|
|
Post by Sparky on Jul 1, 2007 21:36:00 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Jul 2, 2007 15:25:14 GMT -8
I went and saw the movie in the theater. I would highly recommend that you do so. It is a very movng movie and to see it in a theater with a group of people is even better with the audience clapping and crying together. If you are not going to do that, you can see it online at the following link.... video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6547358554002021486 |
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Jul 8, 2007 23:08:25 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Jul 21, 2007 5:39:15 GMT -8
Win a free weekend to the universal health care country of your choice!
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Jul 21, 2007 20:50:54 GMT -8
Interview with Dr. Terry Bennett - Durham NH
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Jul 22, 2007 6:39:11 GMT -8
Breaking: Michael Moore will Live Chat on C&L Sunday 4-5PM ETBy: John Amato on Saturday, July 21st, 2007 at 7:14 PM - PDT Michael Moore will be joining C&L for a Sunday afternoon chat about his new movie “Sicko” and whatever else comes up in the comment thread. The movie has opened in about 500 new cities across the country this weekend and is the # 5 grossing documentary of all time so far…… www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/21/breaking-michael-moore-will-live-chat-on-cl-sunday-4-5pm-et/
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Jul 22, 2007 6:43:03 GMT -8
pol.moveon.org/sickoflierweek/ MoveOn members are calling on the presidential candidates -- Republicans and Democrats -- not to take campaign money from the HMOs, big health insurers, and drug companies. They get a fair amount of money, but not so much that they couldn’t give it up if forced to. MoveOn members are going to more than 7,000 screenings with hundreds of thousands of fliers asking people to call presidential candidates with a toll-free number we set up. You just call and connect to the candidate of your choice. Go see this movie -- and bring along some fliers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Jul 22, 2007 6:44:18 GMT -8
The following video is from CNN's The Situation Room, broadcast on July 9. Michael Moore slams CNN, Wolf Blitzer on live TV 07/09/2007 @ 7:06 pm Filed by David Edwards and Josh Catone And if you want to know what YOU CAN DO about our broken healthcare system go to: <a www.myspace.com/onecarenoworg Before a live interview with documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, CNN aired a segment entitled "Sicko Reality Check" in which Dr. Sanjay Gupta, the network's chief medical correspondent, aimed to keep Moore "honest" and fact check his new film, Sicko. The 4-minute piece concluded that Moore "did fudge the facts," and implied that Sicko was misleading in portraying health care systems in other countries, such as France, the UK, and Canada, as better than the one in the US. When given a chance to speak, Moore immediately put host Wolf Blitzer on the defensive. "That report was so biased, I can't imagine what pharmaceutical company's ads are coming up right after our break here," said Moore. "Why don't you tell the truth to the American people? I wish that CNN and the other mainstream media would just for once tell the truth about what's going on in this country." Moore argued that CNN has such a lousy track record of reporting the truth about the war in Iraq and asking tough questions, that Americans should be skeptical of their reporting on health care. "You're the ones who are fudging the facts," said Moore. "You've fudged the facts to the American people now for I don't know how long about this issue, about the war, and I'm just curious, when are you going to just stand there and apologize to the American people for not bringing the truth to them that isn't sponsored by some major corporation?" Blizter grew defensive and backed up his fellow CNN employee, saying that he would stand behind correspondent Sanjay Gupta's record on medical issues. Moore, in response, vowed to post a rebuttal to his website, MichaelMoore.com, showing that Gupta's facts weren't accurate. "I'm going to put the real facts up there on my website," said Moore, "so that people can see what he just said was absolutely wrong." Turning to the war in Iraq, Moore accused Gupta, who spent time embedded with US troops in Iraq, and the mainstream media at large of refusing "to ask our leaders the hard questions, and demand the honest answers." Moore laid the blame for the continued US involvement in the war in Iraq at the feet of the media, arguing that they failed to do their jobs and question the Bush war policy. Blitzer refused to argue with Moore about Iraq, and instead steered the conversation back to the topic of health care. Moore was asked which of the US presidential candidates he thought would best fix America's health care system. Moore did not name a specific candidate, but said that the Democratic candidates as a whole need to be more specific about how they plan to achieve their goal of universal health care. "Our own government admits that because of the 47 million who aren't insured, we now have about 18,000 people a year that die in this country, simply because they don't have health insurance. That's six 9/11s every single year," concluded Moore. We need "universal health care that's free for everyone who lives in this country, it'll cost us less than what we're spending now lining the pockets of these private health insurance companies, or these pharmaceutical companies." After the interview, Blitzer found sympathy from fellow CNN hosts Lou Dobbs and Jack Cafferty. "After watching that Michael Moore interview," said Cafferty, "I've decided whatever CNN's paying it ain't enough." |
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Jul 22, 2007 6:45:58 GMT -8
CNN Admits All Sicko Facts Are True to Their Source
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Aug 4, 2007 8:27:21 GMT -8
www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/08/the_year_of_liv.htmlThe Year of Living Dangerously in Health Reform in California By Sara Rogers Health Consultant Office of California State Senator Sheila Kuehl • AB 8 (Nunez/Perata) passes Senate Health Committee • Governor touts his "outline for health reform" but has no legislation • SB 840 continues as the only tested plan In early January of this year, a flood of health insurance "reform" plans were announced, seemingly based on how fast dueling press releases could be faxed – first from Governor Schwarzenegger, then from Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, followed quickly by Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata. The year 2007 was precipitously baptized "the year of Health Reform" and off everyone was to summarily solve one of the most systemic, complex and politically implosive "issues" that California faces – in nine short months. Never mind that the Governor's plan consisted (as it still does) of a 10-page policy paper and that Legislative proposals (other than SB 840) were still in their infancy. The promise of the Governor and legislative leaders being committed to "getting something done this year" was enough to sell the idea that the vast issue of health reform could be (and ought to be) cracked in a single year. Both Senator Perata and Speaker Nunez fleshed out their legislation over the early months of the year and then both plans were sent out to be "modeled" (that is, analyzed for cost) by the same MIT economist who had modeled the Massachusetts health reform plan, which, as we have seen in all the newspapers, has hit many road blocks in implementation, including the inability to find the kind of "affordable" health insurance plan that had been assumed in the modeling. Recently, SB 48 and AB 8 were merged into one bill, AB 8 which is jointly authored by both legislators. AB 8 sets a minimum employer contribution to health care of 7.5% of payroll, and allows employers to choose to cover their own workers with that amount (with unlimited premiums, co-pays and deductibles placed on their workers and no minimum on what is actually covered) or to pay that fee into a statewide pool that would then offer coverage to their workers, at some reduced premium. Additionally, AB 8 expands eligibility for public programs to children and parents up to 300% of the federal poverty level ($30,000 for an individual, $62,000 for a family of four). AB 8 includes insurance market reforms such as a minimum "medical loss ratio" (insurance companies refer to payments made for the care of their insureds as "medical losses") so that 85% of premium dollars collected by insurance companies would have to be spent on patient care. A companion bill (AB 2) authored by Assemblymember Dymally would require insurers to offer coverage to everyone except those deemed "high risk" who would be offered insurance under a separate risk pool. Both bills passed out of the Senate Health Committee last week, and now will move to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Speaker Nunez acknowledged that his bill was still a "work in progress" with only one person speaking in support, and nearly every organization involved in health reform calling for some kind of amendment. However, since the Governor has vowed, again, to veto SB 840 when it is placed on his desk, AB 8 has emerged as the vehicle for any deliverance on the Governor's promise of achieving "health reform this year", and, once the budget is finished, and perhaps discussions on water and transportation are behind them, the Speaker and the Pro Tem will enter into negotiations with the Governor on a final health care solution. A health reform bill such as AB 8 quickly becomes an immensely complex string of interacting policies, even after the broad policies have been agreed upon. However, we're still far from there. The Governor's outline for health reform deviates considerably from the legislative plan. There are a great number of differences between the two plans. A fundamental difference, however, is that the Governor's plan is predicated on a universal "individual mandate" that requires every Californian to have health insurance, without any cap on premiums. On that note, consider what didn't pass. AB 1554, otherwise known as insurance "rate regulation", would have provided essential protections for individuals and employers required to buy insurance despite premiums that are increasing 3-4 times faster than inflation every year. The bill would have required permission for insurance companies to raise their premiums, but it failed in the face of unrelenting opposition from health insurance companies. AB 1554's failure underscores a primary reason that health reform has been such a difficult nut to crack. The only way to get to universal health care while still preserving private insurance companies as the delivery system requires an enormous amount of serious regulation of insurers. First, you have to force insurers to cover people who are sick. (How do you make money covering people whose premiums are guaranteed to be less than the cost of care?) You have to force insurers to spend 85% of their premiums on health care, since it makes a lot more business sense to spend premiums on advertising and brand new ways to keep people from accessing their care. Additionally, for any private insurer-based system to function adequately, we must keep insurers from passing their own complete failure to control costs onto businesses and individuals in the form of steeply increasing premiums. In fact, any reform plan that accomplishes anything meaningful must tackle the insurance industry head on, and do so over and over and over again. Insurers, however, are very adept at killing legislation that would accomplish meaningful reform. Insurers may claim to support universal healthcare yet they effectively kill every necessary reform for getting there. The question of whether something good can be done this year will be determined by how successful Speaker Nunez and Sen. Perata are at forcing the Governor to stand up to insurance companies and protect Californians from soaring premiums and out of pocket expenses. While the Governor twists himself into knots working to make pigs fly, SB 840 will be ready for him to finally notice the nice comfy airplane we've got ready for take off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Aug 15, 2007 15:56:31 GMT -8
Steelworker ignites Healthcare Debate - Must See!
Category: News and Politics
In response to a question about Edwards and the other candidates on healthcare Steve said they are "all talking the talk but not walking the walk." He doesn't like the answer of letting private corporations continue to take care of our healthcare and went on to say that one democratic candidate (referring to Obama) made the statement we have to invite health insurance companies to the table. As Steve points out they have already been at the table for the past 35 years and eating our lunch.
Hardball: Interview with Steve Skvara
Original footage followed by John Edward's response.
When Edwards and others say they are for Universal Healthcare but then don't support the solution (SINGLE PAYER) to remove the insurance industry it's nothing more than an empty campaign slogan. Steve wants action from them but knows it's up to US to make it happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Aug 23, 2007 8:05:42 GMT -8
Field Poll: www.bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia/mn/news/fieldpoll_082207.pdfwww.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus15aug15,1,2074185.column From the Los Angeles Times California healthcare reform in '07? It's looking wan Taking the pulse of the state's efforts on health insurance coverage. David Lazarus Consumer Confidential August 15, 2007 This was supposed to be the year that California finally did something about the roughly 7 million state residents who lack health insurance. Lawmakers proposed a broad range of fixes that got us, more or less, in the vicinity of genuine reform. So where are we now? Pretty much worse than ever. Sure, people are still talking about change, but the budget mess in Sacramento has derailed virtually all other legislative business for 2007 and sapped momentum from the healthcare movement. The word out of the Capitol is that even if a healthcare bill makes it to the governor's desk, it will be so watered down that millions of Californians will remain without coverage and little if anything will be done to contain costs. The insurance industry, meanwhile, has responded to recent reform efforts by becoming even more organized. Consumer advocates say insurers are shoveling piles of cash toward controlling the healthcare debate and protecting their lucrative livelihood. "The industry is saying that it will accept reform only if it's good for them," said Jamie Court, president of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica. "The problem is that if it's good for the industry, it won't be good for the public." Not that the reform movement is on life support. This past weekend, a town-hall-type event called CaliforniaSpeaks was held at various locations statewide with the likes of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata participating. The event was sponsored in part by Blue Shield of California Foundation, a nonprofit organization that says it's dedicated to seeking "universal health coverage for all Californians." "We wanted to bring the voices of Californians into the health-reform discussion," said Virginia Witt, a foundation spokeswoman. Some might wonder, though, how extensive a discussion the foundation desires. According to financial records, all contributions to the organization in 2005 and 2006 were provided by Blue Shield of California, the state's third-largest health insurer after Kaiser and Blue Cross. In a conspicuous quirk of scheduling, CaliforniaSpeaks was held the same day as another event, dubbed the Great L.A. Healthcare Rally, which brought hundreds of reform advocates to City Hall who also are seeking universal coverage for all state residents. The centerpiece of the rally was a bill, SB 840, put forward by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) that would create a government-run insurance program for California similar to systems in place in every industrialized democracy worldwide except the United States. Blue Shield, like other health insurers, opposes SB 840, which would all but drive them out of business. The bill was approved by the Legislature last year but subsequently vetoed by the governor. Kuehl told me prior to Saturday's rally that she intended to hold back the latest incarnation of SB 840 and to await a hopefully more sympathetic Democratic successor to Schwarzenegger. "I don't want to send SB 840 to the governor simply so he can grind it once again under his heel," she said. Insurers basically back any proposal that would maintain and expand the current system, but this would only exacerbate our problems. The industry's wide variety of clerical procedures contribute to about a third of the $2 trillion spent annually on healthcare in this country being squandered on bureaucratic overhead, according to researchers at Harvard University. The ugly truth is this: The United States spends about twice as much per person on healthcare as most other industrialized democracies, yet infant mortality is higher and the average American doesn't live as long as people in countries that guarantee medical coverage to their citizens. A single-payer approach akin to what Kuehl is proposing is the best way to guarantee fair and equitable coverage to all and keep spiraling costs in check. This isn't socialized medicine -- medical care would remain in the hands of private practitioners. It's universal health insurance, pure and simple. Admittedly, it's also a political long shot. That's why Court at the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights is cooking up a ballot initiative that he says would introduce "a middle way" to the healthcare debate. His proposal, which is still being refined, would more heavily regulate private insurers to keep costs down while at the same time extend government-backed coverage to any who desire it through the California Public Employees' Retirement System, which already offers insurance to its 1.5 million members. This isn't a perfect solution. What happens, for example, when all the rich and healthy people sign up with private insurers, and everyone else dives into the CalPERS pool? And does CalPERS even want to administer an insurance program with potentially more than 8 million members? No one at the retirement system returned my calls, but I hear no. Kuehl says she's open to all ideas. But she's sticking with her single-payer plan. "I'm concerned that halfway measures could convince people that everything's just fine," she said. Things aren't just fine -- far from it. And the prognosis won't be any better if all the talk of reform we've heard this year comes to nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Aug 23, 2007 8:06:20 GMT -8
www.sacbee.com/111/story/338044.htmlHealth care system slammed Poll: 69 percent of voters displeased with current setup. By Peter Hecht - Bee Capitol Bureau Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, August 22, 2007 In a dramatic shift in public attitudes, more than two-thirds of California voters now say they are unhappy with the health care system and increasing numbers favor a government-run system covering all state residents, a new Field Poll revealed Tuesday. The survey of 536 registered voters showed that 69 percent are dissatisfied with the health care system in California, with 42 percent saying they are "very dissatisfied" and 28 percent saying they are content with the current system. Those numbers -- in a poll taken Aug. 3-12 -- contrast starkly with responses to a similar Field Poll last December. Then, 51 percent of voters said they were satisfied with the way the health care system was functioning, compared with 44 percent who were dissatisfied. Mark DiCamillo, director of the California Field Poll, said the shift in attitudes seems to reflect reactions to a political drumbeat led by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers insisting the state health care system needs fixing. Schwarzenegger has advanced a $12 billion plan to cover some 6.5 million uninsured Californians. His proposal would expand the state's health insurance program for the poor -- Medi-Cal -- and require employers that don't provide coverage to pay 4 percent of payroll costs to help subsidize residents who can't afford insurance. But the Republican governor has strenuously rejected a single-payer health care bill, Senate Bill 840 by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, calling the legislation to abolish private health care insurance "government-run health care." "At one level, the public is taking his message that the health care system is broken and needs to be fixed," DiCamillo said. "The public pretty much takes him (Schwarzenegger) at his word, and more and more they are dissatisfied with the system. "But as more people get dissatisfied ... the more likely they are to support a state government-run health care system." Some 36 percent of voters in the most recent poll say they now support replacing the current health care system in California with a state government-run system covering all residents. That's up from 24 percent who supported a government-run system in December 2006. In the December poll, 52 percent of California voters said they favored a plan to overhaul health care by making changes within the existing framework of health insurance and by sharing responsibility among employers, the state and individuals. In the latest poll, support for this so-called "shared responsibilities" approach dropped to 33 percent of voters -- 3 percentage points less less than the support for a government-run system. Meanwhile, the percentage of voters who support relying on free-market competition to improve the health care insurance system dropped from 18 percent last December to 14 percent in the recent poll. "If anything, the poll says the Legislature should think broadly about health care reform, and the cynicism will only increase if nothing gets done," said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a group advocating expanding health care through both government and employer programs. "Clearly, voters are in the mood for broad change." If so, they don't have much confidence in the ability of state leaders to come up with a solution. Some 58 percent of Field Poll respondents said they doubt the Legislature and the governor will be successful in passing significant health care reform this year. Thirty-six percent said they expect state government will enact some meaningful legislation. "I think the results tell us that we need to have affordable coverage for all Californians and there's a strong sense of urgency for doing that," said Chris Ohman, CEO of the California Association of Health Plans, which represents 39 private and public health plans covering 21 million state residents. Ohman said the voter attitudes -- and Tuesday's passage of the state budget -- could force the Legislature to undertake a "serious discussion" of health coverage. Besides Schwarzenegger's health care plan and Kuehl's single-payer proposal, Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata are backing a plan to impose a higher threshold on employers. Assembly Bill 8 would require them to spend 7.5 percent of payroll toward employee health coverage or pay the money into a government health insurance pool. "There is really no consensus within the voting public in how to best reform the system," DiCamillo said. But he said rising support for a government-run program may have been influenced by Michael Moore's recent documentary, "Sicko." The movie assails private, for-profit health care. "When you calculate the numbers from the box office, the movie wasn't all that huge," DiCamillo said. "But the publicity it generated certainly raised the level of anxiety about the (health care) system." The percentage of state voters saying they were "very dissatisfied" with health care jumped from December, soaring from 27 percent to 50 percent among Democrats, from 11 percent to 34 percent among Republicans, and from 20 percent to 37 percent among nonpartisans. But while 47 percent of Democrats and 39 percent of independents favor a government-run system, only 19 percent of Republicans agree. "There is no question that people are frustrated with the high cost of health care and are concerned about getting and keeping insurance," said Vince Sollitto, spokesman for the California Chamber of Commerce. "But turning over health care to the same government bureaucracy that brought us the Department of Motor Vehicles ... is not the answer, and Californians know that."
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Aug 23, 2007 8:06:37 GMT -8
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/08/22/BA5SRMMNU.DTL&type=politicsPoll shows more Californians favoring single-payer health care Tom Chorneau, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau Wednesday, August 22, 2007 (08-22) 04:00 PDT Sacramento -- - As voter dissatisfaction with the state's health care system grows, increasing interest is emerging in moving to a state-run, single-payer program, according to a Field Poll released today. For years, a single-payer system had been the favorite of a small but loyal minority, but the new poll shows that 36 percent of California voters now favor replacing the current employer-based system with one operated by the state - a jump of 12 percent since December. Meanwhile, the number of voters who want to make reforms within the framework of the current system has dropped from 52 percent in December to 33 percent in August. "This is a clear signal that people want change," said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access, a Sacramento consumer group that supports both a single-payer proposal and legislation aimed at reforming the current system. "What you have here is two-thirds of California saying they want a major expansion of group coverage," he said. "People are looking for reform, and they want the government to make the system fair." The poll findings were drawn from telephone interviews with 536 randomly selected registered voters during the 10-day period ending Aug. 12. It has a sampling error of plus or minus 41/2 percentage points. Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, said there's a strong relationship between voters being dissatisfied with the current system and their interest in alternatives. "The message from the governor and legislators that the system is broken has sunk in," he said. "Back in December, people had a mixed view of the system and were less interested in change. "Now we have more people with a very negative viewpoint." In December, DiCamillo pointed out, the poll found 51 percent of voters were satisfied with the way health care worked in California, with 44 percent dissatisfied. Today, only 28 percent said they are satisfied with health care in California and 69 percent are dissatisfied. He also noted that the number of voters who said they are very dissatisfied has more than doubled since December - from 20 percent to 42 percent. While the numbers give supporters of single-payer a boost, advocates of less-drastic change said voters will not support a government-run system. "There's no question that people continue to be concerned about the high cost of health care and are worried about getting and keeping insurance," said Vince Sollitto, spokesman for the California Chamber of Commerce. "But turning over health care to the same government that brought you the Department of Motor Vehicles and the post office isn't the way to go, and most Californians agree with that." Chuck Idelson, spokesman for the California Nurses Association, which is a strong supporter of a single-payer system, said the Field Poll findings are similar to recent national polls that show growing support for single-payer. "People want real reform, not phony reforms," he said. The Field Poll also found growing voter skepticism that the Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will come to an agreement on a health care overhaul this year - 58 percent said it was unlikely. Schwarzenegger introduced a $12-billion plan in January aimed at covering all Californians, but he's made little progress in selling it to the Legislature. The governor's plan relies on sharing the cost of coverage extensions to 6.5 million uninsured residents within the existing system - an approach that has lost support among voters since December, according to Field. Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said the poll numbers show that Californians overwhelmingly see the need for health care reform. "As we educate the public on the merits and problems of single-payer, we are confident that our proposal will be supported," he said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Aug 23, 2007 23:33:38 GMT -8
Health Insurance Executive favors a Single-Payer system (Medicare and systems in other countries) and explains why private insurance doesn't work for healthcare. We All Need Healthcare; Who Needs "Insurance"? By Georganne Chapin, JD, MPhil, President and CEO, Hudson Health Plan I am a health insurance and managed care executive so you may find this editorial a bit strange. I believe that the way to fix our healthcare system is to stop relying on insurance and focus instead on healthcare. So, what's wrong with health insurance? Well, first, it's temporary. This may work for auto policies, but not for human health. Second, health insurance is mostly contingent on where you live and whom you work for. It's easy to transfer car insurance, but not health insurance. Finally, insurance companies make more money by minimizing pay-outs than by keeping people healthy. Human beings -- who need preventive care, who have babies, who may lack living wages and job security, and who get older--find the house rules stacked against them. Plans in Massachusetts, California, and soon New York propose to strew the same old red tape over even more people. Members of the same family could end up with separate policies, with different benefits and different expiration dates. This will make it even harder for doctors and hospitals to figure out whom to bill, which services are covered, and - worst of all - whether coverage will last long enough to complete treatment for a sick patient. Other developed nations have universal healthcare, not "insurance." They give healthcare to everybody, they spend less, and they are healthier for it. But, we have an example of success in this country, too. It's called Medicare. And while flawed, Medicare meets the most important criteria for a universal healthcare system: it's permanent, it's portable, and it's simple and inexpensive to administer. The health insurance model is flawed because it depends on people falling between the cracks after they pay their premiums and before they collect their "benefits." Rather than insurance, providing healthcare to everyone would cost less and deliver more in the long run. medgenmed.medscape.com/viewarticle/559758
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Aug 29, 2007 4:24:53 GMT -8
Uninsured Swells 2.2 Million to 47 Million - 15,000 Doctors say Single-Payer is only solution. Category: News and Politics Today, the Census Bureau released the latest data on the number of Americans without health insurance: in 2006, the number of uninsured rose to 47 million. The ranks of the uninsured have grown 8.6 million since 2000--an increase of 22 percent. The number of uninsured children rose to 8.7 million. If not for coverage through Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), even more children would be without coverage. Nearly all uninsured adults are employed, and are increasingly likely to be in middle-class families. Middle-Class Americans Join Ranks of Uninsured in 2006 as Private Coverage Shrinks FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 28, 2007 Contacts: Steffie Woolhandler, M.D. (617) 312-2766 Quentin Young, MD (312) 782-6006 Don McCanne, M.D. (949) 493-3714 Number of Uninsured Swells 2.2 Million to 47 Million 15,000 Doctors: "Single Payer National Health Insurance is the Only Solution" CHICAGO — The U.S. Census Bureau released data today showing that the number of uninsured Americans jumped by 2.2 million in 2006 to 47.0 million people, with nearly all the increase (2.03 million) concentrated among middle-class Americans earning over $50,000 per year, according to an analysis by Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP). Strikingly, 1.4 million of the newly uninsured were in families making over $75,000 per year. An additional 600,000 were in families earning $50,000 to $75,000 per year. (The median household income in 2006 was $48,200). "Middle income Americans are now experiencing the human suffering that comes with being uninsured. It makes any illness a potential economic and social catastrophe," said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program and Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Physicians for a National Health Program also noted the following: 1- The 2.18 million rise in the number of uninsured is the biggest jump reported by the Census Bureau since 1992. 2 - There are now more uninsured in the U.S. — 47.0 million — than at any time since passage of Medicare/Medicaid in the mid-1960's. 3 - 93% of the increase is among middle and high income families: Of the 2.18 million increase: 1.398 million (64% of the increase) was in >$75k family income An additional 633,000 (29% of the increase) was among $50-$75k group Among full time workers, the number of uninsured increased by 1.230 million (56.4% of the increase). 4 - In Massachusetts, often cited as a model for health reform, the number of uninsured increased from 583,000 in 2005 (9.2 percent) to 657,000 in 2006 (10.4 percent of the population). 5 - The divergence between poverty and uninsurance is relatively new and striking. Until recently, as poverty went down uninsurance fell. That has changed. 6 - The number of uninsured children has fallen only 17 percent since SCHIP was enacted in 1997 from 10.74 million (adjusted to be comparable to current figures) to 8.66 million. The number of uninsured children rose by 611,000 between 2005 and 2006. The doctors' group said that the only solution to the rising number of uninsured and underinsured is a single-payer national health insurance program, publicly financed but delivered by private doctors and hospitals. Such a program could save more than $400 billion annually in administrative waste, enough to provide high-quality coverage to all and halt the erosion of the current private system. "We can no longer afford the waste and inefficiency, the high overhead and outrageous executive salaries of the private insurance industry" said Dr. Don McCanne, senior health policy fellow for PNHP. "Only reforms that end our reliance on defective private coverage and assure guaranteed coverage for all will work." "The experience of other industrialized nations teaches us that high-quality, comprehensive care can be provided to all our citizens," said Dr. Quentin Young, National Coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program. "A single-payer national health insurance system has emerged as only solution to the nation's health system debacle." www.commondreams.org/news2007/0828-06.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Sept 3, 2007 14:22:54 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Sept 6, 2007 7:21:57 GMT -8
California's Unhealthy Bill: Fake Healthcare Reform A Victory for Schwarzenegger -- And a Boon for Insurance Companies Posted September 5, 2007 | 10:10 PM (EST) In alliance with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Democratic leaders of the state Legislature, led by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez are rushing to enact a substandard health reform plan that will not reduce the health insecurity of California families. They're apparently even willing to jeopardize Sen. Barbara Boxer and their own party's slim hold on the United States Senate along the way. Here's the deal: Nuñez and some other Democrats are actively working with Schwarzenegger to put together a "compromise" healthcare package. Schwarzenegger, the main architect of that plan, gets to claim credit for supposedly solving the state's healthcare crisis using "bipartisan consensus." As collateral damage to Democrats, Schwarzenegger can tout this deal to boost his candidacy against Boxer in 2010. Nuñez could then get the governor's support for extending his term as speaker. This constellation of events may be dandy for a career politician or two, but it leaves behind a lot of other Californians, who will have to contend with a poor healthcare bill full of holes. AB 8 does nothing to rein in rising insurance premiums -- up 87% nationally this decade -- or rising co-pays, deductibles and other health fees. Which means that costs, already unaffordable for far too many, would continue to spin out of control. The bill fails to limit rising prescription drug costs, especially notable at a time when Schwarzenegger has just eliminated funding for his "voluntary" drug price restraints that were so ballyhooed last year by the governor and the authors of AB 8. It is not universal, as many of the currently uninsured would remain without access to care. It fails to assure uniform, comprehensive benefits, and therefore perpetuates an increasingly multi-tiered health system based on the ability to pay. It fails even to require insurance companies to provide insurance. They would not have to offer coverage to those with serious medical conditions -- those people would instead be dumped into a publicly funded high-risk pool, earning big insurance companies millions in additional profits while bankrupting the public pool with the sickest, costliest patients. The bill does not even protect patients' choice of physicians, hospitals or other providers. And, most critically, the plan reinforces and expands an insurance-based system -- the source of much of the present crisis -- thereby subverting real reform for years to come. At the center of the plan is a mandate on businesses to either provide health coverage or pay taxes into a fund to buy it for their employees. The new tax would fall between the 7.5% of payroll costs favored by Nuñez and the 4% Schwarzenegger proposes. No matter where the compromise figure ends up, it will be far less than many employers now pay for health benefits. One-fourth of all California businesses that provide health benefits currently pay more than 15% of their payroll for health premiums, according to the California Healthcare Foundation. As a result, businesses that now provide health coverage to employees would have an incentive to drop it. Moreover, the mandate on employers is unlikely to survive a legal challenge; a similar Maryland bill was thrown out by the federal courts for violating federal benefits law. Schwarzenegger continues to push his proposal to force most uninsured people to buy insurance or face severe penalties. So far, Democrats have resisted this proposal, but many expect them to accept some form of individual mandate as the final price for Schwarzenegger's blessing for the term limits initiative. Last year, Democrats united behind SB 840, a single-payer-style, enhanced "Medicare for all" bill that would have provided guaranteed healthcare for everyone, controlled costs, eliminated co-pays and deductibles, guaranteed choice of provider, and gotten the insurance companies out of the way. Similar systems are succeeding in every other industrialized democracy -- including Schwarzenegger's homeland, Austria. If the politicians in Sacramento are concerned about patient care, they will not now settle for a bad healthcare bill that will further degrade our healthcare safety net. A bad healthcare bill is worse than no bill. Deborah Burger, RN is president of the California Nurses Association. *********** Health Care for All California, a statewide chapter-based organization, has led the movement to pass single payer health care since 1997. HCA sponsors both SB 840 (Kuehl) and the OneCareNow Campaign, a growing grassroots movement to pass single payer health care. SB 840, now called the "gold standard of health care," would solve the state's health care crisis by providing for equitable and affordable universal health insurance and a single standard of high quality comprehensive care while preserving the state's health care infrastructure of providers, hospitals and pharmacies as private and competitive businesses. We oppose AB 8 for the following reasons: AB 8 will expand the health insurance industry, not solve the health care crisis. First and foremost, under the banner of moving toward universal health care, instead, AB 8 will leave millions uninsured or underinsured while strengthening and perpetuating an insurance system that currently rations health care by excluding those who cannot afford to pay the high cost of insurance premiums. Insurance companies decide what is covered and what is not. They deny care to the uninsured, the underinsured and the insured with preexisting conditions. Health insurance companies ration health care to secure profits. The unsolvable issue for the status quo is that although health care is treated as such, it is not a commodity. It is a life-giving and life-saving service that is needed by everyone. Providing affordable and quality health care for Californians is not the mission of for-profit insurance entities. AB 8 will not alter the profit motives of this industry, nor will it change the responsibility insurance companies have to their stockholders. The reforms AB 8 proposes to place on current insurance practices will not solve the state's health care crisis. Instead, they will result in higher insurance prices for individuals, businesses and governments. AB 8 does not provide for the necessary cost controls to achieve affordable health care. Both state and national studies indicate that including all residents in a single risk pool that is insured by a government administered non-profit insurance trust fund is the only method that will save billions of health care dollars--enough to provide affordable and comprehensive universal health care. Although AB 8 provides for preventative health care, disease management and administrative cost controls, it does not do enough to control costs. With its piece meal approach, AB 8 cannot achieve the significant cost savings that a single payer system can. In addition to the above measures, a system as provided by SB 840 can control costs by establishing evidenced based standards of care and by utilizing capital investment management, consolidated budgetary authority, system-wide health care planning and the state's power to negotiate lower prices for durable medical devices and bulk prescription drugs for 36 million Californians. AB 8 does not provide protections needed to guarantee affordability. This bill leaves too many Californians vulnerable to health care reform that will be too expensive, will not provide enough coverage and for many, no coverage at all. AB 8 does not provide for guaranteed affordability and does not limit co-payments, deductibles or other out-of pocket costs. Although AB 8 does allow for premium subsidies for enrollees with household incomes at or below 300 percent of the poverty line, it does not provide a benchmark for cost sharing between employers and employees. AB 8 requires that all defined employers spend 7.5 percent of Social Security wages on health care expenditures, which includes purchasing health care coverage for their employees and could include as well, contributions to health savings accounts and other health care programs that do not provide direct health care coverage. Many employers who currently provide health care coverage spend more than 7.5 percent of Social Security wages for the coverage they provide to their employees. AB 8 does not provide minimum coverage standards for the employer market, which could encourage some of these employers to reduce or drop the coverage they provide. According to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey, premiums for employer-sponsored family health coverage have increased by 73 percent since 2000, while wages increased only 15 percent concurrently. AB 8 provides for no state oversight of health insurance rates. A recent joint report by the California Budget Project and the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research finds that "many families spend a substantial amount on health care premiums and out-of-pocket costs, and could face financially devastating medical expenses if they are not adequately protected." The report states that health care reform legislation should take into account the income needed in California to pay for other necessities such as housing, food, child care, and the risk of extraordinary health care costs. The report suggests placing limits on out-of-pocket costs as well as full subsidies up to 200 percent of the poverty line and partial subsidies "well above" 300 percent of the poverty line. AB 8 does not do this. AB 8 will place many individuals and families in harm's way. www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-burger/californias-unhealthy-bi_b_63244.html |
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Sept 27, 2007 6:54:56 GMT -8
Michael Moore on Oprah Today
Thursday, September 27th, 2007
Michael Moore will be appearing again on Oprah today, Thursday, September 27th. Oprah has received thousands of letters from viewers since Mike's appearance in June -- viewers who wanted to share their own health care horror stories. So she invited a number of them to come on today's show, which will feature not only Mike but the head of the health insurance lobby in D.C.
The theme of the show is, 'It Can Happen to You.' And, unfortunately, it can. Joining Oprah and Michael on the show will be Steve Skvara, the steelworker who famously popped the health care question at the Democratic presidential debate in August, and Civia Katz, a Pennsylvania woman who saw 'SiCKO' and decided to send her health care story to MichaelMoore.com.
Tune in today (Thursday) or set your TiVo. Check local listings for show times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Oct 3, 2007 7:56:56 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Oct 3, 2007 8:04:27 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Nov 14, 2007 22:21:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Nov 14, 2007 22:35:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Dec 6, 2007 11:35:33 GMT -8
American College of Physicians Endorses Single-Payer
Yesterday the prestigious American College of Physicians (ACP), the nation's second largest medical association (124,000 members), endorsed single payer national health insurance as "one pathway" to universal coverage. This is the first time the group has endorsed single payer and represents a huge step forward in the movement for fundamental health care reform.
The ACP's decision followed a careful evaluation of lessons from other nations' health systems. The central lesson, they said in an article in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is the need for the United States to provide universal health insurance coverage. While the ACP's own proposal is based on a "pluralistic" model, they urged lawmakers to seriously consider a single payer system as one way to provide universal access to health care. They noted that single payer systems have the advantage of being "more equitable, have lower administrative costs, have lower per capita health care expenditures, have higher levels of patient satisfaction, and have higher performance on measures of quality and access than systems using private health insurance."
In our estimation, this development changes the terms of engagement within the medical profession and in the larger public debate. The steady "legitimation" of our single payer national health insurance alternative takes a giant step forward with this declaration from the ACP. It is incumbent on PNHP to make this heartening development part of the public discourse as soon and as loudly as possible!
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Dec 6, 2007 11:37:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Dec 22, 2007 0:08:25 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Jan 2, 2008 15:57:04 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Jan 10, 2008 22:06:47 GMT -8
Our health care system is failing. It denies care to many in need and often leaves families - even those with coverage - in financial ruin. Huge administrative costs and profits divert resources from care to bureaucrats and investors. Insurers' dictates and the pressures of competition and profit threaten medicine's most sacred values. youtube video |
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Jan 10, 2008 22:16:29 GMT -8
Real People Denied Health Care
Bonnie Drew
Nathan Wilkes
Cynthia Campbell
David Welch
Janet Stephens
Nataline Sarkisyan
Emily Cannon
|
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Feb 26, 2008 9:50:04 GMT -8
|
|
