PNHP

Where's the Single-Payer Advocate?

Where's the Single-Payer Advocate?

By Michael McAuliff
New York Daily News
February 23, 2010

Reps. Anthony Weiner and Peter Welch are reprising a question that proved thorny for President Obama’s last health care summit: Where’s the single-payer advocate?

Weiner and Welch — single-payer advocates who are not invited, yet — argue in a letter to the President today that someone from the single-payer side should be at the Blair House summit on Thursday.

“Dear Mr. President,” they write. “During the State of the Union address, you stated, ‘But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.’

“We’d like to take you up on the offer.”

Their idea is pretty easy to understand: Medicare for all.

The letter is after the jump.

Dear Mr. President:

During the State of the Union address, you stated, “But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.”

We’d like to take you up on the offer. The best way to advance these goals is to expand what we know already works. We and many Americans propose Medicare for All. We would urge you to make sure that someone is invited to the summit that supports this position.

Building on Medicare, which has a 1% overhead rate, would reduce costs by eliminating insurance company profits and cut administrative costs which currently consume 31%, nearly double that of other nations. A universal Medicare for All system would provide Americans with complete autonomy in choosing their health care provider without regard to provider networks or referrals from primary care doctors. Patients would no longer be responsible for premiums, deductibles or co-payments. Government safety net programs, such as Medicaid and SCHIP, as well as the State and local government portions for these programs, would no longer be needed.

Furthermore, a Medicare for All system would be easily understandable by the American public. Medicare has been an enormous success for seniors and there is no reason, we believe, to not expand Medicare coverage to all Americans.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/02/wheres-the-single-payer-advoca.html#ixzz0gSzOv63O

Where’s the Single-Payer Advocate?

By Michael McAuliff
New York Daily News
February 23, 2010

Reps. Anthony Weiner and Peter Welch are reprising a question that proved thorny for President Obama’s last health care summit: Where’s the single-payer advocate?

Weiner and Welch — single-payer advocates who are not invited, yet — argue in a letter to the President today that someone from the single-payer side should be at the Blair House summit on Thursday.

“Dear Mr. President,” they write. “During the State of the Union address, you stated, ‘But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.’

“We’d like to take you up on the offer.”

Their idea is pretty easy to understand: Medicare for all.

The letter is after the jump.

Dear Mr. President:

During the State of the Union address, you stated, “But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.”

We’d like to take you up on the offer. The best way to advance these goals is to expand what we know already works. We and many Americans propose Medicare for All. We would urge you to make sure that someone is invited to the summit that supports this position.

Building on Medicare, which has a 1% overhead rate, would reduce costs by eliminating insurance company profits and cut administrative costs which currently consume 31%, nearly double that of other nations. A universal Medicare for All system would provide Americans with complete autonomy in choosing their health care provider without regard to provider networks or referrals from primary care doctors. Patients would no longer be responsible for premiums, deductibles or co-payments. Government safety net programs, such as Medicaid and SCHIP, as well as the State and local government portions for these programs, would no longer be needed.

Furthermore, a Medicare for All system would be easily understandable by the American public. Medicare has been an enormous success for seniors and there is no reason, we believe, to not expand Medicare coverage to all Americans.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/02/wheres-the-single-payer-advoca.html#ixzz0gSzOv63O

The Rise & Fall of the American Medical Empire

A Trench Doctor's View of the Past, Present, and Future of the U.S. Healthcare Systems

by Robert A. Linden, MD, FACP

“Rise and Fall” is written specifically for American citizens and discusses four of the most pressing problems with U.S. healthcare today: healthcare insurance, the disappearing primary care physician, pharmaceutical industry infiltration into the practice and science of medicine, and medical malpractice litigation. Dilemmas along with solutions with the pros and cons for each are reviewed through the eyes of an independent thinking, office/hospital, board-certified internist/geriatrician with hands-on experience and without a personal agenda. Despite this, the single-payer system for healthcare financing and the health court for malpractice reconciliation are both championed.

Purcahse “Rise & Fall” on Amazon.

The Rise & Fall of the American Medical Empire

A Trench Doctor’s View of the Past, Present, and Future of the U.S. Healthcare Systems

by Robert A. Linden, MD, FACP

“Rise and Fall” is written specifically for American citizens and discusses four of the most pressing problems with U.S. healthcare today: healthcare insurance, the disappearing primary care physician, pharmaceutical industry infiltration into the practice and science of medicine, and medical malpractice litigation. Dilemmas along with solutions with the pros and cons for each are reviewed through the eyes of an independent thinking, office/hospital, board-certified internist/geriatrician with hands-on experience and without a personal agenda. Despite this, the single-payer system for healthcare financing and the health court for malpractice reconciliation are both championed.

Purcahse “Rise & Fall” on Amazon.

Towers Watson survey on employer-sponsored wellness programs

Purchasing Value in Health Care

Selected Findings From the 15th Annual National Business Group on Health/Towers Watson Survey Report — 2010

Towers Watson
February, 2010

The prolonged economic downturn is putting additional pressure on companies to change their health care programs to help relieve financial strain. The results of this year’s survey also show employers are frustrated by employees’ poor health habits and are struggling to effectively motivate behavior change. Additionally, they are uncertain about the future of employer-sponsored benefits, especially in light of the potential for health care reform legislation. Against this backdrop, employers are doing more to hold the line on costs and achieve better health and productivity outcomes.

Key Findings

* Annual median health care cost increases rose slightly in 2009 to 7%, compared with 6% in 2008. This pace is still more than twice the rate of inflation.

* Fifty-seven percent of respondents are very confident that employers will continue to offer health care benefits 10 years from now. This figure is down from 2009, when 62% of employers expressed a high level of confidence.

* Employers report that lack of employee engagement is the biggest obstacle to changing health behaviors. Still, they are trying new ways to encourage employees to become healthier and buy health care services more efficiently.

* There is considerable room for improvement in vendor programs designed to change member health habits and encourage efficient use of health care services. Employers rate these programs as ineffective.

* Today, 54% of companies have a consumer-driven health plan (CDHP) in place – a 6% increase over last year’s findings – and is expected to increase to 61% in 2011.

http://www.towerswatson.com/assets/pdf/1258/WT-2010-15571.pdf

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

Everyone agrees that it is better to practice good health habits. So who could object to employers providing incentives for their employees to improve their health behaviors?

During the national health reform dialogue, opponents of comprehensive reform frequently attempt to reframe the problem as a lack of individual responsibility for personal health. If people would eat better, exercise, and not smoke, many of the reform proposals would not be necessary.

This concept has now been co-opted by many of the nation’s large employers as they introduce wellness programs into their companies. What has been their experience?

According to this Towers Watson survey (a consolidation of Towers Perrin and Watson Wyatt), “employers are frustrated by employees’ poor health habits.” Employers report that “lack of employee engagement is the biggest obstacle to changing health behaviors.” Regarding their vendor programs that are designed to change employees’ health habits, “employers rate these programs as ineffective.”

Though they rate their wellness programs as ineffective, the sister programs that actually have slowed the growth in employer costs have been the consumer-driven health plans (CHDPs). A majority of large employers have now introduced CHDPs. Although the supporters of CHDPs use the rhetoric of placing the consumer in charge, these plans are nothing more than very high deductible plans which shift more of the responsibility of paying for health care from the employer to the employee.

During the period of employment, most injuries and illnesses for which the employee would require care would not be prevented by the wellness interventions. Employers who shift costs to employees who are unfortunate enough to need health care are being dishonest when they claim that they are doing this to enhance wellness.

During the reform dialogue, we cannot allow the opponents to reframe the debate as the need for wellness programs to address employees’ lack of engagement in correcting poor health habits, while these opponents in truth are supporting passing more costs onto the infirm.

Keep the framing on target. We need to remove financial barriers to care so that absolutely everyone can have the health care that they need. Properly designed wellness programs are fine, but we cannot let them distract us in our efforts to enact a single payer national health program – an improved Medicare for everyone.

Don’t It Make Your Wide Eyes Cry, Iowa? Another Cancer Patient Grovels

by Donna Smith
CommonDreams.org
Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Some patient stories just fill me with anger and shame.  This one — from Iowa — is one of those stories.  By now, we all know the plot.  Patient has insurance.  Patient gets sick.  Patient cannot afford to keep insurance or find insurance that will cover illness.  Patient goes without coverage.  Providers demand up-front payment for cancer care.  Patient calls on friends, family and community to help.  Patient grovels.  Cancer spreads.  Patient grovels.

Ah, the mid-western values.  This is Iowa.  My mom was born in Boone during the Great Depression.  Iowa is the place many think of when we think of those salt-of-the-earth, kind and hard-working Americans with traditional, perhaps even faith-based values.  A kind and gentle place with a no-nonsense work-ethic.  Iowa.  Fields of farmers’ dreams and the stuff of mid-America at its finest.

So, why in Iowa should we allow Deb, a cancer patient who is currently receiving chemotherapy, to beg and grovel for her care?

Is her life less valuable than her two Senators’ lives? Come on, Senators Harkin and Grassley. Fess up.  Is your constituent’s life less worthy of protection and care than your own?  And what about you, President Obama?  Didn’t the Iowans who braved the cold and ice of the primary day way back in 2008 help catapult you to the presidency?  Deb’s vote sure as hell mattered then.  What happened?  When did Deb’s life become so expendable?

Do any of the leaders know what it feels like to face a cancer fight and have to come up with $2,000 up front every single month or be denied chemotherapy?  Do they care enough to actually create a US healthcare system that would stop this horror from unfolding in Iowa?

Come on now, boys.  And girls.  This is clearly not rocket science.  Other civilized countries have not abused their cancer patient like this for many years.  We clearly could stop this through a proven and effective and enhanced Medicare for all.  No more begging, groveling Iowa patients.  No more providers booting patients like Deb to the curb to die.  Just healthcare for all.

It’s the ethical, moral, economical and sensible way to go — so why are we stuck trying to have a bipartisan measure to keep the for-profit insurance companies, the pharmaceuticals and the big hospital corporations happy?  I’ll tell you why.  Because Deb isn’t invited to the summit.  She’s back in Iowa raising money for her next round of chemo.  Shame on us all.

Donna Smith is a community organizer for National Nurses United (the new national arm of the California Nurses Association) and National Co-Chair for the Progressive Democrats of America Healthcare Not Warfare campaign.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/23-0

Towers Watson survey on employer-sponsored wellness programs

Purchasing Value in Health Care

Selected Findings From the 15th Annual National Business Group on Health/Towers Watson Survey Report — 2010

Towers Watson
February, 2010
The prolonged economic downturn is putting additional pressure on companies to change their health care programs to help relieve financial strain. The results of this year’s survey also show employers are frustrated by employees’ poor health habits and are struggling to effectively motivate behavior change. Additionally, they are uncertain about the future of employer-sponsored benefits, especially in light of the potential for health care reform legislation. Against this backdrop, employers are doing more to hold the line on costs and achieve better health and productivity outcomes.
Key Findings
* Annual median health care cost increases rose slightly in 2009 to 7%, compared with 6% in 2008. This pace is still more than twice the rate of inflation.
* Fifty-seven percent of respondents are very confident that employers will continue to offer health care benefits 10 years from now. This figure is down from 2009, when 62% of employers expressed a high level of confidence.
* Employers report that lack of employee engagement is the biggest obstacle to changing health behaviors. Still, they are trying new ways to encourage employees to become healthier and buy health care services more efficiently.
* There is considerable room for improvement in vendor programs designed to change member health habits and encourage efficient use of health care services. Employers rate these programs as ineffective.
* Today, 54% of companies have a consumer-driven health plan (CDHP) in place – a 6% increase over last year’s findings – and is expected to increase to 61% in 2011.
http://www.towerswatson.com/assets/pdf/1258/WT-2010-15571.pdf

Everyone agrees that it is better to practice good health habits. So who could object to employers providing incentives for their employees to improve their health behaviors?
During the national health reform dialogue, opponents of comprehensive reform frequently attempt to reframe the problem as a lack of individual responsibility for personal health. If people would eat better, exercise, and not smoke, many of the reform proposals would not be necessary.
This concept has now been co-opted by many of the nation’s large employers as they introduce wellness programs into their companies. What has been their experience?
According to this Towers Watson survey (a consolidation of Towers Perrin and Watson Wyatt), “employers are frustrated by employees’ poor health habits.” Employers report that “lack of employee engagement is the biggest obstacle to changing health behaviors.” Regarding their vendor programs that are designed to change employees’ health habits, “employers rate these programs as ineffective.”
Though they rate their wellness programs as ineffective, the sister programs that actually have slowed the growth in employer costs have been the consumer-driven health plans (CHDPs). A majority of large employers have now introduced CHDPs. Although the supporters of CHDPs use the rhetoric of placing the consumer in charge, these plans are nothing more than very high deductible plans which shift more of the responsibility of paying for health care from the employer to the employee.
During the period of employment, most injuries and illnesses for which the employee would require care would not be prevented by the wellness interventions. Employers who shift costs to employees who are unfortunate enough to need health care are being dishonest when they claim that they are doing this to enhance wellness.
During the reform dialogue, we cannot allow the opponents to reframe the debate as the need for wellness programs to address employees’ lack of engagement in correcting poor health habits, while these opponents in truth are supporting passing more costs onto the infirm.
Keep the framing on target. We need to remove financial barriers to care so that absolutely everyone can have the health care that they need. Properly designed wellness programs are fine, but we cannot let them distract us in our efforts to enact a single payer national health program – an improved Medicare for everyone.

Grassroots Activists Hold ‘Sidewalk Health Summit,’ Call for Medicare for All

From the National Single Payer Alliance

For Immediate Release

Contact:  
Katie Robbins
Donna Smith
Dr. Margaret Flowers

The 20-million member strong grassroots alliance, the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care, supporting improved Medicare for all will hold its own summit on health reform outside the White House on Thursday, February 25.  While politicians inside Blair House will be attempting to reach some bipartisan agreement to pass legislation that aims to make marginal improvement in health insurance markets,  activists outside the formal venue will be answering President Obama’s call from his State of the Union address:

“But if anyone…has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.”

There is a better answer. The people’s summit will feature diverse speakers representing doctors, nurses, patients, labor, faith-based groups, and community political advocacy groups who continue to press the President and Congress to act responsibly and ethically to address the nation’s healthcare crisis by extending an improved Medicare for all model.

When:  9 – 10 a.m., Thursday, February 25; participants gather at 9 a.m. and summit begins at 9:30 a.m.

Where: NE Corner of Lafayette Park (H St and Vermont), Washington, D.C.

In other communities across the nation, other Medicare for all advocates will gather in solidarity summits and actions, including San Francisco, Cedar Falls, IA, Louisville, KY, New York City, Georgia and Colorado (a complete listing is available at http://www.healthcare-now.org/sidewalk/)

This action is not in support of the current reform bills – House, Senate or the plan offered up for consideration during the President’s Blair House summit.  LCGHC members do not support the current legislation with or without a public option – robust or not.

Of note: Tea Party activists have signaled that they may also send a contingent to Washington to agitate for the status quo. This action is not in support of the status quo.  LCGHC members support improving and expanding the successful Medicare program to all Americans, including  the 46 million Americans who currently lack coverage and tens of millions more who are under-insured and at risk of bankruptcy in the event of illness.

How much does President Obama expect us to pay for health care?

The President's Proposal

The White House
February 22, 2010

Policies to Improve Affordability and Accountability

Example for a family of four with income of $66,000:

Maximum percent of income paid for premiums: 9.5%

Percent of costs paid by health insurance plan: 70%

Penalty for remaining uninsured: (in 2016) the higher of $695 (with indexed increases) or 2.5% of income

Hardship exemption – threshold income below which the penalty is waived: The income tax filing threshold ($9,350 for a single or $18,700 for a married couple in 2009)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal

Comment: 

By Don McCanne, MD

The greatest significance of President Obama’s health care reform proposal released today is that he has now formally placed his stamp of approval on the fundamental policies already contained in the House and Senate reform bills. While remaining silent on some of the third rail issues (public option, Medicare buy-in, pregnancy termination, etc.), he and his staff merely tweaked the bills and added insurance premium rate review, whatever that’s worth, and some rhetoric on waste, fraud, and abuse.

His proposal still falls far short on two of the most important goals of reform: 1) insuring everyone, and 2) ensuring that health care is affordable for each of us. Merely tweaking the Senate version, which is what they did, could not have attained these goals since the most effective policies were already traded away before serious negotiations began.

That said, let’s look at what the President expects a family of four with an income of $66,000 to pay for health care. The premium contribution would be 9.5% of income, or $6270 for the basic plan with an actuarial value of 70%. If they wanted or needed a better plan, they would have to pay the full difference in the premium. At an actuarial value of 70%, they would also have to pay an average of 30% of all health care costs. This can vary considerably because of plan design in the form of deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, non-covered benefits, stop loss, out-of-network care exempt from stop loss, and other factors. If they either elected not to or were unable to pay the premium, they would have to pay a penalty of $1650, but then, of course, they would have no protection at all against potential health care costs.

Clearly, President Obama has not done any better than Congress in protecting families from financial hardship should they have the misfortune of developing significant medical problems. Unaffordable underinsurance is not the change that we needed.

Put Single Payer Back on the Table

By Dr. Quentin Young
The Huffington Post
February 22, 2010

One year after its much-ballyhooed launch, the Obama administration’s approach to health reform is now in serious disarray.

The president’s health care summit on Feb. 25 is being portrayed as a last ditch bid to find some common ground with his “just say no” Republican opposition. He also faces an increasingly wary group of disgruntled Democrats, whose memory of the Massachusetts massacre — the election of a Republican to Sen. Edward Kennedy’s seat — remains fresh.

The summit proceedings, which will be televised in the name of “transparency,” will no doubt be laden with a formidable amount of stagecraft. They will be preceded by the unveiling of the president’s own legislative proposal — presumably the odious Senate bill with some tweaks — a few days before.

But it’s almost certain that this latest White House initiative, undertaken with the stated goal of salvaging and passing at least some elements of the stalled congressional bills, is foredoomed.

The House bill, contrary to many who believe otherwise, is disastrous. And if such a thing is possible, its Senate counterpart is even worse. Both would shovel hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the coffers of the private health insurance industry. Both would make it a federal offense, with fines, for a person to fail to buy the insurers’ shoddy products.

Even so, at least 23 million people would remain uninsured under the new law. And those who have insurance would remain vulnerable to extort premium increases, not unlike Anthem Blue Cross’ recently announced premium hikes of up to 39 percent in California.

While one could imagine the enactment of certain piecemeal measures that might ameliorate our condition — e.g., a simple prohibition of insurance company denials of coverage because of pre-existing conditions — these are precisely the stand-alone measures most stubbornly opposed by Republicans, conservative Democrats and their corporate patrons. Such concessions, in their eyes, must be linked to shoring up the very culprits who are most responsible for our health care mess.

The presence of the for-profit health industry — the private health insurance conglomerate and the Big Pharma drug companies in the first place — in the legislative process has certainly been “transparent” from the get go. Through their lobbyists and campaign contributions, they shaped a bill that would enhance their domination of our health system. They are at the root of the catastrophe that passes for health care financing in the United States today.

Of course, the conspicuous omission in the debate has been single-payer national health insurance proposal, an improved Medicare for All. This was assured on the Senate side when the powerful chairman of its Finance Committee, Max Baucus, D-Mont., informed the world that everything was on the table but single payer.

How the chairman of a congressional committee, however powerful, can set the terms of debate in a democratic society by excluding such a popular and well-substantiated solution is hard to rationalize. Baucus did, of course, prevail, and what came out of the Senate was execrable. Like the House bill, it fails the three tests of genuine reform: universal coverage, quality improvement and cost control.

One can reasonably suspect that President Obama now wants something — anything — to pass in Congress as evidence of the fulfillment of his campaign pledge to accomplish health care reform. But if he looks to the House and Senate bills as the starting point, his efforts will be in vain.

It’s not too late for the president to re-embrace his earlier support for single-payer national health insurance and set the nation on the right path. Were he to lay out the facts to the American people and provide energetic leadership for this eminently rational proposal, he would get strong, grassroots support from the public.

We’re now spending $8,000 per capita annually on health care, $2.5 trillion in total. That’s nearly one-fifth of our GDP. Yet our health outcomes rank among the lowest in the industrialized world. Some 45,000 people die each year chiefly because they have no health insurance, and medical bills and illness are now linked to nearly two-thirds of personal bankruptcies. This reality in the richest country in the world is unnecessary and intolerable.

I suggest the president look to an improved and expanded Medicare program as the solution. Medicare, which was enacted in 1965 and which has served our elderly and the totally disabled so well, is a solid foundation to build upon.

Enactment of an improved Medicare for All would save our nation $400 billion annually by eliminating the bureaucracy and paperwork inflicted on our system by the private insurers. That’s more than enough to provide universal, comprehensive care to everyone and to eliminate all co-pays and deductibles. A single-payer system would also allow us to rein in costs and better allocate resources.

We have a talented health care workforce. But to fully unlock their potential, we need to get out from under the greedy dictates of the health industry.

Mr. President, it’s time to put single payer back on the table.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-quentin-young/put-single-payer-back-on_b_471811.html

Huntsville summit seeks remedies to impasse over health care reform

Bills have stalled amid growing public scorn over costs and political deal making, but many agree need for reform is still there.

By Dr. Oliver Fein, For The Times
The Huntsville (Ala.) Times, Feb. 21, 2010

President Obama’s health reform plan hasn’t stalled just because of one election in Massachusetts. The seeds for today’s impasse were planted long ago.

Early on, the president and Democratic leaders in Congress made a strategic decision to keep the for-profit, private health insurance industry at the heart of our system. In doing so, they precluded any chance of achieving a reform that was truly universal, comprehensive and affordable. It’s that simple.

Now, after months of watching the Democrats’ sordid deal-making with the big insurers and drug companies, and after getting a glimpse of some of the legislation’s deep flaws, the public’s support for the process has plummeted and the bills have stalled.

But the need for reform – for meeting the health care needs of the U.S. people – has never been more urgent, especially in view of our dire economic straits.

Some say the Senate health bill should be passed and then cleaned up later. But both the Senate and House bills would keep the for-profit private insurers – who cause us to spend about 31 cents of every health care dollar on administration, most of it on wasteful paperwork and bureaucracy – firmly in the driver’s seat. That’s a prescription for failure.

Others suggest a scaled-back reform, partial measures. But many of these proposals are deeply regressive, like making cuts to traditional Medicare to subsidize the purchase of private health insurance. (On the other hand, government steps like spending more money on community health centers or the primary care infrastructure would certainly help in the short term.)

But a recent CNN/Opinion Research survey shows about half the public would like to see our lawmakers start over. Doing so is not as implausible as it may first seem.

President Obama himself, in his State of the Union message, said if someone has a better idea, “Let me know. I’m eager to see it.”

Mr. President, we should start with a system that we know works well, is cost-efficient and could quickly be extended to cover everybody in the country – Medicare. Medicare presently covers 45 million people, mainly those over 65 and the totally disabled, but it could be improved upon and extended to people of all ages with relative ease.

Doing so would yield about $400 billion in annual savings from the reduced administrative costs in our system, thereby allowing us to give everyone comprehensive, high-quality coverage with no co-pays or deductibles.

A single-payer Medicare-for-All system would also give us cost-control tools like bulk purchasing, negotiated fees and capital investment planning, thereby providing a secure financial foundation for future generations, too.

Surveys show about two-thirds of the U.S. population support such an approach, and a recent study in the Annals of Internal Medicine showed that 59 percent of physicians want government action to establish national health insurance.

Dr. William Hsiao, a Harvard economist who has assisted several other nations in their health system reforms, recently said, “You can have universal coverage and good quality health care while still managing to control costs. But you have to have a single-payer system to do it.”

The remedy is clear. It’s time to drive that point home with our lawmakers.

Oliver Fein, M.D., is president of Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org) and professor of clinical medicine and clinical public health at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City. He will be visiting Huntsville next weekend.

Healthcare Reform Schedule

Oliver Fein, president of Physicians for a National Health Program, will be the keynote speaker at healthcare reform events next weekend in Huntsville. Here is the lineup of presentations.

Friday, Feb. 26, 6:00 p.m.
“Healthcare Reform 2010: Where Do We Go From Here?”
Speaker: Oliver Fein, MD, president, Physicians for a National Health Program, (www.pnhp.org)
Location: Shelby Center for Science and Technology, UA Huntsville Campus. Room 107 Auditorium. (near intersection of Sparkman Drive and Lakeside http://www.uah.edu/map/color_map.pdf )
Co-sponsors: UA Huntsville Political Science Department and Alabama A&M University Political Science Department

Saturday, Feb. 27, 10 – 11:30 a.m.
“Healthcare Justice: The Moral Imperative for Universal Healthcare from a Christian Perspective”
Location: Faith Presbyterian Church, 5003 Whitesburg Drive, Huntsville. Fellowship Hall.
Speakers: Oliver Fein, MD, president, Physicians for a National Health Program (New York, NY); Arthur Sutherland, MD, board member, Tennessee Health Care Campaign, and national board member of PNHP (Memphis, TN); Abi Carlisle-Wilke, M.Div., Senior Associate Pastor, Trinity United Methodist Church (Huntsville, AL)
Moderator: Rev. Frank Broyles, Interfaith Mission Service
Supported by: Interfaith Mission Service; Indian Creek Primitive Baptist Association; Greater Huntsville Interdenominational Ministerial Fellowship.

Saturday, Feb. 27, 1 – 3 p.m.
“Point / Counterpoint: Fixing the American Health System”
Physicians from opposite ends of the policy spectrum will present their solutions to our health care crisis. Dr. Oliver Fein, president of PNHP, will present the case for expanding and improving Medicare to all. Dr. Allan Goldstein, past president, Medical Society of the State of Alabama; and Alabama delegate to the American Medical Association, will focus on quality of healthcare as a way to reduce costs, and the reforms necessary to reach that goal.
Location: Crestwood Medical Center, One Hospital Drive, Huntsville. First floor auditorium.

All three events are FREE and open to the public.
For more information, visit http://northalabamahealthcareforall.org/

How much does President Obama expect us to pay for health care?

The President’s Proposal

The White House
February 22, 2010
Policies to Improve Affordability and Accountability
Example for a family of four with income of $66,000:
Maximum percent of income paid for premiums: 9.5%
Percent of costs paid by health insurance plan: 70%
Penalty for remaining uninsured: (in 2016) the higher of $695 (with indexed increases) or 2.5% of income
Hardship exemption – threshold income below which the penalty is waived: The income tax filing threshold ($9,350 for a single or $18,700 for a married couple in 2009)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal

The greatest significance of President Obama’s health care reform proposal released today is that he has now formally placed his stamp of approval on the fundamental policies already contained in the House and Senate reform bills. While remaining silent on some of the third rail issues (public option, Medicare buy-in, pregnancy termination, etc.), he and his staff merely tweaked the bills and added insurance premium rate review, whatever that’s worth, and some rhetoric on waste, fraud, and abuse.
His proposal still falls far short on two of the most important goals of reform: 1) insuring everyone, and 2) ensuring that health care is affordable for each of us. Merely tweaking the Senate version, which is what they did, could not have attained these goals since the most effective policies were already traded away before serious negotiations began.
That said, let’s look at what the President expects a family of four with an income of $66,000 to pay for health care. The premium contribution would be 9.5% of income, or $6270 for the basic plan with an actuarial value of 70%. If they wanted or needed a better plan, they would have to pay the full difference in the premium. At an actuarial value of 70%, they would also have to pay an average of 30% of all health care costs. This can vary considerably because of plan design in the form of deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, non-covered benefits, stop loss, out-of-network care exempt from stop loss, and other factors. If they either elected not to or were unable to pay the premium, they would have to pay a penalty of $1650, but then, of course, they would have no protection at all against potential health care costs.
Clearly, President Obama has not done any better than Congress in protecting families from financial hardship should they have the misfortune of developing significant medical problems. Unaffordable underinsurance is not the change that we needed.