GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.gp.org
For Immediate Release:
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Contacts:
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, cell 202-904-7614, mclarty@greens.org
Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene@gp.org
Mandates and other market-based plans will not solve the health care crisis; Single-Payer (Medicare For All) makes health care a right for all Americans
Obama’s plan for national computerization of medical records can only guarantee patients’ privacy and security under Single-Payer
Green Party Speakers Bureau list of party activists available to speak on health care: http://gp.org/speakers/speakers-health-care.php
WASHINGTON, DC — President Obama has a choice — he can either work for universal health care or he can satisfy the demands of insurance industry lobbies for continued private profit, said Green Party leaders today.
Greens, in demanding a Single-Payer national health care program (also called Medicare For All), said that there was no possibility of guaranteed quality health care for every American under a market-based system. Rep. John Conyers’ (D-Mich.) bill for Single-Payer (HR 676, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h676_ih.xml) has strong Green Party support, although many Greens also hope to see complementary medicine brought under the Single-Payer umbrella.
“President Obama needs to follow his own campaign rhetoric and listen to the American people. In many of his own town hall meetings, the demand for Single-Payer has been so strong that [Secretary of Health and Human Services] Tom Daschle has asked to meet with Single-Payer groups. Single-Payer will make health care a human right — one more important than the ‘right’ of insurance companies to make a profit off our need for health care,” said said Mark Dunlea, New York Green, member of the Hunger Action Network of New York State, and author of “Can Incrementalism Be the Path to Universal Health Care?” (http://www.hungeractionnys.org/increment.html)
Green Party leaders expressed special support for pro-Single-Payer organizations and coalitions that have shifted into high gear under the new presidential administration, including the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care, Healthcare-NOW, California Nurses Association, and Physicians for a National Health Program.
“President Obama’s plan to have all medical records computerized within five years has made Single-Payer even more urgent. The plan will create an enormous risk for patients’ privacy and security, as private health insurers try to weaken privacy safeguards and gain access to records in an effort to exclude people from coverage, or make coverage more expensive for clients they consider high-risk. HMOs and insurance firms make their profits by cherry-picking patients who are less costly to insure and by limiting treatment for those with coverage, so they use medical records to determine who will be a financial risk. The only way to guarantee both protection from predatory corporations and access to health care for all Americans is to enact a Single-Payer program,” said Jill Bussiere, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States.
Greens have argued that enactment of a Single-Payer program would boost the ailing US economy and provide relief for businesses large and small, since it would cancel the high expense and administrative burden of employer-based health care benefits (http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=158). Single-Payer would lower the cost of health care for all middle- and low-income Americans, since the amount of taxes necessary to sustain Single-Payer would be far less than the cost of private coverage and medical fees. No American will go bankrupt because of a medical emergency in a Single-Payer system.
President Obama, despite supporting Single-Payer earlier in his political career, now favors a health care plan that would maintain private insurance industry control over Americans’ health care. Profit-making insurance, HMO, and pharmaceutical lobbies have a grip on most Democratic and Republican members of Congress because of campaign contributions and the influence of lobbyists.
Montana Senator Max Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, wants the Single-Payer option “off the table” in the discussion on health care reform and, along with other Democrats, has proposed a market-based plan that would achieve universal coverage by requiring Americans who lack health coverage to purchase insurance from a private company.
“There will be no meaningful improvement in our nation’s health care system or any chance of universal care until Single-Payer is enacted and profit-making insurance companies no longer decree who gets care and what kind of care,” said Jody Grage, treasurer of the Green Party of the United States. “Any ‘mandate’ reform plan that leaves private insurers in charge will either result in inadequate care or in huge taxpayer-funded subsidies to cover the loss of profits for HMOs and insurance companies compelled to cover people these companies would otherwise exclude. Single-Payer will cover all Americans regardless of age, income, or prior medical condition, and by eliminating the need for private insurers and the high profit rate they demand.”
“Even state based Single-Payer initiatives are being undermined by the president’s insurance-based proposal. Here in Pennsylvania we have a strong bill, with the funding included and a governor who has agreed to sign the legislation if passed (http://www.healthcare4allpa.org). Yet the Healthcare for All Now campaign, which supports the Obama plan, is trying to give the illusion of change, while maintaining the inefficient, exploitative insurance model. It amounts to a waste of tax dollars to provide more government money to insurance companies,” said Carl Romanelli, 2006 Pennsyvlania Green candidate for the US Senate.
Read “An International Perspective on Health Care Reform” by Connecticut Green Party member John R. Battista, MD (http://www.gp.org/first100/?p=119), published on the Green Party’s web site as part of “The First 100 Days: What Would a Green Administration Look Like?” (http://www.gp.org/first100)
For a comparison of mandate plans and Single-Payer , see “Talking Points: Why the mandate plans won’t work, and why Single-Payer ‘Medicare for All’ is what we need” by Len Rodberg, PhD, published by Physicians for a National Health Program (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/december/talking_points_why_.php).
Green Party information page on Single-Payer: http://www.gp.org/organize/sicko.html
Video clips:
2008 Green presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney speaks on Single-Player health care and racial health care disparities http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEHd4lRVUuU
More on health care: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEHd4lRVUuU
Health, the environment, and the economy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVNTOa8owQQ
MORE INFORMATION
Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org
202-319-7191, 866-41GREEN
Fax 202-319-7193
Tally of Green election victories http://www.gp.org/2008-elections/election-results.html
Green candidate news http://www.gp.org/2008-elections/candidate-news.php
Green candidate database for 2008 and other campaign information: http://www.gp.org/elections.shtml
Green Party News Center http://www.gp.org/newscenter.shtml
Green Party Speakers Bureau http://www.gp.org/speakers
Green Party ballot access page http://www.gp.org/2008-elections
“The First 100 Days: What Would a Green Administration Look Like?” http://www.gp.org/first100/
Posted to IPR by Paulie
14 responses so far ↓
1 Michael H. Wilson // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:14 pm
A number of things can be done to reduce the costs of healthcare. Some folks don’t like the insurance industry and think that getting it out of the health insurance business would lower costs. We might even save more if doctors stopped being sole proprietors and joined hospiatls or groups. Some researchers suggest that the savings from that move alone would be about 30%. Is that reasonable?
Then we could allow midwives to deliver more infants. In Europe they deliver about 75% of infants while in the U.S. less than 10%. And in Europe the survival rates are higher and costs lower with midwives. Is it fare to deprive mothers of this choice?
Doctors and hospitals should post their rates so that people can price comparison shop.
Nurse might be allowed to do more, but that would require lifting regualtions.
Repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act and permit insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines would allow more price comparison.
Repeal certificate of need in the states where we still have them would increase compatition and lower costs.
2 Sivarticus // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Socialized medicine is not the answer, but there’s certainly areas where alternative forces from right and left can work together here. One where we should work diligently is to lift restrictions and regulations against natural medicine. If people were given the choice to treat themselves with natural medicine or seek help from more knowledgeable people without inflated costs and state regulations, that would reduce reliance on expensive prescription drugs and overworked clinics/hospitals right there.
The government enforcement of the prescription drug cartel is ruining this country’s health. They’re representing both corporate lobbyists and power freak bureaucrats and are trying to micro-manage our food, medicine, and water. This is something Greens, Libertarians, and others should be able to agree on.
3 Libertarian Joseph // Jan 30, 2009 at 10:19 am
The answer. No healthcare system. Somalia’s healthcare market is better than any other African nation btw
4 Bill Lussenheide // Jan 30, 2009 at 1:05 pm
If the supply of doctors was increased, then this would greatly lower costs.
Just like there are “paralegals” there should be “paradoctors”, who could perform minor procedures and easy tasks with just a nominal amount of training, say 2 years or so. The increased supply of professionals would lower rates.
Tort reform against Doctors should also be done. A large cost in health care are the insurance premiums that Doctors and Hospitals have to pay to protect themselves from lawsuits.
The expansion of Health Savings Accounts would also be an answer. You have to have an economy in any health care system that discourages abuse of that system. With HSA’s you have a tax deferred account that is credited with your contribution. As you use it, it is drawn down. Some form of “national catastrophic insurance” could supplement it, at lets say, a $10,000 deductible. The first $10,000 would be liable from your HSA.
Your HSA would be refunded back to you at some point if your dont use it, or rolled into your IRA etc. This would be an incentive to not run to the doctor with a sniffle, and would reward those people who take care of their health or avoid injury. A true market based answer.
5 Deran // Jan 30, 2009 at 3:47 pm
The US is the last of the developed nations that does not have socialized medicine. This had lead us to be THE most unhealthy of the developed nations. The best way to consider corporate v socialized medicine is to look at how much health care we get per dollar.
There could be a mixed system like they have in Canada. But a great deal of basic health care should not be run like WalMart. For profit medical care is inferior, as far as the quality and quantity of medical care.
6 paulie cannoli // Jan 30, 2009 at 3:56 pm
This had lead us to be THE most unhealthy of the developed nations.
I don’t think that is why.
7 paulie cannoli // Jan 30, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Sivarticus and Bill Lussenheide,
Good points – I generally agree.
8 paulie cannoli // Jan 30, 2009 at 6:31 pm
And Michael H. Wilson, good points as well.
9 Steve Trinward // Jan 30, 2009 at 7:42 pm
been harping on this for months, if not years, myself …
deregulating services across state lines; moving away from “employee benefits” model (to break the stranglehold of a HUGE client-base for the statist quo) and toward personal control of one’s “coverage”; freezing provider-payback for Medicare and other scams; opening alternative healing methods to the general realm of “coverable” treatments; lifting the roof off medical savings accounts; shifting focus to prevention and wellness instead of palliative aftercare; cracking down on the fraudulent practices (and false advertising) of Big Pharma (along with their collusion partner, the FDA); moving away from the “take this pill/ask your doctor” mindset … to better diets, exercise and common sense in personal habits (and then offering HUGE discounts to anyone who makes these changes, and keeping the high rates on those who do not!)
All but the final one involve deregulation, but with an eye to a stronger enforcement of fraud and deceptive practices across the entire “healthcare” industry … And that one is more about persuasion and incentives than anything else.
Until we shift that whole mindset, we have little hope of fixing this mess; the issue of whether or not “force” is involved is secondary to that change of perspective …
10 Steve Trinward // Jan 30, 2009 at 7:46 pm
oh and Bill L … there already ARE “paradoctors” … they’re called “nurse practitioners” … and in most cases they are already performing such functions, within health clinics all over the country! If they were given slightly wider latitude in their practices, they would also be more a part of the solution.
(I also agree that tort reform is part of this, altho I would say it is more a matter of penalizing SEVERELY all failed malpractice suits, so the frivolous ones get weeded out faster.)
11 Steve Trinward // Jan 30, 2009 at 7:52 pm
oops … rereading the entire above I see a common error: many libertarians seem to think the choice is between government-run (and -controlled) and “free market” systems. The real problem is in how this whole health arena became corporatized! That paradigm (which is where the realm started being more about “profits” than about healing) has little/nothing to do with “free markets”; it is driven by a collusive relationship between/among government-protected sectors … and government itself. Breaking the link there is the key to turning this around (as with so many other aspects of the mess we live under)
12 paulie cannoli // Jan 30, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Steve,
Exactly.
13 Prospective Advertiser // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Further socializing and single-payer medicine are not going to be better medicine.
Corporations are creatures of the state, and big insurance companies evidently favored creatures of the state. The system as it is presently apparently benefits some big companies, big “health maintenance organizations,” big insurance companies, big hospitals in some cases, and big government agencies.
It isn’t at all clear that adding more government to the mix is going to make health care better. What is wanted is less government, fewer regulations, more competition, less control by the government over the choices and individual can make with his own body, much fewer laws dictating who can provide what services to whom.
The USA has the most stringent rules on access to drugs, which has led to the USA having very poor health compared to other industrialized countries. The USA has the most cartel-dominated pharmaceutical industry and the most cartel-dominated medical industry, and these have also caused very poor health results.
I’m glad that Steve Trinward sees a need to put “free markets” in quotes when he attacks them as not solving the problem of government-corporation collusion. However, the kind of a market that would exist if the collusion between big government and big corporations were removed would be a more free market.
Perhaps open, transparent, and free markets would come closer to what is needed. Certainly, just reducing this or that regulation is only going to benefit the corporations with the big lobbying budgets which would likely choose which regulations are eliminated (and which are increased).
14 Michael H. Wilson // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Bill writes: “Tort reform against Doctors should also be done. A large cost in health care are the insurance premiums that Doctors and Hospitals have to pay to protect themselves from lawsuits.”
Bill I have a study by the GAO around here on that issue and if I can find it I’ll drag it out this weekend, but I don’t think the problem is nearly as large as the Docs make it out to be.
The big problem is the deaths and injuries from malpractice, misuse of drugs and hospital born infections.
There’s another study that shows when the Docs went on strike in L.A. in 1978 (?) the death rate declined. What if the farmers went on strike and hunger ended?
MW
MHW
Leave a Comment