Home

Single Payer Minute Goes Coastal

Posted by Donna Smith - S... on October 2, 2008 - 6:23am

There is no time to waste.  Join the action.  Take just a moment every week to work for single payer, guaranteed healthcare for all. 

No bail-outs needed.  Just publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare for everyone in America.

Freedom to choose, freedom to live a healthy life, freedom to leave this nation in better shape for our kids and grandkids.  It is up to us.

 



News You Can Use

  • The Wall Street Journal reported that drug maker Cephalon on Monday completed a $443.9 million settlement with federal and state regulators related to allegations of improper sales and marketing practices.,

     

  • The Associated Press reports that drugstore operator Walgreen paid $9.9 million to settle whistleblower allegations that it overcharged the Medicaid programs Minnesota, Michigan, Florida and Massachusetts. 

     

  • The New York Times reports that more than 90% of U.S. nursing homes were cited for federal health and safety violations in 2007, according to an HHS Office of Inspector General report

     

More examples of the corruption and moral bankruptcy in our current health care system.

Action You Can Take

If you want the health care system to change then join us. This week your assignment is to call your member of Congress and ask them to support single payer health insurance, and your vote will be based on their answer. The November election is going to be close and every vote is important.

Resources

What else would $700 billion buy?

  • $100 billion would cover all of America's Uninsured:

     

  • $35 billion would provide Universal preschool

     

  • $100 billion would Rebuild New Orleans

     

  • $50 billion would provide Free college education for everyone:

     

  • $500 billion would give us total energy independence with a shift to renewables within the next ten years.

     

The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized country in the world that doesn't provide health care to all its citizens. Yet we spend more on health care, at 15% of GDP, for our inefficient, bureaucratic system than any other country. It is estimated that a universal, single-payer health care system would save the United States $1.1 trillion over ten years.

 Subscribe to the American Patients United mailing list.

»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Opportunity Cost

Submitted by Squibcakes on October 2, 2008 - 6:53pm.

That $700B has to be offset from somewhere else, like a family saving for higher education for their children, or invested in quality roads, or advancing medical science. Everything has an opportunity cost. By simply redirecting money into healthcare, one does not address the problem of the growth rate. To do that, we have to collectively accept less availability of services, more waiting, slower adoption of new technology, less earning prospects for doctors, and fewer options that one can consider based on his or her own situation.

»

I love how the asinine

Submitted by Scuzz on October 2, 2008 - 9:13pm.

I love how the asinine theory is that eliminate the insurance companies and that will solve the health care crisis. Never mind the fact that physicians and hospitals keep pumping up their charges year after year without anyone to hold them in check.

$700 billion? That's how much the taxpayers would lose 10 years after eliminating the private insurance watchdog.

»

Insurance companies as the watchdogs?! Please...

Submitted by Donna Smith - S... on October 3, 2008 - 3:47am.

The only way insurance companies serve the purpose of being watchdogs is by denying care to their policyholders and retaining more earnings for their own profit-takers and shareholders. What they watch is their own interests not that of patients...

Are there other greedy interests in healthcare? Of course. But please don't assign any ethical basis or consumer friendly or patient protective motivations to the for-profit insurance companies.

If an insurance company did not protect its own interests, that company would be breaking the law.

And those same doctors and hospitals you note as "pumping up their charges" do so in large part to absorb the administrative costs of processing claims to multiple insurance carriers under multiple plans within those carriers -- and then defending those claims. After a claim is denied, that provider then engages the billing and collection services effort to collect any amount owed by patients and families. All that paper and all that effort takes serious cash -- and add to it the profits everyone tries to make along the way, and that's not so good for overall costs either.

So, taxpayers pay for this waste and abuse for all of those who carry private insurance policies at our expense -- public employees at the local, state and federal levels have benefits supported by taxpayers. And in many cases those same taxpayers can't even afford the benefits themselves.

The flaws and abuses for the taxpayers are far more costly under this multi-payer system.

»

flaws and abuse

Submitted by Squibcakes on October 3, 2008 - 8:06am.

if you want flaws and abuse I've got one word for you: Medicare

any corporation acts in it's own interest as does any doctor or any individual. it's when we're not free to act in our own interest that problems are created economically.

Donna you're defining inefficiency solely by amounts of dollars spent. You need to look at value received, and part of that value received is flexibility. I.e. we can turn every doctor into a salaried professional with no say in their pay (not saying you're advocating that) in the name of 'efficiency', but obviously that would be a bad plan. just you like you can eliminate priviate insurance in the name of efficiency, but that will reduce short term spending and also reduce the value received through competition.

»

Don't agree about Medicare

Submitted by Donna Smith - S... on October 3, 2008 - 10:13am.

I think we do have some abuses and flaws in Medicare but to a much, much smaller extent than in the for-profit private insurance, multi-payer environment. Administrative costs in the Medicare program are far lower -- and do not have to build in for shareholder profit or CEO compensations. I like that.

And -- you are right -- I am not advocating doctors be be salaried professionals with no say in their pay. In fact, I advocate a publicly funded, privately delivered plan -- HR676, The National Health Insurance Act. Doctors and other healthcare professionals will have far better control over their incomes when they are assured of payment for services in a timely manner rather than denials and stalling inquiries and other ways insurance payments are delayed under the current system -- requiring costly follow-up efforts by doctors and their staff members.

I do like the competitive environment of my choosing which doctors and which providers to use -- and HR676 allows that for me. My current private insurance does not. I must use who they tell me to use. And I have to ask permission to see the doctor in many cases. That's not freedom for me to choose who best meets my needs.

I also have talked to plenty of docs who support HR676 and appreciate that patients will be able to access preventative care earlier and avoid some of the higher cost procedures and appointments necessary after an illness or condition advances. I like that. That's freedom for me to make wiser healthcare decisions that are ultimately less expensive for everyone.

There's plenty of room for competition and freedom-of-choice under single payer systems. And -- by the way -- in August I had to cancel a doctor's appointment because of a work conflict and the next available appointment for my doctor? December 12. Hope my problem waits that long and doesn't become lots more costly or troubling.

»

Wrong

Submitted by Squibcakes on October 13, 2008 - 9:01pm.

First, overhead is not a flaw or abuse - it's the cost of doing business - and it pays salaries - yes, yours, too.

Second, the admin costs argument is really, seriously flawed. Medicare percentage is based on people who's medical costs are a lot higher becuase they are older. if you took a private insurance company and gave them the medicare population to cover you'd have a much more valid comparison. There are DOZENs of reasons why your'e not comparing apples to apples when you state that, but I won't get into that here.

Third, there plenty of insurance policies that allow plenty of freedom to see whomever you want (as long as they are known to be currently licensed, yet another function of valuable services that the insurance companies provide that people don't realize). i suggest you either choose the more open policy or talk to your employer about offering a more open policy. Surely you understand that those providers charge more - so be prepared.

maybe you've talked to 'plenty' of docs who woudl love to have someone pay for the more poor people to seek their services, but history has shown that the physician community has resisted attempts to take the price setting decision out of their own hands and place it squarely into a government monopoly. Doctors do not like having their rates set by Medicare (except maybe the ones you've talked to). Did you notice the big showdown over medicare this year? Cuts for doctors as prescribed by law to bring the Medicare budget back in line. But no, the doctors screamed, and the idiot legislature just passed the buck yet again, until next year when we have to deal with this again. Trust me - government price setting is not a good way to achieve 'affordable' healthcare.

»

Wrong

Submitted by Squibcakes on October 13, 2008 - 9:31pm.

First, overhead is not a flaw or abuse - it's the cost of doing business - and it pays salaries - yes, yours, too.

Second, the admin costs argument is really, seriously flawed. Medicare percentage is based on people who's medical costs are a lot higher becuase they are older. if you took a private insurance company and gave them the medicare population to cover you'd have a much more valid comparison. There are DOZENs of reasons why your'e not comparing apples to apples when you state that, but I won't get into that here.

Third, there plenty of insurance policies that allow plenty of freedom to see whomever you want (as long as they are known to be currently licensed, yet another function of valuable services that the insurance companies provide that people don't realize). i suggest you either choose the more open policy or talk to your employer about offering a more open policy. Surely you understand that those providers charge more - so be prepared.

maybe you've talked to 'plenty' of docs who woudl love to have someone pay for the more poor people to seek their services, but history has shown that the physician community has resisted attempts to take the price setting decision out of their own hands and place it squarely into a government monopoly. Doctors do not like having their rates set by Medicare (except maybe the ones you've talked to). Did you notice the big showdown over medicare this year? Cuts for doctors as prescribed by law to bring the Medicare budget back in line. But no, the doctors screamed, and the idiot legislature just passed the buck yet again, until next year when we have to deal with this again. Trust me - government price setting is not a good way to achieve 'affordable' healthcare.

»

Insurance industry trolls

Submitted by nyceve on October 5, 2008 - 12:16pm.

We've been invaded by apologists for the thoroughly corrupt health insurance industry.

»

Apologists

Submitted by Squibcakes on October 13, 2008 - 9:29pm.

I'm defending concepts, so i'm an apologist for private sector insurance when it's being attacked. And of course to be an apologist simply means to defend - not to apologize :)

Corrupt? healthcare and insurance has certainly changed over the years... but i wouldn't call it corrupt as a whole.

But regardless - my main contribution here is not to say everything is fine. Certainly the average joe has complaints about insurance just as the average joe has complaints about cell phone bills, cable companies, the DMV, etc. We would all be better off if those compliants were addressed and resolved - but the path to resolve that does not center on establishing a set of entitlements to certain healhcare services for all. This fervor to eliminate private insurance is based on an emotional impulse to do good, but bad ecnomomics. I respect the intent to do good, but I do not want to sacrifice our economic freedom to force more good.

Besides - aren't you exaggerating? Can one or two people *invade* a public site with a few posts? Seriously - if this is some territory of *yours* to invade then you can easily prevent anyone else from posting/invading your private space with limited access. But to date this has been very much a public affair. it's even got a .org domain. And i suspect the whole limited access thing doesn't play very well with the healthcare for all / open access types here.

»