From: CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Health Care Reform
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:46:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"

David Clem says:

>I'm concerned about the variety of approaches that will be considered.

Really?  I've been waiting anxiously to find out what those are...as someone
who will be participating in the discussion, I have been unable all morning
to get any answers as to what the focus of the Task Force will be.
If you've heard anything, I'd appreciate it if you'd post it.

>Given what I see as the Clintons' "more government is better" mindset,
>I doubt that individualized/private market solutions will get much
>attention.

Also - I'm not sure what you mean by his "mindset"...can you give examples?

>IMO, one of the major reasons health care costs so much
>is that hardly anyone is spending his/her own money: thus there are
>few incentives to economize.

With all due respect to your opinion, it's wrong.

Health care costs are skyrocketing because of some simple facts:

        1. The unbelievable waste and inefficiency of private insurance
           coverage.

        2. The incredible profit margin of private insurance companies.

        3. The outrageous cost of medical malpractice...not only
           insurance premiums, but the plethora of unnecessary tests
           and procedures to CYA in case of litigation.

Our system is falling apart - but it's not from _over_ use.  It's from:

A. Misuse (scarce family practice so ERs are filled with colds and flus).

B. Abuse (MDs ca't get insurance companies to pay full price so new
   "costs and procedures" appear on the bill".

C. Underuse (300,000 empty hospital beds in the US every day...more
   MRI machines in the city of Houston, TX than in Canada...premiums
   paid but basic preventative care inaccessible (problems easily
   treated when they develop turn into catastrophic illness because
   the insurance company bets that preventative care _may_ cost more
   in the long run...i.e. gambling with your lives).


>Was any timetable given as to when a report would be issued? I don't
>quite understand why another study is needed, it seems dozens have been
>done by a variety of groups. Wasn't Clinton going to move in the first
>100 days on this issue? Not that I'm unhappy he's slowing down....


Clinton annouced that the Task Force report would be due around May...so sue
him that it'll be in the first 115 days instead...it's not like the last
President didn't dump some nice presents in his lap to skew the timetable...
And he's not commissioning another "study"...this is the group which will
draft the _legislation_ of health care reform.  My contacts on the Hill and
in the National Health Care fight seem pretty optimistic that they will
come out with a full national health program (unlike what Clinton
tentatively proposed during the campaign).

As I see it, they have four options:

        1. Don't change a thing (not really an option, but included for
           the obsessive/compulsive purists on the list)

        2. Adopt the AMA Plan ("Health Access America"), which is basically
           employers pay for full-time, Medicare for "below poverty line",
           and "we'll think of something like a sliding scale" for anyone
           caught in between.  Otherwise known as the eerie cousin to
           "Pay or Play".

        3. Adopt the Bush Plan, which was a low/middle income tax credit
           ("You pay for it all, then we'll give you a tax voucher...
           honest..") and/or federally subsidized care; "encourage" small
           businesses and individuals to "pool" resources and purchase
           insurance like big groups.

        4. Enact a National Health Program, guaranteeing access to health
           care to all Americans, containing costs, directing national
           health goals, allocating resources, cutting waste (did you
           know that while underfunded, Medicare/Medicaid's Admin
           margin is less than 2%?  Private health insurance in the US
           averages about 26%...add that to profits!) AND.......
           costing LESS than all the above programs!!!!


(Can you guess which one I am for....hey, this ain't no newspaper
article...my bias can shine right through :) )



-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU