@chicagogsb.edu by June 18, 2006

The AMA's solution to universal hc? Make people buy it.

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:49:00 +0000

The logic seems a bit twisted to me, but it's what I've come to expect from an organization such as the American Medical Association that has proven to value its own narrow self-interest more than public health.

Taking the Massachusetts bill as inspiration, they've come out in support of mandating that all uninsured American be compelled to purchase a minimum level of coverage. Of course that minimum level of coverage will be just that, minimal. Because of this, people will avoid preventative care and rely on emergency services, continuing the health cost spiral that's put us into this crisis in the first place. Was that a Hippocratic or Hypocritical oath they took?

Here's an article outlining what the AMA is proposing:

Physicians group supports mandated health coverage
By DUNCAN MOORE
Bloomberg News

CHICAGO - The nation's largest physicians group Tuesday urged that all Americans be required by the government to have health insurance.

American Medical Association delegates meeting here, in a voice vote, ratified a proposal suggesting that individuals making $49,000 or more, or families who make $100,000 and up, face tax penalties if they do not buy insurance. Lower-income individuals should get tax credits and subsidies so they can afford insurance, the AMA said. ...

Read the full article

Is Hillary a progressive?

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 03:14:00 +0000

There is an article on the site Media Monitors Network that I found very interesting. It's called "Why Pretend That Hillary Clinton Is Progressive?" and is only marginally about healthcare, but it raises what I think is the crux of the crisis within the Democratic Party. In it, the author takes to task the organizers of the "Take Back America 2006" conference for including Ms. Clinton among its list of speakers, portraying her as a "prominent progressive."

He writes:

" The 'Take Back America' schedule set aside half an hour for a speech from Clinton but not a minute for any words from Jonathan Tasini, the longtime union activist who’s running -- on an antiwar and all-around progressive platform -- against Clinton in this year’s Democratic primary for senator from New York. ...

"Tasini points out that Hillary Clinton remains for the war in Iraq, for so-called 'free trade' agreements and for the death penalty. She supported the notorious 2001 bankruptcy bill, 'has never been for single-payer health insurance' and has worked hard to undermine a host of other progressive positions."

Republicans have shifted the political debate so far to the right, that Hillary Clinton is portrayed in the media as "left" or "radical" or "progressive". Progressive Democrats, such as this conference's organizers, have done nothing to discourage such a false perception.

As long as the powers that be within the party dictate to their constituents who their candidates should be, as long as they wage campaigns that attempt to "capture the middle" and dismiss the voters (and in many cases non-voters) that should make up their base, as long as they fail to promote a truly progressive vision that can capture the imagination of the electorate, they'll be doomed to fail. As long as progressives give their unquestioning support to those candidates, solely because a Democrat is better than a Republican, they are doomed to keep those very same candidates company in the mire of inconsequence.

Study shows insurers can't even reduce their own costs

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:29:00 +0000

The following editorial from ContraCostaTimes.com cites a Kaiser Permanente / NE Journal of Medecine study that shows that by trying to offload more healthcare expenses to consumers, insurance companies have actually increased their own costs. Employers faced with increased costs either pass them on to their employees or stop offering coverage all together. Employees who lose coverage or have to shoulder more of the costs, avoid preventative care and don't fill prescriptions, relying instead on emergency care, which is much more costly. This might explain why healthcare costs keep skyrocketing and our health as a nation keeps getting worse. It's a vicious cycle that won't end until politicians find some courage to make bold policy decisions. I'll try to find a link to the study and post it.

Health care woes

SHIFTING MORE COSTS FROM health insurance to the patient is not working out as hoped. Health insurers, of course, hoped to save money. That's not what's happening, according to a New England Journal of Medicine report on a Kaiser Permanente study.

... Doctor visits have decreased and emergency room visits have increased. Insurers are not seeing reduced costs.

Neither are those employees of companies that provide some health benefits. Deductibles have risen at a faster, higher rate than pay. ...

Read the full article

More on David Gill's support of Single Payer

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 00:35:00 +0000

I found an article at News-Gazette.com that describes David Gill, the candidate for Congress from the 15th district, and his support for Single Payer.

Gill pushes for universal health care
By Debra Pressey

... Gill was in Washington today to support the launch of a congressional caucus promoting the adoption of the United States National Health Insurance Act – a House bill that would implement a taxpayer-supported, privately delivered health care system available to everybody.

"I think it's a terrific idea, because it would provide affordable health care for all Americans in a very cost-efficient and healthy way," Gill said. ...

Read the full article

Two More Illinois Politicians for National Health Insurance

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 04:37:00 +0000

I'm continuing to post links to candidates for the Fall election that support some form of national health insurance. Here are two more:

David Gill for Congress (15th District)

"The healthcare system in the United States doesn't work the way it should. Learn more about the Single- payer National Healthcare Plan Dr. Gill proposes and how it will save you money, improve your quality of care, and expand your choice of providers."

Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. (2nd District)

"To date, the state-by-state (states' rights) market approach to providing health care has not adequately met the American people's health care needs. It bears repeating that the federal government is the only entity that can accumulate the financial resources and coordinate a national health care system. Such a system can be run and controlled locally, but the minimum high standards, the overall coordination and administration, and the national financial planning for such a system must be administered and made democratically accountable at the federal level."

Citizens Healthcare Working Group

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 17:20:00 +0000

Have you heard of this group? They were set up by the President and Congress to solicit input on how to reform the healthcare system. I don't know that the community meetings they held were particularly well publicized, and I don't know who exactly participated in them.

They asked citizens to respond to 4 questions:

What health care benefits and services should be provided?
How does the American public want health care delivered?
How should health care coverage be financed?
What trade-offs are the American public willing to make in either benefits or financing to ensure access to affordable, high-quality health care coverage and services?

As we all know, how you set up the questions is just as important as the actual answers people give. What is interesting is that the questions asked are framed in such a way that implies we're limited in what we can achieve as far as reform. For example, it asks what benefits and services should be provided. Well, shouldn't the assumption be that people want comprehensive care?

Anyway, you can read the report that was written based on the national hearings that took place. It's available in PDF format. Other formats are supposed to be "available soon". You can also go here to add your comments or experiences.

The votes are in for "healthcare for all" at MoveOn

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 19:13:00 +0000

As I mentioned in an earlier post, MoveOn held a vote last week to decide the three issues that would make up their "Positive Agenda". Over 100,000 people voted, and "healthcare for all" got the most votes. I'm going to post the vote totals and a member quote that MoveOn sent out to their subscriber list below.

Obviously, getting people to agree on "healthcare for all" in the abstract is pretty easy. The real fight will be over how to actually deliver on that policy goal. The recently passed Massachusetts "universal healthcare" bill is just one example of the fact that we don't always get what we vote for.

MoveOn Positive Agenda Vote Totals:

Health care for all - 65091
Sustainable energy independence - 61030
Restored constitutional rights - 35675
Guaranteed accurate elections - 35133
Global leadership through diplomacy - 28912
High quality education for all - 27874
Solutions to global warming - 26306
A guaranteed living wage - 25527
Publicly funded elections - 21096
A balanced federal budget - 20945

We need a system that is equitable and affordable for all...Health care should not be treated like a commodity. We have 46 million uninsured and many million more who are underinsured and don't have adequate health care. It is estimated that 18,000 people die each year because they don't have adequate health care that works out to 50 people every day. We cannot continue to tolerate a fragmented health care system which worries more about profits and stock holders than it does the well-being of Americans. It is time for a systemic change which will bring down the cost of health care.–Rebecca E. from Ithaca, NY.

Do we get what we pay for in healthcare spending?

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Wed, 31 May 2006 22:03:00 +0000

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

Illinois candidates supporting national health insurance

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Tue, 30 May 2006 22:37:00 +0000

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

Medicare then and now

franscud@gmail.com (Francis Scudellari) — Sun, 28 May 2006 06:12:00 +0000

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