IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

I learned many years ago not to work on my own assuptions oe.

Doing so can cause complacency.

What are you trying to tell me, spendi? You seem to embrace the concept of automatic gainsaying so much... it's sometimes so hard to have a discussion with you.

But if you need a reference other than my assumptions, you can read up on the health care system in Massachusetts. It was changed to what essentially now constitutes a statutory health care system.

Some info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform

More info here:
http://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/


It's not perfect, and it takes time to transform a system; and, once transformed, it's still an ongoing effort to keep it up to date and effective - but it shows that transforming from a private system to a mandatory system seems to be quite doable.

It is doable oe as you say.

The minister responsible in the UK when faced with a crowd around his desk pleading for delay and ammendments shouted - just ******* do it.

If you have no ministers like that you have no chance.

We seem to agree on that one...

Schools, post offices and countless other entities are 'socialized' or government funded. Why do some Americans have a problem with the medical system being funded the same way? I seem to remember 'provide for the common welfare' in there somewhere.

The government does certain things better, and health care is one of them. For instance, Medicare is at least five times more efficient than any private health insurance company.

On another issue, does this new A2K send emails for new posts? I haven't received one since the change.

Repeating this claim over and over again won't make it come true. It's been disproven in this thread several times.

If Medicare is so efficient why are doctors running away from it?

The underlying problem with Medicare is that congress expanded the beneficiaries to include dependents and the disabled without the revenue source to support it. That's the reason why payments to doctors have been cut and reduced.

We can blame our government for the mismanagement of their fiscal responsibilities, and that includes all levels at the local, state, and the federal.

C i.
Let is see the world as it is and strive hard tomake this bitter world a better.

"A survey of 1,294 adults living in Orleans parish earlier this year, published August 13, revealed that the vast majority of residents contend with serious physical or mental health problems as well as lack of health care coverage. The survey, conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation between early March and late April, found that 84 percent of respondents suffered health problems; 65 percent reported suffering from chronic conditions or disabilities and flagging health."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/aug2008/katr-a30.shtml

US health care could learn a few things from foreign health care systems

When one reads the following informtion, it seems that a universal healthcare system will have to be installed in the near future.


MORE AMERICANS LOSING EMPLOYER INSURANCE: Employers have shed 5.1 million jobs in the last 15 months, and approximately "2.4 million workers have lost the health coverage their jobs provided since the start of the recession." In fact, a new analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor statistics by the Center for American Progress concludes that the worst losses have been in the first three months of 2009, when more than 1 million workers lost health coverage. In March alone, more than 320,000 Americans lost their employer-provided health insurance, "which amounts to approximately 10,680 workers a day." Manufacturing, construction, and professional and business services accounted for three-quarters of total jobs lost, while employees in the durable goods manufacturing sector bore "the greatest burden of the losses in coverage with approximately 733,600 workers becoming uninsured since December 2007," the report concluded. Still, estimates of the rise in the number of uninsured "do not reflect the full extent of health coverage loss due to lost employment." As the report explains, the numbers represent a "conservative estimate of the number affected, since it leaves out spouses and children who may have also lost coverage as a result of a spouse or parent losing their jobs."

'DOCTORS FOR AMERICA' SUPPORT EXPANDING COVERAGE: Overall, the number of Americans without insurance has increased 13 percent since 2007, "the largest two-year leap since the last effort at national health reform in 1994." States like North Carolina, Indiana, and Nevada experienced some of the highest increases of the uninsured. The growing national crisis has led a diverse group of stakeholders and interest groups to advocate for expanding health insurance coverage to all Americans. Yesterday, John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, hosted a teleconference with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), and President and Co-founder of Doctors for America Dr. Vivek Murthy to announce new efforts by Doctors for America -- a grassroots organization of 11,000 doctors from all 50 states -- to amplify physicians' voices in support of health care reform. "What's a key priority for us is that whatever plan is put forth really does improve access for patients and improve choice for patients," Murthy said on the call. The group will "work to convey the ideas and experiences of physicians to achieve healthcare reform based on four key pillars: affordable coverage, expanded access to care, high quality care, and practice environments that allow physicians to focus on patient care."

REPUBLICANS LEAVE WORKERS WITH NO PLAN: But while health care providers are developing solutions for expanding access to coverage, the Republicans are busy vilifying President Obama's proposals. On Saturday, Republican Party leaders Rep. Eric Cantor (VA), former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R), and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R) participated in a pizza parlor town hall in Arlington, VA to launch the National Council for a New America. The Council, an effort to rebrand and revive the GOP, was established by Cantor to "duel with the Obama administration in policy areas" where Republicans have a "track record." After almost 40 minutes of speeches, including several reminders that Republicans should not be "nostalgic about the past" -- the speakers opened up to questions from the audience. Ed McKee, the owner of the pizza parlor, asked what Republicans would do to reform health care, citing his own business' struggle to deal with "health insurance rates," which recently "went up 34 percent." Responding to McKee's question concerning the dramatic health care cost hike, Cantor said "that should be a sure sign we ought to be promoting anything that can try to bring health care costs down." But rather than offering any ideas or policy plans for addressing health care costs, Cantor launched into a set of attacks on the health systems in the UK and Canada, saying any reform should not reflect a "government takeover." The National Council's policy paper on health care is similarly vague and lacks a single policy plan.

--americanprogressaction.org

That's true; that's the primary reason republicans are losing their voting block. They are now the No Party, and Americans are tired of all the "noes" with no solutions; just bitching. They will continue to see their party shrink as they try to promote the "new" conservatives. They can't see their own extremist words and actions.

I said, no, no, no, no, no, no.....how many times must I say "no?"

Voter: no, no, no, no, no.....no more noes.

The real battle, over health care, is just beginning:
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13649042

Swiftboating Health Care Reform

Yesterday, immediately following NBC's Meet the Press, the right-wing group Conservatives for Patients' Rights (CPR) aired a 30-minute paid advertisement titled "The End of Patients' Rights: The Human Consequences of Government Run Health Care." Hosted by former CNN reporter Gene Randall, the program featured "horror stories" aimed at chipping away public support for reforming the U.S. health care system. As Fox News explained, "the new infomercial, despite the 'paid programming' label in the upper-left hand corner of the screen, had the appearance of a '60 Minutes' special" -- without the credibility, of course. The disgraced former CEO of Columbia/HCA Healthcare and now chairman of CPR, Rick Scott, appeared multiple times in the program warning that health care reform would result in the rationing of care, long waiting lists, and diminished quality. CPR's ad was premised on the false notion that "certain nefarious Democrats want to import British and Canadian health care into the United States." But as Wonk Room health care blogger Igor Volsky has noted, "CPR conflates deficiencies of the foreign health care systems with American reform efforts, but fails to cite a single Democrat who would want to copy-and-paste the British or Canadian examples." CPR's infomercial "presents the Democrats' reforms not as they are, but as conservatives wish for them to be," and as such, spends time warning Americans about the so-called "horror stories" of foreign health care system on which they will never have to rely.

A HISTORY OF FRAUD: If CPR wants to appear credible, it is indeed strange that Scott is such a prominent feature of its campaign against health care reform. As Progressive Media documented in a video report on Scott's history (view the short video here), Scott is "credited with transforming the American health care system into the profit above-all-else culture that is currently plaguing America." In his zealous attempt to turn his former company Columbia/HCA into the "McDonald's" of the health care industry, Scott's company "increased Medicare billings by exaggerating the seriousness of the illnesses they were treating," "granted doctors partnerships in company hospitals as a kickback for the doctors referring patients to HCA," and "gave doctors 'loans' that were never expected to be paid back, free rent, free office furniture, and free drugs from hospital pharmacies." The government pursued Scott's company in a seven-year fraud investigation that resulted in Columbia/HCA being fined $1.7 billion. While the fraud was illegal, the real horror stories came out of the abusive and negligent ways in which Columbia/HCA hospitals treated patients. ABC News reported in 1993 that nursing staffs were reduced in size to save costs, but resulted in newborns being "attended as infrequently as every three hours. Once, the only nurse caring for seven ill infants was so busy she failed to hear an alarm when a baby stopped breathing." In a hospital run by Columbia/HCA in California, employees protested "filthy conditions," while hospital staffers in Florida complained that "gloves come in only one size, and rip easily." Despite this, CPR's documentary touted Scott's background as CEO of Columbia/HCA saying, "under his leadership...Columbia had the lowest cost per patient of any category of hospital." Scott's tenure as head of Columbia/HCA is a prime example of what Americans can expect from their health care system in the future of so-called "free market" health care advocates win out.

SWIFTBOATING HEALTH CARE REFORM: To coordinate its attack on health care reform, CPR hired CRC Public Relations, the group "that masterminded the 'Swift Boat' attacks against 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry." CRC is reportedly using as a model the "'Harry and Louise' ads that helped torpedo health-care reform during the Clinton administration." As in the Swift Boat campaign, CPR's anti-reform campaign is well-financed and is misleading the public. Indeed, in March and April, the group spent $1.2 million on ads, with another $1 million spent in May alone. In all, the group has been seeded with millions from Scott's personal fortune. As for the group's apparent distaste for honest debate, their campaign is rife with warnings that health care reformers are determined to emulate the health care systems of Great Britain and Canada for use in the U.S. But as Volsky notes, "Most policy makers are looking for a 'uniquely American solution' that preserves the employer-sponsored system and creates a hybrid public-private partnership." The system would leave the "provision of health care...in private hands" and create a marketplace within which public and private insurers can compete on price while insuring the sickest patients. Fundamentally, however, CPR's fear mongering about single-payer health care systems is dishonest. As Jonathan Cohn explains in his book Sick, "The stories about Canada are wildly exaggerated. And the pinched access to services in Britain, at least, isn't a product of universal health care. It's a product of universal health care on the cheap." "The British spend just 7 percent of their national wealth on health care, less than half of what Americans spend. It's possible to spend more than that--and get more--while still spending less than the United States does. A perfect example is Japan. Relative to the United States, Japan spends about 60 percent as much of its wealth on health care. But the Japanese don't wait for medical services. ... Japan leads the world in the availability of technology such as CT scanners and MRI machines," Cohn writes. As Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein notes, despite there being wait times for non-essential care in Britain, the outcomes for care do not appear to be worse.

EMBRACED BY THE RIGHT WING: Klein recently remarked that Scott's high-profile defense of the health care status quo was akin to former President Bush "tasking Donald Rumsfeld with a comprehensive defense of his administration's legacy." Indeed, despite Scott's well-known history as a health care fraudster, the right wing appears to be wholeheartedly embracing him, his organization, and his message. In recent weeks, Scott has been hosted at an "influential weekly breakfast organized by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist." The right-wing National Review promoted CPR's ad campaign and interviewed Scott at length without ever noting his background. Fox News hosted Scott multiple times in recent months before they disclosed his controversial past. Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) "invited Mr. Scott to meet with him on Tuesday because he liked what Mr. Scott had been saying." It's clear why the right has embraced Scott. While he's yet to use such language in his current attempt to scuttle reform, in 1993 he vowed to do "everything I can" to defeat Clinton's health care proposal. But while conservatives are getting on board with Scott, the Washington Post explains that, "for the moment," his campaign is relatively independent of "major insurers, hospitals and other health-care providers" because such stake holders have hopes of working with President Obama and the Congress to constructively "shap[e] the outcome of a final reform package." Indeed, a senior executive with the insurance industry organization that ran the "Harry and Louise" ads which helped stop former President Clinton's attempts at health care reform told the New York Times, "I just don't understand why he would be a messenger people would listen to. I don't think people are waiting to hear from him."

--americanprogressaction.org

The initial premise that it'll be a "government run health care" is not correct, so the whole article has no merit.

The right has this mindless opposition to a single-payor health care system. Incidentally, the payor need not be the government, but could be a nonprofit.


Derrick Z. Jackson

Rebuilding healthcare without the middlemen
By Derrick Z. Jackson
Globe Columnist / June 13, 2009

OBAMA says that if healthcare is not reformed this year, "we're not going to get it done." His Council of Economic Advisers warns that healthcare expenditures, currently 18 percent of gross domestic product, will nearly double to 34 percent by 2040 unless costs are contained. The number of uninsured people in the United States would expand from its current 46 million to 72 million by 2040. "The American healthcare system is on an unsustainable path," the council said. "Expenditures as a share of GDP are already substantially higher than in other developed countries . . . This growth threatens to have a devastating impact."


Even if Congress responds to Obama's alarm, it is doubtful reform will put us on par with other developed countries. Obama has already taken a single-payer system off the table, despite repeatedly acknowledging the clear benefits of eliminating the administrative costs of middlemen insurance companies. In a May town hall in New Mexico, he said to applause, "If I were starting a system from scratch, then I think that the idea of moving towards a single-payer system could very well make sense. That's the kind of system you have in most industrialized countries around the world."

Alas, he says, we are so entrenched in employer-based, insurance-company healthcare, all he can promise is "vast improvement." He told the New Mexico audience, "We don't want a huge disruption as we go into healthcare reform where suddenly we're trying to reinvent one-sixth of the economy."

Insurance companies and pharmaceuticals, the nation's top two lobbying industries, have Capitol Hill on lockdown. They have spent $2.8 billion since 1998 on lobbying and $76 million in the 2008 elections in campaign contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Faster than you can say Obama, contributions historically weighted heavily toward Republicans are swinging to the Democrats.

Part of the reason obviously is that the health industry feels the heat of American outrage on costs. A coalition of insurance and pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and the American Medical Association this week issued a plan to voluntarily knock costs down between $1 trillion to $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years.

But that was short of a goal set by Obama of $2 trillion. It underscores how hard it will be for Obama to get any goal line approaching universal healthcare, with our embarrassingly bloated middleman costs. The United States, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, spends $6,714 per capita on healthcare, double the spending in countries like Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Australia, and Japan. Second highest is Switzerland at $4,520, and only two other nations, Norway and Luxembourg, cross the $4,000 per-capita mark. Our per-capita spending on prescription and nonprescription drugs is $843, compared with $639 in Canada, $500 in Germany, and $303 in New Zealand.

We might say our for-profit system is worth it if, for all those health costs, Americans indeed boasted the best health in the world. But it can be argued that our system is literally costing each American two, three, and four years of life. The United States is the only industrialized nation with life expectancy under 78 years. Australia, Canada, France, Iceland, Japan, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland all have life expectancies between 80.3 and 82 years.

Even more striking, in the early 1960s the United States was ahead of, or virtually tied with, Japan, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, Germany, France, Finland, and Austria in life expectancy. Today, we are a year-and-a-half or more behind them all.

Will reform reclaim those years, at a time when we are compounding costs with preventable diseases, such as the highest obesity rates in the developed world? Reform will have to be as dramatic as the first heart transplant, as radical as taxing junk food, and as meaningful as making physical fitness as important as test scores.

As long as Obama and Capitol Hill say we cannot start from scratch on healthcare, we will forever be scratching the surface.

--boston.com

HEALTH CARE -- WAL-MART BACKS AN EMPLOYER MANDATE: Yesterday, Wal-Mart, the largest private employer in the country, joined the SEIU and the Center for American Progress, sent a letter to President Obama voicing support for an employer mandate to be included in health care reform. "We are for an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage," the letter states, adding, "From a business perspective, health reform could not be more critical." The Wonk Room's Igor Volsky notes that an employer mandate makes sense from a business perspective because "all firms would benefit from the reduction in unpaid medical bills incurred by the uninsured, increased productivity through improved worker health and labor force participation, and the savings due to a reduced rate of health-care cost growth." The Hill's Jeffrey Young writes that Wal-Mart's departure from the ideological stance favored by the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups "marks the first visible crack in the business coalition on health care reform." However, Wal-Mart argues that if expected gains don't materialize, the legislation should include certain "triggers" that "automatically enforces reductions" in their health care costs. Nevertheless, the shift is a win-win for reformers because the "nation's largest employer has embraced a mechanism that enhances the existing system of employer-based coverage" and "levels the playing field between employers and preserves the employer contribution." In fact, the willingness of the business community, first climate change and now over health care, to depart from the Chamber's conservative ideology "is an important sign of change in the air."






Seventy-five percent of Americans who have been "pushed into personal bankruptcy by medical problems actually had insurance when they got sick or were injured." Many experts say that fixing the health care system won't mean "simply giving everyone an insurance card." Too many Americans "already have coverage so meager that a medical crisis means financial calamity."

Today, the pharmaceutical lobby group PhRMA and the consumer health care advocate group Families USA are launching a "multimillion-dollar national television advertising campaign to urge lawmakers to pass quality, affordable health care reform."

--americanprogressaction.org

Where are all the news about those families who had insurance but ended up bankrupt? Also, it seems all conservatives have an iron-clad health care plan that they can afford to pay, and get all the health care they need - even as premiums continues to incrase at a much greater rate than inflation.

What's wrong with this picture?

Do they really live in the real world?

Interesting argument. I assume you have something like the mandatory insurance scheme that exists in Germany in mind.

Unfortunately that doesn't appear to be a feasible outcome here. The government already operates roughly one-third of the health care in this country through the Nedicare and Medicaid programs. Both already have unhappy track records of fraud & abuse; arbitrarily imposed restrictions on services and fees; and effectively transferring their costs to private sector programs & providers. That is the source of the widespread public suspicion that the government-operated option (which the Administration says will be operated like the ill-famed Medicare program) will eventually drive out all private alternatives, leaving us with a government operated program embodying all the innovation, cost control, and care for their customers for which government bureaucracies are so famous.

If the gov't-operated option were to be conducted so horribly how would it be able to compete with the superior private sector entities....much less drive them out?

Sounds counterintuitive to me.