Health Care For America Now

Hello,

I am Chandra Martin a licensed insurance agent in Missouri.  There are many health insurance products available to meet many needs today.  The problem is we haven't changed the way we think about healthcare in the US.  We say we want a national health care program, but many people today, refuse to use the public health system available now.There are many clinics that operate on a sliding fee scale. I use one for my medical care. I have purchased a hospitalization plan in the event of hospitalization.  I am self employed selling health insurance. I could not afford a plan similar to the major medical plan provided by my last employer. So I have designed one for myself which includes the public health system in my area.  If people are not willing to use the public health system now, what makes you think they will in the future? We have a system. Promote it,fund it,use it.  Why won't you concentrate on that instead of trying to destroy it. Build on what we have now and make it better.

Hi Chandra,

Thank you for your comment. If you read our principles, we are not in favor of eliminating systems that work, but we are in favor of improving systems so that everyone can get quality, affordable health care. Unfortunately, 47 million Americans do have health care, so the over all system is broken. Please read our principles at this link:http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/content/statement_of_common_purpose

Thanks again for your comment and I am glad that you are working to provide health care to people who need it.

There is only one way to have health care for all and that is SINGLE PAYER which is what our

western allies all enjoy.  The for-profit insurance companies are the cause of our present

mess and only when "medicare for all" through single payer comes about will we get real

universal health care, not phony promises.

I was very much with you until this paragraph in your statement of common purpose:

"To the extent that employers contribute to the cost of health coverage, those payments should be related to employee wages rather than on a per-employee basis."

Doesn't that conflict with a mission of inclusive, equitable health care for all, including your own goal of "Health care coverage with out-of-pocket costs including premiums, co-pays and deductibles that are based on a family

This country needs mandatory health care for all citizens.  We do not need health insurance!  Health care and health insurance are two different concepts that have been confused and interchanged, probably quite intentionally by the insurance industry. 

Any system that allows exclusions or

It was suggested by my Union, AFSCME, that I sign this petition, so I have been reviewing the website for information about this effort.  While I agree this would be a great solution to the healthcare crisis, I have not seen the proposal for the funding needed to accomplish this.  Would you please provide a link to that information?  I am unable to commit to this effort, and will withhold comment on the expenditure of $40 M for an ad campaign, until I can review all of the information.  I

Your plan is a distraction from what we really need - a single payer plan.  There is already a bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 676, that lays out in detail what to do.  The economics have been worked out, and the money can be found to do this.  For more information, see <a href="http://www.pnhp.org>Physicians for a National Health Program.</a>

Would someone please explain what a 'single payer' plan is and how it differs from health insurance?

Oregonians And Their Physicians Part Company With Oregon Legislators On Health Care Reform

The Doctors' Revolt

Doctors, the traditional advocates for the medical status quo, are increasingly in favor of major reforms to the U.S. health-care system.

ROGER BYBEE | July 1, 2008

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_doctors_revolt

Physicians like heart surgeon Dr. Dudley Johnson, a renowned pioneer in open-heart surgery, have concluded that only a single-payer system can restore patient care rather than profit as the core of the health-care system.

A poll published recently in the Annals of Health Research shows that 59 percent of U.S. doctors support a "single payer" plan that essentially eliminates the central role of private insurers.

Increasingly, doctors seem to be showing support for a single-payer system that would essentially eliminate for-profit insurers and curb the power of big provider chains.

A remarkable 64 percent of the Minnesota doctors surveyed in 2006 expressed support for a Canadian-style single-payer system that would drive insurers from their commanding role in the health system, reported Minnesota Medicine. The Minnesota poll aligned closely with a Massachusetts survey of doctors in 2004, which reflected 61 percent backing for single-payer, according to the Archives of Internal Medicine. Doctors' views seem to be coming into closer alignment with those of the general public, of which 67 percent explicitly support a system like Canada's or Britain's.

Where only 18 percent of AMA members favored single-payer reform in 1992, the figure had soared to 42 percent by 2004.

Single-payer proved more popular than more modest measures like public programs to cover the uninsured, an individual mandate to purchase insurance, or an employer mandate, according to the AMA's 2004 Advocacy Agenda Setting Survey. Among some subgroups of the AMA, support for single-payer was even stronger, reaching 58 percent among psychiatrists. (Pediatric cardiologists showed a 70 percent level of support for single-payer in a 2003 poll of physicians published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.)

Members of the American College of Physicians—the nation's second-largest doctors' organization with 124,000 internal-medicine physicians and related specialists—voted in December 2007 to endorse the single-payer idea.

Ironically, the commanding role of for-profit insurers and other corporate players has produced all the dire effects that doctors were warned about as the products of "socialized medicine," delivered instead by a system that generates immense profits. "When doctors were worried about the government looking over their shoulder, now they actually have insurers second-guessing everything we do," says Dr. Deborah Richter, past president of Physicians for a National Health Program.

Doctors' perceptions of the for-profit insurance industry—which ranks about as low as Big Tobacco in the general public's eyes—have declined as premiums soar, bureaucratic problems multiply, and the ranks of the uninsured grow.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has noted, "Between 2000 and 2005, the number of Americans with private health insurance coverage fell by 1 percent. But over the same period, employment at health insurance companies rose a remarkable 32 percent. What are all those extra employees doing? … They are working harder than ever at identifying people who really need medical care, and ensuring that they don't get it."

So, 59% of U.S./Oregon doctors support a "single payer" plan that essentially eliminates the central role of private insurers and 100% of the Oregon legislature and every candidate running for the Oregon legislature support resolving Oregon's moral and economic health care crisis by continuing to be enslaved by the failed private health insurance industry. There are no polls on how the million Oregonians who are uninsured each year, much less those with health insurance but not health care, would choose. However, it's a very safe bet that they all would overwhelmingly if not unanimously reject continued domination by the failed private health insurance industry.

The 2009 Oregon legislature will be at work trying to fund SB329 with a Billion dollars in new taxes destined mostly for the corporate masters of the failed private health insurance industry and their lobbyists before Barack Obama takes the oath of office. Unfortunately, Obama's national solution relies on the failed private health insurance industry model. It's chances of passage at the end of four years that Obama promises are dubious at best. If enlightenment comes to him in the oval office and he comes to embrace the federal single payer solution, HR 676, http://www.hr676.org/, then he will be on the right track.

If you are one of the 59% of Oregon doctors that want to restore patient care rather than profit as the core of the health-care system in our state then it's time for you to speak up for A. The Oregon Community Health Care Bill. THERE ARE NO OTHER VIABLE CHOICES ON THE PUBLIC TABLE IN OREGON.

A. The Oregon Community Health Care Bill (Which involves no new taxes, will reduce public institutional expenditures for health insurance by 20% and provides equality of health care for public employees and citizens without relying on the failed private health insurance industry and virtually no physician paperwork.)

B. Senate Bill 329 (Which, according to Representative Mitch Greenlick, will cost an additional Billion dollars in taxes and relies on the failed private health insurance industry model assuring continued unsustainable escalation of public institutional health insurance contributions. The complexity of this bill will assure that health care professionals will be spending even more time with paperwork than patients.)

C. Maintain the status quo.

Oregon doctors, if you don't write out a prescription for a new treatment very soon then your patients and your state will just keep getting sicker and sicker and sicker and …

Primum non nocere, "First, do no harm." Your silent intervention in support of the failed private health insurance industry is doing harm.

Good luck and good health.

Richard Ellmyer

Oregon Community Health Care Bill author and project champion

President, MacSolutions Inc. - A Macintosh computer consulting business providing web hosting for artists and very small businesses.

Writer/Publisher - Oregon Health Watchers - Published on the Internet (http://www.goodgrowthnw.org/health.html) and distributed to thousands of readers interested in public health care policy in Oregon.

The medical insurance industry is not the answer, it is the problem.  Good health care is expensive and there is no legitimate reason to put a third of health care dollars into the pockets of the medical insurance industry which is charging the highest possible premiums for the lowest possible coverage which is often denied.  As a majority of doctors now acknowledge, single payer national health care for all is the answer.  It is high time that we as a nation do what is right.

all other nations considered firstworld, and many second world countries have had national health care for decades; Japan, Korea, EU, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, many eastern block countries and some middle eastern countries so whay is the problem in the US.

It is time the US stopped being of the rich, for the rich by the rich and started caring for its own people instead of running around helping other countries to get special treatment for putting in factories and depleting foreign environments for our wealthy.

We've built shelters, retirement homes (Yes, army corp of engineers), transportation, and hospitals for other countries but have never addressed the needs of US citizens. It is time all that changed.

Insurance is "the law of large numbers". Simply put, the solution to the Health Care Crisis is National insurance companies. How many Blue Cross - Blue Shield companies are there in America, 50?

Move the regulation of Insurance, of all types, to the National level as we did with commercial banks and legislatively remove the ability to 'underwrite' (read 'discriminate' here please) and we would have out National system with 'competition'.

If the only way to reduce the 'average' claim cost was to write more policies then the new 'national' insurance companies would attempt to sign up as many policy payers as possible! Competition would keep the price down. That is the goal. Who pays the policy premium is another topic.

If the goal is to provide insurance to every citizen then this is the only American way.

I would never support the socialist concept of only a government payer. I would even say that to make this solution more viable, the US government should contract with these new national companies to take over Medicare/Medicaid. The money we save on the bureaucracy reduction alone would most likely fund the coverage for those citizens who need help the most.

Insurance professional over 30 years, thanks for being there and providing a forum. NJ Quinn

I have been working for the Lucas County Department of Job and Family Services for 12 years.  I have Multiple Sclerosis, but have been healthy enough to work full time and go to grad school because of my health care. Beginning in June 2008, my employer changed the formulary on my prescription drugs and my out of pocket expense so far this month went up to $1500. I work and live in Ohio and only make $1600 per month working. I put my medicine on credit cards this month, but I don't know how I'm gonna pay for my medicine next month.  I work hard and contribute to society. However, I do not know how much longer I will stay healthy without my medication.  I have never been a proponent of a national health care system in the past, but I never thought a full time employee in the United States would have to go without life sustaining medication, especially a local government employee. If its this bad for me, it has to be much worse for others.

The rhetoric around this issue is fascinating. I'm unable to respond to the choice because it's too arbitrary.

The assumption that the government is capable of fixing this is fundamentally wrong; the government created the problem in the first place. I object strenously to the concept that the insurance companies are the smoking gun creating the problem. History has proven that free entreprise tends to work. History has also proven that the government tends muck up whatever it gets involved in.

Medicare/Medicaid eliminated (or minimized)private parties as customers… now those programs set the standard and I - as a private payer - have almost no role in even my own health care. The double irony is that I pay sometimes four to five times the price Medicare does for the same procedures. So I pay for others health care through taxes and then supplement it further by paying more!

So we have a socialist concept in practice, driving the insurance companies and the patients out of the program. The system we have is NOT designed for the rich, it is designed for the poor. Of course as we continue down this path we'll all end up being poor so maybe it will work in the end.

59% of doctors agree.  Single-payer is the way to go.  Support 676.  Medicare is popular- expand it to everyone.  Per-capita, we're the richest country in the world, we'll easily find the money when we find our backbone.  It'll be at least 30% cheaper than what we're paying now.

Some of you have asked about our plan to cover all Americans. At this point we are not endorsing any specific plans. We have a set of principles that we are advocating for. We will endorse any plan that meets these principles. You can read the principles here: http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/content/statement_of_common_purpose

We would support any plan that meets these principles. Once the new Congress and President begin in 2009, there will be many options of how to solve the problem, single payer plans, a mix of public and private plans, extensions of some current programs, or other options. We want for everyone to agree to the principles and then we can all pick the best option within the framework of these principles. We want for everyone to have the health care they need.

Thank you for all of your open and honest debate.

Levana Layendecker

Director of Online Campaigns

I am finally happy to see that other people out there like myself that cannot afford Health Insurance and someone finally stepped up and are willing to help.

My husband is self employed and I am in the (Professional)Health Field- you would think that I would have great insurance- but I don't –I work full-time and If I would carry Insurance for my whole family(4 of us and all healthy, past and present) It would cost me $850 a month. I have 2 teenagers and trying to make ends met is hard enough. I worry about if anything should happen—

Thanks. As a 66 year old retiree on Medicare and a near worthless insurance policies from United Healthcare and Caremark, I with most other individuals that I know need all the help we can get to get the money grubbers out of the healthcare business. Insurance companies just add a layer of unneeded bureaucacy to an overly bureacratic medical system that has more waste built in to the process than the garbage dump. What other industry requires seperate companies with dedicated specialists just to render billing that is impossible to decipher by anyone without the code book. We don't need insurance companies that wrote the codes, we need to simplify the process so that most families can figure it out. And we need to penalize the people that overbill because they can get away with it in the present system. That includes the crooks that take advantage of the broken system we have and those among us with the most need for help that can't figure it out anymore.

I'm tired of politicians, blowhards and biased newscasters that don't tell us the truth. Who are they kidding when we rank twenty something among leading industrialized societies in any measure of healthcare. Don't tell me we've got it better than the rest of the world. This world is too small today to keep even the most stupid person in the dark forever.

I have actually advocated for affordable, accessible quality health care for decades, and with my blog, have addressed issues for over a year.  I applaud this consumer effort and recommend that consumers step up the game in terms of clarity of goals and lobbying efforts.  Wanting "universal" health care is not enough, just look at the AMA website (for doctor advocacy) and the AHIP website (for health insurer advocacy).  These organized and well-funded and very specific efforts have helped produce and perpetuate the "crisis" of today. 

As consumers we know what we want, I have always called it AAQT (ACCESS, AFFORDABILITY QUALITY TACTICS for health services), but as consumers we seem easily distracted.  For instance, the shift away from true insurance (policies covering RISK of the cost of illness and need for medical services) to endless "preventive" options so that people are distracted from exclusions, and limitations imposed by health insurers for needed medical services because they get the free checkup every year…dollars and cents, this is a bad choice.  We don't need health insurance to cover finite costs, but the endless cost of treating medical events. 

1) Health insurance is only useful if our premiums are affordable and cover the FINANCIAL RISK of obtaining needed medical care. We have long forgotten that health insurance is our current tool in helping pay for needed medical services, if this tool fails because health insurers are bankers (holding funds and administering funds from health savings accounts), or are functioning as "educators" where they have nanny companies asking you whether you are eating right (which the large insurers contract with third parties for now), or as "policy" makers advocating for profits from finite events with predictable costs (eg checkups and screenings) in EXCHANGE for true health insurance (how many oncologists are parts of plans vs how many dieticians, how many cardiologists, how are the deductibles, co-pays on those coverages?) then we end up with what we have today…the need for additional INSURANCE POLICIES to cover the risk of illness.

2) The problem is NOT solved from the bottom up but from the MIDDLE OUT:  Political goals (those of politicians) have addressed the gross numbers of UNINSURED.  Like the sub-prime crisis in the mortgage industry, problems start in the middle…it was not those in the subprime market who ultimately brought down housing it was the impact of sketchy loans on the middle class who ended up unable to afford their mortgage payments.  Similarly, addressing the uninsured will not impact the under-insured majority BUT fighting for cost controls on medical services and insurance products that actually cover risk of illness WILL help the uninsured because the COST of insurance and health services will come down.

3) MORE INSURANCE is NOT the answer:  The push for long term care insurance is on its way because of legislation that provides for funding such policies in conjunction with other insurance products.  The most important lesson of this push will be that MORE insurance is not the answer because insurance companies seeking profit from increased premiums know only one way of increasing profits, squeeze the consumer for higher premiums, additional premiums, higher co-pays, higher deductibles, additional exclusions, and longer waiting periods for coverages of chronic disease.  We have YET to see anyone publicly disclose the recent study by the INSURANCE industry that explains that less than HALF of any premium dollar is actually USED to pay for medical services (utilization rate).  We are a carrot and a stick economy, here's insurance (the carrot), you get sick, you're not covered (the stick) BUT you can buy an additional policy to help cover you (carrot) BUT next year it will cost you more or you'll have to shop around because now you have a history (STICK).  Cost controls on health services providers and health insurers MUST be part of the equation.

4) Pay attention to your legislators:  Our local (state) representatives may not be big enough to fight national or even worldwide insurance companies, but these companies are licensed by each state.  Websites by governors and insurance commissioners are laughable, a cartoon of a big thumbs up in the middle of wreckage, reminiscent of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED."

Again look at the websites for doctors and insurance company lobbyists. Specificity, deception (we want you to save money this way), relentless media blitz….

There's a lot of work to do, but it begins with clarity:  Every change measured against goals, access, affordability and quality medical services.

Single-payer health care for all. Anything else is destined to fail.

This is ridiculous. What about Single-Payer? Why is that off the table? This is a typical top-down solution, and I guarantee that if it gets passed, it will be roundly denounced by every progressive with half a brain.

Please fight for the only real solution - single-payer, government health care.

we simply must have single payer instituted in this country to make us healthy.

Single payer refers to a way of financing health care, which includes both

the collection of money for health care and reimbursement of providers for

health care costs.  In a single payer system, both the collection of funds and the

reimbursement are the responsibility of one entity: the government.  The government

collects funds from individuals and businesses, mainly in the form of taxes, and the

government reimburses providers for health care services delivered to individuals

enrolled in the public health insurance program.

In the United States, there are multiple payers, not a single payer.  The collection of

money for health care is a joint responsibility of the private insurance industry, which

collects premiums and other payments from individuals and businesses, and the

government, which collects taxes from individuals and businesses.  Similarly,

reimbursement responsibilities fall on both the private insurance industry, which

reimburses providers for health care services delivered to privately insured individuals,

and the government, which reimburses providers for health care services delivered to

publicly insured individuals (e.g. people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP, or the

VA).

Denmark, Sweden, and Canada are example of countries with single payer financing of

health care.  There is also a single payer system in America: the Medicare program,

which is the health insurance program for almost every American aged 65 and over.  A

provider taking care of a Medicare patient has only one entity to bill: the government. 

In contrast, a provider has multiple entities to bill when dealing with privately insured

individuals due to the large number of private insurance companies in America.

Importantly, the term

No more "Murder by Spreadsheet." We want real reform - HR-676.

This organization is disheartening to those of us who have been working for real health care reform - real Universal Single Payer Health Care like every other industrialized nation has.  You even steal a name we grassroots folks have been working under - Healthcare - NOW! [http://www.healthcare-now.org/]

Friends, you are wrong with the direction you are taking and if you set us back another decade, you will be helping kill more fellow citizens.

I'd tell you how absolutely sick it is to see this - except cancer and no insurance has already done that.

I just want to point out to some of the commmenters that a properly designed single payer plan can fit within our principles, but it

We don't need "coverage"; we need health care. We don't need a uniquely American solution to financing medical care.

Countries like France, Germany and Canada have already paved the way: Hospitals and doctors remain private businesses. The government guarantees access to essential care, financed by taxes. People are still free to buy enhanced coverage in the private market. It's that simple.

The fastest and easiest way to bring health care costs under control is to eliminate the overhead and profit generated by and for private health insurers. 20 to 30 cents of every health care dollar spent doesn't currently go towards keeping people healthy it goes to insurance companies. Take them out of the equation to the greatest extent possible.

Private health insurance is irrevocably broken. They no longer do any of the things they are allegedly in business to do: They can't control costs, they can't deliver predictable and understandable premiums and coverage contracts, and they don't even protect individual policyholders from substantial financial risks.

Please take the term 'affordable' off the table.  Affordable implies 'pay' and therefore will negate the meaning of universal health care.  No matter how low the sum of payment there will still be too many that will not be able to 'afford' any health care, much less 'quality health care'.  Thank you.

Dennis Jones

8475 77th St. S.

Cottage Grove, MN 55016

I'm not sure what sent you on this tack but, as a health care activist and professional with decades of experience, I must say there is no way I will support your movement as it stands. Moreover I will do everything I can to inform others about the deficiencies of this approach. As long as the health insurance companies are left in the mix, there will not be any serious progress on health care reform. I don't know to what extent to lay the blame for your abortive effort at reform to your naivet

The real grass roots has been PNHP and CNA and local labor and local activists working on Single Payer, Expanded and Improved Medicare for All. If MoveOn and HCAN want to do something real they would have included in this $40 million campaign an option for people to urge their congressperson to sign onto Conyers HR-676. A real bill, really in congress. That would really accomplish what you say your goals are.

Will someone please tell me what private company will insure an individual with a pre-existing condition?

Sorry, I do not have a response as to which company may cover someone with a pre-exisiting condition.

I would also like to say in response to the earlier comments, that we are all in a grassroots movement for change. We would welcome all help and all voices for change, if you agree to our principles.

The real fight here is with the insurance industry which we all agree should not be in charge of health care reform. We may disagree slightly on the best path to get to health care for all, but we all agree on the destination.

I am glad to see such a spirited debate, and I hope that you will join us when the real debate kicks in—in Congress in 2009.

Levana, here's a challenge.  You wrote:

"a properly designed single payer plan can fit within our principles"

Accordingly, please either:

(A) Declare that HCAN supports HR 676 (a single-payer plan), or

(B) Explain (1) exactly how you believe HR 676 fails to be "properly designed" and (2) how it would need to be changed to be "properly designed" and (3) why those changes would be an improvement.

Thank you.

Ok, folks. Thanks for sharing.

Please do not curse, use other foul language, or personal attacks.

If so, I will not be able to post your comments.

I am deeply dismayed that HCAN, in the interest of political expediency, is willing to give up on a cure for the cancer that ails our health care system: profit based on denial of care. As long as insurance companies are provided an economic incentive to deny care, ordinary Americans will be denied care. Placing a watchdog without teeth to guard them is about as effective as requesting Karl Rove honor a subpeona. At least include Single Payer in your survey.

Shame on you for capitulating to Murder by Spreadsheet!

Actually, Lauren. You are mistaken. We explicitly say in our statement of common purpose that we are for:

"A watchdog role on all plans, to assure that risk is fairly spread among all health care payers and that insurers do not turn people away, raise rates or drop coverage based on a person

Hi Levana. I assume you've at least read my challenge above? Since HCAN is apparently not supporting any specific plan as of yet, I'll relax the first option of my challenge so that it says:

(A) Declare that HR676 is a properly designed single payer plan that would fit within HCAN's principles,

or

(B) Explain (1) exactly how you believe HR676 fails to be properly designed and (2) how it would need to be changed to be properly designed and (3) why those changes would be an improvement.

I have no doubt that you want to solve our country's healthcare problems as much as I do. I'd really like to see your response to my challenge. I'm happy to be educated, if you can cogently describe how some modifications to HR 676 could be an improvement.

Would you please give me some response as soon as you see this post, at least just to let me know whether you're planning to accept my challenge? Thanks.

Maybe if HCAN had worked BEFOREHAND with PNHP and CNA and the hundreds of grassrotts organizations we have had on the ground since the last time pre-comprimising failed and you all went into hibernation, then you would not be so surprised at the pushback you have received.