Re: Graduated National Health Plan Needed

"Bettina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bettina) wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Smith) wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > Gretchen Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > > On 20 Oct 2003 08:10:37 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan
> > > > > Smith) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bettina) wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > > >> > "Karl" said: <>
> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > If it was as cut and dried as you make it
out JS this issue wouldn't have the political life to linger as long as it
has.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> And THAT is what this all boils down to. Data and tables and
> > > > > >> statistics and links are not the only path to the truth
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Not the only - but it takes the emotion and the subjectivity out
of
> > > > > >it.  Do you really want decisions about your health care made
based on
> > > > > >good information or someones intuition?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> and they
> > > > > >> certainly do not inspire major political change. Like it or
not, human
> > > > > >> beings make choices based on not just their left brains but
their
> > > > > >> feelings and experiences,  which is why the issue of universal
> > > > > >> coverage is not going to go away. (js, since you're obsessed
with
> > > > > >> definitions and subsets, single payer is a subset of UC, okay?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Absolutely - SP is a subset of UC - Just like  a Staff Model HMO
> > > > > >(Kaiser)is a subset of managed care.  But we all know that a
staff
> > > > > >model HMO is UNIQUE (right Pixie?) - hence I claim the SP is also
> > > > > >UNIQUE.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >If you want to suggest that all SP are UC - fine, but you need to
also
> > > > > >understand that not all UC is SP.  In fact, few UC are SP and
neither
> > > > > >you nor pixie has gotten to the holy grail - an SP that actually
> > > > > >works.  Got a few great examples of UC that work - Kaiser,
> > > > > >Germany...but not a one in the SP category.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >You two want SP but are having so much trouble defining it, makes
one
> > > > > >think you'd never even come close to implementing it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >js
> > > > >
> > > > > I have absolutely no problems at all in 'defining' "SP", or "UC",
for
> > > > > that matter.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, you do Pixie.
> > > >
> > > > > The problem obviously arises from your inability to
> > > > > understand those definitions.. or accept them.
> > > >
> > > > When your definitions move in the wind, it's tough for me to keep
up.
> > > >
> > > > So, are UC and SP the same or differnt todfay?  What's the
difference?
> > > >
> > > > js
> > >
> > > I suspect you're trying to get Pixie to pin down an ironclad
> > > definition of  SP and UC so you can say "gotcha!"
> >
> > Not gotcha...she does that well enough herself.  Her insistance that
> > it MUST be SP to work and the inability of any one of you to provide a
> > working example that it does suggests that a definition is in order.
> >
> > > about some fine
> > > point in her definition. There is no ironclad definition of the
> > > details, there is just the principle that health care should be
> > > publicly financed
> >
> > Now you throw in a new term "public funding"  What is that?  Is this a
> > euphemism for progressive income tax based funding?  If you agree that
> > employer/employee funding meets the condition of public, that is
> > different.
> >
> > > (and privately delivered),
> >
> > This is contrary to what was offered up in the JAMA publication.  Do
> > you suggest that public hospitals and clinics (county owned,
> > university owned, etc) be disbanded or privatized?
> >
> > > and implementation will
> > > be slowly developed and tweaked and tweaked again.
> >
> > Sorry - you don't do SP half-assed.  Either do it or don't, but don't
> > do it piecemeal and incrementally.
> >
> > Unless of course you want to make it voluntary and allow folks to
> > opt-in?
> >
> > When the term SINGLE PAYER is used, it is in reference to the
> > FINANCING of care - not the delivery.  SINGLE PAYER, by definition, is
> > exactly what it says - ONE entity totally responsible for the funding
> > of health care services.
> >
> > Tax-based government sponsored single payer is what I think Pixie
> > describes as her model of perfection.  The assumptions is that the
> > resources to pay come from taxes, the central overnment takes on the
> > responsibility for program administration, and there are NO competing
> > mechanisms for financing or payment.
> >
> > I find that to be inherently inefficient and unfair.  No one does it
> > this way except maybe the UK and that is a dead horse - no additional
> > beating necessary.
> >
> > A mandatory participation scheme based on employer contributions with
> > freedom of choice in what benefits and what program administrator
> > individual can elect would ensure the greatest efficiency and
> > accomplish what you want - 100% covered (no uninsured) without
> > compromising freedom.  One size does NOT fit all in health care.
> >
> > js
>
> You KNOW I didn't mean dismantling public hospitals: pretending to
> misinterpret words casually used in this informal forum is one of your
> rhetorical devices -- when I explain what I meant you will accuse me
> of expecting you to be a mind reader. OK, here's what I meant: saying
> privately delivered is simply to dispel the common assumption that SP
> would mean government hires all docs, owns all hospitals, etc.
> Don't do SP incrementally? That's exactly what's happenin now: if you
> count government employees more than half the population is covered by
> government-sponsored programs, and that proportion is growing.
> And mandatory employer "contributions" will never pass COngress (SP
> won't either in this COngress) because the business lobby would never
> accept it.
> I have an idea you'll love -- how about mandatory discounts by
> insurance companies on an income-based sliding scale?
> Bettina

JS would never go for that.  He feels too oppressed as it is now.