“The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $7,129 per capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison and still leaves 45.7 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered.” [Physicians for a National Health Program]

[Note: Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. PNHP has more than 16,000 members and chapters across the United States. They have been advocating for healthcare reform since 1987.]

This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.

Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($7,129 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 45.7 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.

The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.

These “for-profit” payers are, of course, health insurance companies. I should, I suppose, point out that, as a former trial lawyer, I have learned not to trust any insurance company. My experience with them is that they are in the business of taking in premium payments from their insureds and exert every effort not to pay claims of their insureds. They are in the business, not for your health, but their financial health. Re-read that paragraph just above. If the doctors are right about that 31%  being spent spent on corporate overhead, then it is obvious that continuing to maintain the current health care system in the United States does not make sense.

Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.

Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.

Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO / group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning boards.

A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste. Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.

Those of you that want to dig further into the detail of the Physicians’ statements should go on to here and read what is there.

A few days ago I posted Republicans Fight Healthcare Reform. If you missed that post I recommend you go back and read it. The Republican Party does not want healthcare reform at all. They are virtually in the pocket of  the big insurance companies.

Read the “talking points” devised by Dr. Frank Luntz for Republicans to use to relieve the public pressure for healthcare reform. Remember what Hillary Clinton said during the presidential campaign about whether there was enough political will now to get healthcare reform passed. That political will refers to the American public—that’s you and me—if we start wavering there will be no healthcare reform. So, keep that in mind.

You might also compare the single-payer plan the Physicians are advocating for with the healthcare reform plan President Obama seeks. See also the President’s Healthreform site for details.

A tip of the hat to Carolene Endersby and Sophie Franke for the video and these words from Carolene:

John Lennon died for our right to be activist and he wasn’t even born an American. He believed in America though, and died for America. Contrary to what some believe he should be considered a true American hero.

I certainly support activism of all kinds. I do think radical activism needs to be carefully thought out because the backlash could result in those activist being marginalized and therefore, in-effective in their efforts.

To me activism within the mainstream should be the first, second, and third step. if all else fails then radical activism could be warranted, if well thought out, and has a concrete impact.

My thoughts for your personal review.

“GIVE PEACE A CHANCE” John Lennon

Carolene

Liberty University no longer recognizes a student Democratic Party club because its parent organization stands against the conservative Christian school’s moral principles. [Boston Globe]

The 30 member Democratic club will no longer be able to use Liberty’s name, hold on-campus meetings, or be eligible for student activities money.

Liberty has had a College Republicans club for years. The Democratic club formed in October and worked aggressively to elect President Obama.

Brian Diaz, president of Liberty’s Democratic club said:

“They . . . let the Liberty University College Republicans stay on campus, but they don’t let us, sounds like censorship to me.”

Well yes it is. Universities and colleges are thought to be educational centers that are tolerant, even supportive, of diverse views and opinions. They should be institutions that promote and encourage young students to explore different thoughts, views, and political ideas; learn to evaluate values and decide for themselves what course they wish to follow. Liberty is revealing itself as a narrow minded institution intent on stifling freedom of thought, rather than expanding it. Liberty’s action is a regressive one.

The Constitution of the United States espouses free speech and assembly. Liberty doesn’t seem to hold that concept in very high regard.

One person commented, “Shouldn’t this university be called “Anti-Liberty University?”

Liberty University was founded by the Reverend Jerry Falwell. Today the University should be ashamed of itself.

Yesterday I discovered something I think is very good for Pahrump, Nevada. It is the Great Basin College facility nestled on the Pahrump Valley High School grounds.

The reason I went to the GBC building was to submit my offer to teach a course in using the Internet in researching Genealogy. I have proposed teaching the class on each Saturday of August this year.

For the first time in the six years I have lived in Pahrump I explored their building. It is really something! Spacious, with modern class rooms and filled with modern computers throughout. [Read more →]