Latest from Physicians for a National Health Plan

[eridani]

http://www.pnhp.org/news/mccanne.pdf

This link is to a succinct (3 page) journal article making the case for single payer by PNHP Past President Dr. Don McCanne. It was just published in the world's first peer-reviewed, "open access" medical journal. McCanne is the author of the popular and influential health policy

"quote of the day" http://www.pnhp.org/news/quote_of_the_day.php


http://www.pnhp.org/news/2004/december/the_disparate_consen.php

This link is to an article in Monday's New York Times that featured PNHP co-founder Dr. David Himmelstein on the need for a single payer system, and near-billionaire William McGuire, CEO of UnitedHealth Group, putting his foot in his mouth by saying "the key issue is not who is paying, but what you are paying for." Mr. McGuire has amassed a personal fortune of over $600 million from UnitedHealth enrollees, funds that could have been better used to pay for essential clinical services under a single payer system.

[Mend]

1. UnitedHealth

the absolute world's worst medical insurance....it doesn't pay for anything, just collects premium checks.

[dflprincess]

2. And it's going to get worse

UHG is now pushing what it calls "IPlans". These transfer more of the burden to the insured. I have friends who still work there and what they are offering their employees for next year is one of these. It relies heavily on "health savings accounts" and conveniently, United has chartered their own bank for handling these accounts. The person I spoke to told me that a single person could be looking at up to $6,000 out of pocket. I wish someone would explain to me how a person is suppose save for retirement, save for their kids' education and save for out of pocket medical expenses.

The excuse for these plans is that it will keep premiums down - but per the documentation my friends received the premium is going up with this plan.

BTW it was just in the Minneapolis paper that McGuire is walking off with over $100 million in salary, bonus, stock options and other compensation this year (some of the "other compensation" is that McGuire buys artwork for his private collection and leases it to UHG). McGuire paid between $8 and $12 per share (when the public price was somewhere around $60) for his options and was able to cash them in for over $80 a share.

On the bright side, United is being looked at for allegations of a $200 million kickback to a pharmacuetical company. Though given the amount of money the company pac and McGuire (who "achieved" Pioneer status with the Bush campaign) donated to Bush and the Republicans, I wouldn't hope for much.

[Marlena]

5. the last (we hope) gasp of our private-based health coverage system

These things are fabulous for consumers...if you're both young and wealthy. The money in the HSAs accumulate tax free, and function just like an IRA if you save the funds until you're 65 (in other words, if you use them for retirement savings and use your own funds for your whopping huge deductible.

For the rest of us, though, they're absolutely hideous.

Employers love 'em, though, as they take more of the costs off their backs. And insurance companies love them, too, as they continue to prop up our present system of health coverage.

[Muzzle Tough]

3. Question

Does "single payer" mean that private payments are outlawed?

That's scarcy, because if Bush and the Republicans in the House and Sentate decide to give zero funding for abortion, and private payments are outlawed, then what is a woman to do if she needs an abortion? Do we return to the days of dangerous, illegal, back alley abortion?

Why not do it the way it's done in England? The NHS gives free health care to everyone, but people also have the option of privately funded alternatives.

[eridani]

4. No, it means that the gov't foots the bill for insurance

It doesn't mean that you can't have extra bells and whistles if you want. Think of the fire department. The same truck and the same firefighters go to a house worth 100k as they do to a house worth a million. But that doesn't mean that Bill Gates can't put in a super expensive state of the art alarm system that I can't afford. I don't care about the latter as long as the former remains the case.

All universal systems are effectively two tier like the British for that reason. I'm just concerned about keeping the basics up for everyone.

[Muzzle Tough]

6. Because what I heard.........

In Canada, champion figure skater Audrey Williams had a broken hip. She was in terrible pain. She needed hip replacement surgery.

But there was a long, long waiting list under Canada's "single payer" system. She wanted to spend her own money to get private surgery in Canada, but that was illegal.

After being on the single payer waiting list for two years, she still did not get the surgery.

So because it was illegal for her to pay for private surgery in Canada, she came to the U.S., where she spent her own money, and got surgery immediately.

That's what I always thought "single payer" meant. Only one payer, the Canadian government, is legal.

I'm pro-choice on abortion. And in addition, I'm also pro-choice on hip replacement surgery.

Why should it be illegal for this women to pay for her own hip surgery in Canada?

If a 24 hour hour watiing period for abortion is wrong, and I agree that it is wrong, then why is a wait of 2 years or longer for hip replacement surgery perfectly OK with some people? Why should it be illegal for this woman to pay for her own surgery in Canada?

No. I don't want a "single payer" system where private health care is against the law. I prefer the British system where the governbment covers everyone under the NHS, but it's still legal for people to pay for their own private health care.

I don't understand why some people think that a "woman's right to choose" should only apply to abortion, and nothing else. The right to control your body applies to EVERY aspect, and that means abortion, medical mariujana, and hip surgery.

[eridani]

7. Wouldn't be a problem here

We are spending 50% more than Canada per capita, mainly for bureaucratic BS. The waits for non-lifethreatening surgery could be eliminated if they would put more money into the system. We could have platinum-plated health care for what we are already spending.

There is room for disagreement here--I personally think that medical need should trump ability to pay in the case of resource scarcity. I see no reason why the pain of Audrey Williams counts for more than the pain of people ahead of her in line, who are ahead of her because they are in worse shape in the first place. But, again, with what we are spending already, resources shouldn't be scarce.

[Muzzle Tough]

8. Just as a matter of principle.....

..... I would always oppose any law that made it illegal for people to spend their own money on health care.

No matter how much money the governmnent spent on health care, there will always be some people who want a privately funded alternative, whether because it's faster, or better quality, or whatever. Even the cities with the best free public schools in the country have some parents who choose to send their children to private school, for example.

If people are willing to spend their own money, there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

It's not your place or my place to decide how important it is for that woman to get hip surgery. It's her choice, and her choice alone. No government bureaucrat has the right to tell her what she can or can't do with her body.

Why should hip surgery be treated as any less important of a right than abortion? Even a 24 hour waiting period for abortion would send the feminists into a hissy fit, and rightfully so. So why doesn't a 2 year wait for hip surgery cause any kind of protest from the feminists? Shouldn't a woman have the right to control her ENTIRE body, not just her uterus?

Also, if a woman wants to spend her own money on private surgery, and a private doctor is willing to perform it, since they are both consenting adults, why should the government try to stop them?

Right now at this very minute, the U.S. government is prosecuting private doctors for giving their patients medical marijuana. The government is totally wrong in doing that. So why should the government prosecute doctors for performinig privately funded hip surgery?

[eridani]

9. This isn't about controlling your body--

--it's about grabbing a ahare of a limited resource away from someone else. If her choice amounts to taking hip surgery away from someone with a more serious injury, she has no right whatsoever to it no matter how much money she has. As I have said, with proper funding it wouldn't need to be a limited resource.

Should Bill Gates be able to buy enough water to build a swimming pool the size of three counties just because he has the money to do it? Of course not. His money does not entitle him to choose to take what others need for their survival.

Marijuana and early abortions are not scarce resources. Someone who uses medical marijuana is not taking MMJ from some other patient. Early abortion is medically simple, and if you can get to a county where there are providers, there isn't any waiting. The government has no right to say you can't have something which is readily available and which does not involve taking anything from anyone else.

[dflprincess]

10. And currently, in the US if you don't have the cash or the insurance

you will wait for your hip replacement until you die.