Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Health & Wellness

New Health Care Campaign To Pour $40 Million into Push for Universal Coverage

By Roger Hickey, Campaign for America's Future. Posted July 7, 2008.


It's time to replace our fragmented, wasteful health care system with one that provides quality, affordable care for every American.
Advertisement

On Tuesday, July 8, a new campaign will be launched -- for Health Care for America Now! -- at press conferences in Washington and 55 other cities and towns. We at the Campaign for America's Future are proud to play a leadership role in launching this much-needed campaign, led by 100 national and local organizations.

The steering committee includes ACORN, AFSCME, Americans United for Change, Campaign for America's Future, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Center for Community Change, MoveOn, NEA, National Women's Law Center, Planned Parenthood, SEIU, UFCW, and USAction -- not a bad core group to make history with. And now is the time!

Profound economic changes are convincing the public that we need to take action together to build a healthy, sustainable economy and ensure real security for all families. And that includes, first and foremost, making sure everyone has quality, affordable health care.

The mission of the Campaign for America's Future is to develop and promote bold policy ideas that can build a majority for change. We brought together environmentalists and union activists to promote an "Apollo project" investment agenda to make America energy independent -- and to create the next generation of good American jobs. We sounded the alarm about conservative plans to privatize Social Security, and -- working with a coalition similar to HCAN -- we helped to defeat those dangerous plans to undermine retirement security.

So it was only natural that over the last two years, we have been encouraging health care experts to think big, to come forward with plans to cover everyone who doesn't have good health care coverage, while reining in spiraling costs by reorganizing the most inefficient aspects of what is today a very fragmented, wasteful and unstable health care system.

For two years, we have worked to promote discussion of the Health Care for America plan, written by Yale University health expert Jacob Hacker and published in January 2007 by the Economic Policy Institute. Praised by activists, policy experts and labor leaders, the Hacker-EPI plan helped inform the policy work and public opinion testing of many progressive organizations. And partly as a result of our discussions with the presidential candidates and their policy teams, and our pointed health care questions to them all over the blogosphere during the primary election debate, it became the template for the health care plans of candidates John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. National Public Radio reported in January 31:

All three plans (Obama's, Clinton's and Edwards') came from the same source: a Yale University political science professor named Jacob Hacker. And all three were based on the concept of something called "shared responsibility," where government, individuals and employers all pay something. ... So, Clinton and Obama would let people keep their existing coverage if they want to, or buy into a government-sponsored plan like Medicare, and the government would subsidize small businesses and the poor.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: health care, health insurance, health policy, health care for america n, health coverage

Roger Hickey is co-director of the Campaign for America's Future and leads its Social Security campaign. He is also co-author of "The Next Agenda Blueprint for a New Progressive Movement."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Community Rating AND Guaranteed Issue
Posted by: bthespoon on Jul 7, 2008 2:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One protection is pretty much meaningless without the other...BUT...

Another problem is that the health insurance industry in our particular country has been allowed to run so far amok for so long that it doesn't know how to deliver reliable service at a fair price, and it will be prohibitively expensive for us to police.

Plus, that still leaves us divided and conquered, rather than united together into the largest, most protective, cost-effective, transparent, non-discriminatory, reliable, all-inclusive health coverage pool possible. It also still leaves us sueing each other without end over who has to pay the bills.

Enough is enough already.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No to Universal Healthcare Posted by: sasquuatch55
Only choice we need for coverage
Posted by: bthespoon on Jul 7, 2008 2:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is to be covered if we need it.

We do want total freedom of choice among independent care providers however. Profit-driven health insurers limit those choices.

Only when we are all united into the same group will we ALL have total freedom to choose providers. Plus, providers won't be able to discriminate based on what type of coverage we have because we'll all have the same policy. We need to be united, not divided.

Why would anyone want to have to choose ahead of time what we will or will not be covered for at some point in the future? Isn't that "choice" more like a devil's dilemna? How can anyone possibly know ahead of time with any certainty what kind of medical care we will need?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Insurance industry will be just fine either way
Posted by: bthespoon on Jul 7, 2008 3:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It just would have to figure out ways to make money that stop the unnecessary killing, disabling, and bankrupting of American families for profit. It is well positioned to diversify any direction it may choose, unlike the millions from whom it pulls safety nets out from under just when they need them the most. At least we would give the industry plenty of warning, a courtesy it does not bestow in return on American consumers.

Americans and America won't be fine either way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For gas and food money stop your health payments...
Posted by: Landbaron on Jul 7, 2008 3:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IF YOU HEARD OF A COUNTRY that in 1995 introduced single-payer universal health care, with complete freedom of choice of doctors and no waiting lists, you would expect all the presidential contenders to be beating a path there to find out what was happening. After all, this is not Shangri-la. It is Taiwan, which also offers dental and prescription-drug coverage, and the choice between Chinese traditional or modern medicine, all for just over a third of the proportion of the GDP that the U.S. "system" costs.

But none of the last three remaining major presidential candidates mentioned this highly successful Taiwanese experiment. Indeed, all of them ruled out any single-payer system. To sharpen the irony, the designers of the Taiwanese system scoured the globe for a model, and in the end adopted what they thought was the most promising system to emulate—Medicare in the U.S.A.!
The reason for this political omerta is that ALL THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES WANT TO APPEASE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES, under whose lobbying aegis the U.S. spends 16 percent of GDP on a health-care "system" that leaves 45 million uninsured and countless millions more underinsured.
The moral of this story is; OBAMA IS A PUPPET BOY!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One More Band-Aid Attempt
Posted by: robigreg on Jul 7, 2008 5:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry to see all of those wonderful groups uniting to once more try to patch up our healthcare hodgepodge. The evidence is mounting that not until we adopt some version of a single-payer system--as every other industrial nation has done, including Taiwan--are we going to be free of the documented role of the profit-hungry insurance and drug companies in bringing us to this sorry state of affairs. They have consistently undermined attempts to provide a truly universal, affordable healthcare system, that will provide choices those companies do not want to allow. I am puzzled--and not a little disappointed--that such a group of people backing this current patching attempt apparently believe those companies are going to go along with any serious regulation, and reduction of their bloated profits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

arocco
Posted by: arocco on Jul 7, 2008 7:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is only one viable solution to this problem and that is to get private industry out of the health care bussiness. Socialized health care is the only viable option. It been shown to work and work well. The neocons want our money and that's why we get all this bullshit about how private industry can do a better job than the government. If they can do such a good job how come where in this mess?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good ~ Maybe 40 Million Will Get Healthcare on the Agenda
Posted by: mmckinl on Jul 8, 2008 12:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The candidates sure aren't talking about it now ...

The only good part of this plan is the Medicare option. All healthcare should be Medicare.

The Insurance Companies only take the healthiest and still do a miserable job.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Single Payer: Right Picture, Wrong Frame
Posted by: bthespoon on Jul 8, 2008 4:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
United Protection Pool.

Use the consumer rather than the administrative framework.

Instead of accenting the simplified administrative angle (which scares too many people), Single Payer proponents need to emphasize the simultaneous fact that we also would be creating one single United Protective Pool for coverage instead of remaining divided and conquered in myriads of apples and oranges but aptly-named health insurance "risk groups".

Uniting all Americans together for the best protection is a "no brainer".

UPP with Single Payer!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A question for your mislead plan
Posted by: bthespoon on Jul 8, 2008 4:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What happens when someone "chooses" what appears to be the least expensive option, then finds out they're not covered for something they need?

Do all of the actuarial losers end up on the government plan? That's not a very good "risk group" to be in (the one with all the losers that is).

You're pushing for more of the same old unaffordable, unsustainable plans. How dead does a horse need to be before we collectively stop beating it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Medicare (Dis) Advantage is proof enuf
Posted by: bthespoon on Jul 8, 2008 5:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Private plan options were recently added to Medicare and they have proven to be a huge financial mistake as well as disasters for the seniors who fell for them. Been there, done that, and "It doesn't work".

Anyone with any sense at all ought to be able to figure out that a business plan based on making as much money as possible by charging healthy consumers as much as possible while denying medical care as often as possible to sick people...is NOT a good plan for consumers.

Medicare (Dis)Advantage plans

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anyone who has profit-driven health insurance
Posted by: bthespoon on Jul 8, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is feeding the beast that is the problem, and helping to keep the real reform that is so desperately needed from happening.

Most Americans have no choice, but many who don't see the Big Picture would still feed the beast if they had the option.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is Heartening...
Posted by: ChairmanMetal on Jul 8, 2008 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...to see the lack of support for the Hacker plan among AlterNet readers, and the support for a Medicare-like single-payer plan. No, we do not need "choice". We need insurance that covers everything, for everyone.

The profit "motive" distorts far to many critical areas of our lives. Health care, food and water are not improved by being under the control of private interests motivated by profit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Health Care Industry is profit driven and it is destroying us
Posted by: wireup on Jul 8, 2008 9:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A long long time ago, in China, people would pay doctors only as long as they remained well. When they got sick, they stopped paying the doctors.

So, the doctors of the time had an economic incentive to keep their patients well.

What do we have here in the US? The economic incentive is to keep patients ILL because doctors and drug companies only make money when people are sick.

It's an insane system. It doesn't work. It's failing us.

Throw the insurance companies OUT! They have no business being in the mis-named "health care industry".

Simply extend Medicare to everyone in the US . Take the insurance companies out of the picture. This is what has happened in every civilized country in this world. Single-payer national health care, WITHOUT the involvement of insurance companies.

I lived abroad for a number of years in a country that has single-payer national health care. It wasn't perfect - but it was a HELL of a lot better than what we have here.

We have 40 MILLION people - including a lot of children - with no health care.

Is this right? Is this moral? In a country that SUPPOSEDLY cares about its offspring, we have a very strange way of showing it.

My only reservation about this is that when it comes it will no doubt not cover alternative therapies, which I have used for more than half my life.

Throw the insurance industry out on its ears; give us single payer national health insurance now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No Health Care? Posted by: gellero1
» That's not true. Posted by: bthespoon
SUPPORT A MODIFIED HCAN...
Posted by: drricklippin on Jul 8, 2008 11:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... with much more emphasis on both individual(health behaviors)and institutional(public health)prevention

Our current high-tech-high-cost treatment driven disease care system in not economically sustainable in this nation or abroad.

I realize that prevention is not politically popular because it is viewed by some as a reduction of or even denial of treatment.

I and others posit, however,that ONLY through prevention will we be able to free up $ for those who require necessary treatments.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Here's a start Posted by: gellero1
Soon we're gonna cancel the insurance company policies...
Posted by: Landbaron on Jul 8, 2008 3:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Especially Cigna who denied that young woman a liver transplant who later died just to keep their investors happy with more blood money in their filthy pockets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Dream On !! Posted by: gellero1
Fat Chance of slaying the Hydra
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jul 8, 2008 8:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It all sounds so simple: "We're gonna spend $40 million for Universal Health care!"

Remember the Greek myth about the Hydra? Cut off one head and two others grow back? That's what getting Universal Health care in this country is like.

You got some really inter-twined problems:

The multi-billion dollar insurance industry--you think Kaiser-Permante and others of their ilk are just gonna let this happen? You spend $40 million, they'll spend $400 million fighting it.

As a collary to to the above--you got to tackle the problem of campaign finance reform. Why should the politicos listen to you when they are counting on the health care industry to fund their next election campaign?

Corporate media concentration---people like Murdoch and others like him are in the same corporate bed as the health insurance companies. Ready to pull out the propaganda stops just as they did in the '90s when the first Universal Health Care push came along.

Divide that $40 million into 3 parts each devoted to one of the above problems and you may have a chance. A pittance when you compare that DECADES of effort by other groups to reform the above 3 problems without success as of yet.

Universal Health Care, before it comes, will require some FUNDAMENTAL political changes to come first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We don't need another false compromise
Posted by: DrXyzzy on Jul 8, 2008 9:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Judging from the comments above, it looks as if people have seen enough so-called compromises: illegal wiretapping, war funding, confirmation of Alito and Roberts, failure to impeach, etc.

Medicare for all will save lives and save money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

40 million for advertising?
Posted by: bluevistas on Jul 8, 2008 10:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Geees... I have really mixed feelings about spending that kind of money to get something on the agenda...

I wish some of the 40 million would have been spent on direct services instead. We have 47+ million without care, and we're spending 40 million on advertising? Something's wrong with that picture!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Harriet and Lou commercials
Posted by: bthespoon on Jul 9, 2008 4:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to counter the Harry and Louise ones.

I can give real life accounts on which to base as many as you want. Here's two:

Harriet and Lou find out they have been singled out and rated up to premiums of $46,000 per year because their young child was diagnosed with easily curable leukemia. (The tag line could be "Maybe the doctors can cure Maya's leukemia, but how do we fix or health insurance?")

Harriet finds out coverage for Lou's heart attack has been denied. He clutches his heart as Harriet reminds him the doctors ordered him to reduce all stress.

Both of these things have happened to friends of mine in real life. There are millions more stories needing to be told.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dr. David Himmelstein responds:
Posted by: bthespoon on Jul 9, 2008 9:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"A Policy Response to Health Care for America Now

Health Care for America Now (HCAN) is pushing a superficially attractive health reform model that has a long record of failure – akin to prescribing a placebo for a serious illness when effective treatment is available. They would offer Americans a new public insurance plan and a menu of private ones, with subsidies for coverage for low income families.

This approach reprises the format of Medicare’s ongoing privatization. Despite promises of strict regulation and a level playing field that would allow the public plan to flourish, private insurers would (as they have done in Medicare) predictably overwhelm regulatory efforts through crafty schemes to selectively recruit profitable, lower-cost patients, and avoid the expensively ill. Like the Medicare Advantage program, originally touted as a market-based strategy to improve Medicare’s efficiency, the HCAN plan would evolve into a multibillion dollar subsidy for private insurers whose massive financial power (amassed largely at government expense) would prove a political roadblock to terminating the failed experiment.

Unfortunately, proposals like HCAN’s that cede a central role to private insurers can only add coverage by adding costs. They promise savings from computerization and chronic disease care management. Yet the Congressional Budget Office has warned that there is little or no evidence for such savings.

The HCAN proposal forgoes most of the $350 billion annually in administrative savings possible under single payer national health insurance (NHI). Administrative waste is a natural byproduct of the private insurance firms that would retain a central role under HCAN’s plan. Private plans’ overhead is 12-fold higher than under NHI; the excess is squandered on marketing, underwriting, utilization reviewers and profits, and for the billions paid to executives. And the multiplicity of insurers envisioned in the plan precludes paying hospitals a global, lump sum budget; such budgets would save additional billions by obviating the need for most hospital billing and much of the internal accounting needed to attribute hospital costs to individual patients and payers.

HCAN’s proposal duplicates key elements of health reforms that have passed (and then failed) in multiple states: Massachusetts in 1988; Oregon in 1989; Tennessee, Minnesota and Vermont in 1992; Washington State in 1993; and Maine in 2003. In each case, rising costs scuttled the reform effort; none had a durable impact on the number of uninsured. The 2006 Massachusetts law, which incorporates many of the features of HCAN’s plan, is already threatened by rising costs, despite offering skimpy coverage and leaving many uninsured. And Massachusetts, with its low rate of uninsurance to begin with, and a large fund devoted to care of the uninsured, offered the optimal conditions for trying such a plan.

HCAN’s proposal tries to avoid a head-on collision with private insurers, but the result is a plan that cannot achieve universal coverage or make care affordable. For physicians, offering a placebo in place of effective treatment is a serious ethical violation.

Hence, while we salute the good intentions of the members of the HCAN coalition, we must warn against their proposal."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For the Thinkers out there........
Posted by: gellero1 on Jul 9, 2008 9:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE PRICE OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE =

Nuff said

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Your postings come from SPBW Posted by: bthespoon
Is This what you Want??
Posted by: gellero1 on Jul 9, 2008 10:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Universal 'Health Care'
Posted by: gellero1 on Jul 9, 2008 10:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How You Get SCREWED

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Unbelievable Posted by: bthespoon