Optimism is warranted, I think
Mar. 21st, 2008 11:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
averygoodun42Firstly, I obviously am not taking part of the boycott. I think the date was ill-chosen for numerous reasons, and ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
windypoint has a valid point in that a day is not enough. Make it a week or a month, and maybe then they will take notice. But how many people are willing to give up LJ for more than a day?
Secondly...
To quote the minutes of the last Healthcare Reform meeting:
Of great interest is a NH Medical Society survey (conducted by UNH) which had surprising results:
"A recent survey of New Hampshire doctors regarding the United States health care system suggest that many are ready for change. The survey found that 81% of responding physicians agree that healthcare should be available to all citizens as part of the social contract, a right similar to basic education, police and fire protection, with 94% of primary care doctors endorsing this view. Two thirds of New Hampshire doctors, including 81% of primary care clinicians, indicated they "would favor a simplified payor system in which public funds, collected through taxes, were used to pay directly for services to meet the basic healthcare needs of citizens." Only one third of physicians indicated support for an employer based system or agreed that "the free market system is the best way to create a high quality, equitable, affordable and accessible healthcare system".
The survey results are going to be published in two major medical journals.
Remembering that New Hampshire is traditionally a conservative state ("Live free or DIE,you Commie scum!")... Whee! Nothing's going to change without the doctors' support.
And on that note, here's an open letter from the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP):
Dear colleagues, fellow health care professionals, concerned citizens, and friends,
The Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) are inviting you to add your voice to a call for true health care reform - not those proposed by presidential candidates of both parties advocating tax credits, mandates and penalties, and of maintaining the same flawed multi-payer system. There had been several state incremental measures that not only failed miserably (most recently Massachusetts), but also resulted in more health care expenditures.
We are calling for a real reform and solution, our very own American style single payer national health insurance:
* an alternative to socialized medicine, that tackles the problems of our current health care system
* not tied to employment
* will end privatization of Medicare (supplemental insurance, part D, and Medicare Advantage plans)
* a payroll tax for employers and employees which will be less than what they pay for health care now
* no premiums, co-insurance, deductibles, or out-of-pocket expenses
* covered for life; no denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions; no fear of bankruptcies for catastrophic illness
* will cover all medically necessary services including inpatient/outpatient hospitalization, emrgency, preventive, dental, mental, prescription, long term care, etc.
* equitable, quality services; own choice of physicians and hospitals
* accessible to all residents of the US and its territories
* have cost containment provisions and therefore viable and sustainable for the next generation
What you can do:
* sign the Open Letter to the Candidates on Single Payer Health Reform , appended below, at http://www.pnhp.org/letter
* cut, paste, and circulate to your families, colleagues, friends, and acquaintances.
Thank you for your anticipated support in this effort to achieve quality, accessible, and equitable health care for all.
Marcosa "Cosy" J. Santiago, MD
Chair, Granite State PNHP (Physicians for a National Health Program)
GSpnhp@hotmail.com
An Open Letter To The Candidates On Single Payer Health Reform
America's health care system is failing. It denies care to many in need and is expensive, error-prone, and increasingly bureaucratic. The misfortune of illness is often amplified by financial ruin. Despite abundant medical resources, care is often inadequate because of the irrationality of our insurance system. Yet our political leaders seem intent on reprising failed schemes from the past, rejecting the single payer national health insurance model that is the sole hope for affordable, comprehensive coverage.
Leading Republicans propose tax incentives to encourage the uninsured to buy coverage, but these subsidies fall far short of the cost of adequate insurance. For cost control, they suggest high co-payments and deductibles. Yet these selectively burden the sick and poor, discourage preventive and primary care, and have little effect on costs, since seriously ill patients - who account for most health spending - quickly exceed their deductibles and are in no position to forego expensive care.
Most leading Democrats offer a mandate model for reform. Under this model, the government would require people (or their employers) to buy private coverage, while offering an expanded Medicaid-like program for the poor and near-poor.
Variants of the mandate model, first proposed by Richard Nixon, were passed with great fanfare in Massachusetts (1988), Oregon (1989) and Washington State (1993). All died quiet deaths. As costs soared, legislators backed off from enforcing the mandates or funding new coverage for the poor. Massachusetts' recent reform, which largely excuses employers from the mandate but imposes steep fines on the uninsured, appears poised to follow a similar path. Of the middle-income uninsured who are required to pay the full premium for coverage, few have signed up. Meanwhile, the state has already announced a $147 million shortfall in funding for subsidies for the poor.
Mandates and tax incentives can add coverage only by increasing costs. They augment the role (and profits) of private insurers, whose overhead is four times Medicare's, and whose efforts to avoid payment impose a costly paperwork burden on doctors and hospitals. The cost cutting measures often appended to such reforms - computerization, care management and medical prevention - have repeatedly failed to yield savings.
In contrast, single payer reform could realize administrative savings of more than $300 billion annually - enough to cover the uninsured, and to eliminate co-payments and deductibles for all Americans. It would also slow cost increases by fostering coordination and planning.
Political calculus favors mandates or tax incentives, which accommodate insurers, drug firms and other medical entrepreneurs. But such reforms are economically wasteful and medically dangerous. The incremental changes suggested by most Democrats cannot solve our problems; further pursuit of market-based strategies, as advocated by Republicans, will exacerbate them. What needs to be changed is the system itself.
We urge our political leaders to stand up for the health of the American people and implement a non-profit, single payer national health insurance system.
Sign Letter at: http://www.pnhp.org/letter
windypoint has a valid point in that a day is not enough. Make it a week or a month, and maybe then they will take notice. But how many people are willing to give up LJ for more than a day? Secondly...
To quote the minutes of the last Healthcare Reform meeting:
Of great interest is a NH Medical Society survey (conducted by UNH) which had surprising results:
"A recent survey of New Hampshire doctors regarding the United States health care system suggest that many are ready for change. The survey found that 81% of responding physicians agree that healthcare should be available to all citizens as part of the social contract, a right similar to basic education, police and fire protection, with 94% of primary care doctors endorsing this view. Two thirds of New Hampshire doctors, including 81% of primary care clinicians, indicated they "would favor a simplified payor system in which public funds, collected through taxes, were used to pay directly for services to meet the basic healthcare needs of citizens." Only one third of physicians indicated support for an employer based system or agreed that "the free market system is the best way to create a high quality, equitable, affordable and accessible healthcare system".
The survey results are going to be published in two major medical journals.
Remembering that New Hampshire is traditionally a conservative state ("Live free or DIE,
And on that note, here's an open letter from the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP):
Dear colleagues, fellow health care professionals, concerned citizens, and friends,
The Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) are inviting you to add your voice to a call for true health care reform - not those proposed by presidential candidates of both parties advocating tax credits, mandates and penalties, and of maintaining the same flawed multi-payer system. There had been several state incremental measures that not only failed miserably (most recently Massachusetts), but also resulted in more health care expenditures.
We are calling for a real reform and solution, our very own American style single payer national health insurance:
* an alternative to socialized medicine, that tackles the problems of our current health care system
* not tied to employment
* will end privatization of Medicare (supplemental insurance, part D, and Medicare Advantage plans)
* a payroll tax for employers and employees which will be less than what they pay for health care now
* no premiums, co-insurance, deductibles, or out-of-pocket expenses
* covered for life; no denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions; no fear of bankruptcies for catastrophic illness
* will cover all medically necessary services including inpatient/outpatient hospitalization, emrgency, preventive, dental, mental, prescription, long term care, etc.
* equitable, quality services; own choice of physicians and hospitals
* accessible to all residents of the US and its territories
* have cost containment provisions and therefore viable and sustainable for the next generation
What you can do:
* sign the Open Letter to the Candidates on Single Payer Health Reform , appended below, at http://www.pnhp.org/letter
* cut, paste, and circulate to your families, colleagues, friends, and acquaintances.
Thank you for your anticipated support in this effort to achieve quality, accessible, and equitable health care for all.
Marcosa "Cosy" J. Santiago, MD
Chair, Granite State PNHP (Physicians for a National Health Program)
GSpnhp@hotmail.com
An Open Letter To The Candidates On Single Payer Health Reform
America's health care system is failing. It denies care to many in need and is expensive, error-prone, and increasingly bureaucratic. The misfortune of illness is often amplified by financial ruin. Despite abundant medical resources, care is often inadequate because of the irrationality of our insurance system. Yet our political leaders seem intent on reprising failed schemes from the past, rejecting the single payer national health insurance model that is the sole hope for affordable, comprehensive coverage.
Leading Republicans propose tax incentives to encourage the uninsured to buy coverage, but these subsidies fall far short of the cost of adequate insurance. For cost control, they suggest high co-payments and deductibles. Yet these selectively burden the sick and poor, discourage preventive and primary care, and have little effect on costs, since seriously ill patients - who account for most health spending - quickly exceed their deductibles and are in no position to forego expensive care.
Most leading Democrats offer a mandate model for reform. Under this model, the government would require people (or their employers) to buy private coverage, while offering an expanded Medicaid-like program for the poor and near-poor.
Variants of the mandate model, first proposed by Richard Nixon, were passed with great fanfare in Massachusetts (1988), Oregon (1989) and Washington State (1993). All died quiet deaths. As costs soared, legislators backed off from enforcing the mandates or funding new coverage for the poor. Massachusetts' recent reform, which largely excuses employers from the mandate but imposes steep fines on the uninsured, appears poised to follow a similar path. Of the middle-income uninsured who are required to pay the full premium for coverage, few have signed up. Meanwhile, the state has already announced a $147 million shortfall in funding for subsidies for the poor.
Mandates and tax incentives can add coverage only by increasing costs. They augment the role (and profits) of private insurers, whose overhead is four times Medicare's, and whose efforts to avoid payment impose a costly paperwork burden on doctors and hospitals. The cost cutting measures often appended to such reforms - computerization, care management and medical prevention - have repeatedly failed to yield savings.
In contrast, single payer reform could realize administrative savings of more than $300 billion annually - enough to cover the uninsured, and to eliminate co-payments and deductibles for all Americans. It would also slow cost increases by fostering coordination and planning.
Political calculus favors mandates or tax incentives, which accommodate insurers, drug firms and other medical entrepreneurs. But such reforms are economically wasteful and medically dangerous. The incremental changes suggested by most Democrats cannot solve our problems; further pursuit of market-based strategies, as advocated by Republicans, will exacerbate them. What needs to be changed is the system itself.
We urge our political leaders to stand up for the health of the American people and implement a non-profit, single payer national health insurance system.
Sign Letter at: http://www.pnhp.org/letter
