By Zaid Jilani
The Intercept, July 19, 2017

Thanks to a pair of defections from more GOP senators late yesterday, the Republican plan to repeal and replace or simply repeal the Affordable Care Act is dead — for now.

But the health care status quo is far from popular, with 57 percent of Americans telling Gallup pollsters in March that they “personally worry” a “great deal” about health care costs.

Many health care activists are now pushing to adopt what is called a “single payer” health care system, where one public health insurance program would cover everyone. The U.S. currently has one federal program like that: Medicare. Expanding it polls very well.

One of the activists pushing for such an expansion is Max Fine, someone who is intimately familiar with the program — because he helped create it. Fine is the last surviving member of President Kennedy’s Medicare Task Force, and he was also President Johnson’s designated debunker against the health insurance industry.

Fine, now 91, wrote to The Intercept recently to explain that Medicare was never intended to cover only the elderly population, and that expanding it to everyone was a goal that its architects long campaigned for.

“Three years after the enactment of Medicare, in Dec. 1968, a Committee of 100 leading Americans was formed to campaign for single payer National Heath Insurance.  The campaign leaders were UAW pres. Walter Reuther, Dr. Michael DeBakey, Nat. Urban League Pres Whitney Young and Mary Lasker, a leader in the formation and funding of NIH,” he wrote.”The NY Times and other newspapers gave front page play to the announcement of the campaign for ‘Medicare for All’ but the Committee gained even more attention when, shortly before xmas, pres-elect Nixon, emerging from his doctor’s office in San Diego, denounced us as socialists who were trying to create a problem when none existed.”

Fine noted that this movement towards single payer has “risen and fallen over the years,” reaching a high point in the early 70s when former Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy’s bill covering all Americans with government health insurance had 36 co-sponsors.

But the Democratic Party decided to go a different direction, turning instead to private insurance to cover Americans. Fine said he met with former First Lady Hillary Clinton’s health care task force in the early 1990’s, and advised them to incrementally expand Medicare, starting first with children and then lowering the age for the elderly.

“They had the money but not the interest in the idea,” he lamented, “instead spending a year developing a complex bill that was DOA on [Capitol] Hill.”

Shortly after Trump won the nomination to be the Republican Party’s presidential contender, Fine wrote to his campaign to offer him a plan to expand Medicare. “Start with Medicare for children and all military vets (half are already under Medicare because they are over 65), then 60-65, etc. etc,” Fine said he advised. “An important conservative result: the VA hospital system would became available to all, for services and for badly-need additional training hospitals for young doctors.”

After the death of the Senate healthcare bill yesterday, The Intercept reached out to Fine for comment about where Congress should go next. “Single payer is the only real answer and some day I believe the Republicans will leap ahead of the Democrats and lead in its enactment,” he speculated, “just as did Bismarck in Germany and David Lloyd George and Churchill in the UK.”

Otto Von Bismarck, a conservative German leader known as one of the fathers of the welfare state — the Social Security Administration even maintains a webpage honoring him for establishing the first public retirement program in the world — helped establish the foundations of the modern German health insurance system in 1883.

David Lloyd George was a member of the British Liberal Party (the successors to the Whigs, not to be confused with the Labour Party) who was inspired by Von Bismarck’s work in Germany. He spearheaded the passage of the National Insurance Act of 1911, which created a system of health insurance to cover industrial workers.

And although Winston Churchill was not the driving force behind the establishment of the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, he both supported it in theory and later prevented his fellow Tories from strangling it during his 1951 to 1955 tenure as prime minister.

All three are examples of conservative politicians coming to terms with popular demands for the government to act to prevent their citizens from being financially destroyed by sickness and injury. It remains to be seen whether the GOP will learn the same lesson.

https://theintercept.com…

We have the capacity to wage a transformative health care fight in the days ahead. Medicare for All or bust.

By Adam Gaffney, M.D.
Jacobin, July 19, 2017

The saga of Trumpcare may finally be behind us.

The wretched bill would have wrenched coverage from tens of millions, and — by many estimates — cost tens of thousands of lives a year. Liberals and leftists rightly united in opposition against it. And though Republicans are reportedly still planning on holding an Obamacare repeal vote next week, their agenda seems to have basically crumbled under the weight of mass opposition.

But if the Right’s health care agenda is dead, what is the next move for the Left?

It is by no means a settled question, for once we move past the question of fighting the repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a divide opens up — including within the Democratic Party, which will sooner or later return to power. On the one side are the most ardent supporters of Medicare for All; on the other, those who couple a defense of the ACA with advocacy for more incremental reforms, like the public option, which in most current iterations would be a government-run health care plan that would compete against private insurers on the ACA’s state-based marketplaces.

Admittedly, there is some overlap between the two camps: many look to the public option as a short-term, feasible reform that could help millions of people today, while serving as a stepping stone to a universal system in the future. Yet there is another case to be made: that a public option would be a largely ineffective less-than-half-measure, the pursuit of which could prove to be a major diversion that would paradoxically serve to perpetuate the injustices of the status quo.

Which is it? This is a debate worth having right now, well in advance of the 2018 and 2020 elections that may well determine the fate of the US health care system.

Before delving into this debate, it’s first necessary to lay some groundwork: what is the public option, and where it did it come from? What might it achieve, and what would it leave undone? And finally: should we embrace it or reject it in the days to come?

Choice and Competition

In concept at least, the public option has its roots — as public health scholars David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler have noted — in the early 1960s, as an alternative to Medicare.

At the time, Wilbur Mills, the Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and a well-known fiscal hawk, was obstinately holding up President Kennedy’s Medicare bill. As Philip J. Funigiello describes in Chronic Politics: Health Care Security from FDR to George W. Bush, moderate Republican lawmakers Jacob Javits and John Lindsay offered two bills as a potential compromise to break the gridlock.

“Important to Javits’ proposals and to other alternatives offered at the time,” historian Edward Berkowitz writes, “was the notion of choice. . . . [Consumers] could either accept government health insurance, to be run by the States, or a private health care plan.”

Therein lies the essence of the public option: it’s designed to offer a choice between private and public insurance. Thankfully, Javits’s and Lindsay’s bipartisan bills were rejected: had a compromise been reached, Medicare as we know it today would simply not exist. Instead, Democrats went on to wallop the Republicans in the 1964 election, and Medicare was passed and signed into law the following year as a basically public program (for the time being, anyway).

The current iteration of the public option is of a more recent vintage. Its genesis can be traced to two proposals that emerged in the first decade of the twenty-first century. In a 2010 article in Health Affairs, Helen Halpin and Peter Harbage locate the origins of the public option in a health care reform proposal called “CHOICE,” which was developed by a group of health care leaders who convened in Berkeley in 2001–2, led by Halpin.

CHOICE was a proposal for a “managed competition” model for California in which the public option competed against private plans in a state marketplace. (Most current public option proposals use something of the same template, albeit for the nation as a whole.)

The plan fell by the wayside until the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, when John Edwards released a health care reform proposal that, Halpin and Harbage note, “encompassed the principles of CHOICE.” While Edwards’ campaign disintegrated in scandal, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama followed his lead on the issue.

The second key proposal was the work of political scientist Jacob Hacker — “the father of the ‘public option,’” according to NPR’s Planet Money — who, a mere two weeks before Edwards came out with his health care plan, published an updated version of his proposal for a Medicare-like public option for those under sixty-five. The public option that all three of the leading Democratic candidates ultimately embraced was, as a 2011 account describes, essentially “a recombination of Hacker’s original Medicare Plus and Halpin’s CHOICE models,” and (rather less clearly) “the only major new idea in the reform debate.”

Yet this ostensibly new idea was to have a short life. Though it became an important focal point in the 2009 health care reform debate, it was eventually killed off by a former Democrat, Connecticut senator Joseph Lieberman, who vowed to oppose the ACA if it included a public option. He got his wish, and a public option-less ACA became law in 2010.

In more recent years, conservatives and liberals have resurrected their own versions of the public option (although only the latter identify them as such). Republicans see it as an instrument for privatization. For instance, under the health care reform framework that Paul Ryan and the House Republicans published in 2016, traditional Medicare would be transformed into a public plan that would compete against private insurance plans in a “Medicare Exchange.” Though Medicare privatization was not included in either the House or the Senate Obamacare repeal bills, the voucherization (and essential destruction) of Medicare remains on the Republicans’ wish list.

In Democratic circles, a public option (for those under sixty-five) is viewed as a potential solution to the inadequacies of the ACA. While Bernie Sanders mainly championed Medicare for All in the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton — claiming that single-payer would “never, ever” happen — argued instead for a public option and, somewhat similarly, a Medicare “buy in.”

Republican proposals to convert Medicare into a public option for those over sixty-five would obviously take us backward, further privatizing a largely successful and overwhelmingly popular public program. But proposals to create a public option for those under sixty-five, though well intentioned, would fail to take us forward in any meaningful way.

The truth is, both approaches have a common underlying flaw: the notion that “managed competition” between a mixture of public and private insurance plans could save the American health care system. But we don’t need competing public and private insurance plans any more than we need competing public and private air traffic controllers. It adds nothing but waste and a not insignificant degree of hazard.

The Public Option’s Cardinal Flaws

Obamacare, most agree, has been going through a rough patch. As of July 12, some 24,525 enrollees in thirty-eight counties were at risk of not having a single insurance option on the ACA marketplaces in 2018, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

To some extent, this dysfunction stems from Republican sabotage, especially President Trump’s sometimes-childish yet very consequential threats to cut off payment of Obamacare subsidies to health insurers.

But that’s not the whole story — the malaise in the marketplaces predated Trump. Last summer, for instance, Aetna announced that it was withdrawing from most Obamacare marketplaces, a decision that followed exits by other insurers. Writing in Vox at the time, Hacker, like others, touted the public option as a solution to such troubles. “It’s enough to make a frazzled health care consumer in one of those feeble markets wish there were another option — perhaps even (dare one say it?) a public option,” he wrote.

But here again lies one of the public’s option’s cardinal flaws: whatever it does for those buying insurance on the Obamacare marketplaces (which I’ll return to in a minute), it does basically nothing for the large majority of the nation not insured through them. The so-called “Obamacare” plans cover some 12.2 million enrollees — a substantial number of people to be sure, but still a very small fraction of the population.

What would a public option do, for example, for the 28.6 million US residents who are uninsured? According to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) 2013 scoring of a public option added to the ACA marketplaces, the answer is nothing: the public option, the CBO estimated, “would have minimal effects . . . on the number of people who would be uninsured.”

The goal of single-payer is to reduce that 28.6 million figure to zero; under the public option — at least according to this admittedly old CBO score of one particular variation of the public option — the number wouldn’t so much as budge. Perhaps a more ambitious public option could do a bit better. Nonetheless, it’s not clear that even a more robust plan would be a step toward universal coverage.

And how about for the underinsured? The roughly half of the nation currently covered through their employer saw a 2016 deductible that was 300 percent higher than a decade ago. Such cost-shifting of health care costs to workers is a major cause of financial suffering, as well as deferred medical care. Yet the public option would do nothing for the great majority of these families.

A longstanding aim of universal health care advocates — stretching back to the German Social Democrats’ 1891 Erfurt Program, which called for “[f]ree medical care, including midwifery and medicines” — has been to eliminate out-of-pocket payments (for example, copayments and deductibles) at the time of health care use. In Canada and the United Kingdom, this goal has largely been achieved: most health care remains free when patients use it. The public option, however, would do little to nothing to bring us closer to this goal.

Nor would the public option ameliorate existing deficiencies in the two big public insurance programs, Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare, like private insurance, often imposes high out-of-pocket payments on enrollees, and it excludes coverage for important health services like dentistry and long-term care. The partial privatization of the program (via Medicare Advantage plans, which are managed by private insurance companies) has yielded little but colossal waste over the years.” And while Medicaid has broader benefits and usually minimal out-of-pocket payments, as a result of its lower reimbursements, it sometimes provides inferior access to providers (a vestige of its heritage as a “poor person’s program).

The public option wouldn’t address the inadequacies of either public program.

Finally, in terms of global costs, the public option’s effect would again be quite minor, as single-payer advocates have long noted. Eliminating both uninsurance and underinsurance would cost money, and reduced administrative spending ($503 billion dollars a year, according to one estimate) and reduced drug costs ($113.2 billion a year) are typically cited as key sources of savings. But although a Medicare-like public option may have lower administrative costs, only a small fraction of the efficiency savings of single-payer would be achieved if the multi-payer framework persisted (and drug prices wouldn’t be controlled on a system-wide level).

Or as Physician for a National Health Program’s Don McCanne puts it, the “public option would be only one more player in our wasteful, administratively-complex, fragmented system of financing care.” The upshot? It wouldn’t generate anywhere near the savings needed to fund a truly universal expansion of health care.

Would there be benefits? Probably for some. According to the 2013 CBO estimates, if the public option brought provider reimbursements more in line with those paid by Medicare, its enrollees — which it estimates would account for about 35 percent of those insured through the ACA marketplaces — would enjoy approximately 7 to 8 percent lower premiums. (A 2009 CBO score that did not make this assumption, it should be noted, found that premiums might actually be somewhat higher.) Assuming — as the CBO did in 2013 — that about 2 million more individuals would be insured through the marketplaces, this would yield a relatively small reduction in premiums for perhaps some 5 million Americans.

Others in the marketplace could conceivably see a drop in premiums as private plans were forced to compete with the public option. However, given that insurers are currently exiting the marketplace due to what they view as insufficient profitability (even as they raise premiums), it’s hard to see how this would happen.

Of course, if the public option winded up taking on people who are “less healthy — and therefore more costly,” as the CBO assumes, the reform might succeed in “stabilizing” the marketplaces by functioning as a “high risk pool.” In other words, it would essentially subsidize the private insurance industry by socializing the larger health risks (and perhaps increase its profits).

Yet this would also lock into place all the dysfunctions of the health care status quo, perhaps lowering private insurance plan premiums for some but potentially driving up the cost of the public option. More generally, uninsurance would persist while underinsurance could continue to rise.

And the sine qua non of our long-term health care vision — first dollar coverage of world-class medical care for everyone in the nation — would remain unrealized.

What Kind of Reform?

In the 1960s, the French socialist André Gorz introduced a new taxonomy for thinking about reforms. He divided them into two categories: the “reformist reform,” which preserves existing structures, and the “non-reformist reform,” which “is determined not in terms of what can be, but what should be,” and which changes existing structures, opening the door for more fundamental social change.

The public option unfortunately falls into the former category, insofar as it is meant to stabilize the existing insurance marketplace, and therefore the larger multi-payer system.

But this shortcoming isn’t its only problem. We should support defensive battles, and sometimes half-measures, that improve health care — and save lives — even when their long-term structural impact is limited. For instance, pressuring the nineteen state governments that have refused to expand their Medicaid programs is urgently needed. Thousands of lives hang in the balance. The same holds for organizing against Trumpcare, where the stakes have been still higher.

The public option, however, is a different creature: it would require a major nationwide political movement to achieve, and its benefits would not be commensurate with the effort.

Imagine, for a moment, that Democrats got squarely behind a public option, that social movements coalesced around it, that the balance of power in Washington shifted, and that through committed grassroots struggle the private insurance industry’s power was surmounted and a public option finally legislated into existence. Then imagine that all of this had the grand total effect of lowering premiums by, to be generous, 10 percent for a third or so of the 4 to 5 percent of Americans under sixty-five currently insured by marketplace plans.

Would this have been worth the years-long struggle? Sure, the ACA’s turbulent marketplaces might be a bit calmer (and, according to the CBO, the deficit might be smaller). But it would also leave intact the status quo’s injustices and most of its inefficiencies.

Even if we were to fight for a much more expansive public option — as some on the Left have argued we should — the overall picture would not change: costs would remain inadequately controlled, and coverage would remain sub-universal. And from a political standpoint, a public option designed to decimate the private insurance industry might be almost as difficult to achieve as single-payer — despite carrying few of the benefits. In which case, shouldn’t we just fight for the real thing?

A public option would probably help some, and the intentions of its proponents are good. But a public option would not only fail to bring about the long-sought goal of truly universal health care, it could prove to be a dangerous diversion.

We have the capacity for one transformative health care fight in the days ahead. Today, let us rejoice that vampiric Trumpcare seems to be dead. And tomorrow: onwards to real universal health care.

Dr. Adam Gaffney is a physician whose work has appeared in Salon, Dissent, and In These Times. He blogs at theprogressivephysician.org.

https://jacobinmag.com…

Interview With Dr. Carol Paris

By Amy Goodman
Democracy Now!, July 19, 2017

PNHP Note: To view video of this interview, click here.

As the Republican healthcare bill collapses, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he’ll now try to push through legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act and wait until after the 2018 midterm elections to propose a replacement. Meanwhile, proponents of a single-payer healthcare plan are organizing to urge Congress not only to stop the effort to repeal Obamacare, but to pass a bill that would guarantee Medicare for all. We speak with Dr. Carol Paris, president of Physicians for a National Health Program. She was arrested Monday during a protest against the Republican healthcare bill.

TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Senate Republicans are trying to regroup after their latest efforts to overhaul or repeal the Obamacare failed, dealing a sharp setback to Donald Trump and the GOP’s seven-year quest to kill President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law. The defeat shook financial markets Tuesday. The dollar fell to a 10-month low over doubts that Trump could push other domestic policy priorities, such as tax reform, through a divided Congress. Expressing disappointment, Trump suggested he might let insurance markets created under Obamacare go under, and then try to work with Democrats on a rescue.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I think we’re probably in that position where we’ll just let Obamacare fail. We’re not going to own it. I’m not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it. We’ll let Obamacare fail, and then the Democrats are going to come to us, and they’re going to say, “How do we fix it? How do we fix it? Or, how do we come up with a new plan?”

AMY GOODMAN: The Senate Republican plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act collapsed Monday night after Republican Senators Jerry Moran of Kansas and Mike Lee of Utah announced they would not support the latest version of the bill, ensuring Republicans would not have enough votes to pass it. Their announcement came at the same time President Trump, who has heavily backed the Senate bill, was meeting with seven Republican senators who did support the measure.

The legislation would have cut $700 billion from Medicaid. It faced opposition from all Senate Democrats, a slew of governors from both parties, the majority of the healthcare industry, the American Medical Association, hospitals, doctors, nurses, patient advocacy groups and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Speaking on Tuesday, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi applauded voters for standing up in town hall meetings and demanding their representatives reject the Republican bill.

REP. NANCY PELOSI: The president, in a statement, said today his healthcare proposals were defeated because he didn’t have the cooperation of any of the Democrats and some of the Republicans. No, he has never really been about increasing access, lowering costs, improving benefits. That’s what the Affordable Care Act is about. So, the reason the Republicans in the leadership—in the Senate found themselves in the situation there is is because people have spoken out.

AMY GOODMAN: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he’ll try to push through legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act next week, and wait until after the 2018 midterm elections to propose a replacement.

Meanwhile, proponents of a single-payer healthcare plan are organizing to urge Congress not only to stop the effort to repeal Obamacare, but to pass a bill that would guarantee Medicare for all. On Tuesday, former Vice President Al Gore became the latest prominent Democrat to speak in favor of single payer.

AL GORE: The private sector has not shown any ability to provide a good, accessible, affordable healthcare for all. I believe, for example, we ought to have a single-payer healthcare plan.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more, we go to Washington, D.C., where we’re joined by Dr. Carol Paris, president of Physicians for a National Health Program. She was arrested Monday at the Hart Senate Office during a protest against the Republican healthcare bill. In March, she spoke out during a Donald Trump rally where she lives in Nashville.

Dr. Paris, welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about your latest arrest, what you were calling for? Now, you got arrested Monday right before the Republican healthcare bill collapsed. But talk about what you were calling for then and still calling for today.

DR. CAROL PARIS: I’d be happy to. The reason that I decided to get arrested was to really make it clear that, as physicians, we not only oppose any bill that is going to be hurtful to Americans—and this bill clearly is hurtful, leaving 22 million people off of insurance—but we also champion and advance Medicare for all. That is really the plan that’s going to accomplish what both President Obama and President Trump have said that they support, which is better benefits, lower costs and more coverage. It’s just that the ACA hasn’t been able to accomplish that, and neither is what the Republicans are doing. Clearly, that’s not going to accomplish it. So, what, you know—but the only thing that’s going to work is moving forward now to Medicare for all. And so that was the messaging on Monday: Kill the bill, Medicare for all.

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Bernie Sanders said on MSNBC’s All In show last night that while the [Affordable] Care Act is not perfect, it shouldn’t be—it should be improved, not destroyed. He laid out his suggestions for how.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: What we need to do is, among other things, in my view, lower the cost of prescription drugs, save consumers, save the government substantial sums of money. What we need to do is provide for a public option in every state in this country. What we need to do is lower the cost, lower Medicare eligibility from 65 to 55, and then begin the process of doing what every other major country on Earth is doing, and that is guaranteeing healthcare to all people as a right, through a Medicare-for-all, single-payer program.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Dr. Carol Paris, if you can parse that out? First of all, is that what you are calling for? And explain what this would mean, what it means to save Obamacare and then move forward with single payer or Medicare for all.

DR. CAROL PARIS: What it means to save Obamacare, or to save the ACA, is to continue the cost-sharing subsidies, to continue to support Medicaid expansion. But I absolutely don’t agree with Senator Sanders that the way forward is to have a public option and lower the Medicare age from 65 to 55. That is more incremental steps, and it absolutely fails to accomplish what a national single-payer, Medicare-for-all plan does, which is put everyone in the same risk pool. That’s how we garner the half-a-trillion dollars, $500 billion, of savings in administrative waste and profit of the for-profit insurance industry. If we create a public option, we’re just creating another opportunity for the insurance companies, the health insurance companies, to put all the sickest people in the public option and keep all the healthiest young people in their plans. So, no, I don’t agree that doing this incrementally is a good idea. We really need to go forward now to a national, improved Medicare for all. And really, the bill in Congress, HR 676, Congressman Conyers’s bill, is the way we need to go.

AMY GOODMAN: So what exactly would it look like? I mean, you have, on the one hand, President Trump saying, “Let Obamacare fail.” First, tell us what that would mean, and what it would mean if the government lets Obamacare fail, and then what it would mean to institute Medicare for all, how you go about doing this.

DR. CAROL PARIS: Letting Obamacare fail, I think, is what the president has implied that he could do pretty easily. The next cost-sharing subsidy payment is due out Thursday. And if he doesn’t continue to fund that, the insurance companies are going to go into even more chaos and uncertainty. And what that’s going to translate into is increases in premiums, not just for people on the subsidies, but everyone in the individual market is going to see their insurance premiums go up by double digits—I’ve heard as high as even 52 percent. So, that’s what’s going to happen if—in the short term, if the president just allows the ACA to languish and fail.

How do we go forward to a Medicare for all? Well, we passed Medicare in 1965. And in one year from the date the bill was passed, in one year, it was implemented. And it happened with a computer system in 1965 that was a whole lot less sophisticated than what we have right now. So I think what we are lacking is the political will to make it happen. We sure aren’t lacking the popular will to have it happen. The American people want this. And what I’m seeing is a growing interest—I live in Nashville, Tennessee, and that’s a—that’s a red state. My congressman, Jim Cooper, is a Blue Dog Democrat. He’s never supported HR 676 in the past. And this year, he became a co-sponsor. I was really glad to hear that Al Gore, another Tennessean, is saying we need a national, improved Medicare for all. This is coming from legislators and former legislators in a red state. That makes me very proud to be from Nashville.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, also, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has expressed her support for single payer. But we don’t see that movement in the Senate or the House, even with 676, which has been introduced for years. It would take political capital on the part of many senators and congressmembers to push this forward.

DR. CAROL PARIS: It would. And I think the way we’re going to do this is, we’re not going to wait around for our members of Congress to say, “Now it’s politically feasible.” If we wait for that, we’re going to be waiting for the rest of my life, your life and many more lives. What we have to do is more of what is happening in Congress right now. It’s like Occupy Congress. And that is, having the American people join in a movement of movements. I got arrested. I was sitting in the paddy wagon with four other people, including three young millennials, incredibly energetic young people, and we discovered that we all represented different organizations and didn’t know anything about each other’s organizations. And yet, we had all been arrested together, championing—opposing the BCRA and championing Medicare for all. So, it’s going to take a movement of movements, and it’s going to take the American people making it toxic for our elected officials not to get on board with this.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Dr. Carol—

DR. CAROL PARIS: We have to take the lead, and they will follow.

AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Carol Paris, I want to thank you for being with us, president of Physicians for a National Health Program, arrested Monday at the Hart Senate Office Building during a protest of the Republican healthcare bill.

https://www.democracynow.org…

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact Democracy Now!

The Republican party encourages us to be smart healthcare shoppers. But it’s becoming clear that the best deal, in fact, is a universal healthcare system.

By Farzon A. Nahvi, M.D.
The Guardian, July 18, 2017

The single most disheartening line I tell my patients every day is: “Let’s focus on your health, that is the only thing that is important right now.”

Physicians across the country repeat this line almost verbatim whenever a patient expresses any concern about cost. It helps reaffirm our purpose – we went into medicine to save lives, not manage finances – but mostly, it is a way to deflect our discomfort with the truth: we have no idea, and no way of finding out, how much your blood test, CT scan or surgical procedure will cost you.

With the rise of high-deductible insurance plans, there has been a palpable increase in the number of patients who want to know the costs of their tests before they are ordered. This is entirely understandable when people are paying over $13,000 a year in out-of-pocket expenses despite having insurance. Unable to access prices or actually shop around, however, patients begin to decide which parts of their care they can forego altogether.

As efforts to repeal Obamacare falter and Congress considers next steps with healthcare legislation, many see this personal investment as a good thing – “skin in the game” that eliminates inefficiency. These very decision points are the bedrock of their cost containment strategy.

If the cost of their healthcare is too much, House speaker Paul Ryan said, then people will simply “choose not to buy something that they don’t like or want.” Or, as former Republican congressman Jason Chaffetz stated: “Americans have choices. And they’ve got to make a choice” on how much they are willing to spend on healthcare versus other life expenses.

Ultimately, this strategy may work. We may indeed be able to bring down healthcare costs by making people think twice about accessing their care. But this way of thinking is callous to most people’s reality. Americans are not forgoing healthcare in order to buy new designer jeans and handbags, they are skipping pills and missing checkups so that they can put food on the table and put their children through college.
Advertisement

Far from an elegant solution to the spiraling cost of our healthcare system, high deductible plans throw patients and physicians in an impossible bind. Doctors want to take care of patients, but we don’t want that to mean putting them in financial ruin. Understanding that wealth is directly related to health, how are we performing as physicians when in curing one disease, we may be creating another?

There are, of course, other options.

The elephant in the room in the discussion to lower healthcare costs is a Medicare-for-all or single-payer system. As we tirelessly debate about which strategy may hypothetically lower costs, over in Canada the government has steadily been providing healthcare comparable to what we get here in the US, with costs roughly halved.

While this may not have mattered to the average American when insurance companies were picking up the bill, the rise of high-deductible plans have refocused the spotlight. Ironically, as the Republican party encourages us to be smart shoppers when it comes to medicine, it is becoming more and more apparent that the best deal, in fact, is the very type of system they have railed against for decades.

Most importantly, in a universal healthcare system, patients never need to worry about the financial pain their healthcare causes. There are no out-of-pocket costs. As stated in an academic comparison of the Canadian and US healthcare systems, “monetary exchange is practically non-existent between patient and healthcare provider.”

If college tuition or putting food on the dinner table was affordable before walking into the ER, it still would be affordable upon walking out the door. If you need stitches for your cut, such a system wouldn’t pour salt in your wound.

We are at an inflection point in American healthcare. We can double down on our current system where our sick and elderly must decide whether the cost of staying alive is worth the debt it will place them in, or we can opt for a universal healthcare system where we all get the services we need at half the cost we are currently paying, without ever having to worry about anything other than getting better.

As a physician, the choice for me is clear: I want to live and work within a healthcare system where the next time I tell my patient, “Let’s focus on your health, that is the only important thing right now,” I can say so knowing it is the absolute truth.

https://www.theguardian.com…

The Republican party encourages us to be smart healthcare shoppers. But it’s becoming clear that the best deal, in fact, is a universal healthcare system.

By Farzon A. Nahvi, M.D.
The Guardian, July 18, 2017

The single most disheartening line I tell my patients every day is: “Let’s focus on your health, that is the only thing that is important right now.”

Physicians across the country repeat this line almost verbatim whenever a patient expresses any concern about cost. It helps reaffirm our purpose – we went into medicine to save lives, not manage finances – but mostly, it is a way to deflect our discomfort with the truth: we have no idea, and no way of finding out, how much your blood test, CT scan or surgical procedure will cost you.

With the rise of high-deductible insurance plans, there has been a palpable increase in the number of patients who want to know the costs of their tests before they are ordered. This is entirely understandable when people are paying over $13,000 a year in out-of-pocket expenses despite having insurance. Unable to access prices or actually shop around, however, patients begin to decide which parts of their care they can forego altogether.

As efforts to repeal Obamacare falter and Congress considers next steps with healthcare legislation, many see this personal investment as a good thing – “skin in the game” that eliminates inefficiency. These very decision points are the bedrock of their cost containment strategy.

If the cost of their healthcare is too much, House speaker Paul Ryan said, then people will simply “choose not to buy something that they don’t like or want.” Or, as former Republican congressman Jason Chaffetz stated: “Americans have choices. And they’ve got to make a choice” on how much they are willing to spend on healthcare versus other life expenses.

Ultimately, this strategy may work. We may indeed be able to bring down healthcare costs by making people think twice about accessing their care. But this way of thinking is callous to most people’s reality. Americans are not forgoing healthcare in order to buy new designer jeans and handbags, they are skipping pills and missing checkups so that they can put food on the table and put their children through college.
Advertisement

Far from an elegant solution to the spiraling cost of our healthcare system, high deductible plans throw patients and physicians in an impossible bind. Doctors want to take care of patients, but we don’t want that to mean putting them in financial ruin. Understanding that wealth is directly related to health, how are we performing as physicians when in curing one disease, we may be creating another?

There are, of course, other options.

The elephant in the room in the discussion to lower healthcare costs is a Medicare-for-all or single-payer system. As we tirelessly debate about which strategy may hypothetically lower costs, over in Canada the government has steadily been providing healthcare comparable to what we get here in the US, with costs roughly halved.

While this may not have mattered to the average American when insurance companies were picking up the bill, the rise of high-deductible plans have refocused the spotlight. Ironically, as the Republican party encourages us to be smart shoppers when it comes to medicine, it is becoming more and more apparent that the best deal, in fact, is the very type of system they have railed against for decades.

Most importantly, in a universal healthcare system, patients never need to worry about the financial pain their healthcare causes. There are no out-of-pocket costs. As stated in an academic comparison of the Canadian and US healthcare systems, “monetary exchange is practically non-existent between patient and healthcare provider.”

If college tuition or putting food on the dinner table was affordable before walking into the ER, it still would be affordable upon walking out the door. If you need stitches for your cut, such a system wouldn’t pour salt in your wound.

We are at an inflection point in American healthcare. We can double down on our current system where our sick and elderly must decide whether the cost of staying alive is worth the debt it will place them in, or we can opt for a universal healthcare system where we all get the services we need at half the cost we are currently paying, without ever having to worry about anything other than getting better.

As a physician, the choice for me is clear: I want to live and work within a healthcare system where the next time I tell my patient, “Let’s focus on your health, that is the only important thing right now,” I can say so knowing it is the absolute truth.

https://www.theguardian.com…