Archive for the ‘Single Payer Health Plan’ Category

Public Service or Socialism?

Thursday, February 4th, 2010

I don’t know, call me a “socialist” if you like, but I think speed limits and mandatory brake lights on cars are good ideas. Not everyone agrees. I’m glad the voltage of the electricity coming into our house is regulated so the appliances don’t burst into flames. I’m glad there’s a fire hydrant on the street in case one of the houses catches fire. Our village Fire Department is first rate.

How about health care and bank regulation? What if we “socialized” them like the water department? Would it be the end of life in America as we know it?

Here’s a joke, related to Efficient Market Theory found in Raj Patel’s book The Value of Nothing:

Q: How many Chicago Economists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. If the light bulb needed changing, the market would have already done it.

Here’s some perspective, courtesy of YouTube, on “socialism” in our daily lives.

Underfunded Retirement Plans and High-Priced Health Care

Tuesday, September 1st, 2009

Recession and higher health care costs diminish retirement nest eggs.

Being part of the American middle class used to mean having a modest, secure, comfortable retirement. Usually, this came from working many years for an employer that offered a defined benefit retirement plan. Over the past 20-years or so, employers have changed from defined benefit to “defined contribution” plans, such as 401k accounts, that shift more risk onto employees.

The Employee Benefit Resouce Institute (EBRI) has this report out about the status of America’s retirement plans. Some may find it striking that less than half of all workers have any retirement plan offered through their employer. Here are some exerpts:

MEDIAN ASSET LEVELS FOR DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLANS: Among all families with a defined contribution plan in 2007, the median (mid-point) plan balance was $31,800, up 16 percent from 2004. According to EBRI estimates, this dropped 16.4 percent (to $26,578) from year-end 2007 to mid-June 2009. Losses were higher for families with more than $100,000 a year in income (down 22 percent) or having a net worth in the top 10 percent (down 28 percent).

MEDIAN ASSET LEVELS FOR IRA/KEOGH PLANS: Among all families with an IRA/Keogh plan, the median value of their plan was $34,000 in 2007, up 3 percent from 2004. EBRI estimates this median value dropped 15 percent (to $28,955) from year-end 2007 to mid-June 2009.

LESS THAN HALF OF ALL FAMILIES HAVE A RETIREMENT PLAN THROUGH A CURRENT JOB: In 2007, 40.6 percent of families included a participant in an employment-based retirement plan (either a defined benefit or defined contribution plan) from a current job. This was up from 38.8 percent in 1992, but virtually unchanged from 40.3 percent in 2004. A significant shift in the plan type occurred from 1992 to 2007, with the percentage of families with a plan having only a defined benefit plan decreasing from 40.0 percent to 17.4 percent.”

As presented here, one of the reasons to have a single-payer health plan is that it would save upwards of 30% by reducing administrative costs. That savings could be dedicated to building up worker retirement plans, instead of supporting skyrocketing health care costs.

That point is often overlooked in the current bone-headed health care debate. It’s definitely something to think about.

Moyers Presents “Money Driven Medicine”

Friday, August 28th, 2009

The health-care documentary Money Driven Medicine will be featured tonight on Bill Moyers’ Journal. The documentary is based on the excellent book by Maggie Mahar, who writes regularly at Health Beat. Check your local PBS schedule. This should be good.

What Awesome Insurance Do Protesters Have?

Wednesday, August 12th, 2009

Health Overhaul Protest
Photo Source

As these anti-health reform protests rage, an important question is going unanswered. I wish Jake Tapper would get the scoop: what health insurance do the protesters have? It must be fabulous.

They must have some great benefits to be so passionate about keeping the status quo – to show so much love for the insurance companies.

Whatever it is, it’s probably not UnitedHealth, which now has to pay stockholders $895 million to settle a stock back-dating scandal. CEO William McGuire was ordered to pay $30 million. That story is here.

Summary of House Health Care Reform Bill

Saturday, July 18th, 2009

America’s Affordable Health Choices Act

The bill, or at least the summary, looks pretty good, and the AMA has endorsed it, something it did not do for the so-called “Hillary Care” fifteen years ago. It’s not as good as single-payer, in my opinion, but it’s a lot better than what we have now.

Last week, I wrote a piece here, criticising a health care reform plan that, I thought, was a “wasteful hybrid system.” I’m thinking about taking that post down. This week, the house released its draft bill, and I like a lot of what’s in it. For example, it covers an additional 40 million people, it increases the number of primary care physicians and nurses, expands wellness programs, and creates a public insurance option. Contrary to what a lot of pundits are saying, it does give a basic explanation of how it would be paid for. Did anyone figure out how to pay for the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003? Those cuts cost the nation $5 trillion.

The summary follows, with a link to the U.S. House website.

Bill Summary

SUMMARY
America’s Affordable Health Choices Act provides quality affordable health care for all Americans and controls health care cost growth. Key provisions of the bill released today include:

COVERAGE AND CHOICE
AFFORDABILITY
SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
CONTROLLING COSTS
PREVENTION AND WELLNESS
WORKFORCE INVESTMENTS

I. COVERAGE AND CHOICE
The bill builds on what works in today’s health care system and fixes the parts that are broken. It protects current coverage – allowing individuals to keep the insurance they have if they like it – and preserves choice of doctors, hospitals, and health plans. It achieves these reforms through:

A Health Insurance Exchange. The new Health Insurance Exchange creates a transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and public insurers. It works with state insurance departments to set and enforce insurance reforms and consumer protections, facilitates enrollment, and administers affordability credits to help low- and middle-income individuals and families purchase insurance. Over time, the Exchange will be opened to additional employers as another choice for covering their employees. States may opt to operate the Exchange in lieu of the national Exchange provided they follow the federal rules.

A public health insurance option. One of the many choices of health insurance within the health insurance Exchange is a public health insurance option. It will be a new choice in many areas of our country dominated by just one or two private insurers today. The public option will operate on a level playing field. It will be subject to the same market reforms and consumer protections as other private plans in the Exchange and it will be self-sustaining – financed only by its premiums.

Guaranteed coverage and insurance market reforms. Insurance companies will no longer be able to engage in discriminatory practices that enable them to refuse to sell or renew policies today due to an individual’s health status. In addition, they can no longer exclude coverage of treatments for pre-existing health conditions. The bill also protects consumers by prohibiting lifetime and annual limits on benefits. It also limits the ability of insurance companies to charge higher rates due to health status, gender, or other factors. Under the proposal, premiums can vary based only on age (no more than 2:1), geography and family size.

Essential benefits. A new independent Advisory Committee with practicing providers and other health care experts, chaired by the Surgeon General, will recommend a benefit package based on standards set in the law. This new essential benefit package will serve as the basic benefit package for coverage in the Exchange and over time will become the minimum quality standard for
employer plans. The basic package will include preventive services with no cost-sharing, mental health services, oral health and vision for children, and caps the amount of money a person or family spends on covered services in a year.

II. AFFORDABILITY
To ensure that all Americans have affordable health coverage the bill:

Provides sliding scale affordability credits. The affordability credits will be available to low- and moderate- income individuals and families. The credits are most generous for those who are just above the proposed new Medicaid eligibility levels; the credits decline with income (and so premium and cost-sharing support is more limited as your income increases) and are completely phased out when income reaches 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($43,000 for an individual or $88,000 for a family of four). The affordability credits will not only make insurance premiums affordable, they will also reduce cost-sharing to levels that ensure access to care. The Exchange administers the affordability credits with other federal and state entities, such as local Social Security offices and state Medicaid agencies.

Caps annual out-of-pocket spending. All new policies will cap annual out-of-pocket spending to prevent bankruptcies from medical expenses.

Increased competition: The creation of the Health Insurance Exchange and the inclusion of a public health insurance option will make health insurance more affordable by opening many market areas in our country to new competition, spurring efficiency and transparency.

Expands Medicaid. Individuals and families with incomes at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level will be eligible for an expanded and improved Medicaid program. Recognizing the budget challenges in many states, this expansion will be fully federally financed. To improve provider participation in this vital safety net – particularly for low-income children, individuals with disabilities and people with mental illnesses – reimbursement rates for primary care services will be increased with new federal funding.

Improves Medicare. Senior citizens and people with disabilities will benefit from provisions that fill the donut hole over time in the Part D drug program, eliminate cost-sharing for preventive services, improve the low-income subsidy programs in Medicare, fix physician payments, and make other program improvements. The bill will also address future fiscal challenges by improving payment accuracy, encouraging delivery system reforms and extending solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund.

III. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
The bill creates shared responsibility among individuals, employers and government to ensure that all Americans have affordable coverage of essential health benefits.

Individual responsibility. Except in cases of hardship, once market reforms and affordability credits are in effect, individuals will be responsible for obtaining and maintaining health insurance coverage. Those who choose to not obtain coverage will pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income above a specified level.

Employer responsibility. The proposal builds on the employer-sponsored coverage that exists today. Employers will have the option of providing health insurance coverage for their workers or contributing funds on their behalf. Employers that choose to contribute will pay an amount based on eight percent of their payroll. Employers that choose to offer coverage must meet minimum benefit and contribution requirements specified in the proposal.

Assistance for small employers. Recognizing the special needs of small businesses, the smallest businesses (payroll that does not exceed $250,000) are exempt from the employer responsibility
requirement. The payroll penalty would then phase in starting at 2% for firms with annual payrolls over $250,000 rising to the full 8 percent penalty for firms with annual payrolls above $400,000. In addition, a new small business tax credit will be available for those firms who want to provide health coverage to their workers. In addition to the targeted assistance, the Exchange and market reforms provide a long-sought opportunity for small businesses to benefit from a more organized, efficient marketplace in which to purchase coverage.

Government responsibility. The government is responsible for ensuring that every American can afford quality health insurance, through the new affordability credits, insurance reforms, consumer protections, and improvements to Medicare and Medicaid.

IV. PREVENTION AND WELLNESS
Prevention and wellness measures of the bill include:

Expansion of Community Health Centers;
Prohibition of cost-sharing for preventive services;
Creation of community-based programs to deliver prevention and wellness services;
A focus on community-based programs and new data collection efforts to better identify and address racial, ethnic, regional and other health disparities;
Funds to strengthen state, local, tribal and territorial public health departments and programs.

V. WORKFORCE INVESTMENTS
The bill expands the health care workforce through:

Increased funding for the National Health Service Corp;
More training of primary care doctors and an expansion of the pipeline of individuals going into health professions, including primary care, nursing and public health;
Greater support for workforce diversity;
Expansion of scholarships and loans for individuals in needed professions and shortage areas; Encouragement of training of primary care physicians by taking steps to increase physician training outside the hospital, where most primary care is delivered, and redistributes unfilled graduate medical education residency slots for purposes of training more primary care physicians. The proposal also improves accountability for graduate medical education funding to ensure that physicians are trained with the skills needed to practice health care in the 21st century.

VI. CONTROLLING COSTS
The bill will reduce the growth in health care spending in a numerous ways. Investing in health care through stronger prevention and wellness measures, increasing access to primary care, health care delivery system reform, the Health Insurance Exchange and the public health insurance option, improvements in payment accuracy and reforms to Medicare and Medicaid will all help slow the growth of health care costs over time. These savings will accrue to families, employers, and taxpayers.

Modernization and improvement of Medicare. The bill implements major delivery system reform in Medicare to reward efficient provision of health care, rolling out innovative concepts such as accountable care organizations, medical homes, and bundling of acute and post-acute provider payments. New payment incentives aim to decrease preventable hospital readmissions, expanding this policy over time to recognize that physicians and post-acute providers also play an important role in avoiding readmissions. The bill improves the Medicare Part D program by creating new consumer protections for Medicare Advantage Plans, eliminating the “donut hole” and improving
low-income subsidy programs, so that Medicare is affordable for all seniors and other eligible individuals. A centerpiece of the proposal is a complete reform of the flawed physician payment mechanism in Medicare (the so-called sustainable growth rate or “SGR” formula), with an update that wipes away accumulated deficits, provides for a fresh start, and rewards primary care services, care coordination and efficiency.

Innovation and delivery reform through the public health insurance option. The public health insurance option will be empowered to implement innovative delivery reform initiatives so that it is a nimble purchaser of health care and gets more value for each health care dollar. It will expand upon the experiments put forth in Medicare and be provided the flexibility to implement value-based purchasing, accountable care organizations, medical homes, and bundled payments. These features will ensure the public option is a leader in efficient delivery of quality care, spurring competition with private plans.

Improving payment accuracy and eliminating overpayments. The bill eliminates overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans and improves payment accuracy for numerous other providers, following recommendations by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission and the President. These steps will extend Medicare Trust Fund solvency, and put Medicare on stronger financial footing for the future.

Preventing waste, fraud and abuse. New tools will be provided to combat waste, fraud and abuse within the entire health care system. Within Medicare, new authorities allow for pre-enrollment screening of providers and suppliers, permit designation of certain areas as being at elevated risk of fraud to implement enhanced oversight, and require compliance programs of providers and suppliers. The new public health insurance option and Health Insurance Exchange will build upon the safeguards and best practices gleaned from experience in other areas.

Administrative simplification. The bill will simplify the paperwork burden that adds tremendous costs and hassles for patients, providers, and businesses today.

PREPARED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEES ON WAYS AND MEANS, ENERGY AND COMMERCE, AND EDUCATION AND LABOR JULY 14, 2009

Geoghegan Explains Reasons for Single-Payer Plan

Tuesday, July 14th, 2009

Tom Geoghegan, a Labor attorney and writer (and good friend of James Fallows) ran for the Democratic nomination for the House seat vacated by Rahm Emanuel. He lost. But during the campaign, he presented a strong argument for a single-payer health plan, as he does in the video. Geoghegan highlights three good reasons to go single payer:

1. It reduces overall health care costs by cutting out the for-profit insurance middle-man.

2 . It would take the burden of health insurance costs off of struggling U.S. companies, making them more competitive with corporations in other countries.

3. Money saved on health care could be used to increase Social Security payments to retirees. This is a new reason to me. One that makes a lot of sense. So many of us have badly under-funded retirement benefits.

How’s your retirement plan?

What’s Wrong with the $600 Billion Health Care Proposal?

Friday, July 10th, 2009

It preserves too much of the wasteful old system.

From the Physicians for a National Health Program (a single-payer plan):

The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.

Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.

Single-payer is the only system that saves money, covers everyone, and makes health care a priority above profits. We need a single-payer system, not a wasteful hybrid system. We need it now.

Single-Payer Support in the Senate: Bernie Sanders’ Petition

Saturday, June 20th, 2009

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is asking citizen support for a single-payer health plan by signing an on-line petition. Sanders strongly argues that single-payer, with its comprehensive scope and cost savings is both a moral and economic imperative for our time. A few other points:

1. The number of health insurance industry bureaucrats has grown at 25 times the growth of physicians in the past 30 years;
2. Medicare (our existing single-payer system for elderly and disabled Americans) has administrative costs far lower than any private health insurance plan;
3. The potential savings on health insurance paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, is enough to provide comprehensive coverage to every uninsured American;

I strongly urge both of my readers to sign this petition. Thanks.

Sign Senator Sanders’ Petition

Poll: Most Minnesota Physicians Support Single-Payer Health Plan

Monday, June 15th, 2009

64 Percent of Minnesota Physicians Favor Single-Payer System

Recent news programs I’ve seen lately, including tonight’s Situuation Room with Wolf Blitzer have depicted doctors as generally opposing a publicly financed single-payer health plan. Today, President Obama spoke to the American Medical Association, an organization that represents about 25% of doctors. None of the television news programs I’ve noticed make any mention of the Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization some 15,000 strong made up of physicians who believe that doctors should concentrate on treating their patients instead of dealing with insurance companies.

Another example for physician support for a single=payer helth care plan comes from Minnesota.

The February 2007 issue of
Minnesota Medicine
, a publication of the Minnesota Medical Association, has an article on research into physicians’ attitudes toward health care financing systems. From the study:

Despite physicians’ vital role in health care, few studies have assessed their preferences regarding health care financing systems. We surveyed a random sample of licensed Minnesota physicians to determine their preferences regarding health care financing systems. Of 390 physicians, 64% favored a single-payer system, 25% HSAs, and 12% managed care. The majority of physicians (86%) also agreed that it is the responsibility of society, through the government, to ensure that everyone has access to good medical care. Less than half (41%) said that the private insurance industry should continue to play a major role in financing health care.

If the Physicians have had enough of Health Savings Accounts and managed care, and single payer would save 20-30 percent in reduced administrative costs, why don’t we have single payer?

There’s a red, white, and blue “Contact Congress” widget in the sidebar. Those who believe the middle man, i.e., insurance companies, taking 30 cents of every dollar spent on health care is a good idea, then they should support the status quo. Those who think we cannot sustain that kind of extravagant jobs program for the insurance industry should contact their representatives in the House and Senate and demand a public option.

Are Youth Less Comfortable With Inequality?

Saturday, June 13th, 2009

How comfortable are you with economic inequality? If you don’t mind if the gap between rich and everybody else grows wider, you may be a conservative. If you believe that differences in life circumstances, particularly family status, are key drivers determining who wins and who loses in the business of living, AND you’re uncomfortable with that reality, you may be a liberal.

Chris Dillow, a British financial journalist who also blogs at Stumbling & Mumbling, has suggested that what defines a liberal versus a conservative, is how comfortable one is with economic inequality. I tend to agree.

Some recent polling suggests that younger Americans are, compared to their elders, less comfortable with disparities with respect to access to healthcare. This could be an indicator of support for a more egalitarian society among youth, and a harbinger of more liberal policies in America. It’s also good news for the democratic wing of the Democratic party.

The following graph is a from a poll conducted by Diageo-Hotline. It breaks down, according to age group, respondants views of whether it is more important to control health care costs, or expand coverage to the uninsured. The youngest group, 18-29 year olds, clearly chose expanded coverage as their priority.

Image source: Diageo-Hotline Poll

Image source: Diageo-Hotline Poll

Conversely, it was the oldest group that was more concerned with controling costs. Given that the elderly require more health care, on average, than the young, this seems to reflect simple self interest.

Will young Americans shift their priorities to controlling costs once they start shelling out for medical bills? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Which should we do: control costs or cover everybody? As Congress and the Prisident tussle over health care reform they’d do well to remember the smartest policies will do both.

Brown Leads Senate Resolution on Public Health Insurance Option

Friday, May 22nd, 2009


It took a freshman Democratic senator from Ohio to provide the leadership, but Senator Sherrod Brown and 27 cosponsors have taken a big step, one likely to make them targets of the insurance companies and Big Pharma, by introducing a resolution to include a public health insurance option in any Senate health care reform bill.

Listen to Sherrod Brown’s comments.

The press release follows:

May 21, 2009
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Twenty-eight U.S. Senators today introduced a resolution calling for the inclusion of federally-backed health insurance option in health care reform. The Senators’ resolution says that any reform of our nation’s health care system should give consumers a choice of an affordable, federally-backed option to introduce competition in the health insurance market and contain health care costs.

The Senators’ resolution expresses that the “presence of a federally-backed insurance pool” would provide consumer choice and benefit “Americans who have become unemployed, live in rural and other traditionally underserved areas, or have been unable to attain affordable health insurance.”

The resolution states that “any efforts to reform our Nation’s health care system should include as an option the establishment of a federally-backed insurance pool to create options for American consumers.”

“This is about consumer choice and introducing competition in the health insurance market,” Sen. Brown said. “Private health insurers always manage to stay ‘one step ahead of the sheriff’— finding new ways to limit care and pass costs along to the consumer. Giving Americans the choice of a quality, federally-backed, health insurance option will keep private insurers honest and make health care affordable.”

“I strongly support including a public health insurance option in health reform,” said Sen. Rockefeller, Chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Health Care. “We need to provide quality, affordable coverage for the millions of Americans the insurance industry has failed – a federally-backed health insurance option is the only reliable way to do just that.”

“A public health insurance option is critical to ensure the greatest amount of choice possible for consumers,” Sen. Schumer said. “We believe that it is fully possible to create a public plan that delivers all the benefits of increased competition without relying on unfair, built-in advantages. If a level playing field exists, then private insurers will have to compete based on quality of care and pricing, instead of just competing for the healthiest consumers.”

“We have a moral obligation to ensure all Americans have access to affordable and high quality health care,” Sen. Levin said. “One step toward achieving that goal is to ensure that we explore all possible health insurance options, including a federally-backed health insurance pool, as we continue to move forward in determining the best way to reform health care.”

“All Americans deserve the option of affordable health insurance plans,” Sen. Leahy said. “A public option will give those in need of coverage access to quality care, maintain patient choice, and reduce the nation’s overall health spending. We cannot afford to neglect true reform to our health system any longer.”

“The purpose of reforming our broken health care system is to make sure all Americans have access to quality, affordable health care, plain and simple,” Sen. Menendez said. “By ensuring that families have a real choice of health insurance options – and that one of those choices is a quality, federally-backed plan – we can help guarantee that families will have good options for health care that they can rely upon and afford.”

“In the greatest country in the world, health care should be a right, not a privilege,” Sen. Stabenow said. “A public insurance option encourages competition and provides families with a valuable choice to keep the insurance they have now or purchase this option. Public insurance is an essential step in guaranteeing that when a worker loses their job they doesn’t also lose their insurance. And most of all it will mean that every American family has access to affordable, quality healthcare.”

“Improving our health care system to increase quality and improve affordability is the ultimate and long-neglected goal,” said Sen. Casey. “A public option can help this effort by increasing competition in the market and maintaining patient choice.”

“Health reform should provide consumers with the full range of choices to meet their needs,” Sen. Merkley said. “A public option will provide competition that will keep private insurance companies honest and help improve service and lower health care costs for everyone.”

“Ensuring that every American has access to quality, affordable health care is a national priority,” Sen. Gillibrand said. “With more than 47 million uninsured Americans and millions of families and businesses struggling with rising health care costs, the time to act is now. We cannot have a system in which the only choice is private plans. Everyone should have the option of buying into a not-for profit public plan at a rate that they can afford. I am proud to join with my colleagues to fight for the inclusion of a public plan option in health care reform.”

“In this tough economy, we need to do all we can to help families afford to see a doctor, buy medicines they need to stay healthy and choose the health care coverage they need,” Sen. Lautenberg said. “Greater choice and greater competition helps ensure consumers can get real coverage at more affordable prices and should be a part of national health care reform.”

The resolution was sponsored by Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Carl Levin (D-MI), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Bob Casey (D-PA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Tom Udall (D-NM), Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Ted Kaufman (D-DE), Roland W. Burris (D-IL), Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Benjamin Cardin (D-MD).

Thanks to Senator Brown and all the cosponsors!

10 Myths About Single-Payer Canadian Health Care

Wednesday, May 20th, 2009

Maggie Maher has a fine post over at Health Beat about common myths concocted to attack the Canadian single-payer health system. The post features an article called “Mythbusting Canadian Health Care Part I” by Canadian Sara Robinson. It’s the best and most spirited “fisking” of arguments thrown up by the health care for profit crowd I’ve seen.

Ten myths queued up for busting are:

1. Canada’s health care system is “socialized medicine.”
2. Doctors are hurt financially by single-payer health care.
3. Wait times in Canada are horrendous.
4. You have to wait forever to get a family doctor.
5. You don’t get to choose your own doctor.
6. Canada’s care plan only covers the basics. You’re still on your own for any extras, including prescription drugs. And you still have to pay for it.
7. Canadian drugs are not the same.
8. Publicly-funded programs will inevitably lead to rationed health care, particularly for the elderly.
9. People won’t be responsible for their own health if they’re not being forced to pay for the consequences.
10. This all sounds great — but the taxes to cover it are just unaffordable. And besides, isn’t the system in bad financial shape

Sample:

5. You don’t get to choose your own doctor.

Scurrilously False. Somebody, somewhere, is getting paid a lot of money to make this kind of stuff up. The cons love to scare the kids with stories about the government picking your doctor for you, and you don’t get a choice. Be afraid! Be very afraid!

For the record: Canadians pick their own doctors, just like Americans do. And not only that: since it all pays the same, poor Canadians have exactly the same access to the country’s top specialists that rich ones do.

FDR was right. “All we have to fear is fear itself.”

An earier version of this post appeared in this blog on February 8, 2008.

Launching COHO: Citizens Own Health Organization

Sunday, May 17th, 2009

Let’s take matters into our own hands and organize our own health program.

It’s just an idea for now, but think about this: an expanded Medicare single payer health program option has been blocked in the U.S. Senate with Max Baucus making the lead block. Not one senator has introduced in the Senate a companion bill to H.R. 676, the single-payer “Medicare for All” plan in the House of Representatives.

The government won’t expand Medicare eligibility to compete with for-profit health insurance companies, like the U.S. Postal Service competes with FedEx, or the way U.S. Treasury Bonds compete with corporate bonds. To expand Medicare eligibility would not be an unprecedented intrusion of government into the private sector. It would simply expand an existing program. The power and money of the insurance companies is too great for the politicians to resist. The only losers would be health insurance and drug companies. It looks pretty clear, insurance companies and Big Pharma have bought the politicians.

But, they don’t own us. They screw us.

Brainstorming COHO
I suggest we forget about asking the government to open up Medicare to make it available to all who want an efficient health payer system. Instead, let’s construct a quasi-government organization made up of single-payer supporters, including medical providers and professionals who know how to operate large, not-for-profit organizations.

There are millions of us out here who are convinced single-payer, not-for-profit is the only moral and economic way to run health care. There’s plenty of evidence to support this. Let’s start thinking outside the box. We’ve been beating ourselves against the walls of that box for too long. Let’s take matters into our own hands and organize our own program.

Let’s go COHO!

Criticism of Obama’s Health Reform Efforts

Saturday, May 16th, 2009

“The impression is created that the parameters of serious discussion range from Obama’s amorphous position, on the “Left,” and the hated corporations on the Right.”

Glen Ford, writing in the Gangbox Black Agenda Report, has some tough criticism for President Obama’s recent handling of health care reform. Some excerpts:

Far from passively taking the health care predators “at their word,” the manufactured rapprochement between the White House and the health predators was yet another carefully scripted act of classic Obama political theater. The cast of characters that are permitted to perform in the drama are chosen for the purpose of exclusion, not inclusion. Single-payer advocates, who represent the views of strong majorities of Americans, are excluded from the production by the Grand Director, President Obama. The impression is created that the parameters of serious discussion range from Obama’s amorphous position, on the “Left,” and the hated corporations on the Right. When the Fat Cats and the Top Cat ultimately shake hands, a national consensus is declared. It matters little that the biggest majorities to coalesce around any major issue in contemporary American life have been squeezed out of the discussion….

Democrats on The Hill dutifully behave as if single-payer is a verboeten subject. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi enforces the Obama line: “Over and over again, we hear single payer, single payer, single payer. Well, it’s not going to be a single payer.” Case closed.

Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus conducts ludicrous sham hearings – shamelessly dubbed “public roundtable discussions” – based on the Obama White House template: no single-payers allowed. On May 5, eight single-payer advocates, three of them physicians, were arrested for attempting to break the wall of censorship. The “Baucus Eight [7]” were followed on May 12 by an additional “Baucus Five [8]” when two registered nurses from the California Nurses Association, two doctors from Physicians for a National Health Program, and a patient advocate were arrested for violating Obama’s taboo against single payer advocacy. The nurses group headlined their press release [9] following the arrests: “Nurses, Doctors Arrested But Insurers Get a Seat at the Table.”

Without the President publicly pressuring Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) to include single-payer advocates, such as the 15,000 member Physicians for a National Health Program Baucus’s “roundtable” hearings, it’s easy to understand Glen Ford’s frustration, and think maybe he’s right.

Let Medicare Compete With Private Health Insurance

Friday, May 15th, 2009

When it comes to health insurance and health providers, how much choice do we Americans really have? Like many Americans, I get family medical insurance through my employer. I pay for half of the premium and my employer pays the other half.

I didn’t choose the plan, the company leaders chose it. I’m told we have good insurance, comparatively speaking. Basically, if we get service through the network, we pay 20% and the insurance company pays 80%. If we go outside the network, we pay 40% and the company pays 60%. In reality, it’s more complicated than that. I can’t understand the breakdown of fees in many of the bills we get.

We live in Michigan, near the Ohio border, and have Michigan BC/BS. The nearest level 1 trauma center and most comprehensive medical services are in Toledo, Ohio. Many of our medical providers are out of the network, I’m finding out. I suppose we could move closer to a large Michigan city, but we sort of like it here, where the kids are in school and housing costs are lower.

If I had the choice of buying into a national program, like Medicare, the in-network vs out-of-network, in-state vs out-of-state problems could go away. If I changed jobs I wouldn’t have to worry about transitioning to another insurance plan.

Medicare for all: a single payer for everybody who wants it, for their whole lives. I want that choice. Let us pay half the premium to Medicare and our employers can pay the other half, like they do now. Let Medicare compete with private insurance.

Jack E. Lohman, who writes the blog Moneyed Politicians is on a mission for campaign finance reform and single payer health reform. He’s 70 years old, a retired business owner and describes himself as a “center-right Republican.”

Jack’s the one who introduced me to the idea, which is based on market competition and freedom of choice:

“Open up the Medicare system to the people and let them decide. Allow any employer or employee to opt into medicare at actual cost! If Medicare is too expensive, as conservatives charge, they’ll get no takers. If it is indeed more efficient, it will prevail. As a current Medicare beneficiary, I’ll put my money on WPS, Wisconsin’s Medicare Administrator.”

H.R. 676, Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act sponsored by John Conyers (D-MI) now has 74 cosponsors, all Democrats, in the U.S. House of Representatives. That’s nowhere near enough votes for passage but the bill is alive.

H.R. 676 has no companion bill in the Senate. It needs one. It’s time. The Senate is the part of our government most resistant to single-payer, as the Baucus hearings have made clear. Our Senators won’t act unless really pushed by their constituents.

It’s time for a big push.