Read the conversation here: NYTimes - Letter to the editor inspires dialogue on health care
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
"An Outpouring of Reaction" and One of Our Own
Indeed, single-payer is alive and kicking. One letter to the editor triggered a remarkable flood of responses, largely in support of single-payer. Aside from that, a letter from PNHP's (our parent nonprofit, of sorts) Molly Tavella is featured in the dialogue. You tell 'em!
Read the conversation here: NYTimes - Letter to the editor inspires dialogue on health care
Read the conversation here: NYTimes - Letter to the editor inspires dialogue on health care
Monday, August 29, 2011
Public Option Not Quite Dead in CA?
Health care measure seeks public option, rollbacks - SF Gate
This is definitely a step forward. There's a lot to be done in order to actually "fix" the health care system as we know it now (though I don't think it could even reasonably be considered a "system"... system is a singular term, what we have now is a fragmented plurality of different interests), but this is significant for all Californians.
The intended ballot measure would basically cut all health insurance rates by 20%, allow for stronger oversight of premiums, and provide for a "public option"-- a non-for-profit, government-run health insurance option designed to compete with the private sector. The logic is that the public option would slow the growth of health care premiums in the private sector by such competition.
But what about single-payer? Maybe because it was never on the table in the national health care law negotiations, so people have simply ignored it. Single-payer health care isn't incremental-- it's a fundamental reform of health care. It is the most equitable and economically sound policy solution to both our nation's rising health care costs and the rising ranks of uninsured. By taking corporate profit out of the equation, you instead ensure money goes toward the actual provision of care. By keeping the current structureless health insurance industry in place there is no guarantee of that happening. Do you know how much money they have with which to lobby? (Hint: enough money to take the option of single-payer off the table entirely.)
Now why is this public option proposal getting attention? Probably because people now know what a public option is as a result of the national debates, few people know much about single-payer, and even fewer people know that there's actually a bill in the CA Legislature right now that would establish single-payer in California. And it's been passed twice, only to suffer the vetoes of our last governor (look up SB 810). Admittedly, the soonest reality of single-payer is still a number of years in the future, considering the current political climate and all budgetary concerns.
But hey. The public option is likely a more politically palatable measure. Although it wouldn't have the same scope of reform as single-payer, it is a proposal that is being funded and has a chance of succeeding in the near future. Shaving 20% off premiums does sound mighty nice, doesn't it? Alas, that would only put us back a couple years in premium levels. But it would be better than nothing; we should pay attention to this one.
Here's another article about it: Consumer Group Pushes Public Insurance Option For State Ballot
This is definitely a step forward. There's a lot to be done in order to actually "fix" the health care system as we know it now (though I don't think it could even reasonably be considered a "system"... system is a singular term, what we have now is a fragmented plurality of different interests), but this is significant for all Californians.
The intended ballot measure would basically cut all health insurance rates by 20%, allow for stronger oversight of premiums, and provide for a "public option"-- a non-for-profit, government-run health insurance option designed to compete with the private sector. The logic is that the public option would slow the growth of health care premiums in the private sector by such competition.
But what about single-payer? Maybe because it was never on the table in the national health care law negotiations, so people have simply ignored it. Single-payer health care isn't incremental-- it's a fundamental reform of health care. It is the most equitable and economically sound policy solution to both our nation's rising health care costs and the rising ranks of uninsured. By taking corporate profit out of the equation, you instead ensure money goes toward the actual provision of care. By keeping the current structureless health insurance industry in place there is no guarantee of that happening. Do you know how much money they have with which to lobby? (Hint: enough money to take the option of single-payer off the table entirely.)
Now why is this public option proposal getting attention? Probably because people now know what a public option is as a result of the national debates, few people know much about single-payer, and even fewer people know that there's actually a bill in the CA Legislature right now that would establish single-payer in California. And it's been passed twice, only to suffer the vetoes of our last governor (look up SB 810). Admittedly, the soonest reality of single-payer is still a number of years in the future, considering the current political climate and all budgetary concerns.
But hey. The public option is likely a more politically palatable measure. Although it wouldn't have the same scope of reform as single-payer, it is a proposal that is being funded and has a chance of succeeding in the near future. Shaving 20% off premiums does sound mighty nice, doesn't it? Alas, that would only put us back a couple years in premium levels. But it would be better than nothing; we should pay attention to this one.
Here's another article about it: Consumer Group Pushes Public Insurance Option For State Ballot
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Talks Facts About Single-Payer
Great video of Independent Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, dispelling several myths concerning single-payer: a publicly-financed universal healthcare system. Medicare-- the closest thing we have to single-payer right now-- has lower costs and higher quality than the current health insurance system. These are the facts.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
The Assault on Medi-Cal
So they're planning to lower California's already devastatingly-low Medicaid reimbursement rates.
Wasn't this a big deal in 2008/2009? Oh yeah, it was. And what happened then? There was a lawsuit against the cuts filed by beneficiaries and providers that is currently on the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Except they're doing it again, signing a whopping 10% reduction.
California, in an attempt to ameliorate short-term budget woes, is shooting itself in the foot.
What will this do? More doctors will stop taking Medi-Cal. This will force the state's poorest and most vulnerable populations (including pregnant women, children, the disabled, and the elderly) to put off needed care and instead make emergency room visits. This isn't saving us--I mean all of us, as taxpayers--any money. In fact, it will cost us more in the long-run, as all of us have to pay for emergency room care anyway, and when more people use the emergency room because of a lack of insurance (or access), hospitals are more likely to pass the costs on to those who DO have insurance, giving the insurance companies another excuse to hike up premiums by double digits.
California also seems to forget that PPACA will put even more people on Medicaid's rosters, starting in 2014. This is why they call a Medi-Cal card a "ticket to go search for a doctor" who will actually take it.
Simply put, this is bad policy.
There is only one positive thing. California has to demonstrate that these cuts would not damage access to care, and it seems nearly impossible to do so. Let's just hope the federal government does not approve these cuts, as they are in clear violation of its own laws. And let the Court rule on the side of the people.
This is an excellent appeal and summary of the public health side of the situation by the chief executive officer of the California Medical Association: Doctors say Medi-Cal reimbursement is too low
This is a quick summary of what's going on in the courts: Dems, Officials Voice Support for Suits Challenging Medicaid Cuts
Please, give your lawmakers a piece of your mind.
Wasn't this a big deal in 2008/2009? Oh yeah, it was. And what happened then? There was a lawsuit against the cuts filed by beneficiaries and providers that is currently on the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Except they're doing it again, signing a whopping 10% reduction.
California, in an attempt to ameliorate short-term budget woes, is shooting itself in the foot.
What will this do? More doctors will stop taking Medi-Cal. This will force the state's poorest and most vulnerable populations (including pregnant women, children, the disabled, and the elderly) to put off needed care and instead make emergency room visits. This isn't saving us--I mean all of us, as taxpayers--any money. In fact, it will cost us more in the long-run, as all of us have to pay for emergency room care anyway, and when more people use the emergency room because of a lack of insurance (or access), hospitals are more likely to pass the costs on to those who DO have insurance, giving the insurance companies another excuse to hike up premiums by double digits.
California also seems to forget that PPACA will put even more people on Medicaid's rosters, starting in 2014. This is why they call a Medi-Cal card a "ticket to go search for a doctor" who will actually take it.
Simply put, this is bad policy.
There is only one positive thing. California has to demonstrate that these cuts would not damage access to care, and it seems nearly impossible to do so. Let's just hope the federal government does not approve these cuts, as they are in clear violation of its own laws. And let the Court rule on the side of the people.
This is an excellent appeal and summary of the public health side of the situation by the chief executive officer of the California Medical Association: Doctors say Medi-Cal reimbursement is too low
This is a quick summary of what's going on in the courts: Dems, Officials Voice Support for Suits Challenging Medicaid Cuts
Please, give your lawmakers a piece of your mind.
Debt Ceiling Deal Not Good
An end to federally subsidized student loans for graduate professional students is only one tiny aspect of the painful cuts soon to be felt by so many. The summary below from Doctors for America outlines what the debt ceiling deal means for healthcare professionals and students:
Monday, August 1, 2011
Women's Health Success Amid Debt Crisis Folly
Well, at least there was SOMETHING positive in the news today.
Co-payment free contraceptives? A win for preventive care?? Don't mind if I do! Even the health insurance companies would benefit (a good amount, I might add) from the cost-savings, though usually they don't have this sort of foresight. Just hope they don't try to use this regulation as an excuse to hike up premiums again...
The full article:
NYTimes - Insurance Coverage for Contraception Is Required
This gives me a glimmer of hope, as women's reproductive health protections have been and still are being slowly whittled away. Let's hope this sort of thing continues as more provisions of PPACA are implemented...
Co-payment free contraceptives? A win for preventive care?? Don't mind if I do! Even the health insurance companies would benefit (a good amount, I might add) from the cost-savings, though usually they don't have this sort of foresight. Just hope they don't try to use this regulation as an excuse to hike up premiums again...
The full article:
NYTimes - Insurance Coverage for Contraception Is Required
This gives me a glimmer of hope, as women's reproductive health protections have been and still are being slowly whittled away. Let's hope this sort of thing continues as more provisions of PPACA are implemented...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)