pnhpf3a

The Bush administration is currently considering new names for the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). American Medical News, a publication of the American Medical Association, is conducting a poll on proposals for a better name. If you check the polling page at the link that follows, you will find that most suggestions are not serious. However, one stands out as representing the goal to which many of us are dedicated: National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA). Voting for this choice would send a message to the AMA that we are serious in our support of national health insurance. If enough of us register our votes, the message may even reach our political leaders.

Cast your vote now, and then forward this message to your friends and colleagues.

Vote for: National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA)

http://www.ama-assn.org/public/journals/amnews/amnqp8.htm

On behalf of the dream of health care justice for all in the United States, thank you.

Don McCanne

The Seattle Times
June 11, 2001
by Carol M. Ostrum

” …’defined contribution’ health plans are being offered in Washington by (Regence BlueShield).”

“Under the plans’ most pure form, employers would hand employees a voucher, give them a push toward a list of insurance plans and wish them luck. Touted as giving employees more choice, the plans trouble some health-care economists who worry that the trend may unleash forces that will widen the gap between health-insurance haves and have-nots.”

“Play it out a couple of years, critics say, and employees could get caught in the middle, as employers’ contributions lose ground to rapidly escalating benefit costs. An early version of this movement found that when health-insurance premiums rose faster than company contributions, employees simply dropped coverage… ”

Regence President Mary McWilliams:

“Health-care inflation is not abating. Employers need ways to fix what their costs are, and a lot of the tools we had in the past to try to manage health-care costs aren’t workable today.”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134305355_contributions11m0.html

Comment: Isn’t our health care system about patients? If we would redirect our reform efforts to creating a system that is designed specifically to provide the best possible care for everyone, within the limits of our resources, then employers, employees, providers, and everyone else would do just fine. Only the middleman profiteers would suffer under patient oriented reform, but then we can no longer afford the luxury of enriching our friends on Wall Street at the cost of losing patient care dollars.

The Seattle Times
June 11, 2001
by Carol M. Ostrum

” …’defined contribution’ health plans are being offered in Washington by (Regence BlueShield).”

“Under the plans’ most pure form, employers would hand employees a voucher, give them a push toward a list of insurance plans and wish them luck. Touted as giving employees more choice, the plans trouble some health-care economists who worry that the trend may unleash forces that will widen the gap between health-insurance haves and have-nots.”

“Play it out a couple of years, critics say, and employees could get caught in the middle, as employers’ contributions lose ground to rapidly escalating benefit costs. An early version of this movement found that when health-insurance premiums rose faster than company contributions, employees simply dropped coverage… ”

Regence President Mary McWilliams:

“Health-care inflation is not abating. Employers need ways to fix what their costs are, and a lot of the tools we had in the past to try to manage health-care costs aren’t workable today.”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134305355_contributions11m0.html

Comment: Isn’t our health care system about patients? If we would redirect our reform efforts to creating a system that is designed specifically to provide the best possible care for everyone, within the limits of our resources, then employers, employees, providers, and everyone else would do just fine. Only the middleman profiteers would suffer under patient oriented reform, but then we can no longer afford the luxury of enriching our friends on Wall Street at the cost of losing patient care dollars.

Los Angeles Times
June 8, 2001
by Ellen Braunstein

In “Talking to Americans,” Rick Mercer, a Canadian comedian and satirist, travels in the United States “asking people ridiculous questions to exploit their ignorance about their northern neighbor.”

Julie Longo, a Canadian citizen that teaches Canadian history at Wayne State University in Detroit:

“I think the show illustrates well our perceptions of Americans — that Americans know nothing beyond their own borders and have no problem with their ignorance.”

http://www.latimes.com/archives/ (and enter name “Rick Mercer” and click “Begin Search)

Comment: It is not surprising that Canadians are quite well informed about the United States considering that the comparatively small population of Canada is concentrated along our border and significantly influenced by our dominance. On the other hand, for most of us in the United States, our understanding of Canada is limited to the exposure that we have had to deliberate information campaigns within our country. An example is the perceptions that we have as a direct result of marketing efforts on behalf of Canadian tourism, a beautiful but shallow impression of Canada.

Unfortunately, there has been a very concerted effort to spread disinformation about the Canadian health care system, a process that has been dominated by libertarian elements that wish to keep the government out of health care in the United States. Because knowledge about Canada by most of us is very limited, and because the supporters of universal health care coverage have not been adequately effective in carrying the message of the benefits of the Canadian Medicare program, the average individual in our country believes that the Canadian health care system is inferior. This misperception is not altogether the fault of health care reform activists. The message of a just, comprehensive health care system is a very complex message to deliver and exceeds the patience and desires of most Americans to study and absorb a subject that for most of them is very boring. On the other hand, the opposition can keep their message very simple by limiting the facts presented to very isolated problems within the Canadian system, while concentrating on simple rhetoric that lumps health care in with features of government that the public believes to be undesirable.

The media readily report the isolated stories of problems within health care. The horror stories of managed care in this country abound, just as the stories of the deficiencies of the government program in Canada make good copy, or at least news filler. The conclusions that our citizens draw from these reports are that (1) a patient bill of rights will correct the defects of managed care, and (2) we do not want a government system like Canada’s. The members of the media reflect the same simplistic viewpoints, and most seem to lack the depth of understanding of the Canadian system that might otherwise influence their reporting stance. This is not laziness on their part but rather reflects the fact that they must make decisions on how to allocate their time effectively. The “government” health care system of Canada is simply not a priority for them.

Our efforts should be directed to informing the media of the realities of the Canadian health care system. We can never tell them what stories to cover, but we can encourage them to base their coverage on a background of comprehensive knowledge of the Canadian system. An excellent beginning source for them is a 251 page report by the Canadian government on the status of their health care system, released February 2, 2001. It can be downloaded at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/medicare/home.htm

For those in the United States that wish further information about our Canadian neighbors, a wealth of such information is available at the website of the Canadian government: http://www.canada.gc.ca/

Los Angeles Times
June 8, 2001
by Ellen Braunstein

In “Talking to Americans,” Rick Mercer, a Canadian comedian and satirist, travels in the United States “asking people ridiculous questions to exploit their ignorance about their northern neighbor.”

Julie Longo, a Canadian citizen that teaches Canadian history at Wayne State University in Detroit:

“I think the show illustrates well our perceptions of Americans — that Americans know nothing beyond their own borders and have no problem with their ignorance.”

http://www.latimes.com/archives/ (and enter name “Rick Mercer” and click “Begin Search)

Comment: It is not surprising that Canadians are quite well informed about the United States considering that the comparatively small population of Canada is concentrated along our border and significantly influenced by our dominance. On the other hand, for most of us in the United States, our understanding of Canada is limited to the exposure that we have had to deliberate information campaigns within our country. An example is the perceptions that we have as a direct result of marketing efforts on behalf of Canadian tourism, a beautiful but shallow impression of Canada.

Unfortunately, there has been a very concerted effort to spread disinformation about the Canadian health care system, a process that has been dominated by libertarian elements that wish to keep the government out of health care in the United States. Because knowledge about Canada by most of us is very limited, and because the supporters of universal health care coverage have not been adequately effective in carrying the message of the benefits of the Canadian Medicare program, the average individual in our country believes that the Canadian health care system is inferior. This misperception is not altogether the fault of health care reform activists. The message of a just, comprehensive health care system is a very complex message to deliver and exceeds the patience and desires of most Americans to study and absorb a subject that for most of them is very boring. On the other hand, the opposition can keep their message very simple by limiting the facts presented to very isolated problems within the Canadian system, while concentrating on simple rhetoric that lumps health care in with features of government that the public believes to be undesirable.

The media readily report the isolated stories of problems within health care. The horror stories of managed care in this country abound, just as the stories of the deficiencies of the government program in Canada make good copy, or at least news filler. The conclusions that our citizens draw from these reports are that (1) a patient bill of rights will correct the defects of managed care, and (2) we do not want a government system like Canada’s. The members of the media reflect the same simplistic viewpoints, and most seem to lack the depth of understanding of the Canadian system that might otherwise influence their reporting stance. This is not laziness on their part but rather reflects the fact that they must make decisions on how to allocate their time effectively. The “government” health care system of Canada is simply not a priority for them.

Our efforts should be directed to informing the media of the realities of the Canadian health care system. We can never tell them what stories to cover, but we can encourage them to base their coverage on a background of comprehensive knowledge of the Canadian system. An excellent beginning source for them is a 251 page report by the Canadian government on the status of their health care system, released February 2, 2001. It can be downloaded at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/medicare/home.htm

For those in the United States that wish further information about our Canadian neighbors, a wealth of such information is available at the website of the Canadian government: http://www.canada.gc.ca/

The Washington Post
June 9, 2001
Editorial

“Health care costs appear to be rising rapidly again after a period in which they were relatively well behaved. Most analysts think that higher rates of increase will persist — that they represent the norm and the respite was the anomaly.”

“Higher health care costs are like a tax increase or an increase in energy costs… They squeeze people out of the health care system; the higher the cost of care, the greater the likelihood that more Americans will be uninsured.”

“The resurgent cost of health care is arguable one of the most serious problems the country faces. But in our view neither political party is facing it.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43137-2001Jun8.html

Comment: Ignoring the issue of containing costs in health care is no longer an option; we simply cannot afford to continue to parasitize other sectors of our economy for the benefit of the health care industry. Denying access and coverage to tens of millions of Americans remains morally repugnant and can no longer be tolerated by a just society. It is now imperative that our political leaders take a fresh look at all options for reform, including the only proposal that will contain costs, reduce administrative waste, and improve allocation of our abundant health care resources: a publicly administered, universal health insurance program.

The New York Times
June 5, 2001
by Robert Pear

“A top federal official said today that the Bush administration would try to double the enrollment of Medicare beneficiaries in health maintenance organizations within four years.”

Thomas A. Scully, newly appointed administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration:

“The government is better in the long run when it’s a buyer of insurance, rather than an insurer.”

Comment: Unfortunately, this is not a mere rhetorical statement. It is a blatant lie, and Mr. Scully knows that. Although not without its problems, the HCFA has been much more efficient than the HMOs in the administration of health care coverage. GAO studies have confirmed this. What the HCFA needs now is leadership that will work with Congress to obtain legislative relief and adequate funding to further improve the efficiencies of the HCFA. The task of making the HCFA more user friendly for patients and health care providers alike would not be that great under a dedicated administrative-legislative partnership. Instead, Mr. Scully is intending to use our Medicare dollars to support his friends in the managed care industry, patients and providers be damned.

The New York Times
June 5, 2001
by Robert Pear

“A top federal official said today that the Bush administration would try to double the enrollment of Medicare beneficiaries in health maintenance organizations within four years.”

Thomas A. Scully, newly appointed administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration:

“The government is better in the long run when it’s a buyer of insurance, rather than an insurer.”

Comment: Unfortunately, this is not a mere rhetorical statement. It is a blatant lie, and Mr. Scully knows that. Although not without its problems, the HCFA has been much more efficient than the HMOs in the administration of health care coverage. GAO studies have confirmed this. What the HCFA needs now is leadership that will work with Congress to obtain legislative relief and adequate funding to further improve the efficiencies of the HCFA. The task of making the HCFA more user friendly for patients and health care providers alike would not be that great under a dedicated administrative-legislative partnership. Instead, Mr. Scully is intending to use our Medicare dollars to support his friends in the managed care industry, patients and providers be damned.

amednews.com
(A publication of the American Medical Association)
June 11, 2001
Opinion

By Eric Anderson, M.D., AMNews contributor

Eric Anderson, M.D.:

“Originally a British-trained physician bitterly opposed to socialized medicine, I have actually come to the opinion that America now needs a single-payer system for health care.”

http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/amn_01/edca0611.htm

The Washington Post
June 1, 2001

By Ceci Connolly

Steven A. Schroeder, M.D., President and CEO of The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation:

“What we discovered was that six out of ten parents whose children qualified for CHIP or Medicaid didn’t think they were eligible.”

“He then hired ad makers at GMMB for a $48 million promotional campaign that used the power of television and the creativity of grass-roots groups to reel in new participants.”

Comment: It is ironic that a large advertising budget is deemed to be required to sell a program of public insurance. Yet, it will be impossible to enroll every eligible child because of other obstacles, including access to the enrollment process for the eligible, the stigma of a program that smacks of welfare (income eligibility standards), difficulties in re-accessing the process for continued enrollment, premiums that are perceived to be unaffordable for those with no disposable income, changing eligibility because of changing family income levels, and isolated incidences of bureaucratic sloth, amongst other problems. At best, all efforts to increase enrollment can only raise the threshold of the steady state of enrollment, that is, raising the level at which those exiting the program equate to new enrollees. The only way to be sure that all children are enrolled, not to mention their parents, is to make insurance truly universal and truly permanent for life. We lack only the political will to adopt the moral imperative: publicly-administered, universal health insurance with everybody in, nobody out. Let’s work on creating that will.