Amicore Press Release
October 10, 2001

“New York, October 10, 2001 – Pfizer, IBM and Microsoft today announced the launch of Amicore, a newly formed independent software and services company providing workflow and connectivity solutions to office-based physicians. Amicore’s focus will be to reduce the administrative workload and paperwork for physicians, allowing them to dedicate more time toward their mission of providing quality patient care.”

David Lubinski, Public Sector and Healthcare general manager, Enterprise Sales and Industry Group at Microsoft:

“Microsoft is committed to helping the healthcare industry and its providers reduce paperwork and streamline the practice of medicine. The Microsoft® .Net technology platform will enable physicians to practice medicine any time, any place, on any device.”

http://www.amicore.com/press.html

Comment: Heads up! This may be the most important development in health care of this decade. But there has been virtual silence from the health policy community since this press release of a month ago. Why should we be concerned?

The current model of using private health plans to allocate our abundant health care resources has been a miserable failure. The health plans have been riddled with administrative waste, have failed to assure equitable access to care, and have failed to contain runaway health care costs. Because they have created instability in the health care delivery system, major changes are absolutely inevitable. Health plans as we know them are history.

Current functions of health plans include risk pooling, administration and management (managed care), and information management. What will happen to these roles?

Health plans already are abandoning risk pooling as they pass risk on to their beneficiaries, thereby compounding issues of access due to lack of affordability. Risk pooling works well in the public sector, as has been proven by the Medicare program, and it is inevitable that most, if not all, risk pooling will end up in the public sector. Health plans will be relieved of their risk pooling function.

The private health plans have been egregiously wasteful in the administration of their programs, diverting tremendous resources away from patient care and into their own industry. Managed care’s greatest success has been in controlling fees through contracting. But that is a function that has been very effectively applied by the public sector, as witness the Medicare program. Other effective managed care tools also can be utilized by public programs with appropriate enabling legislation. In the future, health plans will be relieved of their role in managing care.

But information management holds the promise of improving efficiency, improving quality, reducing error, identifying and improving best practices resulting in better outcomes, improving both controlled access and confidentiality of patient information, and endless other applications that will make our great health care delivery system even better and more efficient. This was the new promise of health plans. But when they were flush with funds, they failed to deliver on this promise, preferring instead to concentrate on a simpler business model of improving profits. They now have one option left. They can metamorphose into information management vendors, or they can step aside while others fulfill this role.

That leads us to today’s quote. Microsoft, IBM and Pfizer did not become the companies they are by simply concentrating on the bottom line. They have been astute at recognizing products and services that not only have broad appeal, their products and services have become essential in today’s world. Just imagine the role of health care information technology once it has matured. To say that it will be essential to our health care delivery system is a world class understatement! If you think Bill Gates is wealthy now….

Why hasn’t the health care system moved into the IT (information technology) age? There are plenty of application service providers with their networks of providers and vendors. But their IT packages have been too expensive. There has been a reluctance to move beyond simple business office management and claims management, partly because of the high cost, and partly because of the fear of rapid obsolescence and concern about the failure to adequately integrate with other IT applications that will be necessary to realize the full potential of IT in health care.

Does IT in health care have to be expensive? When you look at the low cost of today’s very powerful home computers, and the low cost of the software and the negligible costs of accessing the Internet, you realize that much can be done at very little expense. The market should be able to provide the computer power needed for an integrated technology system with only a negligible drain on our health care resources. The anticipated value should be much greater than the costs.

The actual costs of developing software than can process medical records is very low. The high charges result from the proprietary interests that continue to profit from ownership and licensing of the software. The public sector could contract for development of the required software, not only for medical records but for all health care IT applications, and then move that software into the public domain. The costs would be a minute fraction of what the industry has in mind. And the public would be receiving great value for its extremely modest investment.

Information management services probably should be provided by vendors in the private sector at contracted rates that provide value for the public dollar. This would be analogous to the entities that currently provide claims processing for the Medicare program. There is plenty of opportunity for the IT industry to establish successful business models that also will create value for all of us, but without repeating the model of the health plans that were designed to suck the resources out of the health care system.

In the future we will most likely continue with our existing private and public health care delivery system, but we will move our risk pools into the public sector, and we will serve the system with a modern, integrated, information technology system.

The policy issue? The health care information technology system probably should be developed and serviced by the private sector, but the funding and policies should be established by the public sector, assuring value for our public dollars, and assuring that the information technology resources will have a mission of improving health care for everyone, instead of a mission of enhancing personal megawealth.

From “Networking Health,” by the Committee on Enhancing the Internet for Health Applications: Technical Requirements and Implementation Strategies, National Research Council (National Academy Press):

“A Final Word”

“The recommendations offered above are intended to set the nation on a course that will ensure that technology, organizational practices, and public policies converge in ways that will lead to broader deployment of Internet-based systems in health applications.”

Final comment: There is extreme urgency in establishing the public policies that need to be in place as the technology and health care organizational practices converge.

For those that are asleep, THERE IS EXTREME URGENCY IN ESTABLISHING THE PUBLIC POLICIES THAT NEED TO BE IN PLACE AS THE TECHNOLOGY AND HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES CONVERGE.

Modern Healthcare
November 5, 2001
Washington Report
by Jonathan Gardner

“To help lure investors to healthcare, the Bush administration wants to make providing Medicare services a stable and moderately profitable business. The trouble is, it’s Congress, not the administration, that turns Medicare’s financial spigot on and off.

“Thomas Scully, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, says the boom-bust cycle in Medicare payments scares Wall Street away from the healthcare sector.

“So now he’s proposing a different approach to give investors in the stock and bond markets more confidence in investing in healthcare providers and companies.”

Bill Reiland, a principal with Morgan Stanley Dean Witter who runs high-yield healthcare research:

“`He (Scully) probably has a good intention and has a good objective, and I’m sure healthcare providers around the country rise up and cheer when he says that. The important question is, in five years will the administration have the same objectives? You don’t know. You might not have the same administration.”

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/currentissue/topten.php3?refid=7998&db=mh99up&published=20011105

Comment: Let us pray.

Sorry. I had intended to avoid political comments, believing that we all need to work together. But when Thomas Scully is more worried about the health of the health plans than he is about the health of the people of this nation, it is political.

Modern Healthcare
November 5, 2001
Washington Report
by Jonathan Gardner

“To help lure investors to healthcare, the Bush administration wants to make providing Medicare services a stable and moderately profitable business. The trouble is, it’s Congress, not the administration, that turns Medicare’s financial spigot on and off.

“Thomas Scully, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, says the boom-bust cycle in Medicare payments scares Wall Street away from the healthcare sector.

“So now he’s proposing a different approach to give investors in the stock and bond markets more confidence in investing in healthcare providers and companies.”

Bill Reiland, a principal with Morgan Stanley Dean Witter who runs high-yield healthcare research:

“`He (Scully) probably has a good intention and has a good objective, and I’m sure healthcare providers around the country rise up and cheer when he says that. The important question is, in five years will the administration have the same objectives? You don’t know. You might not have the same administration.”

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/currentissue/topten.php3?refid=7998&db=mh99up&published=20011105

Comment: Let us pray.

Sorry. I had intended to avoid political comments, believing that we all need to work together. But when Thomas Scully is more worried about the health of the health plans than he is about the health of the people of this nation, it is political.

The Washington Post
November 6, 2001
by Melody Simmons

“Get ready. Those large packets beetling with details about health insurance re-enrollment will arrive soon, if they are not already on your nightstand nagging you for attention. And the bad news is, experts say that this year you really need to read them. Costs are going up and benefits are going down in nearly every plan, making this a lousy year to (go ahead, admit it) just put a check mark next to your current insurance plan and be done with it.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32938-2001Nov2.html

Comment: The remainder of the article discusses innumerable permutations and combinations of choices that must be made during the “open season” of the health plans. The “empowered consumer” is clearly the prey during this open season since the options available are specifically designed to shift more costs to the beneficiary. Increased cost shifting reduces affordability and consequently reduces access to care, the exact opposite of what our health policy should be.

Our current national health policies are specifically designed to perpetuate and enhance the health of health plans while neglecting the health of the patients. Let’s place patients first by establishing one universal health plan that is specifically designed to assure access and affordability for everyone. The only loser would be the parasitic private health plans.

The Washington Post
November 6, 2001
by Melody Simmons

“Get ready. Those large packets beetling with details about health insurance re-enrollment will arrive soon, if they are not already on your nightstand nagging you for attention. And the bad news is, experts say that this year you really need to read them. Costs are going up and benefits are going down in nearly every plan, making this a lousy year to (go ahead, admit it) just put a check mark next to your current insurance plan and be done with it.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32938-2001Nov2.html

Comment: The remainder of the article discusses innumerable permutations and combinations of choices that must be made during the “open season” of the health plans. The “empowered consumer” is clearly the prey during this open season since the options available are specifically designed to shift more costs to the beneficiary. Increased cost shifting reduces affordability and consequently reduces access to care, the exact opposite of what our health policy should be.

Our current national health policies are specifically designed to perpetuate and enhance the health of health plans while neglecting the health of the patients. Let’s place patients first by establishing one universal health plan that is specifically designed to assure access and affordability for everyone. The only loser would be the parasitic private health plans.

Few would disagree that equity, or fairness, should be a goal of our health care system. Most of us want to see fairness in the way that we allocate our health care resources and fairness in the way that we fund our system.

For the uninsured and underinsured, the benefits of an equitable system of universal health insurance are obvious. Access to affordable health care would be assured. For the purchasers of health care, including employers, the government, and more affluent individuals, the adoption of publicly administered, universal insurance would provide mechanisms for containing health care costs, a goal that has been elusive for market based health plans. And, very importantly, it would assure the return of free choice of providers of health care. But, because of our progressive tax system, those taxpayers that fund a larger portion of our national budget understandably are concerned about the impact on their contribution to an equitable system that shifts more costs to higher income individuals. So is equity in health care good or bad for the affluent, especially business owners?

Equity is to be clearly distinguished from the unrealistic and inequitable goal of equality in health care. Equal access to cosmetic surgery, to penthouse suites in ivory tower medical centers, or to detrimental high technology interventions would waste resources and introduce inequity by forcing some to pay for such excessive services that are utilized by others. That would be unfair.

Of the two aspects of equity in health care, funding of care and allocation of resources, let’s first look at equity in allocation. With our abundant health care resources, and with the excess capacity in our system, access to care should be available to everyone. But what care? Acute appendicitis, meningitis, a fractured hip, a heart attack, all require and would receive appropriate emergency services, regardless of how it is funded. Some preventive services, especially those with public health implications such as immunization programs, are, in general, readily accessible. On the other hand, management of chronic medical conditions, periodic screening for disorders with effective interventions, pharmaceuticals, and other beneficial services frequently are not accessible to those with limited funds or inadequate health care coverage, simply because of lack of affordability. In fact, this deficiency in our system is so great that, in spite of excess resources, of all industrialized nations we have the most inequitable mechanisms of allocating these resources.

What should be the basis of our decisions on allocation of our health care resources? Quite simply, services that prevent premature death and services that maintain or improve quality of life should be accessible to everyone in an equitable system. We currently have enough funds allocated to health care to assure equitable access to virtually all beneficial services for everyone. The inequities in allocation arise primarily from the financial barriers characteristic of our system, and usually not from barriers due to limited capacity.

The other issue of equity, funding of health care, is more complex than is commonly realized. What would be an equitable method of funding care? Fairness would dictate that each individual contributes his or her fair share, but that no person should suffer a financial hardship as a result of accessing the health care system. Since an equitable system would assure that the contribution of low-income individuals would be below the threshold of financial hardship, they would not be able to afford to contribute an equal amount as would higher income individuals. The result is that higher income individuals would be absorbing more costs than their sector would generate.

This concept of inequality in contributions to an equitable system has been a major stumbling block to enactment of health care reform. Inevitably, there is fear that a public funding system, whether through a tax or a premium, would “unfairly” burden higher income individuals, an irony since, in this instance, equity is falsely perceived as being unfair. The affluent sector has been successful in assuring that equitable systems are not adopted because of the distributive tax policies involved.

We currently have enough funds dedicated to our health care system, but is that funding equitable? Half of health care dollars already pass through the hands of the federal government, primarily collected as payroll taxes and general tax revenues. Payroll taxes are at a fixed percentage, creating a greater tax burden for low-income individuals who have little, if any, disposable income, and often do not have enough income to meet their most basic needs. Thus payroll taxes can be inequitable. Although general tax rates theoretically are set at levels that establish equity through their progressive bracketing, the perception of equity varies with the prevailing political element in control.

Health plan premiums tend to be inequitable. Those paying the premiums are paying costs that have been shifted to them from those that are not paying the full costs of the services they have received, even though they may be capable of doing so. Those paying premiums also are paying for expensive health plan bureaucracies that are not providing value for the health care dollars they consume. In addition, premiums “assigned” to lower income employees, whether nominally paid by the employer or the employee, constitute a significantly larger percentage of their net income than do the premiums paid on behalf of higher income employees, a gross inequity. Further, for employment-linked insurance plans, the tax system provides greater implicit discounts for higher income individuals than for those with lower incomes. This regressive tax policy is highly inequitable.

And then there is the hidden burden of funding health care through mechanisms that are often not considered when calculating the nation’s health care costs. As examples, we should consider the added costs of the medical component of homeowners’ policies, auto insurance, workers’ compensation insurance, and malpractice and other liability coverage. Contributions to medical charities are part of the funding, but the deductibility also shifts the tax burden to others. A much greater shift of the tax burden occurs with established tax policies such as the tax deductibility of employer provided insurance. Funding of community clinics also may increase local taxes. The products that we purchase include added health care related costs of the businesses involved. Several of these more obscure funding sources overlap, shifting costs to a degree that it is sometimes difficult to know who is paying what in health care. But they all perpetuate significant inequities in the overall funding of our health care system.

Thus, besides the inequity of our allocation of resources, the funding of health care in the United States is the least equitable of all other industrialized nations. Those relatively affluent individuals that are concerned about the inequality of an equitable system of funding care should look more closely at the much greater inequalities of the inequitable system that we now have. Unequal equity certainly is better than unequal inequity.

Without changing our health care delivery system, and without increasing the financial resources dedicated to health care, we can bring equity to the funding of health care, and we can bring equity to the allocation of those health care resources that provide value. Equity would be realized by the simple measure of adopting a publicly administered program of universal health insurance.

Don McCanne

November 2, 2001
By Robert F. Smith, Herald Correspondent

BELLOWS FALLS — Single-payer universal health coverage could save Vermonters more than $118 million a year over current medical insurance costs and cover every Vermonter in the process, according to a new report.

The study, paid for by a federal grant and prepared for the Office of Vermont Health Access by John Sheils and Randall Haught of the Lewin Group, was the center of discussion Thursday night during a Health Care for All forum. The forum was organized by Windham County Democratic Reps. Michael Obuchowski and Carolyn Partridge, and was held at the New Falls Cinema in Bellows Falls.

About 75 people attended, many of them local doctors, health-care practitioners, mental health counselors and politicians. Several spoke out in favor of the single-payer universal health coverage concept, and no one disputed its value.

The guest speaker was Dr. Deborah Richter, a family physician with the Cambridge, Vt., health center, who said the main problem with the U.S. health system is not that millions of citizens are uninsured or that it costs too much. The problem with the country’s health system is that it doesn’t really have a system, she said.

The U.S. has what she termed a “loose arrangement” that wastes billions of dollars in administrative costs created by the vast number of different health insurance companies offering various health plans and all requiring different types and amounts of paperwork.

“It’s cheaper to pay directly for the medical costs than to pay insurance premiums,” said Richter, who is a member of Physicians for a National Health Program. “Every other industrialized country realized this long ago.”

Several health professionals agreed that administrative costs had gotten out of hand. A woman who manages a clinic said that nearly every patient the clinic serves has a different kind of insurance coverage requiring its own special paperwork, and one mental health professional said she spends half of her working time filling out forms instead of treating patients.

Richter explained that 70 percent of health care costs are spent on just 10 percent of the population, while the majority of people, 80 percent, account for only 15 percent of health care costs. Healthcare administration, which involves mainly paperwork, overhead and bureaucracy expenses, is responsible for 24 percent of all healthcare costs she said. In the past 30 years there has been a 2500 percent increase in the number of healthcare administrators, while the number of healthcare practitioners – doctors and nurses – only increased by 159 percent during the same period.

The Lewin Report showed that under the current system, Vermont residents will spend $2.2 billion on health care in 2001. The report estimated that a single-payer program would provide coverage for everyone in the state — including the 51,000 estimated to be presently uninsured — and still save $118 million, mostly by reducing the administrative costs of health insurance programs.

Under a single-payer program health coverage would be paid for by a payroll or income tax. This arrangement would mean that taxpayers making less than $75,000 a year would see an average yearly decrease of more than $1,000 per family over current health insurance costs, while those earning $75,000 to $100,000 a year would see a nominal increase of about $58 over what they currently spend for insurance. Hardest hit would be families earning over $150,000 a year. Universal health coverage could cost them as much as $4,500 more per year.

Rockingham physician Dr. Matthew Peake asked Richter who in Vermont would oppose universal health care and such dramatic cuts in healthcare costs.

“Did you miss the parts about getting rid of insurance companies?” Richter replied. She said that universal health care administered by the state would eliminate the need for insurance companies, and these companies are very wealthy and influential.

“Every poll taken shows that two-thirds of the American people are in favor of this,” Richter said. “The problem is that insurance and pharmaceutical companies have more money than we do.” But Richter said that it is inevitable that universal insurance coverage will be adopted, and she said that she is confident Vermont will lead the way within the next five years.

And while there have been problems with the program in some countries, she said that Vermont and the nation could examine all the universal coverage programs now in use around the world and find out what has worked and what hasn’t.

The bottom line for Richter was that she felt single-payer universal coverage would allow her to concentrate on medicine and not on paperwork. “The good side of this is that I’d be able to focus on practicing medicine without having to worry if my patient could afford it,” she said.

Richter and several others at the forum agreed that the key to creating a national universal health care system was to educate the public on its benefits. “In general, this is a better deal for businesses,” she said, “and they know it. It’s common sense, and it makes business sense.”

For more information about universal healthcare, and especially how it affects Vermont, go to http://www.vthca.org.

Comment: Dr. Richter, a former president of Physicians for a National Health Program, is right on target when she is delivering her message to the business community. As with yesterday’s Quote of the Day message, if business owners recognized the significant benefits of universal health insurance for both them and for their employees, then we would have a crucial ally in our efforts to bring equity to health care in America.

November 2, 2001
By Robert F. Smith, Herald Correspondent

BELLOWS FALLS — Single-payer universal health coverage could save Vermonters more than $118 million a year over current medical insurance costs and cover every Vermonter in the process, according to a new report.

The study, paid for by a federal grant and prepared for the Office of Vermont Health Access by John Sheils and Randall Haught of the Lewin Group, was the center of discussion Thursday night during a Health Care for All forum. The forum was organized by Windham County Democratic Reps. Michael Obuchowski and Carolyn Partridge, and was held at the New Falls Cinema in Bellows Falls.

About 75 people attended, many of them local doctors, health-care practitioners, mental health counselors and politicians. Several spoke out in favor of the single-payer universal health coverage concept, and no one disputed its value.

The guest speaker was Dr. Deborah Richter, a family physician with the Cambridge, Vt., health center, who said the main problem with the U.S. health system is not that millions of citizens are uninsured or that it costs too much. The problem with the country’s health system is that it doesn’t really have a system, she said.

The U.S. has what she termed a “loose arrangement” that wastes billions of dollars in administrative costs created by the vast number of different health insurance companies offering various health plans and all requiring different types and amounts of paperwork.

“It’s cheaper to pay directly for the medical costs than to pay insurance premiums,” said Richter, who is a member of Physicians for a National Health Program. “Every other industrialized country realized this long ago.”

Several health professionals agreed that administrative costs had gotten out of hand. A woman who manages a clinic said that nearly every patient the clinic serves has a different kind of insurance coverage requiring its own special paperwork, and one mental health professional said she spends half of her working time filling out forms instead of treating patients.

Richter explained that 70 percent of health care costs are spent on just 10 percent of the population, while the majority of people, 80 percent, account for only 15 percent of health care costs. Healthcare administration, which involves mainly paperwork, overhead and bureaucracy expenses, is responsible for 24 percent of all healthcare costs she said. In the past 30 years there has been a 2500 percent increase in the number of healthcare administrators, while the number of healthcare practitioners – doctors and nurses – only increased by 159 percent during the same period.

The Lewin Report showed that under the current system, Vermont residents will spend $2.2 billion on health care in 2001. The report estimated that a single-payer program would provide coverage for everyone in the state — including the 51,000 estimated to be presently uninsured — and still save $118 million, mostly by reducing the administrative costs of health insurance programs.

Under a single-payer program health coverage would be paid for by a payroll or income tax. This arrangement would mean that taxpayers making less than $75,000 a year would see an average yearly decrease of more than $1,000 per family over current health insurance costs, while those earning $75,000 to $100,000 a year would see a nominal increase of about $58 over what they currently spend for insurance. Hardest hit would be families earning over $150,000 a year. Universal health coverage could cost them as much as $4,500 more per year.

Rockingham physician Dr. Matthew Peake asked Richter who in Vermont would oppose universal health care and such dramatic cuts in healthcare costs.

“Did you miss the parts about getting rid of insurance companies?” Richter replied. She said that universal health care administered by the state would eliminate the need for insurance companies, and these companies are very wealthy and influential.

“Every poll taken shows that two-thirds of the American people are in favor of this,” Richter said. “The problem is that insurance and pharmaceutical companies have more money than we do.” But Richter said that it is inevitable that universal insurance coverage will be adopted, and she said that she is confident Vermont will lead the way within the next five years.

And while there have been problems with the program in some countries, she said that Vermont and the nation could examine all the universal coverage programs now in use around the world and find out what has worked and what hasn’t.

The bottom line for Richter was that she felt single-payer universal coverage would allow her to concentrate on medicine and not on paperwork. “The good side of this is that I’d be able to focus on practicing medicine without having to worry if my patient could afford it,” she said.

Richter and several others at the forum agreed that the key to creating a national universal health care system was to educate the public on its benefits. “In general, this is a better deal for businesses,” she said, “and they know it. It’s common sense, and it makes business sense.”

For more information about universal healthcare, and especially how it affects Vermont, go to http://www.vthca.org.

Comment: Dr. Richter, a former president of Physicians for a National Health Program, is right on target when she is delivering her message to the business community. As with yesterday’s Quote of the Day message, if business owners recognized the significant benefits of universal health insurance for both them and for their employees, then we would have a crucial ally in our efforts to bring equity to health care in America.

The San Diego Union-Tribune
Oct. 30, 2001
“Threats expose health care problems”

By Jamie Court, Executive Director of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, Kay McVay, President of the California Nurses Association, and Steve Thompson, Vice-President of the California Medical Association

“Employers believed that HMO control over medicine would reduce costs. Instead, employers have been bedeviled by the twin vices of double digit premium increases and increasing gripes from employees about obstacles to medical care. Employers concerned about the welfare of their employees face a market that allows them diminishing options for coverage, all gravitating to the lowest common denominator, and ever-increasing costs with no end in sight.

“In a deepening recession, businesses have been forced either to shift more or all of the payment burdens to their employees, making their companies less competitive and their employees more vulnerable, or have health care costs eat up their profits. Those businesses that cannot afford coverage will have far more concern for their workers’ health in the post-Sept. 11 world than ever before.”

“The time has come for employers to join physicians, nurses, hospitals and patient advocates in creating a model for health care that does not pit the private health care system against the public health system, but brings them together in a more rational way.

“The needs of the nation today demand better public controls over private health care delivery and dollars, both of which have run amok in recent years. Such public oversight over private health care could better direct resources to those in need, be they uninsured, underinsured or innocent victims of a terrorist attack. The irony is that such genuine public management of care and cost would save money. Preventing illness is the most cost effective way to treat it, and today’s mismanaged system has failed miserably on this account as well.

“Our groups have reached out to corporations with an employer survey (http://www.businesshealthsurvey.org) that seeks businesses’ views on health care. If any good in health care is to come from the rubble of Sept. 11, it will only happen when employers, doctors, nurses, patients and hospitals come together to make it happen.”

For the full article: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sandiego/index.html (enter title, Threats expose health care problems, into the search box)

Comment: To understand the significance of this breakthrough in the health care reform movement, you must visit the website listed above: http://www.businesshealthsurvey.org. This is a cooperative effort of the American Small Business Alliance, the California Nurses Association, the California Medical Association, and the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. These are mainstream organizations representing business, consumers, nurses and physicians.

Perhaps the most important item on the website is the fact sheet, “Why Businesses Should Care About Universal Health Care.” Business owners do care. The fact sheet provides them with a rational basis for reform that will assure the health security of their employees, while providing significant benefits for the employers themselves. This page should be downloaded and distributed widely to business interests. It is available at: http://www.businesshealthsurvey.org/factsheet1.html

Reuters

LOS ANGELES, Oct. 31 — “Veteran Hollywood Reporter columnist George Christy quit the showbiz trade paper today after probes into health benefits he received from the Screen Actors Guild brought his integrity into question and ignited a management upheaval at his paper.”

“Speculation centered on whether Christy, a sometime actor, was giving movie producers and others favorable mentions in his widely read column in return for being listed in film credits, thus qualifying for SAG benefits. Christy denied any wrongdoing.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21268-2001Oct31.html

Comment: Surely this nation can devise less devious methods of accessing health care coverage. George Christy would still be sitting at his desk if we had a publicly administered program of universal health insurance.