|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
Physicians for a National Health Program - Health Care is Human Right
http://www.pnhp.org/
The information at this link is impressive, makes a lot of sense! It removes health care insurance as middleman and makes health care available for all. -- 00SL2
Nation's Largest Medical Specialty Group Endorses Single Payer Health Reform - December 11, 2007
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/december/nations_largest_med.php
Markets Have Failed in U.S. Health Care - November 30, 2007
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/november/markets_have_failed_.php
* * * * *
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/september/pnhp_experts_who_can.php
Posted on September 20, 2007
PNHP Experts who can speak on individual mandates for health insurance and the Clinton health plan
Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) has physicians available for comment on Sen. Hillary Clinton’s and other Democratic presidential candidates’ health care proposals.
The leading Democratic presidential candidates’ (Clinton, Edwards, and Obama) health care proposals would require everyone (or every child, in the case of Obama) to carry health insurance and offer federal subsidies to help reduce the cost of private health insurance. The centerpiece of their plans is an “individual mandate,” requiring everyone to buy health insurance, and an “employer mandate,” mandating that employers help cover workers. The following experts can comment:
DON MCCANNE, M.D., is senior health policy fellow of Physicians for a National Health Program. He said: “The administrative complexities of refundable tax credits and means-tested premium caps would still leave many without coverage. Coverage will never be universal unless it is truly automatic for everyone. If we are going to use the tax system to pay for health care anyway then why should we waste funds on the profoundly inefficient system of segregated private health plans? A universal risk pool that is equitably funded through the tax system is the most efficient and least expensive method of ensuring comprehensive coverage for everyone.”
Dr. McCanne continues: “Neither Clinton’s nor Obama’s plans get us to universal coverage. Clinton claims that her plan is going to get universal coverage because it has an individual mandate, but that’s been tried and failed in several states. … Obama claims his plan gets universal coverage by making coverage affordable for people, but if you look at his proposals, there’s very little substance to it.”
(949) 493-3714, don@mccanne.org, http://www.pnhp.org
DAVID HIMMELSTEIN, M.D., is associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He said today: “Hillary Clinton is combining two failed Massachusetts plans: the [former Gov. Michael] Dukakis plan, which fell apart 20 years ago, and the [Gov. Mitt] Romney plan, which is in the process of falling apart. Clinton is advocating the Marie Antoinette approach to health care: ‘Let them buy their own coverage.’ She is attempting to force middle class families to buy coverage without making it affordable. Clinton wants to keep the private insurance industry in the middle of the system.” Himmelstein is co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program. (617) 665-1032, info@pnhp.org, http://www.pnhp.org
QUENTIN YOUNG, M.D., is national coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program. He said: “It’s always ironic to hear Clinton talk about standing up to the insurance companies. She’d tried to work them into her plan [in the mid-’90s], which is a large part of why it failed. The biggest insurance companies actually backed her plan for a time while the smaller ones opposed it.” (312) 782-6006, info@pnhp.org, http://www.pnhp.org
DONALD FREY, M.D., is Roland L. Kleeberger Chair in the Department of Family Medicine at the Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, and is a member of Physicians for a National Health Program. He has written and spoken extensively about wasted overhead in American insurance companies, and says other countries spend less money to get far better, measurable health care outcomes. He said: “Though well intended, the Clinton plan leaves an enormously wasteful private insurance system intact, ensuring that increased coverage will only come at extremely high cost. Federal dollars will be funneled through high-overhead private companies, ensuring that millions of tax dollars that could be going to pay for health care will actually wind up as enhanced corporate bottom lines. In many ways, the plan is far more a corporate welfare program than a social welfare plan.” News Contact: Kathryn Clark, kathrynclark@creighton.edu, (402) 280-2864 (9/19/07, digital50.com)
Full Comment on Sen. Clinton’s Health Care Refrom Proposal By Don McCanne, MD, PNHP Senior Health Policy Fellow
Hillary Clinton’s proposal “preserves existing health insurance,” and includes the responsibility of individuals “to get and keep insurance” through the current private insurance market, or through a “Health Choices Menu” of private FEHBP-type plans, or through a Medicare-type public program.
Thus her proposal is an individual mandate to purchase private insurance that is no longer affordable for average-income individuals, or to purchase a public plan that will be even more expensive because of adverse selection.
To make the plans affordable for individuals, she would use a combination of refundable tax credits and a cap on premiums at a percentage of income. Assuming that the plans would provide adequate benefits and adequate protection against financial hardship, the increased spending through the tax system would be exponentially more than the estimates in her plan. And most of the proposed savings to pay for these increases are largely nebulous, and some of those measures would actually increase costs.
Further, the administrative complexities of refundable tax credits and means-tested premium caps would still leave many without coverage. Coverage will never be universal unless it is truly automatic for everyone.
If we are going to use the tax system to pay for health care anyway then why should we waste funds on the profoundly inefficient system of segregated private health plans? A universal risk pool that is equitably funded through the tax system is the most efficient and least expensive method of ensuring comprehensive coverage for everyone.
Many will try to contrast the differences in the Clinton, Obama and Edwards proposals, but they are all basically the same. In spite of their rhetoric, they have each made the protection and enhancement of the private insurance plans a higher priority than patients.
###
Physicians for a National Health Program is an organization of 15,000 American physicians advocating for non-profit national health insurance. PNHP has chapters and spokespersons across the country. For local or national contacts, call (312) 782-6006. |
|
|
Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:55 pm |
|
|
Deena
F L I N T O I D
|
I've followed this proposed plan for several years now. It seems to be the most viable option brought to the table thus far.
Incidentally, for all you who persist in believing that Canada's national healthcare program is a dismal failure, you really oughtn't believe the American press on this issue. Only the nightmare stories come to the attention of the media---and the US can match those nightmare stories at about 100-1. And that's on a per capita basis! Most Canadians are VERY happy with their healthcare plan, few need to wait much longer than we do for services, and they are economically far sounder than we are---it's one of the main draws to the Canadian manufacturing industries.
In fact, Canadians also love our healthcare system. As long as businesses have to fund their employees healthcare needs, the economy in Canada---JOBS---will continue to boom.
Here's a story I'll leave you with. My husband is Canadian. A few years ago, while visiting some of his family, my daughter became ill and needed to see a doctor. Nothing serious, an ear infection---but it precluded her from flying until treated. A call was placed to the family doctor who agreed to see my daughter the following day (no wait), prescribed "the pink stuff" and sent us on our way. The most complicated part of her visit came next: the office spent 20 minutes trying to decide what to bill us. They finally--after considerable discussion---determined her bill to be $22. That was less than my co-pay here. Same scenario at the Please delete me!. Since no one knew the cost of her prescription, the pharmacist sent us on our way--said his largesse was "in the interest of North American harmony".
Most stories about the Canadian system a horse____. Don't buy it. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:01 am |
|
|
Adam Ford
F L I N T O I D
|
| Of course physicians should want universal health care. Everyone loves government handouts. $$$ |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:03 am |
|
|
Deena
F L I N T O I D
|
That is BULL. Did you even bother to READ the website offered up? Do you even have a CLUE the amount of $$$ that go to multiple administrative expenses?
Don't be foolish enough to discuss that which you have not even bothered to READ. |
|
|
|
Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:05 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:10 am |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
it's really interesting to see how those who have healthcare are so easy
to call healthcare for everyone else a "handout".
i never hear them whine about the corporate "handouts" GIVEN to
mega-corporations. never a peep. the "i got mine" crowd is destroying
the great country called america. i honestly cannot understand where
that contempt comes from.....  |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:18 pm |
|
|
Demeralda
F L I N T O I D
|
Damn LTH, good points all around. If we ended corporate welfare, there'd be money for SO many things.
And there's been a lot of public policy analysis lately that suggests that there is no such thing as trickle-down. Tax cuts don't mean more jobs, just more Paris Hiltons. |
|
|
|
Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:30 pm |
|
|
FlintConservative
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
last time here schreef:
the "i got mine" crowd is destroying the great country called america.
Are you sure it's not the "I want mine" crowd? I believe it is the entitlement mentality that is destroying America. |
|
|
|
Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:06 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
| Actually FC I believe its the I want mine for FREE crowd. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:18 pm |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
| sad case. |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:37 pm |
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
twotap schreef:
Actually FC I believe its the I want mine for FREE crowd.
I agree with FC. A few employees whose employer bears the entire burden for their health care insurance might be included here--the ones who get indignant when it is even remotely suggested they contribute 2% of their own wages and the employer's share be reduced to 7% of their wages, like under the PNHP. |
|
|
|
Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:19 pm |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
well those employees are silly. i'd happily give 10% no big deal.  |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:31 pm |
|
|
Deena
F L I N T O I D
|
I'd happily give 2% too. Right now we pay $155 weekly for very good medical, dental, and vision coverage. That's a lot of money---way out of proportion to what an employee should be expected to contribute. Additionally we carry supplimental insurances, including long term care for which we pay nearly $1000 annually---each. That's a subject no one wants to touch, yet the Canadian system includes that coverage. Take a look at what it will cost any of you should you have to enter a nursing home. I guarantee you that you will have nothing left when you're done.
Something has to be done about all of these issues. The physician's plan is the best I've seen, and then we'll all be able to afford private coverage for the most catastrophic events---like dementia. |
|
|
|
Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:25 am |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
deena, they don't care because they have G.M. full coverage. they have
no idea what goes on in the real world......  |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:10 pm |
|
|
Deena
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
last time here schreef:
deena, they don't care because they have G.M. full coverage. they have
no idea what goes on in the real world......
Ahh, but long term care WILL affect them. GM's coverage is minimal and a catastrophic health event would bankrupt them too.
It should be noted that the number 1 cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical bills. Anyone who believes their insurance exempts them is a fool. |
|
|
|
Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:15 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
