Repulicans use Healthcare to score s coup!

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS!
The Republican party has an opportunity seize this moment and establish themselves as the leading party. As the discussions on healthcare reform continue it has become apparent that the public wants healthcare reform that will cover almost everyone and they want it at the lowest cost possible.

Republicans have come up with several good ideas, selling insurance across state lines, giving individuals the same tax breaks as those who get insurance thru their employers, tort reform to lessen Doctors insurance costs etc. These idea will help but are not sufficient for almost universal coverage at the lowest cost possible.

How to save BIG MONEY on healthcare REFORM!

Despite all the smoke and mirrors the best opinion shows that the public option saves money not costs money. The Urban Institute estimated that a gov’t insurance plan would save $224 to $400 billion over a period of 10 years. The private insurance co’s simply will not offer the low cost full coverage insurance plans that would reduce the subsidy for the uninsured and underinsured. The gov’t plan would. The Massachusetts experience using Heritage Foundation ideas with exchanges has covered over 97% of the people but at high cost. Yearly insurance plans run from $800 to $1,000 per month. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed the money saving of public option plans by estimating that the cost of one of the proposed House plans would be reduced from $1.1 billion to only $800 billion, a saving of $300billion over a 10 yr period with a gov’t plan. The polls show 60% of the public want a gov’t option.

There is another important step we can take to reduce cost by an estimated $40 billion annually or $400 billion over a 10 year period.

According to Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler Physicians for a National Health Plan the public option misses at least 84 percent of the administrative savings available through a single payer, gov’t, healthcare plan. The public plan option would not do anything to streamline the administrative tasks and costs of hospitals, physicians offices, and nursing homes. They would still contend with multiple payers, and hence still need the complex cost tracking and billing apparatus that drives administrative costs. These unnecessary provider administrative costs account for the vast majority of bureaucratic waste. The Physician group research in California showed that now 31% of every health care $ was paid for administrative costs. This compared to 3% of medicare administrative costs. Hence, even if 95 percent of Americans who are currently privately insured were to join a public plan (and it had overhead costs at current Medicare levels), the savings on insurance overhead would amount to only 16 percent of the roughly $40 billion annually achievable through single payer. The PNHP single payer information is available at Tel 312-782-6006, info@pnhp.org.

I suggest that you introduce a single payer healthcare reform bill with a gov’t plan. Many liberal democrats will go along with you and you may take control of the healthcare reform debate and give the public what it wants.

HOW to SAVE MONEY on HEALTHCARE REFORM

GET THE FACS BEHIND THE NEWS! The Urban Institute estimated that a gov’t insurance plan would save $224 to $400 billion over a period of 10 years. The private insurance co’s simply will not offer the low cost full coverage insurance plans that would reduce the subsidy for the uninsured and underinsured. The gov’t plan would. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed this by estimating that the cost of one of the proposed House plans would be reduced from $1.1 billion to only $800 billion, a saving of $300 billion over a 10 yr period with a gov’t plan.

There is another IMPORTANT step we can take to reduce cost by an estimated $40 billion annually or $400 billion over a 10 year period.

According to Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler Physicians for a National Health Plan the public option misses at least 84 percent of the administrative savings available through a single payer, gov’t, healthcare plan.

The public plan option would not do anything to streamline the administrative tasks (and costs) of hospitals, physicians offices, and nursing homes. They would still contend with multiple payers, and hence still need the complex cost tracking and billing apparatus that drives administrative costs. These unnecessary provider administrative costs account for the vast majority of bureaucratic waste. The Physician group research in California showed that now 31% of every health care $ was paid for administrative costs. This compared to 3% of medicare administrative costs. Hence, even if 95 percent of Americans who are currently privately insured were to join a public plan (and it had overhead costs at current Medicare levels), the savings on insurance overhead would amount to only 16 percent of the roughly $40 billion annually achievable through single payer.

If you are genuinely interested in healthcare reform at the lowest cost please check into single payer facts. The PNHP information is available
Tel 312-782-6006 info@pnhp.org

Is the US losing its COMPETITIVE EDGE?

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS A recent study by the Information Technology and Innovatioon Foundation, a nonpartisan reserch group,showed that the US economy's competitive position has rapidly declined the last 10 years

The report covered 40 countries and used 16 indcators to judge innovation and competitiveness. The report adjusted for the size of the economy and population of coutries The report ranked the US 6th for innovation and competitiveness. The report considered such areas as scientific researchers and spending on research, venture capital investment, and educational achievment. The report placed the American Economy last in advancement for the last 10 years

This report paralles the finding Of Prof. Michael Porter of Harvard a noted expert in competitiveness and very active in the OECD. The OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international non-gov’t and non-profit group dedicated to furthering growth and competitiveness completed Nov 08, 2009 a study of 144 nations for eleven categories from Institutions to Business Sophistication

Thirdly the National Academies considered the nation's leadiing science advisory group by many has also found that the US lead in science and technology was declining while other nations were advancing. China, Finland, Singapore, and Taiwan have policies that are designed to spur innovation thru an inerdisciplanary approach that includes abroad spectrum of different fields.

President Obama has said that future prosperity will depend on the United States becoming an “innovation economy.” The economic recovery package includes spending for areas favored by innovation policy advocates. Areas such as higher research and development spending. and funds for high-technology fields like electronic health records. However the US does not have a coordinated innovation program.

Many see these studies as a awake up call.

More results, the United States ranked sixth in venture capital investment (Sweden was first); fifth in corporate research and development spending (Japan led); and fourth in science and technology researchers (again, Sweden was first). Singapore ws the most innovative and competitive. Singapore started a national innovation strategy years ago. Singapore investing heavily and recruited leading scientists and technologists from around the world.

The study specifically recommendeds federal incentives for American companies to innovate at home, these range from research tax incentives to work force development tax credits. Public investments and regulatory incentives can accelerate the use of information technology in health care, energy systems, transportation, government and education.

Sen Baucus from the State of Insurance

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS The Baucus health plan now before the Senate appears to be a big help for the insurance industry,(how about the public?) by requiring almost everyone to buy insurance, and to buy it without any competition. In addition the Baucus plan has the gov’t(you and me) paying a subsidy(money) to help people pay for their insurance. Pretty nifty if you are in the insurance business.

The Baucus plan does not have a Public Option to compete with the private insurance co’s and provide low cost insurance to people of limited means. Sen Baucus said that he could not get 60 votes in the Senate with a public option. Of course you can’t get 60 votes if you don’t even try, or maybe don’t want to try. The polls show about 66% of the public want a gov’t option. Coop and exchanges with private insurance co’s do not answer the need for competition and low cost insurance. The Massachusetts connector prices for an average family is $800 to $1,000 per month.

Bill Moyers on his tv program Oct 9th pointed out that Liz Fowler one of Sen Baucus main advisors worked for the Wellpoint Co. She is now a lobbyist for the healthcare industry. Bill also mentioned that the healthcare industry has given $1.5 million to Sen Baucus. In addition Bill said they have given many millions to other influential people.

Sen Burris of IL is right when he says that he will not vote for a healthcare bill without a public option. One hopes 59 other Senators vote the same way.