harry hope

From The Chicago Sun-Times, 8/13/03:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-med13.html

Docs push universal health care

August 13, 2003

BY KATE N. GROSSMAN Staff Reporter Adverti*****t

Nearly 9,000 doctors, including two former U.S. surgeons general and a
former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, have signed on
to a drive to create a Canadian-style national health insurance
system.

A group of top doctors led by Chicago doctor Dr. Quentin Young, a
longtime advocate of national health insurance, drafted a proposal
published in today's edition of the Journal of the American Medical
Association, one of the country's top medical journals.

They are reigniting a decadelong battle and opposition remains
intense.

Despite publishing the article, the American Medical Association is
opposed to universal health care and interest in Congress is minimal.

Health care has figured prominently in the presidential race so far,
but the JAMA article criticized reform plans by President Bush and the
major presidential candidates, suggesting that none make universal
coverage affordable.

A NATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM SUPPORTERS SAY . . .

-----It would cover every American for all necessary medical care and
serve as an expanded and improved version of Medicare.

-----It would save $200 billion annually by eliminating bureaucracy,
overhead and profits of the insurance industry and reducing spending
on marketing. Savings would cover the costs of the uninsured and
universal drug coverage.

OPPONENTS COUNTER . . .

-----It will result in long waits for routine procedures, rationing of
medicine, price controls and a slowness to adapt to
technology.Sources: Physicians for a National Health Program; Health
Insurance Association of America, the American Medical Association

Supporters of universal care hope to jumpstart a movement among
doctors and, it appears, push the Democratic presidential candidates
into embracing this issue.

"Obviously this is a political fight," said Dr. Gordon Schiff of Cook
County's Stroger Hospital.

"This will be a major issue in the election and there's a fight within
the medical community . . . 8,880 doctors [who've signed the petition]
is just the tip of the iceberg. We should increase that by a factor of
10 or 20. That's our prescription."

There are more than 836,000 doctors in the United States.

Schiff and others argue from both a moral and financial perspective,
citing more than 41 million uninsured Americans and the death of
18,000 adults annually from lack of coverage.

They also say their system would save at least $200 billion a year by
eliminating the overhead and profits of the private insurance
industry.

Under their proposal, patients could choose any doctor or hospital,
with most hospitals remaining privately owned.

The funding would come from the government, to be financed by
combining current government health spending with "modest" new taxes.

Supporters insist those taxes would be fully offset by reductions in
insurance premiums and out-of-pocket spending.

"Health care is about the most human and intimate needs of people and
families," said Dr. Warren Furey, the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin's
personal physician.

"It can't be treated like a commodity."

Reaction from traditional opponents was swift and unequivocal.

The Health Insurance Association of America called the proposal a
"risky scheme" and the AMA president said "by implementing a
single-payer system, the U.S. would be trading one problem for a whole
set of others."

For example, president Donald J. Palmisano cited long waits for
services and the development of a large bureaucracy that can weaken
doctor and patient authority over clinical decision-making.

__________________________________________________ _______

Time for the AMA to get off the dime. Millions of American folks need
universal health care.

Harry

Find a nearby business with smartpages.com


News | Sports | Business | Entertainment | Lifestyles | Classifieds

Visit our online partners:
Daily Southtown Pioneer Press Suburban Chicago Newspapers
Post-Tribune
Star Newspapers Jerusalem Post Daily Telegraph

Copyright 2003, Digital Chicago Inc.

geo

Funded by "modest" new taxes. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH!!!!!

b. nice

Funded by the savings from not paying profit-motivated insurance companies.

You don't think you're paying NOW moron?

-b

joettab

Exactly. Not to mention the fact that the cost of health care might actually
go down if doctors, hospitals, clinics, etc. are required to keep track of a
gazillion different rules about what treatment you can have or medication
you can have and what forms must be submitted to whom, when and where. We
would have ONE place and ONE set of rules. The money that currently comes
out of our pay checks for "our share" and the deductibles we pay (which are
only growing larger by the day while the amount of coverage we receive
becomes less and less) as well as the money employers pay as part of "their
share" of health care benefits could go to cover this cost. Those on Social
Security and Medicaid would still be covered by the same mechanism. I don't
see that it would create the need for additional taxes, or at least, it
shouldn't unless we and our employers quit paying premiums altogether,
which, if true, then the tax may work out to be less than the current
premiums paid. In fact, it's highly possible that costs would go down if
doctors, hospitals, clinics, etc. aren't forced to deal with a gazillion
different companies and rules.... AND, maybe--just maybe--we can begin
focusing on the best treatment for patients rather than the shoving tons of
paperwork around because the paperwork and rules would standardize.

JoettaB

--Ability is not determined by four walls.

server 13

Are you saying the gov.t is in the business of making profit?

BTW, A lot of workers pay more for their health care than they pay in taxes,
right now.

geo

Well, when Clinton had the alleged surplus going I didn't see it being
sent back tot he taxpayer. So, in that light the answer can be yes.


And a lot pay less. Many pay nothing.

bucky kaufman

Private industry has NOT kept medical costs down.
Right now millions of kids and workers in small business are denied access
to the healthcare system.
If you don't work for a major corp. or the government - you don't get
healthcare.

Right now the medical industry is run by the bookies in the Insurance
industry. And the insurance industry is corrupt from top to bottom.

That means that socializing the medical industry would result in healthcare
for all Americans.
That is something the Republican party is very opposed to.
You hear it all the time - they want to punsih Americans who don't work for
the government or major corporations.

b. nice

Only a moron would believe it wouldn't. It certainly has done just that
everywhere else.

Why does America have the highest health care costs of any nation?


Yep. To the tune of around $350.00 a month (that's $4,200.00 a year), and
that's if I DON'T use any of the services my insurance supposedly covers.


And takes the profit motive away from the insurance companies? Please, let
the government get ahold of it.

In other words, done it better for more people than private organizations
could?

Besides - "single-payer" isn't about federalizing all medical employees;
it's about taking the profit motive out of the health industry - the primary
reason our health care costs are so high.

clue?

A better question: how many times to you need to get screwed by an
insurance company before YOU get a clue?

-b

server 13

Geo's 'idiocy' switches on and off depending on whether he needs it to save
face or not.

geo

Because it's a bad idea. Somethnig of this magnitude run by the feds is
doomed to ruin. Just think about the likes of Ted Kennedy telling you
what medical care you are allowed to get. Why doesn't the govt just go
after the insurance industry instead? Why do they necessarily need to
take over the medical profession?