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

High-Quality, Universal Health Care Is Possible -- With No Premiums or Deductibles

By Maggie Mahar, Health Beat. Posted July 16, 2008.


What's more, this new plan from Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel would rein in health care inflation and insulate our health system from lobbyists.
Advertisement

This article appeared originally as a two-part series on Health Beat.

Most plans for health care reform that stress "choice" give families the opportunity to choose from a menu of plans that offer insurance at different prices. In effect, families are "free to choose" the health care plan that they can afford. (More accurately, they are "forced to choose" the plan they can afford.)

Imagine, instead, a proposal for health care reform that guarantees free, high-quality health care for all Americans. No premiums. No deductibles. Under this plan, the government insists that all insurers offer the same comprehensive benefits to everyone, including: office and home visits, hospitalization, preventive screening tests, prescription drugs, some dental care, inpatient and outpatient mental health care, and physical and occupational therapy.

These benefits are more generous than Medicare's and more comprehensive than what 85 percent of all employers offer their employees. (Individuals who want to purchase coverage for additional services like concierge medicine, experimental drugs for serious conditions, complementary medicines or more mental health benefits could do so.)

If this all sounds too good to be true, you need to read Healthcare, Guaranteed: A Simple, Secure Solution for America by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Published this month, Healthcare, Guaranteed offers a bold, refreshing plan for health care in America. The charm of the proposal is four-fold: It faces up to the fact that reform won't pay for itself, and it offers a funding mechanism that is fair and efficient and could deliver high-quality care nationwide. It regulates insurers, forcing them to concentrate on quality. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this plan insulates our health care system from the lobbyists who, today, have far too much control over our health care system.

Emanuel has the background and experience needed to help draft a blueprint for health care reform. An oncologist who also has a Ph.D. in political science and now serves as chair of the Department of Bioethics at the Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health, Emanuel is attuned to the ethics as well as the politics of medicine, and he understands the needs of seriously ill patients.

Emanuel's ambitious plan, the Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan, would replace employer-based insurance with insurance that offers generous benefits to everyone who is not now covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. (Anyone now enrolled in one of these three programs could, if they wish, switch to the new Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan. Over 15 years, Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP would be phased out.)

Affordable, High-Quality Care

Under the proposal, all Americans would receive a health certificate entitling the individual or family to enroll in the health care plan of their choice. In most cases, they would keep their current physician. The certificate would not be a "cash card" to buy services; instead, it would be a voucher that gives the individual or family the right to enroll in whatever insurance plan they choose.

Thus, under Emanuel's plan, all Americans are treated equally. The vouchers are of equal value, and the health plans must all offer the same rich package of benefits. No cheap "Swiss cheese" plans riddled with hidden holes. No high-deductible plans. To distinguish themselves, health care plans would have to compete on quality, not on price.

Emmanuel's plan also eliminates vexing problems like mandates that require all Americans to purchase insurance. No one would be forced to buy insurance; everyone would simply receive a voucher that entitled them to an equal place in our health care system -- at no charge.

How Do We Pay for It?

But what is most intriguing about the Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan is its financing. Emanuel would pay for the nation's health care with a 10 percent value-added tax (VAT). Revenue from the tax could not be diverted to other uses such as the military or Social Security. No other tax revenues would be used to pay for the plan. And although Emanuel calls for a new tax to support the program, in the end, we as a nation would be paying no more than the $2.2 trillion that we now spend on health care. The money would simply be collected in a more equitable way and spent more rationally, avoiding waste and excessive administrative costs.

Unlike many health care reformers, Emanuel doesn't shy away from acknowledging the true cost of providing high-quality care for all Americans. Unless they are funded, other plans might provide health insurance to everyone, but not affordable health care.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: health, health care, ezekiel emanuel, healthcare guaranteed, vat

Maggie Mahar is a fellow at the Century Foundation and the author of Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much (Harper/Collins 2006).

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:
GREAT PLAN BUT....
Posted by: drricklippin on Jul 16, 2008 3:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....As you said Maggie - Not perfect(no plan is!)

What I like about the plan is that it removes the payment for US Health Care from employers. We all know that employers are basically in business to make $ for themselves and their stockholders.

I like the emphasis in GHCAP plan you describe here on effectiveness research and insurance companies competing on quality. Excellent!

I did NOT like the comments about mental health benefits being placed in the same category as "concierge medicine". I am for mental health parity. I believe we have a compelling data to support mental health parity's benefits.

Also I believe that the value of Alternative and Complementary Medicine is generally underappreciated and the research is underfunded. As a trained oncologist- steeped in traditional bio-medicine- I would not expect Dr Emanual to have a "tilt" toward mental health issues or Alternative Medicines.

On balance however congratulations to you and to Dr Emanual.

GOOD LUCK!- YOU WILL NEED IT!

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
my website

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

» RE: GREAT PLAN BUT.... Posted by: PJAW
» RE: GREAT PLAN BUT.... Posted by: drricklippin
Political Will
Posted by: PJAW on Jul 16, 2008 4:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is all that's lacking in the system. We have enough facilities and providers wo are willing and capable of providing care and services, and there is enough money currently pulsing through the system to provide care and services to all Americans. The problem is in the management of the "system". It encourages overtreatment in some cases while denying care in others and suffers under the greed of the "for profit" inusrance industry that takes 25% of every premium dollar right off the top. Medicare, as an example of a well-run federal program (no it isn't perfect) takes less than 5% for administrative costs.

Legislators, by the way, receive a portion of that 25% in the form of "campaign contributions". Any questions?

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

Here's why it won't be implemented
Posted by: Moonray on Jul 16, 2008 4:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our government system is beautifully designed to allow innovation only if approved by the rich and powerful. And the rich and powerful will never allow a decent universal health care plan, because the current mess enriches too many well-connected people.

But here's the beauty of it: Our political system constantly dangles the PROSPECT of change in front of voters. Every four years the same debates occur, the same promises are made . . . but significant change doesn't happen. Fortunately for the politicians, our collective attention span is only about five minutes, so they simply jangle some different keys to change the conversation -- to war, scandal, crime, whatever -- and four years later the process begins all over again.

Don't believe me? Wait a few months. The subjects of universal health care and withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan will be distant memories as the media trumpet new "terrorist threats," cheer on new wars and obsess endlessly over what Miley Cyrus is up to. It's all a big circus -- but it turns out that we citizens are the real clowns.

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

Plans are Ideal, Possible, and Doable
Posted by: rommeytx on Jul 16, 2008 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article presents a fair perspective on A plan for our health care, but does not solve our concerns. As described, the plan sports a claim for being ideal, falling short of this achievement because the many grey areas it leaves in its formulation like what happens with the profits taken by the health care front providers like hospitals, labs, and physicians; its probability of becoming possible is very low, falling to take in account the vagaries of the Value Added Tax, which has to be addressed yet in the plan. And finally it cannot prove itself as doable, falling to consider a path that would take us from our very faulty current system, un-integrated, and hardly competitive, and under over 90% controlled by insurance corporations which won't like losing this substantial mine for profits, to a system with a single payer which ideally would be built on the Medicare foundation. As it is right now, it doesn't amount to much of a plan, more like a pipe dream product of the frustration of a physician that knows little beyond his medicine. As I said, long in promises, short on blueprints…
Let's get back to the drawing board… Dr. Emanuel gave us a research starting point, now we need to build on it…

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

Why are insurance companies still in this plan?
Posted by: sallythewally on Jul 16, 2008 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They will have to make a huge profit or they won't accept it, and their money is a big part of congressional support. That means the congress won't vote it in.

Are they being phased out? This wasn't clear to me. They should be eliminated!

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

What should be included in a Health-Care plan formulation. 1.
Posted by: rommeytx on Jul 16, 2008 8:12 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A Practical Approach to Health-Care
If we can muster the will to find a real solution to our failed Health-Care system woes we should start with a comprehensive study that involves a long list of items, prioritized by probability of execution. To that effect, I would like to remind us that Medicine isn't the substance of a Health-Care system. It is just "a" provider responding to the needs of the population.
Let's start with the providing part:
Research is the keyword for this. We need to know which are the health woes of our population, and what are they (that means to inventory where we are in the process of investigating each disease and its modus operand, identifying the causes, finding efficient cures, and finally figuring out how to prevent the action of the causes producing such disease, plus how we can detect early those action, when we cannot stop the diseases from occurring, before they make the cure more expensive.) Currently research isn't getting near of functioning within this ideal. The motivation for research isn't health-care, but profit. And the field is so fragmented that we can hardly picture what's going on… Eventually we need to learn what impact the participants' profits have on our research. Keep in mind that we cannot depend on feelings to gauge such impact, hard evidence is what we need.
Once we accomplished it (this would always be an on-going process, as diseases and causes evolve), we need to start identifying how we are to provide the care. Who, what, where, and when, starting with who would become the frontline troops fighting our health woes (for now, let's leave the economics of the issue out, because they would be the final consideration we should address). First, we need to know which are the services to provide. Based on the previous, detailed inventory of our research phase, we need to identify each level of service we ought to provide, from preventive going through corrective, immediate, minor, major, complementary, and rehabilitative. What kind of professionals we need and what is the availability of each professional personnel, how we obtain and/or prepare that personnel: identification of vocational drive, providing the required formal education in each field, providing fair oversight of the quality of professional aptitude achieved, and managing the resources (including what incentives we currently provide and what we should provide within a pragmatic approach to staffing). We need to look into the whole care picture, from pre-natal to terminal care… and into each class of population we shall serve, from rural to urban, from civilians to veterans, and finally from infants to elderly. From physical to mental care. From cosmetic to critical care.
The next step is identifying which should be the providing infrastructure we shall require. Family care facilities (the physician's office, in general, or low grade care clinics), hospitals (emergency, minor and major care), preventive medicine facilities, testing and clinical laboratories facilities (again low and major care), pharmaceutical distribution, rehabilitation, recovery, and nursing facilities, transportation systems to move the patients between the components of the infrastructure; and, finally, research infrastructure, clinical and pharmaceutical, as well as overseeing infrastructure. We need a real inventory of what we already have, what use we get out of each component of the infrastructure, where are our lack of an infrastructural resource is impacting negatively the access to the care, and where duplication of services produce underutilization of the infrastructure, subsequently studying what improvement we can achieve, stopping before we create a negative impact on the care's access… continued in the second part

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

10% VAT?
Posted by: CatDad on Jul 16, 2008 8:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a single payer plan that successfully eliminates the middleman cartel of private health insurers, you would not need to raise taxes.

Commingling universal health care with a VAT tax is a terrible idea. VAT taxes are regressive and they're Trojan Horses....it's very easy to raise the VAT rate by tiny increments (as with postage stamps) to where, five years later the VAT is 15%.

Ideas like this for the "progressive" community confirm my belief that we're at least ten years away from any real health care reform.

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

» RE: 10% VAT? Posted by: IntlDad
What should be included in a Health-Care plan formulation. 2.
Posted by: rommeytx on Jul 16, 2008 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A Practical Approach to Health-Care... continued from part 1.

Only when we have a complete picture of the results from the steps outlined so far (in part 1), we can start identifying the finances involved in the health-care, and looking into the possible sources of those funds. Once we know how much, we shall have to inventory who and how we, as a nation, will pay for the health-care system we envision. We can leave out what kind of restrictive access we can live with as we go implementing changes, and how to help extraordinary circumstances that later would have a spot in the overall system but are currently and during the transition left out.
The sources we should look at, have to be all available, from individual, local, statewide, and to the federal level. Systems as VAT or Employment Health-Care Taxes by their universal nature should be analyzed exhaustively and in contrast with the current financing schemes. Beyond the social or political, or even principled or philosophical justification for any possible approach, we have to examine in depth how we are to manage it, prevent abuse, and monitor its effective contribution. Medicare is a case in point of a good idea threatened by a sloppy system. The reality of Medicare is that it isn't a single payer system, rather a conglomerate of several hundred "single payer" systems, not only by state but by population served (and we must remember the introduction of the insurance industry in the picture), where the Medicare organization is just a clearing house for the movement of funds.
Education is an inseparable aspect of any consideration, from educating the population to make them aware of the health issues, especially prevention, to the system that forms the professionals we shall require and the managers for the system we shall use.
So, as I said, let's go back to the drawing board…
And I don't have all the truth there is to have.

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

What world does this guy live in?
Posted by: westomoon on Jul 16, 2008 8:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What an oddly naive proposal this is -- and weirdly anachronistic too.

Seems like most of us know by now that "The Market" does not operate with the enlightened self-interest that its worshippers believe in despite all evidence to the contrary. We have very little manufacturing left in this country, because the vast majority of it has been "globalized". American workers live in justified fear of their jobs being "offshored", a practice which has caused workers to accept wage declines and a steady reduction in benefits. Our economy is in the process of tanking, and the effects of the commoditization of oil are just beginning to be felt.

And yet this dear oblivious little oncologist bases his health-care plan on a dedicated VAT which derives its revenue from taxing our non-existent production at every level. And then there are the following comments, which might have been sensible in 1982, but sound incredibly naive in 2008:

... if employers are no longer required to offer health benefits, workers can expect a one-time raise roughly equal to what the employer was paying toward the employee's benefits. In a phone interview last week, Emanuel acknowledged that not all employers would be that generous, but if they wanted to hold onto their most valuable employees, most would hand out raises.

And it's likely that, for a family earning $200,000, a cut in state taxes would more than cover the extra $5,000. (As incomes and revenues decline in our collapsing economy, increasingly-desperate States and localities would be obliged to divert any savings into basic services.)

Moreover, Emanuel expects that since employers would no longer be burdened with health benefits, they might well hire more employees, which would be good for workers on every rung of the income ladder. (Sure. In Sri Lanka,)

If the cost of goods rises, so will the amount that the VAT collects. In that way, funding for health care will keep up with overall price increases. (Health care costs have been increasing at rates several times higher than general inflation for thirty years. This plan does not attempt any regulation of the health care or insurance industries, and yet assumes that trend will simply stop.)

Insurers wouldn't be able to raise premiums -- they would have to live on the funding that the VAT provides. This means that they would be motivated to find more creative ways to manage chronic diseases ... Insurance companies also would need to experiment with how to reimburse physicians, hospitals and other providers in a way that rewards them for coordinating care and delivering it in the most efficient setting. This is what I mean when I say that the plan forces insurers to compete on quality, not price. (And this guy thinks his plan would improve insurance coverage and health care quality? This is the "managed-care" nightmare made universal -- with revenues capped, a system still based on for-profit insurance companies and health-care providers is NOT going to respond with more and better coverage. The current game, where insurers find more and more medical treatments "not covered" would simply increase. Emmanuel posits that the government would require rich and full coverage -- and then expects the two layers of for-profit corporations providing it to do so with a steadily-decreasing revenue stream? Hmmmm...)

There are too many of these naive assumptions in this plan to highlight them all. It's no wonder that this plan is getting support from the Far Right -- it's a neocon's dream, which would provide the illusion of universal health care while actually degrading the quality of health care available to people on the basic health package even further. Is Canadian-style national health really so hard to contemplate?

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

In this Case the Vat is Not Regressive.
Posted by: maggiemahar on Jul 16, 2008 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CatDad--

I know the post is long, but if you read it to the end, you would have come to this section:

"Isn't a VAT Regressive?

"Granted, at first glance, a VAT sounds like an extraordinarily regressive solution. A VAT, like a sales tax, adds to the cost of everything that we buy. This can place an unfair burden on low-income families that must spend a much higher percentage of their incomes just to buy necessities.

But in this case, "instead of just looking at how the taxes are collected, you need to look at how those tax dollars are distributed. Do that and you discover that because, in this case, the VAT is used solely to fund health care, working-class and middle-class families would receive more than full value for their VAT dollars.

For example, a median-income family earning $50,000 a year might well spend the entire $50,000 on housing, food, utilities, clothing, transportation, etc. Under a 10 percent VAT, that family would pay $5,000 a year to help fund universal coverage. But, in return, Emanuel points out, it would receive health insurance worth at least $12,500 (the going price for an employer-based family plan).

"But what about high-spending, high-income families -- would they think a VAT was fair?"

It turns out that financing health care with a VAT also works out well for wealthier families.

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

Ezekiel Emanuel is brother of Rahm Emanuel
Posted by: maggiemahar on Jul 16, 2008 9:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In response to "What World Does This Guy Live In?'

Ezekiel Emanuel is the brother of Democratic politician Rahm Emanuel.

He is also Director of bio-ethics for the National Insitute of Health.

He understands how Washington works.

Here is his c.v. "After completing Amherst College, he received his M.Sc. from Oxford University in Biochemistry. He received his M.D. from Harvard Medical School and his Ph.D. in political philosophy from Harvard University. His dissertation received the Toppan Award for the finest political science dissertation of the year. In 1987-88, he was a fellow in the Program in Ethics and the Professions at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. "

You write: " (Health care costs have been increasing at rates several times higher than general inflation for thirty years. This plan does not attempt any regulation of the health care or insurance industries, and yet assumes that trend will simply stop.)

If you read the whole post, you'll find that isn't true. I know the post is very long, but here is the relevant section:

"The problem is that, under the current system, manufacturers control the research and what we are allowed to know about their products. As I have discussed, too often that research is biased. Meanwhile, drug makers and device makers have resisted calls for "head-to-head" trials that would compare a new product to an older, less expensive device, drug or test already on the market.

The Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan would change all of that by creating an independent Institute for Technology and Outcomes Assessment that would evaluate the effectiveness of new drugs and devices as well as new procedures. Its goal would be to identify and promote technologies that save money without reducing the quality of care. To that end, the institute would review existing research, sponsor studies to compare products and services where comparative research is lacking, and analyze the data from health plans and insurance companies on patient outcomes and on the drugs, medical technologies and interventions used to achieve those outcomes.

"Emanuel argues that the institute's assessments also will "change the dynamics of long-term medical research and development. In particular, its decisions will encourage drug and medical device companies to focus their research on high-value interventions. Today, these companies develop new interventions with little regard for price or the degree of improvement over existing interventions."

"By creating a more rational framework for coverage decisions . . ."

A number of your other comments indicate that you didn't have time to read the whole post.

On insurers-- see my earlier comment on this thread responding to teh question of whether for-profit insurers would be phased out.

Probably many would drop out. And the system would be dominated by non-profit insurers See this post on www.healthbeatblog.org on what "managed care" originally looked like--before for-profit insurers got into the game:
http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2008/07/the-managed-car.html

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

OK, then how about universal car insurance?
Posted by: billwald on Jul 16, 2008 10:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It isn't fair that some people pay more for car insurance than others and many cars on the road are not insured. I propose a 10% VAT on retail auto/truck fuel sales to pay for a universal $100,000 limit liability/uninsured motorist insurance to cover medical bills. This would be a legal substitute for state liability insurance requirements.

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

Candidates on subsidized health care?
Posted by: leequinn on Jul 16, 2008 11:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is for it, McCain against.

Check it out: What do the candidates say about subsidized health care?

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

And thus....
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jul 16, 2008 1:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...this author has invented the idea of supply and demand.


Unless it was garnered elsewhere. Anyone else heard of such a thing?

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

» Ooops. sorry... Posted by: ABetterFuture
Strange Plan
Posted by: Urgelt on Jul 16, 2008 2:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, ok, tell me: why do we need insurance companies involved if there's a single payer, again?

Insurance is about spreading risk. There's no risk to spread if medical care is paid for by a single payer.

All you get from insurance then is a 30% premium on medical expenses. Cut them out, and the bill drops by that much.

Why "regulate" them? Why keep them around at all?

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

» RE: Strange Plan Posted by: CatDad
Dedicated funds for healthcare
Posted by: IntlDad on Jul 16, 2008 3:20 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the hidden beauties of this proposal is that the VAT would be for one use only.

In Oregon our gas taxes go to road maintenance. Only road maintenance. It has resisted the push for lower taxes from the right, because the legislature and the voters see obvious value in the tax and obvious consequences in losing its benefit. Even out-of-state funded ballot measures that were designed to eliminate the “evil money grubbing liberals” were scoffed at by the voters.

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

» RE: Dedicated funds for healthcare Posted by: maggiemahar
Only Halfway There - Need Real Choice
Posted by: Liberty G on Jul 16, 2008 3:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of details of the plan proposed are far better than the really terrible ones put forth by everyone else. The funding is actually potentially doable, and the Institute for Independent Technology is a critical and useful component - but too limited.

If we are ever to achieve what other countries have done, we HAVE TO INCLUDE COMPLEMENTARY & ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE. The Institute would have to include research on those, as per Commission E in Germany in the 1980s - with coverage for any found safe and effective. England, with five homeopathic hospitals, spends $2,000 per capita for national health care, vs. $7,000 per capita by the U.S. Pretty much all countries covering health alternatives also have far better health results.

As I have said before on Alternet forums, it is also a question of civil rights. CHOICE is used as a buzz word for allowing abortion. But the real choice should be whatever we wish to do with our own bodies, including the type of health care we want to give them.

That is the answer to the poster who asked what's wrong with just single payer. Simple. Under Medicare, for example, I can't get the health care that I want - the government decides how I should treat my illnesses. At least with insurance companies there is not only one allowable choice for treatment.

Of course, the best thing would be to have vouchers that allowed money to be applied to care by any certified/licensed practitioner - which would include alternatives like naturopaths, homeopaths, acupuncturists, etc. Washington State has required its health insurance companies to cover such - and I'm thinking of moving there.

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

Alternative Medicine
Posted by: maggiemahar on Jul 16, 2008 5:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I too like alternative care that is backed
up by evidence that it works (acupuncture, etc.)

Emanuel's plan purposefully doesn't try to get into too much detail. As Victor Fuchs, the healthcare economist who worked with him on this project for a number of years points out in the introduction, Emanuel doesn't try to "get into the weeds" because he realizes the details of any plan will be negotiated in Congress. Right now, what is important is drawing the broad outlines of a good plan.

But there is no reason why Emanuel's plan couldn't cover alternative medicine that passed the test of an unbiased "Technology Assessment" institute-- which should include some doctors who understand alternantive medicine.

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

Time for some pragmatism Tough Love...
Posted by: lexicon on Jul 16, 2008 7:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok, very nice. Good thoughts there. The Emmanuel plan is dead, dead in the water, will not even make the first step.

A REAL health system plan MUST recognize some things:

First...The AMA is a powerful political force.


Second...The private health insurers are a powerful political force.

Third...The Pharma industry is a powerful political force.

Fourth...striving for "efficiency" in health care delivery, in the way that the author has described it, is almost exactly synonymous with "productivity". And in "economics", productivity is a cute euphemism for SLASHING COSTS.

Let's face it, the idea that there are cost savings possible in health care, very very rapidly hits a wall of diminishing returns. We develop a tiered-delivery system, and then that's about it.

That's where the AMA comes into it. Letting 'practitioners' do the more mundane stuff, the "trade school medicine" stuff...and only paying doctors when you have something really GOOD going on...some kind of really AWESOME disease or injury.

A seamstress could do stitches better than a doctor...after all!

Anyway, any system that doesn't provide a transition for the MONEY PLAYERS of today's system, will be dead in the water.

Sucks, but it's a political reality.

lexicon

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

How about an objective review of Emanuel's book?
Posted by: progressiverealist on Jul 17, 2008 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AlterNet did progressives a service by bringing Ezekiel Emanuel’s book to our attention, but you should have had a critique of it written by a genuine progressive – not by Ms. Mahar, who is all too ready to act as an apologist for Dr. Emanuel’s far from progressive proposal for funding health care with a value added tax.

In the heading of one section of her essay, Ms. Mahar asked rhetorically, “Isn’t a VAT Regressive?” The only honest answer to that question is a resounding “Yes!”

But Ms. Mahar’s judgement is so clouded by Dr. Emanuel’s quack economics that she couldn’t even answer the post from “Cat Dad” without quoting her own writing. Reiterated nonsense is still nonsense.

It got worse when she answered “westomoon,” who asked “What world does this guy live in?” – and her answer was very telling.

“Ezekiel Emanuel is the brother of Democratic politician Rahm Emanuel,” she began, before going on to his curriculum vitae. The fact that she thinks this kinship lends credibility to Dr. Emanuel’s ideas on economics tells us as much about her as it does about him.

Rahm Emanuel personifies everything that went wrong with the Democratic Party under the Clintons. During his days as a White House staffer, he was Clinton’s point man in the administration’s lobbying for NAFTA. Moreover, in his rôle as Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2005-06 election cycle, he tried to recast the party entirely in the DLC mold. I suggest you read “Only Millionaire Fence Straddlers Need Apply: Meet Rahm Emmanuel, the Democrats' New Gatekeeper,” by Andrew Cockburn (http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew12092005.html).

As a follow-up to that story, you should know that Christine Cegelis lost that primary for Henry Hyde’s Congressional seat to Mr. Emanuel’s candidate, Major Tammy Duckworth, a disabled veteran of the Iraq war. A woman, a disabled veteran, a member of a racial minority (she's half Thai) and a self-described “fiscal conservative and social moderate”—this was Mr. Emanuel’s idea of the perfect Democratic candidate. But because many progressives who supported Ms. Cegelis were disillusioned enough to stay home, Maj. Duckworth lost the general election to Pete Roksam, a state senator who is even more conservative than Henry Hyde, and who once touted himself as a protégé of Tom DeLay.

Apparently, the Emanuel brothers are two peas in the same political pod.

Finally, Congress doesn’t need to enact that “Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan” to create an independent “Institute for Technology and Outcomes Assessment.” Why not? Because we don’t need any such institute to “evaluate the effectiveness of new drugs and devices as well as new procedures” and to “identify and promote technologies that save money without reducing the quality of care.”. That’s the job of the FDA, and with an adequate budget – and no political meddling – they could do it.

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

reply to Time For Some Pragmatism
Posted by: maggiemahar on Jul 17, 2008 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The AMA was once a powerful force.

Today, a great many of the nation's doctors don't belong to the AMA.

Many women doctors find it too conservative, and dominated by men.

Many younger (under 45) male doctors find it behind the times.

Polls show that more than half of doctors in this country want major health reform with government involvement.

Last week's vote against MedPac insurers shows that insurers are not as powerful as they once were. Congress took a look at the seniors and the AARP lined up on one side, and the insurers and their lobbyists lined up on the other side, and knew who to be afraid of: the seniors and AARP.

The landslide vote against insurers in the House was particuarly impressive. And insurers know that next year, Congress is going to take away the entire windfall subsidy that it gives MedPac insurers.

Big Pharma is powerful--but many in Congress are ready to let Medicare negotiate for major discounts on drugs--just the way the VA does.

It will be a tough fight, and I think the reforms will begin with Medicare (because Medicare is approaching a financial crisis).

Where will we get the savings? But refusing to cover ineffective, unproven procedures adn over-priced drugs and devices that are no better than the products that they are trying to replace. We now have more than two decades of research done by medical reserachers at Dartmouth showing that 1 out of 3 of our health care dollars are wasted on unncessasry, ineffective treatments.

Many doctors know this. The cognoscienti of the health care world unanimously accepts this reserach. Now, we need an unbiases Institute comparing medical technolgies (procedures, drugs, etc.) to see which are most effective. This is what Emanuel proposes.

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

reply to "How About An Objective Review"
Posted by: maggiemahar on Jul 17, 2008 12:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First Rahm Emmanuel is not involved in the book or the plan. I mentioned that he is Ezekiel Emmanuel's brother only to indicate to one reader that he is not a naive oncologist: given that his brother is in politics, he has some idea of how Washington works.

Secondly, you write: " we don’t need any such institute to “evaluate the effectiveness of new drugs and devices as well as new procedures” and to “identify and promote technologies that save money without reducing the quality of care.”. That’s the job of the FDA, and with an adequate budget – and no political meddling – they could do it."

First of all, that's not the the FDA's job. The FDA is not supposed to evaluate products by doing head to head comparisons with existing products. The FDA is only supposed to ask the manufacturer for trials comparing the new product to a placebo--proving that it is "better than nothing."

For the FDA to do anything more than require re-writing the law that created the FDA.

Secondly,it is very difficult to insulate teh FDA from politics.. The panels who make FDA decisions include many physicians who take consulting fees from the companies in question.

This is why we need a completely separate, unbiased institute that compares the effectiveness of various treatments. Under Emmanuel's plan, it is financed by the VAT. REvenues from the VAT will rise with normal inflation. Thus, the Institute will not have to go back to Congress for funding, year after year. In that way, it is insulated from Congress, and lobbyists.

Finally, I can't imagine why you think this VAT is regressive. AS I explained: a median-income family earning $50,0000--and spending the entire $50,000--would pay $5,000 in VAT taxes. In return they would get health care worth $13,000 (what employers and employees now
pay for a top-of-the-line plan comparable to what Emanuel's proposal would offer)--at no cost.

People who earned and spent less would benefit even more.

People who earned more and spent more would pay a higher tax, but they also would be the Americans most likely to get raises because their employers would no longer had to pay for health benefits.

Well-compensated, highly valued employees would be most likely to get these raises because if they didn't, they'd jump ship and go to a company that would give them the pay hike.

If you really want to understand the plan, I urge you to read the book.

Finally, Rham Emmanuel's possible shortcomings as a politician have nothing to do with the merits of this plan.

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

» RE: reply to "How About An Objective Review" Posted by: progressiverealist
(1) The Brothers Emanuels and (2) regressive taxation
Posted by: progressiverealist on Jul 18, 2008 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(Sorry, I should have posted the following as a new comment last night, not as a reply.)

Thank you, Ms. Mahar, for making my point for me.

“I mentioned that he [Rahm Emanuel] is Ezekiel Emmanuel's brother,” you write, “only to indicate to one reader that he is not a naive oncologist: given that his brother is in politics, he has some idea of how Washington works.”

Yes, how it worked under Clinton. As I said before, the Brothers Emanuel are two peas in a pod, and it’s not a progressive pod. Rahm is the pluperfect DLC “Republican Lite” Clintonista —a Wall Street Democrat, not a real Democrat—and his brother is apparently very much in the same mold.

(I could ask whether you think oncololgists who don’t have brothers in politics are naive, but I’ll resist the temptation and move on to more serious matters.)

“I can't imagine why you think this VAT is regressive,” you say. Well, let me try to make this as simple as possible. A tax that places a greater burden on those with lower incomes—that is, a tax that takes a greater percentage of the incomes of people with low incomes—is, by definition, regressive. It doesn’t matter how the government spends the proceeds of the tax, even when the proceeds benefit the poor. So all sales taxes, VAT’s included, are regressive.

I really wonder whether this whole thing is just an attempt to gain support for a VAT in the US. As you yourself pointed out in your article, this plan does have some conservative support!

And for what? For a flawed plan that includes private insurance plans, rather than a true single payer system? I’d like to know what David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler think of this idea!

Finally, you’re simply wrong about limits on the FDA’s power. The problem is inadequate funding and political meddling. And if you think an “Institute for Technology and Outcomes Assessment” (what an awkward name!) could be any better insulated from political pressures, you’re the one who’s naive.

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

Non profits are the answer to all kinds of insurance problems
Posted by: tomkara on Jul 18, 2008 8:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Profit is the problem in insurance in the US. We need to understand that insurance is shared risk. In a low-cost system, you require everyone to participate: healthy, young, old, unhealthy, good drivers, bad drivers etc. You create nonprofit insurance cooperatives to administer the insurance plans. Everyone had equal access, everyone had equal benefits. In the case of healthcare, you put an emphasis on voluntary positive prevention: get checkups, early treatment, get counseling for bad habits etc. In the case of driving you also incorporate positive feedback - your rates will go down as you prove you are a good driver (rather than simply raising rates for bad driving). Solutions are simple. We are simply mesmerized by the idea that everything has to be done by for-profit companies, and that for-profit companies are efficient. That is not always true. Non-profits can be much more efficient. For example, I live in rural Missouri and enjoy some of the lowest electrical rates in the US despite the fact that our population density is far lower than urban/suburban areas. Why?? Because our electricity is delivered by a nonprofit rural electric cooperative. Wake up people. It isn't hard, it isn't rocket science.
For healthcare, look at the excellent PBS program "Sick Around the World" which compares the systems of 5 capitalist countries with working healthcare systems:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

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

Divided We Fail
Posted by: kennickell on Jul 21, 2008 1:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AARP has launched Divided We Fail to raise the voices of millions of Americans who believe that health care and life-time financial security are the most pressing domestic issues facing our nation. Learn the issues, add your voice and find out how you can get involved at www.dividedwefail.org

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

Vat is regressive. Frank Sinatra paid a 90% income tax and it didn't
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Jul 21, 2008 4:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
leave him impoverished. In order to cut the bull and get on with it we must emasculate the lobbyists. To do that we must absolutely and completely publically finance all elections. If we can't, it "ain't uh gonna" happen.

"PUTTING A LOBBYIST OUT OF BUSINESS IS LIKE A HIRED MAN TRYING TO FIRE HIS BOSS." Will Rogers, Daily Telegrams 04-05-'35

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