Health Reform for Beginners

[Moby]

I know many already understand this and many are not capable but here it is.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/health_reform_for_beginners_th_1.html
Health Reform for Beginners: The Difference Between Socialized Medicine, Single-Payer Health Care, and What We'll Be Getting

I've been meaning to write this post for some time. The words "socialized medicine" and"single-payer health care" get thrown around with such gleeful abandon that they've both become a bit unmoored from their actual meanings. In the American health-care debate, they tend to refer to "whatever the Democrats are proposing." But that's not what they mean.

Socialized medicine is a system in which the government owns the means of providing medicine. Britain is an example of socialized system, as, in America, is the Veterans Health Administration. In a socialized system, the government employs the doctors and nurses, builds and owns the hospitals, and bargains for and purchases the technology. I have literally never heard a proposal for converting America to a socialized system of medicine. And I know a lot of liberals.

Single-payer health care is not socialized medicine. It's a system in which one institution purchases all, or in reality, most, of the care. But the payer does not own the doctors or the hospitals or the nurses or the MRI scanners. Medicare is an example of a mostly single-payer system, as is France. Both of these systems have private insurers to choose from, but the government is the dominant purchaser. (As an aside here, unlike in socialized medicine, "single-payer health care" has nothing in particular to do with the government. The state might be the single payer. But if Aetna managed to wrest 100 percent of the health insurance market, then it would be the single payer. The term refers to market share, not federal control.)

Socialized medicine is far outside any discussion we're having. Single-payer medicine has a genuine constituency but is also a vanishingly unlikely outcome. But the promiscuous use of the terms has created a rather confused population. "Socialized medicine" is the thing we don't have. In some case, it's the thing we don't like. The graph atop this post comes from a poll conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health. They found that Americans actually preferred socialized medicine to our system. Or take this question, about our current system:



You're reading that right. About 30 percent of Americans think HMOs are socialized medicine. Which implies a couple things. First, the term "socialized medicine" has been diluted beyond all meaning. Second, it's no longer considered a terrifying outcome. And third, nothing that's this amorphous -- and actually preferred by a plurality of the population -- is likely to prove a terribly effective attack against health reform. Socialized medicine has become such a stand-in for "not this system of medicine" that it's begun to look good in comparison.

Meanwhile, what we're actually going to get is not socialized medicine or single-payer health care. It's a hybrid system. Private insurers, hopefully competing with a public option. Private doctors and private hospitals. Government regulation and subsidies. It's going to be complicated and messy and inefficient and hopeful and the product of a strange mix of corporate preferences and public compassion and latent populism. It will, in other words, be a uniquely American system, and hard to describe with a single epithet.

[doctordog]

I know many already understand this and many are not capable but here it is.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/health_reform_for_beginners_th_1.html

How about " A fucked up dream realized by a community organizer in search of greatness"

[MintJulep]

Moby, you clearly do not know what is going on or maybe your pundits have simply misled you.

What Obama is doing is a back-handed way to put our entire healthcare system under gubmint control, like the banks, auto industry, etc.

Single-payer medicine has a genuine constituency but is also a vanishingly unlikely outcome.O M G.

A single payer system is the object and Obama is presenting a deceptive "plan" which is the stepping stone for a govt-run system. It is his intention.

Offering a "gubmint option" will put the insurance companies out of business, making room for a complete govt takeover. I don't see that happening because a lot of blue-dog dems oppose it, and rightfully so.

[bairdi]

Moby, you clearly do not know what is going on or maybe your pundits have simply misled you.

What Obama is doing is a back-handed way to put our entire healthcare system under gubmint control, like the banks, auto industry, etc.

O M G.

A single payer system is the object and Obama is presenting a deceptive "plan" which is the stepping stone for a govt-run system. It is his intention.

Offering a "gubmint option" will put the insurance companies out of business, making room for a complete govt takeover. I don't see that happening because a lot of blue-dog dems oppose it, and rightfully so.
119 Million Americans Want a Public Health Option -- Why Aren't Politicians Listening?
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
Posted on June 8, 2009, Printed on June 10, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/140500/

As the health insurance industry and its defenders in Congress lay out their case against permitting a public option in a reform bill, perhaps their most curious argument is that some 119 million Americans are ready to dump their private plans and jump to something more like Medicare – and that's why the choice can't be permitted.

In other words, the industry and its backers are acknowledging that more than one-third of the American people are so dissatisfied with their private health insurance that they trust the U.S. government to give them a fairer shake on health care. The industry says its allies in Congress must prevent that.

The peculiar argument that 119 million Americans must be denied the public option that they prefer has been made most notably by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which is one of two panels that has jurisdiction over the health insurance bill.

"As many as 119 million Americans would shift from private coverage to the government plan," Grassley wrote in a column for Politico.com. That migration, Grassley said, would "put America on the path toward a completely government-run health care system. … Eventually, the government plan would overtake the entire market."

Grassley's logic is that so many Americans would prefer a government-run plan that the private health insurance industry would collapse or become a shadow of its current self. That, in turn, would lead even more Americans entering the government plan, making private insurance even less viable.

Rarely has an argument more dramatically highlighted the philosophical question of whether in a democracy, the government should represent the people's interests or an industry's.

But Grassley said he is simply upholding "the promise that if you like the coverage you have, you can keep it. … That's why I'm concerned about a government-run plan that forces people out of private insurance."

The counter-argument, of course, might be that if the health insurance industry hadn't dissatisfied so many customers – indeed forcing many sick people into bankruptcy because of excessive fees, denial of coverage and gaps in permitted medical treatments – there wouldn't be so many Americans eager for a public option.

So, now to protect the health insurance industry, Congress must stop 119 million Americans from leaping into the arms of a government plan.

Grassley is joined in his position by nearly the entire Republican contingent in Congress. It also appears a few key Democrats, particularly Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Montana, agree at least in part.

Baucus has kept a single-payer option "off the table" during the debate even as he claimed "all options are on the table." He also has suggested that Congress might have to "sculpt" any public option, presumably to make it less appealing to Americans if some version survives in the reform bill.

President Barack Obama, whose mother had to fight with her health insurance company while dying of cancer, says he continues to favor including a public option in the bill as necessary to keep the insurance industry honest. Sen. Ted Kennedy, chairman of the Health and Education Committee which also has jurisdiction over the bill, also favors a strong public plan.

However, there is the additional fact that executives from health insurance companies and related industries are major campaign contributors to members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

For instance, since 2005, Grassley's various political action committees have collected nearly $1.3 million in donations from the industries related to the health insurance debate, according to OpenSecrets.org. Grassley's top four donor groups were Health ($411,956); Insurance ($307,348); Pharmaceuticals ($233,850); and Hospitals ($197,137). Eighth on Grassley's donor list were HMOs at $130,684.

On the other hand, the health insurance industry appears about as popular with Americans as the tobacco industry, with both considered highly hazardous to your health. Except that Americans can choose not to smoke, while they run enormous risks for themselves and their families if they don't have some form of health insurance.

Health insurance companies do negotiate rates with hospitals and doctors that are far below what is charged to people who don't have insurance, sometimes as low as one-tenth what the uninsured patient might be charged.

These disparities, in effect, force many Americans to sign up for private insurance even if the insurance fees are excessive, padded with handsome profits for investors and unproductive bureaucratic costs (including investigations into whether people can be denied payments because of undisclosed "preexisting conditions").

If the health insurance industry had its way, Congress would produce a bill that simply required Americans (or their employers) to buy health insurance from private industry. That way, the government would compel citizens to become customers while denying them a choice of the public plan.

To avoid such an outcome, proponents of the public option – including those 119 million Americans who are ready to sign up – will have to overcome opposition from Republicans and some Democrats who are determined to protect the interests of the private health insurance industry.

Robert Parry's new book is Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq."
© 2009 Consortium News All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/140500/

[doctordog]

119 Million Americans Want a Public Health Option -- Why Aren't Politicians Listening?
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
Posted on June 8, 2009, Printed on June 10, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/140500/

As the health insurance industry and its defenders in Congress lay out their case against permitting a public option in a reform bill, perhaps their most curious argument is that some 119 million Americans are ready to dump their private plans and jump to something more like Medicare – and that's why the choice can't be permitted.

In other words, the industry and its backers are acknowledging that more than one-third of the American people are so dissatisfied with their private health insurance that they trust the U.S. government to give them a fairer shake on health care. The industry says its allies in Congress must prevent that.

The peculiar argument that 119 million Americans must be denied the public option that they prefer has been made most notably by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which is one of two panels that has jurisdiction over the health insurance bill.

"As many as 119 million Americans would shift from private coverage to the government plan," Grassley wrote in a column for Politico.com. That migration, Grassley said, would "put America on the path toward a completely government-run health care system. … Eventually, the government plan would overtake the entire market."

Grassley's logic is that so many Americans would prefer a government-run plan that the private health insurance industry would collapse or become a shadow of its current self. That, in turn, would lead even more Americans entering the government plan, making private insurance even less viable.

Rarely has an argument more dramatically highlighted the philosophical question of whether in a democracy, the government should represent the people's interests or an industry's.

But Grassley said he is simply upholding "the promise that if you like the coverage you have, you can keep it. … That's why I'm concerned about a government-run plan that forces people out of private insurance."

The counter-argument, of course, might be that if the health insurance industry hadn't dissatisfied so many customers – indeed forcing many sick people into bankruptcy because of excessive fees, denial of coverage and gaps in permitted medical treatments – there wouldn't be so many Americans eager for a public option.

So, now to protect the health insurance industry, Congress must stop 119 million Americans from leaping into the arms of a government plan.

Grassley is joined in his position by nearly the entire Republican contingent in Congress. It also appears a few key Democrats, particularly Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Montana, agree at least in part.

Baucus has kept a single-payer option "off the table" during the debate even as he claimed "all options are on the table." He also has suggested that Congress might have to "sculpt" any public option, presumably to make it less appealing to Americans if some version survives in the reform bill.

President Barack Obama, whose mother had to fight with her health insurance company while dying of cancer, says he continues to favor including a public option in the bill as necessary to keep the insurance industry honest. Sen. Ted Kennedy, chairman of the Health and Education Committee which also has jurisdiction over the bill, also favors a strong public plan.

However, there is the additional fact that executives from health insurance companies and related industries are major campaign contributors to members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

For instance, since 2005, Grassley's various political action committees have collected nearly $1.3 million in donations from the industries related to the health insurance debate, according to OpenSecrets.org. Grassley's top four donor groups were Health ($411,956); Insurance ($307,348); Pharmaceuticals ($233,850); and Hospitals ($197,137). Eighth on Grassley's donor list were HMOs at $130,684.

On the other hand, the health insurance industry appears about as popular with Americans as the tobacco industry, with both considered highly hazardous to your health. Except that Americans can choose not to smoke, while they run enormous risks for themselves and their families if they don't have some form of health insurance.

Health insurance companies do negotiate rates with hospitals and doctors that are far below what is charged to people who don't have insurance, sometimes as low as one-tenth what the uninsured patient might be charged.

These disparities, in effect, force many Americans to sign up for private insurance even if the insurance fees are excessive, padded with handsome profits for investors and unproductive bureaucratic costs (including investigations into whether people can be denied payments because of undisclosed "preexisting conditions").

If the health insurance industry had its way, Congress would produce a bill that simply required Americans (or their employers) to buy health insurance from private industry. That way, the government would compel citizens to become customers while denying them a choice of the public plan.

To avoid such an outcome, proponents of the public option – including those 119 million Americans who are ready to sign up – will have to overcome opposition from Republicans and some Democrats who are determined to protect the interests of the private health insurance industry.

Robert Parry's new book is Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq."
© 2009 Consortium News All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/140500/

FALSE, Completely FALSE

[The Professor]

does anyone else see the IRONY in a junkie, a member, constantly criticizing his opponents for simply playing back programs packed into them by "punditry" (LOL!) while simultaneously exhibiting personally an inability to articulate a position beyond the mere cutting and pasting of an editorial, ie, opinion piece?

[doctordog]

does anyone else see the IRONY in a junkie, a member, constantly criticizing his opponents for simply playing back programs packed into them by "punditry" (LOL!) while simultaneously exhibiting personally an inability to articulate a position beyond the mere cutting and pasting of an editorial, ie, opinion piece?

Does anyone see the irony in a junkie that post on so many threads but very seldom does anything but sit on the fence. He does great commentary though.:thumbsup: