体彩七码遗漏Healthcare 4 All http://bslldkh.cn Fri, 19 Jun 2020 15:27:54 +0000 en-US hourly 1 体彩七码遗漏Healthcare 4 All http://bslldkh.cn/economists-support-medicare-health-care-system/ Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:07:24 +0000 http://bslldkh.cn/?p=4293 乐发彩票登入,备用,官方网址an open letter to the congress and people of the united states may 21, 2019 as economists, we understand that a single-payer huoyuedicare for allhuo?health insurance system for the u.s. can finance good-quality care for all u.s. residents as a basic right while still significantly reducing overall health care spending relative to the current […]

The post Economists in Support of a Medicare for All Health Care System appeared first on Healthcare 4 All.

]]>

An Open Letter to the Congress and People of the United States

may 21, 2019

乐发彩票登入,备用,官方网址as economists, we understand that a single-payer huoyuedicare for allhuo?health insurance system for the u.s. can finance good-quality care for all u.s. residents as a basic right while still significantly reducing overall health care spending relative to the current exorbitant and wasteful system. health care is not a service that follows standard market rules. it should therefore be provided as a public good.

evidence from around the world demonstrates that publicly financed health care systems result in improved health outcomes, lower costs, and greater equity. as of 2017, the u.s. spent $3.3 trillion annually on health care. this equaled 17 percent of u.s. gdp, with average spending at about $10,000 per person. by contrast, germany, france, japan, canada, the u.k., australia, spain and italy spent between 9 huo?11 percent of gdp on health care, averaging $3,400 to $5,700 per person. yet average health outcomes in all of these countries are superior to those in the united states. in all of these countries, the public sector is predominant in financing heath care.

for these reasons the time is now to create a universal, single-payer, medicare for all health care system in the united states.

乐发彩票登入,备用,官方网址public financing for health is not a matter of raising new money for healthcare, but of reducing total healthcare outlays and distributing payments more equitably and efficiently. implementing a unified single-payer system would reduce administrative costs and eliminate individuals’ and employers’ insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs. if combined with public control of drug prices and a dramatically simplified global budgeting system, a sensible medicare financing system would reduce healthcare costs while guaranteeing access to comprehensive care and financial security to all.

as such, we support publicly and equitably financed health care through a medicare for all system at the federal level, as described in h.r. 1384 and s. 1129. we encourage congress to move forward with implementing a public financed medicare for all plan to achieve the equitable and affordable universal health care system that the american people need.

signed,

  1. Randy Albelda, Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Boston
  2. Carolyn B. Aldana, Professor Emeritus, California State University, San Bernardino
  3. Mona Ali, Associate Professor of Economics, SUNY New Paltz
  4. Larry Allen, Professor of Economics, Lamar University
  5. Jack Amariglio, Emeritus Professor of Economics, Merrimack College
  6. Eileen Appelbaum, Co-Director and Senior Economist, Center for Economic and Policy Research
  7. Peter Arno, Senior Fellow & Director Health Policy Research, Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
  8. Michael Ash, Professor of Economics & Public Policy, University of Massachusetts Amherst
  9. Glen Atkinson, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Nevada, Reno
  10. M V Lee Badgett, Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst
  11. Ron Baiman, Assistant Professor of Economics, Benedictine University
  12. Dean Baker, Senior Economist, Center for Economic and Policy Research
  13. Erdogan Bakir, Associate Professor of Economics, Bucknell University
  14. Radhika Balakrishnan, Professor, Rutgers University
  15. Nina Banks, Associate Professor of Economics, Bucknell University
  16. David Barkin, Distinguished Professor, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana
  17. Charles Barone, Professor Emeritus, Dickinson College
  18. Deepankar Basu, Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts Amherst
  19. Lourdes Beneria, Professor Emerita, Cornell University
  20. Peter H. Bent, Assistant Professor, American University of Paris
  21. Suzanne Bergeron, Professor, University of Michigan Dearborn
  22. Cyrus Bina, Distinguished Research Professor of Economics, University of Minnesota (Morris Campus), and Fellow, Economists for Peace and Security
  23. Josh Bivens, Research Director, Economic Policy Institute
  24. Robert A. Blecker, Professor of Economics, American University
  25. Peter Bohmer, Faculty in Economics and Political Economy, The Evergreen State College
  26. Howard Botwinick, Associate Professor of Economics, SUNY Cortland
  27. Roger Even Bove, Ph.D. in Economics, West Chester University (retired)
  28. James K. Boyce, Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts Amherst
  29. Robert Brenner, Director, Center for Social Theory and Comparative History, UCLA
  30. Michael Brün, Instructor, Heartland Community College
  31. Antonio Callari, Professor, Franklin and Marshall College
  32. Al Campbell, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Utah
  33. Martha Campbell, Associate Professor of Economics, Emeritus, SUNY Potsdam
  34. Jim Campen, Professor of Economics, Emeritus, University of Massachusetts Boston
  35. José Caraballo, Professor, University of Puerto Rico
  36. Scott Carter, Professor of Economics, The University of Tulsa
  37. James F Casey, Associate Professor of Economics, Washington and Lee University
  38. John Dennis Chasse, Professor Emeritus, SUNY College at Brockport
  39. Ying Chen, Assistant Professor of Economics, The New School
  40. Robert Chernomas, Professor of Economics, University of Manitoba
  41. Kimberly Christensen, Economics Professor, Sarah Lawrence College
  42. Douglas Cliggott, Lecturer, Economics, University of Massachusetts
  43. Nathaniel Cline, Associate Professor, University of Redlands
  44. Richard Cornwall, Professor Emeritus, Middlebury College
  45. James Crotty, Emeritus Professor, University of Massachusetts
  46. Dr. James Cypher, Professor of Economics, Universidad Autonoma de Zacatecas, Mexico, and Emeritus Professor, California State University
  47. Omar Dahi, Hampshire College
  48. Anita Dancs, Associate Professor of Economics, Western New England University
  49. Flavia Dantas, Associate Professor of Economics, SUNY Cortland
  50. Paul Davidson, Emeritus Professor Chair of Honor, University of Tennessee
  51. Charles Davis, Professor of Labor Studies, Indiana University
  52. Leila Davis, Assistant Professor , University of Massachusetts Boston
  53. Carmen Diana Deere, Distinguished Professor Emerita, University of Florida
  54. George DeMartino, Professor, JKSIS, University of Denver
  55. Firat Demir, Professor, University of Oklahoma
  56. James G. Devine, Professor of Economics, Loyola Marymount University
  57. Geert Dhondt, Associate Professor, John Jay College, CUNY
  58. Peter Dorman, Professor of Political Economy, Evergreen State College
  59. Richard Du Boff, Professor Emeritus, Bryn Mawr College
  60. Marie C. Duggan, Professor of Economics, Keene State College
  61. Amitava Krishna Dutt, Professor of Economics and Political Science, University of Notre Dame
  62. Nina Eichacker, Assistant Professor, University of Rhode Island
  63. David P Ellerman, Visiting Scholar, University of California at Riverside
  64. Gerald Epstein, Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst
  65. Thomas Ferguson, Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts Boston
  66. Ellen Fitzpatrick, Professor, Merrimack College
  67. Sean Flaherty, Professor of Economics, Franklin and Marshall College
  68. Nancy Folbre, Professor Emerita of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst
  69. Mariko Frame, Assistant Professor of Economics, Merrimack College
  70. Dania V. Francis, Assistant Professor, University of Massachusetts Amherst
  71. Anders Fremstad, Assistant Professor, Colorado State University
  72. Gerald Friedman, Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst
  73. James K. Galbraith, Professor, University of Texas at Austin
  74. Barbara Garson, Author, Money Makes the World Go Round
  75. Armagan Gezici, Associate Professor of Economics, Keene State College
  76. Helen Lachs Ginsburg, Professor Emerita of Economics, Brooklyn College/CUNY
  77. Mwangi Wa Githinji, Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
  78. Art Goldsmith, Professor of Economics, Washington and Lee University
  79. Neva Goodwin, Co-director, GDAE, Tufts University
  80. Ulla Grapard, Professor of Economics and Women’s Studies, Emerita, Colgate University
  81. Robert Guttmann, Augustus B Weller Professor of Economics, Hofstra University
  82. Robin E Hahnel, Professor Emeritus, American University
  83. John Battaile Hall, Professor of Economics, Portland State University
  84. Jay Hamilton, Assistant Professor, John Jay College
  85. Greg P. Hannsgen, Founder and Blogger, Greg Hannsgen’s Economics Blog, and Research Associate, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College
  86. John T. Harvey, Professor of Economics, Texas Christian University
  87. Baban Hasnat, Professor of International Business, SUNY Brockport
  88. Erin Hayde, Consultant, World Bank
  89. F. Gregory Hayden, Professor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
  90. Carol E. Heim, Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst
  91. John Forrest Henry, Senior Scholar, Levy Economics Institute, and Adjunct Professor, University of Missouri-Kansas City
  92. Conrad M. Herold, Associate Professor of Economics, Hofstra University
  93. P. Sai-wing Ho, Professor, University of Denver
  94. Joan Hoffman, Professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice CUNY
  95. Barbara Hopkins, Professor, Wright State University
  96. Candace Howes, Professor of Economics, Connecticut College
  97. Eric Hoyt, Ph.D. in Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst, and Research Director, Center for Employment Equity
  98. Julio Huato, Associate Professor of Economics, St. Francis College
  99. Joseph Michael Hunt, Instructor, Environmental and Health Policy, Harvard Uiversity
  100. Dorene Isenberg, Professor of Economics, University of Redlands
  101. Tae-Hee Jo, Associate Professor, SUNY Buffalo State
  102. Fadhel Kaboub, Associate Professor of Economics, Denison University, and President,Global Institute for Sustainable Prosperity
  103. Stephanie A Kelton, Professor of Economics and Public Policy, Stony Brook University, and Senior Economic Advisor, Bernie2020 Presidential Campaign
  104. Haider A Khan, John Evans Distinguished University Professor, University of Denver
  105. Mu-Jeong Kho, University College London, the University of London
  106. Marlene Kim, Professor, University of Massachusetts Boston
  107. Mary C. King, Professor of Economics Emerita, Portland State University
  108. Charalampos Konstantinidis, Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts Boston
  109. Kazim Konyar, Professor of Economics, California State University, San Bernardino
  110. Douglas Koritz, Professor of Economics, St Francis College
  111. Brent Kramer, Adjunct Assistant Professor, City University of New York
  112. Patrick L Mason, Professor of Economics, Florida State University, and Director, African American Studies Program
  113. David Laibman, Professor Emeritus, Economics, City University of New York, and Editor, Science & Society
  114. Thomas Lambert, Lecturer, University of Louisville
  115. Anthony Laramie, Professor of Economics, Merrimack College
  116. Margaret Levenstein, Research Professor, Institute for Social Research and School of Information, University of Michigan
  117. An Li, Assistant Professor, Sarah Lawrence College
  118. Victor D. Lippit, Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of California, Riverside
  119. James Luke, Professor of Economics, Lansing Community College
  120. Daniel MacDonald, Assistant Professor, California State University San Bernardino
  121. Arthur MacEwan, Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of Massachusetts Boston
  122. Allan MacNeill, Professor, Webster University
  123. Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi, Full Professor of Economics, Winston-Salem State University, and Former Chief Economist, City and County of San Francisco
  124. Yahya M. Madra, Associate Professor of Economics, Drew University
  125. Theresa Mannah-Blankson, Assistant Professor of Economics, Messiah College
  126. Thomas Masterson, Director of Applied Micromodeling, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College
  127. Gabriel Mathy, Assistant Professor, American University
  128. Peter H Matthews, Dana Professor of Economics, Middlebury College
  129. Scott McConnell, Associate Professor of Economics, Eastern Oregon University, and Owner/CEO, Side A Brewing
  130. Elaine McCrate, Economics Professor Emerita, University of Vermont
  131. Terrence McDonough, Professor Emeritus, National University Ireland Galway
  132. Martin Melkonian, Adjunct Associate Professor, Economics, Hofstra University
  133. Peter B. Meyer, Professor Emeritus of Urban Policy and Economics, University of Louisville
  134. Thomas Michl, Professor of Economics, Colgate University
  135. John Miller, Professor of Economics, Wheaton College
  136. Katherine A. Moos, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst
  137. Monique Morrissey, Economist, Economic Policy Institute
  138. Tracy Mott, Professor, University of Denver
  139. Michele Naples, Professor of Economics, The College of New Jersey
  140. Daniel H. Neilson, Faculty in Economics, Bard College at Simon’s Rock
  141. Edward J. Nell, Emeritus Professor, New School for Social Research
  142. Julie A. Nelson, Professor, University of Massachusetts Boston
  143. Reynold F. Nesiba, Professor of Economics, Augustana University
  144. John Casey Nicolarsen, Visiting Professor, Sarah Lawrence College
  145. Eric Nilsson, Professor, California State University San Bernardino
  146. Erik Olsen, Associate Professor, University of Missouri Kansas City
  147. Paulette Olson, Professor Emerita, Wright State University
  148. Lenore Palladino, Senior Economist, Roosevelt Institute
  149. Christian Parenti, Associate Professor Department of Economics, John Jay College CUNY
  150. Mark Paul, Assistant Professor of Economics, New College of Florida
  151. Eva Paus, Professor of Economics, Mount Holyoke College
  152. Karen A Pfeifer, Professor Emerita of Economics, Smith College
  153. Lynda Pickbourn, Assistant Professor of Economics, Hampshire College
  154. Bruce Pietrykowski, Professor of Economics, University of Michigan-Dearborn
  155. Chiara Piovani, Associate Professor, University of Denver
  156. Robert Pollin, Distinguished Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst, and Co-Director, Political Economy Research Institute (PERI)
  157. Devin T. Rafferty, Assistant Professor, Saint Peter’s University, and Founding Director, MS Finance Program
  158. Pratistha Joshi Rajkarnikar, Postdoc Scholar, Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University
  159. Michael Robinson, Professor of Economics, Mount Holyoke College
  160. John Roche, Associate Proferssor Emeritus, St John Fisher College
  161. Leonard Rodberg, Emeritus Professor of Urban Studies, Queens College/CUNY
  162. Leanne Roncolato, Assistant Professor of Economics, Franklin and Marshall College
  163. Frank Roosevelt, Emeritus Professor of Economics, Sarah Lawrence College
  164. Jaime Ros, Emeritus Professor, University of Notre Dame, and Professor of Economics, National Autonomous University of Mexico
  165. Nancy E Rose, Professor Emeritus, California State University San Bernardino
  166. Trevor R. Roycroft, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Ohio University
  167. David F. Ruccio, Professor of Economics, University of Notre Dame
  168. Jeffrey D. Sachs, Professor, Columbia University
  169. Gregory M Saltzman, Professor of Economics and Management, Albion College
  170. John Sarich, The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art
  171. John Schmitt, Vice President, Economic Policy Institute
  172. Jeremy Schwartz, Associate Professor, Loyola University Maryland
  173. Elliott Sclar, Emeritus Professor, Columbia University
  174. Stephanie Seguino, Professor of Economics, University of Vermont
  175. Mark Setterfield, Professor of Economics, New School for Social Research
  176. Anwar Shaikh, Professor, New School for Social Research
  177. Barry G. Shelley, Senior Lecturer, Pardee School of Global Studies, Boston University
  178. Zoe Sherman, Assistant Professor of Economics, Merrimack College
  179. Heidi Shierholz, Senior Economist and Director of Policy, Economic Policy Institute
  180. Hee-Young Shin, Assistant Professor, Wright State University
  181. Nicholas Shunda, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Redlands
  182. Kellin Stanfield, Assistant Professor of Economics, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
  183. Howard Stein, Professor, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
  184. Jose A. Tapia, Associate Professor, Drexel University
  185. Linwood Tauheed, Associate Professor, University of Missouri Kansas City
  186. Daniele Tavani, Associate Professor, Colorado State University
  187. Pavlina R. Tcherneva, Program Director and Associate Professor of Economics, Bard College, and Research Associate, Levy Economics Institute
  188. Chris Tilly, Professor of Urban Planning, UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
  189. E. Ahmet Tonak, Visiting Professor, Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst
  190. Mariano Torras, Professor, Adelphi University
  191. Andres Torres, Distinguished Lecturer, Lehman College (retired)
  192. Mayo Toruno, Professor Emeritus, California State University San Bernardino
  193. Eric Tymoigne, Associate Professor of Economics, Lewis & Clark College
  194. Vamsi Vakulabharanam, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst
  195. William Van Lear, Economics Professor, Belmont Abbey College
  196. Ramaa Vasudevan, Associate Professor, Colorado State University
  197. Tanadej Vechsuruck, Assistant Professor, University of Rhode Island
  198. William Waller, Professor of Economics, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
  199. John P. Watkins, Professor of Economics, Westminster College, and Adjunct Professor of Economics, University of Utah
  200. David F. Weiman, Professor of Economics, Barnard College, Columbia University
  201. Scott A. Weir, Ph.D. in Economics, Retired
  202. Jeannette Wicks-Lim, Associate Research Professor, Political Economy Research Institute
  203. Noé Wiener, Lecturer, University of Massachusetts Amherst
  204. Robert B. Williams, Professor of Economics, Guilford College
  205. John Willoughby, Professor, Department of Economics, American University
  206. Benjamin Wilson, Assistant Professor, SUNY Cortland
  207. Lucas Wilson, Professor, Mount Holyoke College
  208. Valerie Wilson, Director, Program on Race, Ethnicity & the Economy, Economic Policy Institute
  209. Andrew J Winnick, Professor Emeritus, California State University Los Angeles
  210. Jon D. Wisman, Professor of Economics, American University
  211. Richard D. Wolff, Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Massachusetts Amherst
  212. L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics and Senior Scholar, Bard College and Levy Economics Institute
  213. Brenda Wyss, Associate Professor, Wheaton College Massachusetts
  214. Yavuz Yasar, Associate Professor, University of Denver
  215. Tai Young-Taft, Assistant Professor of Economics, Bard College at Simon’s Rock, and Research Scholar, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College
  216. June Zaccone, Associate Professor of Economics, Emerita, Hofstra University
  217. Ajit Zacharias, Senior Scholar, Levy Economics Institute
  218. German A. Zarate-Hoyos, Associate Professor, SUNY Cortland
  219. Gabriel Zucman, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of California, Berkeley

The post Economists in Support of a Medicare for All Health Care System appeared first on Healthcare 4 All.

]]>
体彩七码遗漏Healthcare 4 All http://bslldkh.cn/improved-medicare-another-physicians-response-u-s-rep-john-joyce/ Thu, 25 Apr 2019 16:10:39 +0000 http://bslldkh.cn/?p=4240 by dwight michael md as a family physician working on the frontline of healthcare for 33+ years huo?and a lifelong republican huo?i take issue with rep. john joycehuochu attempts to make health care an issue of left versus right in his article on march 19.ting joyce, a dermatologist elected last fall to represent […]

The post Improved Medicare for All: Another physician’s response to U.S. Rep. John Joyce appeared first on Healthcare 4 All.

]]>

by dwight michael md

As a family physician working on the frontline of healthcare for 33+ years ?and a lifelong Republican ?I take issue with Rep. John Joyce’s attempts to make health care an issue of left versus right in his article on March 19.  Joyce, a dermatologist elected last fall to represent our newly drawn district, wrongly paints “Medicare for All?as the proposal of “extreme?Democrats.  A vast majority of Americans of every political stripe, including Republicans, identify health care as their top worry and their top priority for Congress to fix. Recent polling data of the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation shows that 56% favor proposals for Medicare for All.

In his March 19 op-ed, Rep. Joyce claims that he’s seen “first hand?how “Obamacare?(the Affordable Care Act) has caused premiums, deductibles and copays to skyrocket. The truth is, patients?out-of-pocket costs were well on their way to the stratosphere prior to the ACA. If Joyce needs someone to blame, he should look no further than the middlemen of healthcare that siphon billions of dollars from our healthcare system in the form of profits and high administrative costs.   

Every American who is frustrated with our healthcare status quo knows that we need change. But Joyce dismisses single-payer healthcare as “pie in the sky?even though many other industrialized nations have provided universal healthcare at a much lower cost per individual than our system.  A system that still does not cover 30+ million Americans.  Instead of dismissing these ideas out of hand, Joyce should consider economic impact studies such as a recent analysis from the University of Massachusett’s Political Economy Research Institute (PERI). This and other studies have concluded that “Improved Medicare for All?could provide affordable health care for all Americans, and that almost all Americans would pay significantly less for their care than they pay now.  

How? ”Improved Medicare for All?proposals being considered at both state and federal levels are single-payer models that eliminate the insurance middlemen and redirect those resources towards patient care. Without having to bill hundreds of different insurance payers and public programs, hospitals would save tremendous amounts of money on billing and collections. Improved Medicare for All would also increase efficiency by paying hospitals with global budgets (similar to the way police and fire departments are funded), rather than fee-for-service. 

Medicare for All opponents repeatedly attempt to scare voters with threats of massive tax increases. They fail to mention that, although Medicare for All will require new tax revenues, all insurance premiums, deductibles, and copays would be eliminated as costs to taxpayers. Consider that the average family of four pays 15% of their income in healthcare costs. For the large majority of people, the new taxes would cost the individual significantly less than the present cost of premiums, deductibles, and co-pays.   The bottom line, almost all would pay significantly less for their healthcare than they are presently paying.  

Conservative think tanks like the Mercatus Center say that single payer would cost around $32 trillion over the next decade. That’s a big number, but they fail to mention that this is $2 trillion LESS than what our current system will cost.  

Rep. Joyce’s comments about “smoke and mirror?proposals are exactly what Congressional Republicans have offered in their efforts to repeal the ACA.  A 2017 article in the Annals of Internal Medicine, published around the time of Paul Ryan’s proposal to replace the ACA, estimates that single-payer reform would save the nation over $500 billion annually in bureaucracy alone. Improved Medicare for All would also provide massive savings on prescription drugs.  This national health plan would finally negotiate as a nation with the pharmaceutical industry to bring down drug prices. Americans should be embarrassed that our pharmaceutical costs are 1.6 times the average cost of other nations ?not because we use more drugs, but because we pay exorbitant prices even for 100-year-old medicines like insulin. Less access?  Less innovation?  That is what the pharmaceutical industry wants us to believe as they pad their profits.  

While we disagree on many points, Joyce is correct that the doctor-patient relationship should be at the center of patient care. I believe Improved Medicare for All would not only do this by eliminating restrictive networks but would dramatically simplify and improve our present system.  As an independent family physician I have dealt with the administrative hassles of our present system.  Those hassles include multiple sets of rules developed by multiple insurance companies as to what and when they will pay for diagnostic and therapeutic services.  The system would be simplified by single payer.  There would be one set of guidelines based on the standard of care versus multiple guidelines formed by multiple insurance companies.  On average, $83,000 per physician is spent each year on the administrative hassles of pre-authorizations, billing, and appealing denial of claims. In our fractured system, doctors spend an average of nine hours each week on administrative work, sometimes dealing with dozens of different insurers, each with their own set of rules and forms. As a result, doctors today report unprecedented levels of exhaustion and burnout.  

As a family physician, I disagree with Rep. Joyce’s contention that patients should self-direct care to reduce cost.  I am not aware of any study that suggests that this alternative would reduce the cost of healthcare.  Specialist care is almost always more expensive than primary care.  There are many health problems that can be cared for equally well by the primary care provider who knows the patient best.   

We do need a serious, open-minded discussion about the cost of health care in America. Costs were spiraling out of control well before the ACA, and they will continue to skyrocket as long as we rely on a fractured, profit-based approach to pay for health care.  The free market of American healthcare has had decades to prove it can provide affordable care.  It has failed.   Many other industrialized nations in the world provide universal health care at far less cost than we do. The most successful nations have single-payer systems. Medicare has been very well received by our 65-and-older crowd. It is now time for Improved Medicare for All.  It will provide affordable, accessible healthcare for every American while providers are fairly compensated for their expertise.   

Dwight Michael, M.D. practiced with Gettysburg Family Practice for the last 33 years.  He continues to advocate for healthcare as a human right, serves on the board of Healthcare4AllPa, is a member of Physicians for a National Health Program and the Gettysburg DFA Healthcare Taskforce.  

The post Improved Medicare for All: Another physician’s response to U.S. Rep. John Joyce appeared first on Healthcare 4 All.

]]>
体彩七码遗漏Healthcare 4 All http://bslldkh.cn/key-state-single-payer-u-s-rep-jayapals-universal-healthcare-bill-hr-6097/ Wed, 16 Jan 2019 12:22:58 +0000 http://bslldkh.cn/?p=4196 one of the least covered developments in the new, democratic-majority, 116th congress — as related to our work — is the rapid power rise of second-term u.s. representative pramila jayapal (wa, 7th cd), the first indian-american woman ever elected to congress.ting right now, ms. jayapal is the most important politician for the medicare for all […]

The post The Key to State Single-Payer? U.S. Rep. Jayapal’s “Other” Universal Healthcare Bill, HR 6097  appeared first on Healthcare 4 All.

]]>

One of the least covered developments in the new, Democratic-majority, 116th Congress — as related to our work — is the rapid power rise of second-term U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal (WA, 7th CD), the first Indian-American woman ever elected to Congress.  Right now, Ms. Jayapal is the most important politician for the Medicare for All movement, at both the national and state levels.  Why?  Because Jayapal is not only 1. the co-chair of the new Medicare for All Caucus, and 2. co-chair of the established Progressive Caucus, but she will also soon be, 3. the primary sponsor of the newly re-written national Medicare for All Act (previously HR 676, soon-to-be re-numbered, perhaps renamed, and likely to be reintroduced in early February), and 4. the primary author of the newly reintroduced State-Based Universal Health Care (SBUHC) Act (HR 6097 from last Congress, likely to be dropped a month or so after the national Medicare bill) that provides the necessary legal and financial waivers for seamless and smooth, state-level implementations of universal health care systems, like Pennsylvania’s HB 1688.

While the national focus of Medicare for All activists centers almost exclusively on Congressional bill HR 676, there is a compelling argument that we adopt a balanced, complementary, two-track approach with Congress: continued strong, grassroots lobbying for national Medicare at the same time we advocate with equal vigor for state-level Medicare, through the state-enabling Universal Health Care legislation, HR 6097. Why? 1. History; 2. Constitution; 3. Citizens United; 4. Opportunity; 5. Solidarity.

History.乐发彩票登入,备用,官方网址  Almost all American modern social, political, economic, civil rights, and welfare reforms have taken shape, and first been adopted, at the local and state levels.  Starting with the Progressive Era (1880-1920), to the Depression Era/New Deal, and through the Great Society, federal-level programs benefit from local- and state-level innovation, demonstrating “laboratory” experimentation, as envisioned by our founders regarding housing, food, education, healthcare, and more.  Much as our national government has swung to the right, further right, and still further right since the election of Nixon in 1968, the most notable reforms in recent times, that of same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization, have taken root at the state level.  I think we can agree here that, while Obamacare was a national political feat, as a policy prescription, built on the Heritage Foundation’s insurance-purchase mandate, it has fallen woefully short of the “universal healthcare” promises heaped on it at the time of its passage in 2010.

Constitution.  Like Canada’s constitution, ours is a federalist design, where powers are divided between the national and state government, per the 10th Amendment’s deference to state initiative in matters not explicitly the preserve of the national government.  Canadian single payer healthcare adoption started in the Province of Saskatchewan before going national.  In the U.S., over the last forty years or so, national power — both public and non-profit — has become heavily corporatized through the unregulated and outsized role of Big Money, a kind of legalized plutocracy, through the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision.  The dramatic return to a late-19th century-, Gilded Age-style corporate highjacking of nearly all institutions, including medicine, has made our political work much more difficult at the national level, and increasingly challenging in most states.  The Supreme is now dominated by five Federalist Society-trained judges who are far more inclined to favor state power over national power where domestic policy is concerned.

Solidarity.乐发彩票登入,备用,官方网址  The fact that U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal now carries both the national single-payer bill (HR 676) and the state-enabling universal healthcare bill (HR 6097), speaks both to the complementarity of the legislation, and the two-track political approach that underscores the need for solidarity among and between activists working at each level. Jayapal is a community organizer, who centers her work on inside-outside strategies, broad-based coalition-building, intersectionality (connect the dots across all related issues), and opportunity.

Therefore, Opportunity is the final key to our success — based on 2018 election results — as California, New York, Wash State, Maine, and Minnesota, offer real chances of success, potentially very soon — but if, and only if, Jayapal’s ERISA-waivering and federal healthcare dollar-financing HR 6097 passes out of Congress and is signed by the next president.

Our work is cut out for us. We have five clear reasons why our movement needs to become the effective instrument for winning Medicare for All, in 1, 3, or 5 states in the next few years, based on a common understanding of History, Constitution, Citizens United, Solidarity, and Opportunity.

onward,

chuck pennacchio

uarts

hc4apa

one payer states

 

The post The Key to State Single-Payer? U.S. Rep. Jayapal’s “Other” Universal Healthcare Bill, HR 6097  appeared first on Healthcare 4 All.

]]>
体彩七码遗漏Healthcare 4 All http://bslldkh.cn/improved-medicare-peri-analysis-will-cost-less/ Thu, 03 Jan 2019 12:55:24 +0000 http://bslldkh.cn/?p=4182 by dwight michael md the 2018 elections are now complete. ting nine percent of americans still do not have health insurance and 30% more are under-insured, meaning that they cannot afford the health care that they need. there are precious few of us that do not know a friend or loved one who has suffered […]

The post IMPROVED MEDICARE FOR ALL: THE PERI ANALYSIS: IT WILL COST LESS appeared first on Healthcare 4 All.

]]>

乐发彩票登入,备用,官方网址by dwight michael md

The 2018 elections are now complete.   Nine percent of Americans still do not have health insurance and 30% more are under-insured, meaning that they cannot afford the health care that they need. There are precious few of us that do not know a friend or loved one who has suffered the consequences.

“A team of economists from the University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) has found that the Medicare for All Act of 2017, introduced to the United States Senate by Senator Bernie Sanders, is not only economically viable, but could actually reduce health consumption expenditures by about 9.6 percent while also providing decent health care coverage for all Americans.? 

Economist and public policy expert Jeffrey Sachs, University Professor at Columbia University, in reviewing the researchers?analysis, states “This study is the most comprehensive, detailed, authoritative study ever undertaken of Medicare for All, and it points powerfully and unassailably in support of MFA. ‘Medicare for All’ promises a system that is fairer, more efficient, and vastly less expensive than America’s bloated, monopolized, over-priced and under-performing private health insurance system. America spends far more on health care and gets far less for its money than any other high-income country. This study explains why, and shows how Medicare for All offers a proven and wholly workable way forward.?/span>

Lead author Robert Pollin, Distinguished Professor in economics at UMass Amherst and co-director of PERI, states in their press release of 11/30/18, “The most fundamental goals of Medicare for All are to significantly improve health care outcomes for everyone living in the United States while also establishing effective cost controls throughout the health care system. These two purposes are both achievable.? 

The PERI research team concludes that not only is Medicare for All economically viable, it could reduce health care costs by about 9.6% while it provides health care for all those uninsured and underinsured Americans.  In 2017, health care expenditures were $3.24 trillion. This was 17% of the gross domestic product (GDP). The average amount spent by other wealthy nations in our world is 40% less while many of these nations produce better health care outcomes for their people.  These economists predict a drop from $3.24 to $2.93 trillion annually while providing stable access to health care for all US residents.

We as taxpayers already pay for 60% of total US health care expenses through Medicare and Medicaid taxes.  This $1.8 trillion would be used instead to pay for Improved Medicare for All.

The cost remaining would be $1.05 trillion.  How is this gap closed?

The PERI research team proposed closing this cost gap for Senator Sanders?SB 1804 with four further revenue streams.  Please remember that our current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs are eliminated as a result of this bill.  Also note that the average cost of health care for a family of four in 2018 was $28,000.

First, businesses would pay an 8% premium of payroll.  For businesses already providing health insurance, this would cut their costs from the usual 16-20% of payroll.  This would provide $623 billion towards the gap.

Second, there would be a 3.75% sales tax added to non-essentials.  Excluded from this tax would be payments for foods and beverages consumed in the home, housing and utility costs, education expenses, and non-profit expenses.  This 3.75% sales tax would be credited back to Americans who have Medicaid. This would provide $196 billion.

Third, we would add a net worth tax of 0.38%.  The first million of net worth would be exempt. This tax involves the wealthiest 12% of American households.  It would provide $193 billion to close the gap.

Fourth, long term capital gains would be taxed as ordinary income.  This would contribute $69 billion.

PERI researchers project that middle income America would pay 2.6-14% less of their income towards health care costs as a result of this funding method.  The top 20% of income earners may see a 3.7% increase in costs while the top 5% may see a 4.5% increase in costs.

In the first 10 years, they predict that we would see a cumulative savings of $5.1 trillion, 2.1% of cumulative GDP.  

These experts also conclude that we would see broader macroeconomic benefits with increased productivity of our workforce, greater income equality, and net job creation due to reduced operating costs for small and medium-sized businesses.  

In short, most businesses and families would see lower costs.

URL address for abstract: http://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-analysis-of-medicare-for-all?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=78302158-2174-4df1-8f3f-8b98ca2b2837

The link above will provide additional links for the press release and reviewer comments.  

URL address for video presentation of the PERI Analysis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaTcUsPmhks&t=710s

Because the cost of health care is already expensive and unaffordable for many, this problem is not going to go away.  The opposition is very strong. There is tremendous power in the money of the private health insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and other health care parties that believe they will be injured by our country’s transition to?Improved Medicare for All?  These moneyed interests have again formed an alliance, now called “the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future? Their mission is to maintain the status quo that serves them so well. They have tested which phrases scare and convince key legislators and voters of their legislative districts.  This alliance wants these key legislators to defeat any advance towards “Improved Medicare for All?

Those of us who believe health care should be a human right need to speak out to our friends, families, and legislators. Remind them that nearly all (if not all) other industrialized nations in the world provide universal health care for their people.  We must pressure our state and national legislators with phone calls, letters, and emails. We need to inform them that we know that not only is “Improved Medicare for All?the most just solution, it is the best solution to provide affordable, accessible, high quality health care for all Americans.  Join the movement!

 

The post IMPROVED MEDICARE FOR ALL: THE PERI ANALYSIS: IT WILL COST LESS appeared first on Healthcare 4 All.

]]>
体彩七码遗漏Healthcare 4 All http://bslldkh.cn/medicare-advantage-programs-advantage-private-insurance-industry-disadvantage-america/ Tue, 18 Dec 2018 00:08:13 +0000 http://bslldkh.cn/?p=4173   the november 13th editorial page of the ldn contained an article from the pittsburg post-gazette which warned our elderly citizens to be cautious about choosing a medicare advantage plan instead of traditional medicare. tingthe article noted that the advantage plans, run by the private insurance industry, may be less expensive; however, they usually come […]

The post MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PROGRAMS (An advantage for the Private Insurance Industry but, a disadvantage for America) appeared first on Healthcare 4 All.

]]>

 

The November 13th editorial page of the LDN contained an article from the Pittsburg Post-Gazette which warned our elderly citizens to be cautious about choosing a Medicare Advantage plan instead of Traditional Medicare.  The article noted that the Advantage plans, run by the private insurance industry, may be less expensive; however, they usually come with restrictive networks unlike government run Traditional Medicare which gives seniors the freedom to choose whichever hospital or doctor they wish.   While the article attempted to present both options in an unbiased fashion, it entirely left out a major concern that not only impacts seniors but younger Americans as well.

Medicare Advantage plans cost the federal government (U.S. taxpayers) 12% more than Traditional Medicare.  That 12% pays multi-million- dollar CEO salaries, extravagant advertising campaigns, stockholder’s dividends and the salaries of an army of lobbyists.  Those well-paid lobbyists have convinced our legislators that the Advantage Plans deserve special advantages over Traditional Medicare even though Traditional Medicare runs far more efficiently at an overhead of 2%.  Those same legislators have allowed the Advantage plans to bilk the federal government out of hundreds of billions of dollars by falsely up-coding levels of acuity. Furthermore, the Advantage plans “cherry pick?the healthier seniors leaving Traditional Medicare to care for those elderly with complicated, expensive diseases.  

Since 2003, when the Medicare Advantage programs were first introduced, we have had over a decade to make the comparison.  Traditional Medicare runs more efficiently, more honestly, and includes more of our elderly than the Medicare Advantage programs and that should be a blue print for expanding to a Medicare-for-All system that completely eliminates the private health insurance industry.
By Dr Bill Davidson

The post MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PROGRAMS (An advantage for the Private Insurance Industry but, a disadvantage for America) appeared first on Healthcare 4 All.

]]>
体彩七码遗漏Healthcare 4 All http://bslldkh.cn/medicare-right-wing-worried/ Mon, 03 Sep 2018 11:24:33 +0000 http://bslldkh.cn/?p=4104 by dr. bill davidson the rightwing establishment is worried that medicare-for-all is gaining too much traction with ordinary americans. they see medicare-for-all as a tilt toward socialism which is a threat to their philosophy and their pocketbooks. predictably, the lebanon daily news has recently included articles in the opinion section aimed at bolstering the case […]

The post Medicare-for All has the Right Wing Worried appeared first on Healthcare 4 All.

]]>

by dr. bill davidson

the rightwing establishment is worried that medicare-for-all is gaining too much traction with ordinary americans. they see medicare-for-all as a tilt toward socialism which is a threat to their philosophy and their pocketbooks.

Predictably, the Lebanon Daily News has recently included articles in the opinion section aimed at bolstering the case for capitalism by suggesting that the poor should be grateful for the generosity of the 0.1% who now own as much wealth as the poorest 90%.  A second editorial gave readers a revisionist history lesson. The author explained that early American colonists survived only after they replaced communism with capitalism. As history tells us that the Jamestown colony did not survive, perhaps the author should have concluded that both communism and capitalism were failures.

Nationally, the right wing, Koch-funded Mercatus Center recently presented a study that attacked Bernie Sanders?Medicare-for-All legislation stating that it would cost the federal government an extra 32 trillion!  Buried in the text of the same study the author admits that when compared to the present system, Sanders?legislation would cover everyone and actually save America 2 trillion dollars over the next decade.

Sanders?legislation is not single payer in its purist form and therefore misses out on some of the savings that a single payer system can offer, nevertheless, the Mercatus assessment of Sanders?legislation vastly underrates the potential savings that a Medicare-for-All system would achieve.  

Before dismissing Sanders?proposal, Americans should understand the following:        

  • In 2017 Americans paid 3.5 trillion dollars for healthcare.  That calculates to $10,000 per person or 19% of GDP. At the present rate of healthcare inflation, the U.S. will spend over 40 trillion dollars on healthcare over the next decade.  Sixty per cent of that total is paid publicly, mostly through taxes while employers pay 20%. The remaining 20% comes directly out of pocket.
  • The rest of the industrialized world (Germany, Canada, Japan etc.) pays approximately half as much as the United States – $5,000 per capita, 11% GDP.  By most quality measures, these countries?healthcare outcomes are no worse than ours, while their life expectancy and infant mortality rates are greater and lower, respectively.
  • By covering everyone, these other countries provide a measure of security to their citizens unknown to one in five Americans who are either uninsured or underinsured.  Even those of us with private, employer-based health insurance know that our well-being is only as secure as our job.
  •   Sanders?legislation would expand traditional Medicare to include all Americans. Traditional Medicare is a highly successful single payer healthcare system that has served our elderly and disabled well for many years.  It runs with a 2% overhead, similar to administrative efficiencies of single payer systems in Taiwan and Canada. America’s private insurers have overheads around 12% while the privately administered Medicare Advantage programs have overheads 3X that of traditional Medicare.
  • Other countries save their citizens money by group negotiating for medicines and medical devices, much like our own VA (a single payer system) which purchases medicines for 40% less.  Providers such as hospitals and doctors experience less overhead in single payer systems which in America can account for $80,000/doctor/year compared to Canadian doctors who pay $20,000/doctor/year to relate to the health insurance system.

By eliminating the private health insurance industry and group negotiating with drug manufacturers for fair prices, a single payer system has the potential to save 500 billion/year.  That savings is more than enough to cover the uninsured while expanding and improving traditional Medicare coverage.

The Mercatus study was a rightwing scare tactic intended to frighten Americans just like the articles recently found in the editorial pages of the LDN.  The authors of these documents know that Medicare-for-All would be a highly successful program which redistributes wealth downward while providing all Americans with quality health care security.     

 

The post Medicare-for All has the Right Wing Worried appeared first on Healthcare 4 All.

]]>
http://bslldkh.cn/3738-2/ Thu, 24 Mar 2016 11:14:25 +0000 http://bslldkh.cn/?p=3738 insights from the free clinic

The post appeared first on Healthcare 4 All.

]]>

INSIGHTS FROM THE FREE CLINIC

The post appeared first on Healthcare 4 All.

]]>
体彩七码遗漏Healthcare 4 All http://bslldkh.cn/talking-points-the-pennsylvania-health-care-plan/ Sat, 05 Dec 2015 14:04:49 +0000 http://bslldkh.cn/?p=3689   tingelimination of co-pays, deductibles, out-of-pocket expenses and networks gives citizens the freedom and flexibility to choose their health care providers provides comprehensive coverage preserves the private practice of medicine health care providers would have autonomy over patient care: treatment decisions are made by the healthcare provider and the patient, not the insurance company. elimination […]

The post Talking Points: The Pennsylvania Health Care Plan appeared first on Healthcare 4 All.

]]>

 

  •  Elimination of co-pays, deductibles, out-of-pocket expenses and networks
  • Gives citizens the freedom and flexibility to choose their health care providers
  • Provides comprehensive coverage
  • Preserves the private practice of medicine
  • Health care providers would have autonomy over patient care: Treatment decisions are made by the healthcare provider and the patient, not the insurance company.
  • Elimination of premiums; replaced by a 3% tax on adjusted gross income
  • Businesses will pay a 10% tax on payroll, (most businesses pay far more for employee health benefits).
  • Businesses will benefit from Lower costs for Worker’s Comp, Vehicle Insurance and Liability Insurance due to removal of medical component.
  •  Removal of retiree healthcare costs from businesses, municipalities and school districts
  • Savings realized from replacing our less than efficient, confusing multipayer system with a streamlined single payer system will help support the plan.

 

The post Talking Points: The Pennsylvania Health Care Plan appeared first on Healthcare 4 All.

]]>
体彩七码遗漏Healthcare 4 All http://bslldkh.cn/co-health-coop-and-ky-medicaid-expansion-rollback/ Wed, 04 Nov 2015 18:01:59 +0000 http://bslldkh.cn/?p=3673 乐发彩票登入,备用,官方网址a discussion of how nonprofit coops are being undermined by the gop with steffie woolhandler and wendell potter.ting last night in kentucky with matt bevin’s election as governor, he promises to roll back it’s medicaid expansion which has already been implemented.ting john oliver discusses this below.

The post CO Health Coop and KY Medicaid Expansion Rollback appeared first on Healthcare 4 All.

]]>


乐发彩票登入,备用,官方网址 A discussion of how nonprofit coops are being undermined by the GOP with Steffie Woolhandler and Wendell Potter.  Last night in Kentucky with Matt Bevin’s election as Governor, he promises to roll back it’s Medicaid expansion which has already been implemented.  John Oliver discusses this below.

The post CO Health Coop and KY Medicaid Expansion Rollback appeared first on Healthcare 4 All.

]]>
体彩七码遗漏Healthcare 4 All http://bslldkh.cn/wiupfm/ Sat, 18 Jul 2015 17:25:54 +0000 http://bslldkh.cn/?p=3625 乐发彩票登入,备用,官方网址in early 2014 i participated in a radio discussion on the need for comprehensive single payer healthcare reform on wiup fm radio in indiana, pa.ting eric barker of the center for community growth-indiana, pa hosted the program.ting i was on a panel with fellow health care for all pa will ferrell (not the actor) and […]

The post WIUP-FM Podcast on Single Payer appeared first on Healthcare 4 All.

]]>

In early 2014 I participated in a radio discussion on the need for comprehensive single payer healthcare reform on WIUP FM radio in Indiana, PA.  Eric Barker of the Center for Community Growth-Indiana, PA hosted the program.  I was on a panel with fellow Health Care for All PA Will Ferrell (not the actor) and IUP (Indiana University of Pennsylvania, my Alma Mater) Grad Student Cybil Moore.  The discussion which is now available on podcast lasts for 33 min.  

The post WIUP-FM Podcast on Single Payer appeared first on Healthcare 4 All.

]]>