Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why So Scared of a Public Plan?
Within the coming weeks, Americans will begin to consider critical issues concerning the future of health care for themselves and their children, including universal coverage, taxation of benefits, computerized records and the controlling of costs. But before the debate commences in Congress and the media, big insurance and pharmaceutical companies are lobbying frantically (and spending millions of dollars) to foreclose the possibility of the most promising aspect of health care reform: a public insurance option.
After decades of denigrating government—and worshiping corporations—the idea that a public program might work as well or better than a corporate provider may well sound counterintuitive to many Americans. How can government, which is so widely believed to do nothing well while wasting enormous sums, possibly be expected to outperform the highly efficient, supremely managed and profitably motivated corporate sector? Wouldn’t we be better off if we simply entrust the provision of health care to the insurance industry? How can we trust those Washington bureaucrats with our health?
Actually, many consumers have learned by now that those questions are misleading at best. They know, for instance, that trusting a health insurance company is likely to be an expensive mistake. They know, too, that corporate bureaucrats can be even more ruthless in denying help to a beleaguered individual or family than those who work in government.
Studies have repeatedly shown that patient satisfaction with Medicare, the quintessential public insurance plan, is considerably higher than with private insurers among comparable age groups. And consumers understand that the drive for profits often conflicts with patient care, leading them to the conclusion that insurance and pharmaceutical corporations are excessively powerful and socially irresponsible.
According to Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the people who respond to his surveys despise “insurer greed,” and are disturbed by their profitability, lack of accessibility, lack of accountability and excess of bureaucracy. There is “no love lost” between Americans and the private health insurers, he warned Republican congressional leaders as they considered how to oppose reform.
But the same arguments that have distorted the debate over health care will emerge again—especially the claim that private insurance is somehow more efficient than a public program would be, or that we cannot “afford” a public plan.
The opposite is true, as surprising as that may seem. During the decade that ended in 2006, to cite just one set of relevant statistics, the level of health spending per head (for similar benefits) grew 4.6 percent annually under Medicare, while spending under private health insurance rose by 7.3 percent. For many years, in fact, Medicare has performed better at controlling costs than private insurance companies.
One reason is simple and obvious: Eliminating profits for shareholders and management cuts out a major cost factor.
Another is less obvious: Private insurers consistently spend more on overhead and administration than Medicare. To anyone who shares the broad prejudice against government, the difference will be startling, although these numbers are very well known to health experts. The average overhead cost of Medicare is roughly 2 or 3 percent, far below the administrative costs of private insurers, which range between 27 and 40 percent.
These basic facts have broad implications for the nation’s capacity to ensure quality health coverage for all of its citizens. Private insurance has strengths as well as weaknesses, but there is no doubt that a new public plan, alongside Medicare, would become an essential yardstick—as the old New Dealers used to say—by which to measure the progress and efficiency of the private sector.
The private insurers will complain that this is “unfair” competition, but if the private sector is truly the efficient solution to our costly, wasteful and unfair health care system, then why is it so frightened of a public plan?
38 Comments so far
Show AllMost people, especially those who actually work in healthcare as direct providers of care are not afraid of the single payer option. The current system is based on high premiums, giving as little coverage for the most money and denying care or pricing it out of reach for the average patient. The appeals process can be lengthy and harmful to the patient and providers. I will say it again, insurance as we know it today, is designed to make money for the upper management and the stockholders (assuming it is a for-profit company) by denying or limiting care.
As a direct healthcare professional for the last 30+ years and a patient myself, I can attest to many of the issues with use of private insurance and big pharma. I am so tired of seeing these executives making pornographic salaries and bonsas for denying care and charging prices for meds that do little but gouge the public. I am even more tired of our elected public officials "kissing the a**es" of these executives instead of representing the public and the common good. Bring on term limits!!!
I will take a Canadian style healthcarcare system anyday over what we currently have; it is wasteful, over-priced, over regulated by the private insurers and not very available; not to mention all the paper! Bring on single payor with private practice care. We can handle it!
There is no "single payer" option. If there's a sham public option that charges premiums and imposes deductibles, there will be no reason to prefer it over private insurers. Moreover, such a plan will incur unmanageable costs because the healthiest, youngest--and hence most profitable--cohort will be aggressively marketed and snatched up by the private insurers, saddling the public sector with the oldest and sickest, with all the attendant costs.
ONLY the single risk pool of true single payer can foster real savings and guarantee coverage for all. See the following:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#public-option
If I remember correctly Frank Luntz is the PR genius who created the purposely distortive Republican talking point calling the "Inheritance Tax" the "Death Tax" to confuse everybody. (Mister Giuliani and the other Republican clones parroted it endlessly during the last presidential campaign.)The Inheritance Tax is paid by folks who leave at least a (currently) $1.25 million estate - about 2-3% of us.
A 'Death Tax' sounds like it's paid by everybody who dies - patently false. But it accomplished its goal of deliberately distorting reality to create confusion and muddy the debate by leading those of us with less than workable critical thinking skills to think that everybody who dies pays it; therefore they, or their survivors, will have to pay it when they die. As close to a public lie as possible without actually lying. Orwell would be proud.
Tirebiter, don't forget having to sell the family farm. Oh yes, they dropped that one after agribusiness ran them all off.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
The estate tax is a good anology for the US electorate's minset on single-payer. A lie repeated 3 times and not challenged becomes a fact. Corporate interests have created many "facts" concerning single-payer and estate taxation that have hoodwinked the US working class.
Unfortunately, even after the US Farm Bureau verified that no family farm had ever been lost due to estate taxes (The widespread loss of family farms myth was Luntz' favorite), 70% of the US electorate still believes their estate will be subject to taxation. At the upper extreme, 3% of them will be affected by the tax and at least 40% of them will have no net worth upon their death, hence no estate to tax.
Joe Conason, any public option that gets through this Congress will be a disaster. Think Medicare part D.
Doctors and nurses have taken this fight to the all or nothing level. We need Single Payer, not insurance industry compromise. There is no compromising with the devil. And they are.
Have you read HR 676? It is elegantly simple and well funded. It covers all medical needs for everyone, including dental and prescription, leaves all medical decisions to the provider and patient and 95% of taxpayers would pay only 3.5$% income tax. It would be like a shot of adrenaline for our economy.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Thank you. Well said.
Like the rest of the industrialized world and many in the developing world, we need to have some form of universal, single payer, health care system that does not profit and propagate illness and death.
Chomsky and others say that public opinion has been in favor of such a system for decades. The fact we are repeatedly denied this is a sad commentary on our "democratic" process. How can a country be considered democratic when the wishes of the people are systematically manipulated and ignored?
Sadly, we are going to be denied justice once again. The corrupt Congress (and Obama) will do the VultureHealthIndustry bidding and ensure that obscene profits will be maintained. After all, this represents at least 16% of our GDP per year.
Without an organized and massive rebellion of the people, we are not going to get single payer anytime soon.
This is nothing new, the advocates for single payer have been shut out, arrested, smeared, and marginalized.
With unemployment over 16% and well over 33% uninsured, we cannot mandate all people purchase insurance even if there is a choice of a government plan to buy into (be it Medicare or the Congressional plan).
As my pappy used to say, set your eyes on the best prize and you may still get a consolation prize.
Keep fighting for a government paid single payer health care for all and perhaps we'll get a public plan option as a consolation prize.
If we set our sights lower, we won't even get the consolation prize.
singlepayeraction.org
The junior senator from Oregon's resoponse to my letter advocating Single Payer:
"Thank you for contacting me to express your support for single-payer health care.
"It is an honor to serve as your Senator, and I appreciate hearing from you.
"Health care has been at the forefront of most Oregonians' minds for the last decade. The reason is simple. Citizens who have health care insurance are worried about losing coverage, while those without health care insurance are worried about getting sick. Thus, reforming our health care system is a top priority for me. The window of opportunity is open, and we must seize the opportunity.
"I believe there are many merits to a single-payer system and will vote for single-payer if it comes to the Senate floor. However, I understand that it will be difficult to enact such legislation. This is why I am strongly pushing for the inclusion of a single payer option, such as an extension of Medicare, in the Senate health care reform bill. Every American should be able to choose whether they would prefer public or private coverage. A public option would provide competition to keep private insurance companies honest and lower costs, and help ensure every American receives affordable health care.
"In addition to enacting a public option, I believe comprehensive reform must prohibit insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, help small business and individuals afford insurance, and, most importantly, ensure that every one has affordable and accessible health care coverage. It is also essential that we improve the efficiency of our health care system. We must strengthen prevention and disease management, incorporate evidence based practices, and explore pay for performance and health incentive reforms."
Now it would be nice to get a similar letter from my senior senator and my House rep.
karlof1, "Now it would be nice to get a similar letter from my senior senator and my House rep." Not likely. Zero chance with Wyden who is pushing for "everyone to get what Congress gets", although even his own staff doesn't get it. Actually he's a liar because he's promoting mandated insurance to "fit" individual needs (read lousy policies for the poor). I'm not voting for Wyden next year. My Congressman is DeFazio, considered progressive on most issues - voted against the Iraq war (although not a member of the Progressive Caucus) but he refuses to support Single Payer, instead is working on his own insurance industry plan. I swear, everyone in Congress has their own plan. He's also not getting my vote next year, although I expect the clueless public will reelect him. I have become a Single Payer voter. First time I've become a single issue voter. But I am flaming mad.
The single payer option would be a poison pill. The only solution is to get the insurance industry out of making health care a for profit business. It will never work except for them. Merkley needs to know that. He is either in la la land or being disingenuous. I am very interested in knowing which. Of course we have another 5 years of him.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
I've written Wyden that he risks defeat by not supporting Single Payer; same with Schrader (5th district). I didn't expect a response from Merkley; certainly not a positive one. Big insurace monies have corrupted numerous Oregon legislators recently because of the several health initiatives/bills. I've made it very plain in my letters that not favoring Single Payer means putting the interest of Big Insurace ahead of commonfolk, and is a trait to be tolerated no longer in all areas of public policy: Either work for our interests as you're supposed to, or risk open revolt by the electorate.
There are droves of well-meaning people touting a "public option" without any clue about what that might be. Most seem to imagine it would be some kind of Medicare clone that would be so attractive that it would wipe out the private insurers. Well . . . guess again. It's likely to be a clone of the private insurers with a phony "public" branding designed to gull the credulous while achieving it's real objective: keeping most of the system in the hands of the rapacious private insurers.
The first inkling of the details of the public option came about a month ago from the repugnant Chuck Schumer, who devised the scheme at the behest of the equally repugnant Max Baucus. Here are the devilish details, according to The New York Times:
"The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, asked Mr. Schumer to seek a solution. In his response, Mr. Schumer set forth these principles:
The public plan must be self-sustaining. It should pay claims with money raised from premiums and co-payments. It should not receive tax revenue or appropriations from the government.
The public plan should pay doctors and hospitals more than what Medicare pays. Medicare rates, set by law and regulation, are often lower than what private insurers pay.
The government should not compel doctors and hospitals to participate in a public plan just because they participate in Medicare.
To prevent the government from serving as both “player and umpire,” the officials who manage a public plan should be different from those who regulate the insurance market."
In other words, a guaranteed-to-fail farce that would replicate all the worst features of private insurance and offer none of the cost-savings or coverage expansion of the single risk pool of true single payer.
It's time for progressives to stop being played for fools by the K-street sharpies who are trying to put lipstick on this pig of a private system. The only real reform is single payer--anything else will be a sham and a scam.
Go to one of the following sites to find out what you can do:
www.singlepayer.org
http://www.healthcare-now.org
http://www.1payer.net/
To bone up on the issues, go to the FAQ at
www.pnhp.org
I strongly favor a universal single payer system run by the federal government.
However, I can't get a firm set of figures about the likely cost to individual taxpayer/policyholders for their premiums, nor the projected overall operating costs of such a system.
The figures I've been able to get via Google searches so far, vary considerably, depending on the version of the U-SPS system you read.
The system costs estimated in what appears to be Sen. Sander's initial proposal, seem to vary even within his{?} proposal, and the proposed plans of other U-SPS citizen advocacy groups also vary among themselves.
Does anyone here have a reliable fix on --and references for-- the likely/projected costs I mention above? I would appreciate any well informed input on the figures....
The average per capita costs of the nonprofit, single-payer plans in Europe and Canada are HALF those of the United States:
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
As far as what the costs would be to the taxpayer, I quote from the site of Physicians for a National Health Plan:
"Currently, about 60% of our health care system is financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies. These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, coverage for public employees (including police and teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees’ health insurance. About 20% of health care is financed by all of us individually through out-of-pocket payments, such as co-pays, deductibles, the uninsured paying directly for care, people paying privately for premiums, etc. Private employers only pay 21% of health care costs. In all, it is a very “regressive” way to finance health care, in that the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for health care than higher income individuals do.
A universal public system would be financed in the following way: The public funds already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care, which would be eliminated. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments. For the vast majority of people, a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly if a family member has a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution.
Currently, 47 million people have no insurance and hundreds of thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness. Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but those who currently offer coverage would, on average, pay less. For most large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay slightly less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would gain a competitive advantage because he had scrimped on employee health benefits. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.
Of course, the biggest change would be that everyone would have the same comprehensive health coverage, including all medical, hospital, eye care, dental care, long-term care, and mental health services. Currently, many people and businesses are paying huge premiums for insurance so full of gaps like co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services that it would be almost worthless if they were to have a serious illness."
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#raise_taxes
Regarding "premium" levels for single payer, most versions of such a system anticipate that it would be funded by payroll taxes on employers and employees, in about the proportion that they bear the current cost of health insurance premiums. And please, before you moan about new taxes, consider that you would no longer pay premiums, deductibles or co-pays. For instance, Physicians for a National Health Plan (PNHP) proposes an employer-paid payroll tax of 7 percent and personal income tax component of 2 percent. Their proposal is here:
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#raise_taxes
Don't forget it pays ALL health care needs, including prescription and dental! Now that's a bargain. And we can throw Medicare D in the toilet where it belongs.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
When you come right down to it private health insurance is nothing more than a bailout to prop up the completely unnecessary health insurance industry. We support this industry whose sole purpose is to maximize profits for it's shareholders and reward its management with outrageously high salaries. It does nothing to improve the delivery of health care to individuals. Actually one of it's main purposes is to deny care where ever possible so they can enrich their shareholders/management, which remember IS their main purpose for existing.
How many bailouts/prop ups to corporate america is the US citizenry supposed to support? We are told we have to bailout/support out of control/irresponsible banks and financial institutions. Now we are told we should continue to bailout/support the completely inefficient and unnecessary health insurance companies.
The CEO of Aetna gets $3.14 million a year to run the company. That does not include options. At 50 hours a week that works out to about $1300/hour. Vice presidents rake in about a million a year, less options. Where the heck is the the efficiency in an industry with salaries like that? Think how many american citizens could be provided health care simply by getting rid of the fat cats at the top.
I think we should set up a public plan like most other industrial countries have. If the private sector can compete with it great. If not they will slowly be fazed out as people migrate to the more efficient public/government plan.
In my opinion most of our politicians, completely corrupted by lobbing dollars, continue to build an ever larger financial house of cards at the US citizens expense. They are squeezing the middle class to death. There are serious cracks in the foundation of this financial Tower of Babel, and our leaders seem to be clueless about them. I don't think it can stand for too many more years. I am not optimistic of what the future has in store for the average Joe/Jane in this country.
NC-Tom
P.S. On an unrelated note. Can someone help me with this? When I was a kid people in this country were referred to as citizens. I rarely hear that word anymore. At some point that changed and we were referred to as consumers. Seems like they just quietly slipped that one into the national discussion. That has to have had some effect on the national psysche.
Sioux Rose
NC: Good post! As for your question, to the degree American corporate entities have identified with profits via products to market, it's become useful to refer to citizens as consumers. Seems to sell more per capita bags of potato chips, and with the public virtually hypnotized by television, freedom is seen in terms of what one can purchase, rather than through the prism of genuine liberties. Many of these after all have been seriously restricted as Red Balloon well-noted below.
Ya wanna read a book, ya go to the library, pick one out, it's free, thanks to our tax dollars. No reason to carry book insurance.
Should be the same for all non-elective health care. Ya need a checkup, ya go to the doctor, it should be no charge - we've already paid via our tax dollars (in a so-called single-payer system.)
Wanna kill 2 birds w/1 stone? Add a health clinic to all public libraries. Many of the homeless we could care less about are already there and can be treated straight-off and, while you're waiting to see the doc, ya got plenty to read, or you could use the computer, or even watch a video.
Wanna sweeten the pot? Free med school/nursing school for all who sign up to become GPs and NPs and do a 4 year tour in the most needy hoods.
Good piece Joe!
The problem with the public option approach, though, is that as long as the private sector remains in business, and Congress keeps collecting the campaign funds from those pirate organizations, what we'll end up with is a public "option" that will become a dumping ground for all the high-cost cases that the private sector won't want to insure.
Then the public option will be derided because of it's high cost, because it will be covering the sickest people.
The only real solution is to demand a single-payer system, like that being proposed by Rep. John Conyers, and to eject the private insurance insurance industry from the health care system altogether.
Obama's approach is nothing but a cop-out--a cowardly avoidance of the challenge at hand.
The American public has long favored single-payer, and now that we've all seen what bunglers, greed=heads and what bureaucrats our capitalist elite really are, the public is all the more ready to go for a Canadian-style single-payer health care model.
Obama is about to blow this historic opportunity, just as the Clinton's did before him.
Shame on him, and shame on all of us if we don't force this issue.
Dave Lindorff
www.thiscantbehappening.net
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Why is single-payer so frightening? Because allowing a citizen choice is allowing him freedom. The fraudulent and overpriced medical insurances are being used to keep workers in line and oppressed. The objections to universal health care administered by gov't are political and have everything to do with corporate power over citizen and government.
It's not a coincidence that the Wall Street raids, the union busting, the 401K and pension vanishing acts, the downsizing, globalizing, exorbitant but inadequate medical insurances, expansion of prisons, legitimation of torture, militarization of police, growth of private armies, are occurring at the same time. These are a multi-pronged stategy to concentrate as much wealth as possibe in the hands of a few very powerful people - no need to wonder who. This process began in the 70's and has gathered speed and power over the decades.
While you're busy arguing about insignificant red-herring details and the legalization of pot, sheesh, you're not seeing the big picture.
So far, the medical insurance fraud has been a great way to extract the citizens' last few pennies from his pockets. When the money runs out, the patient gets dumped nighty, IV and all, on some back street.
It's a win-win for the corporocracy, who will then tell you it's your own damn fault.
Go rent "Children of Men". That's the future. Next month.
Sioux Rose
RED BALLOON: I see what you see, and it ain't pretty. Thanks for the film reference.
Thank, S-R. It's been really disheartening. A few years ago, my dear husbie asked, "Why is everyone getting so fat?". I answered, "Because there's a famine on the way." It sounded weird and paranoid, but the evidence is all around us now, obvious to all but the most closed-minded. I think there is some horrible crash, something really desperate and global on the way, and the moneyed class is making sure they're looking after themselves. I believe this Wall Street money grab is absolutely deliberate, a next step in a larger plan and NOT an accident or an unfortunate, unforeseeen, unintended consequence of things getting too complicated. I think things were made deliberately complicated so that they would be impossible to oversee, while stategically placed agents in the gummint voted for even less oversight and more latitude to slant the table.
Here's a really horrible thing about this - it isn't enough for the obscenely selfish and wealthy to have all the wealth; they also want you to have nothing. Part of the satisfaction/fun is that you have nothing. According to them, it's all you deserve, and you should be grateful for this opportunity to slave in a cane field. Oh my it does sound familiar, yes. The class that downloads labour expects the workers to be grateful. It's the dark side of humanity, and it needs to be shoved back into the hell-hole it slithered out of. Right now, it's in charge. The reptilian brain.
Also, when you talk about alternate medicines and spiritual ways of knowing, I think you are trying to reach those areas of deep consciousness that animals and plants have not lost, but we have. We are distracted by forms, externals, words, and other left-brain stuff; and we no longer know how to tap powers we once had, when we were less "civilized". Eckhart Tolle tries to do that with his zen-flavoured approach to the annihilation of the ego. I do not know what implications he imagines that would have for our relationship with the rest of the living world ( he does teach oneness), but I cannot imagine he would consider ripping the wherewithal out of people's pockets, the hope out of people's hearts, an appropriate relationship with our human family.
I don't think he advocates passivity in the face of the systemic disparities we are suffering from today.
I believe our troubles started when we moved g-d into the sky and created Hierarchy, of which we are seeing the most degraded, sociopathic, solipsistic expressions in our sociopolitical world. Maybe even earlier, as when we created gods.
A bit of a ramble, yes, but everything is connected.
Kumba-frikkin'yah.
famine coming? yes...the beautiful thing is, food grows, if given the opportunity...also, 'food' includes many more plants and animals than typically acknowledged...
Sioux Rose
RED BALLOON: I'll get back to you on the interesting comments you shared here. I have an appointment today and have to get off line now. Of we'll catch up (on related points in today's postings).
I agree with everything but the IV. Don't want to send them out with a direct line for drugs. Can't have that.
There's a 1988 science fiction movie "They Live", about a man who picks up a pair of sunglasses off the street and suddenly sees an entirely different world. All the subliminal messages on billboards are visible, and many of the affluent look like hideous aliens because they are. Those who aren't are well paid minions who do their dirty work. It was actually a good movie, at least up to the ending which was weak. I always considered it a social commentary on our society. Especially the part about us being surrounded by people without sunglasses and programmed by the subliminal messages. Remember all the American flags decked on cars after 9/11? The whole country was filled with roving ambassadors for war.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
I agree with you completely. So many things are setup in this country to keep people subservient to the ruling class. It starts with college loans. Most working class people graduate college with an oppressive level of debt that the can't even shed with a bankruptcy. If they miss a few payments the fees and penalties can take a working lifetime to pay off. Then like you said you are tied to your job because you need to keep it for the health insurance.
If you are poor you can get tied down in the payday loan racket. Years ago you could go to jail for usury if you charged the interest rates that are now legal. The fact that that is legal now is shameful and disgusting.
Next you have the 401k "retirement" system, which has now been shown to be the disaster that many suspected it would turn out to be. This has forced many people who thought they could retire soon now have to work for years more.
Our government is now officially a plutocracy. A government by the rich, of the rich, and for the rich. They don't even attempt to hide that fact any more.
Tom
We don't have a Federal Government, we have a Corporate Tyrany!
As we like to say in New Joisey... Think your going to get anything that doesn't favor the Congresscritters clients BIG VAMPIRE, BIG PHARMA & BIG MD ( AMA), fougetaboutit!
Does a single payer system limit law suits for malpractice? I think if that was in the mix, more people would be for a single payer system.
Think about who is always complaining about the costs of malpractice suits--it's the insurance companies and the medical associations, and their stooges in the media.
Of course they don't want to have to pay out for the horrible injuries and deaths they cause. I hope you have noticed that these people whining about malpractice awards are still making out like bandits, even when they do have to pay awards. The fact is that not only do very few of the patients who are injured by medical malpractice ever sue, but it is very hard for plaintiffs to win a medical malpractice suit.
Maybe you mean that in a true single payer system, anyone injured by medical malpractice would receive all the care he needed, so awards wouldn't be necessary.
"WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats are offering to scrap a controversial government-sponsored health insurance provision in an effort to win more than a dozen moderate and conservative Republican votes to extend health care coverage to nearly 46 million uninsured Americans.
Sen. Max Baucus , D- Mont. , the chairman of the Finance Committee , signaled his willingness Thursday to compromise to attract enough GOP support to pass the legislation in the Senate this summer with as many as 70 votes."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, Baucus and the Republicans are going to give Big Insurance "taxing rights" on the American Public. As it is now, one third or our health care costs goes to the Big Insurance 'overhead' like pornographic salaries and bonuses. Now our elected officials are lining up (and lining their pockets) with the corporations to slit the throat of the American citizens and lift their purse. What a fine bunch of road agents they all are. When the Corporations start 'taxing' We-The-People how are we represented? Do we select the Corporate Execs and the Boards of Directors? We have all been through this Taxation Without Representation business before. We no longer have an elected government due to bribery and corruption - we have Corporate Tyrany! We have the right and duty to overthrow Tyrany in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence! It is better to live and die as Free Men and Women than grovel as corporate slaves!
Best regards, Publius
A public plan is scary to the medical monopoly for obvious reasons.
A public plan should be scary to the rest of us because the last thing we need is complete gov't control over healthcare. At least until the systemic problems are solved so that the monopoly or political interests can't tell you what to do with your body.
Go to www.acam.org. Find a physician in your area who practices nutritional medicine. Ask if they evaluate for gut pH. If not, move on. If so, keep investigating.
The unholy alliances of our corporate state have suffocated all attempts to actually heal people without sending them into bankruptcy.
Don't want to change doctors? Search Bec5, vitamin D deficiency (see www,vitamindcouncil.org--a website started by a physician who couldn't believe his profession was suppressing and ignoring the data--e.g, ties to MS, and other auto-immune disorders, fractures, cognitive decline etc., etc.,), stomach acid and disease.
Need more info? Pay $49 for a 1 year subscription to Nutrition and Healing written by a physician with 35 years of experience in his family medicine practice.
www.wrightnewsletter.com. You will get access to archives going back to 2000. Start searching.
cassandra, HR 676 is not involved in health care decisions, and pays for any state licensed advanced health care professional of your choice. That includes NDs (except for retrograde Ohio which doesn't recognize NDs).
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
It has not yet come out of Joint Committee
"It has not yet come out of Joint Committee". Good point, cassandra. So many bills start out looking so good and end up smelling so bad. We've got the wrong people in Congress. If they won't even go near Single Payer, imagine what they would do if they got their hands on it.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Forget stomach acid search. You will get only mainstream medical opinion. Those that treat symptoms and not root causes.