Natalia,
I think about $80 a month is deducted from social security for Medicare, though Kaiser pays $15 towards that. However, payment for a doctor's visit or a lab visit is now $20. I'm a private patient, but if you are a member of a union, you pay nothing. You might also not have to pay much, or anything, for prescription drugs. I pay $10 for 100 days supply of generics, more for patented drugs. I pay $87 for three asthma inhalants lasting 150 days. I checked at Cosco and they cost $75 each. I wonder if Wal-Mart's new service charges less? The pharmaceutical firms are monopolists behind their patents and make many drugs impossibly high. Bush, on principle, is opposed to removing their monopoly. (He thinks it's free enterprise!) When the Demos take over, I wonder if they will be more influenced by Pharma money than any principle? Our free county hospitals can be very good and provide everything - including drugs - at no cost. Perhaps all that is needed are more such hospitals and an upgrading of present county hospitals. Massachusetts has a much touted (by Romney) government health scheme. However, many people don't want to join - particularly younger people who know they will never get sick and don't want to pay health care for other people. I have no idea why a Mass. couple would have to pay $8,638 without drug coverage. Seems excessive to me, particularly where they can get State Health services. Harry ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ****************************** From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darryl or Natalia Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:33 AM To: futurework Subject: [Futurework] US Healthcare Forgot to send this: Articles below, found at the Undernews Review, http://prorev.com/indexa.htm <http://prorev.com/indexa.htm> <http://prorev.com/indexa.htm> indicate strong support of a single payer health care program. In Massachusetts: "A couple in their late 50s faces a minimum premium of $8,638 annually, for a policy with no drug coverage at all and a $2,000 deductible per person before insurance even kicks in." "Single payer reform could save $7.7 billion annually on paperwork and insurance profits in Massachusetts, enough to cover all of the uninsured and to upgrade coverage for the rest of us." I know that Harry is comfortable paying just over $100 monthly into his California-based private plan, Kaiser, but I'm not sure if that is subsidized by any other concern. Obviously, the US governments, lobbyists for war and private health care, and many of its wanna-be presidents think war expenditures will serve them best, and organization and accountability should continue to follow the current White House/Pentagon models. WHY PRIVATE INSURANCE BASED HEALTH CARE WON'T WORK STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER AND DAVID U. HIMMELSTEIN - In 1966 - just before Medicare and Medicaid were launched - 47 million Americans were uninsured. By 1975, the United States had reached an all time low of 21 million without coverage. Now, according to the Census Bureau's latest figures, we're back where we started, with 47 million uninsured in 2006 - up 2.2 million since 2005. But this time, most of the uninsured are neither poor nor elderly. The middle class is being priced out of healthcare. Virtually all of this year's increase was among families with incomes above $50,000; in fact, two-thirds of the newly uncovered were in the above-$75,000 group. And full-time workers accounted for 56 percent of the increase, with their children making up much of the rest. The new Census numbers are particularly disheartening for anyone hoping for a Massachusetts miracle. In the Commonwealth, 651,000 residents are uninsured, 65 percent more than the figure used by state leaders in planning for health reform. Their numbers came from a telephone survey done in English and Spanish. But that misses people who lack a land-line phone - 43.9 percent of phoneless adults are uninsured, according to other studies. It also skips over the 523,000 non-English speakers in Massachusetts whose native language isn't Spanish (e.g. Portuguese, Chinese, or Haitian-Creole), another group with a high uninsurance rate. . . Why has progress been so meager? Because most of the promised new coverage is of the "buy it yourself" variety, with scant help offered to the struggling middle class. According to the Census Bureau, only 28 percent of Massachusetts uninsured have incomes low enough to qualify for free coverage. Thirty-four percent more can get partial subsidies - but the premiums and co-payments remain a barrier for many in this near-poor group. And 244,000 of Massachusetts uninsured get zero assistance - just a stiff fine if they don't buy coverage. A couple in their late 50s faces a minimum premium of $8,638 annually, for a policy with no drug coverage at all and a $2,000 deductible per person before insurance even kicks in. Such skimpy yet costly coverage is, in many cases, worse than no coverage at all. Illness will still bring crippling medical bills - but the $8,638 annual premium will empty their bank accounts even before the bills start arriving. Little wonder that barely 2 percent of those required to buy such coverage have thus far signed up. . . Health reform built on private insurance isn't working and can't work; it costs too much and delivers too little. At present, bureaucracy consumes 31 percent of each healthcare dollar. The Connector - the new state agency created to broker coverage under the reform law - is adding another 4.5 percent to the already sky-high overhead charged by private insurers. Administrative costs at Blue Cross are nearly five times higher than Medicare's and 11 times those in Canada's single payer system. Single payer reform could save $7.7 billion annually on paperwork and insurance profits in Massachusetts, enough to cover all of the uninsured and to upgrade coverage for the rest of us. Of course, single payer reform is anathema to the health insurance industry. But breaking their stranglehold on our health system and our politicians is the only way for health reform to get beyond square one. [Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program] http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/arti cles/2007/09/17/health_reform_failure/ GREENS BLAST CLINTON ON HEALTHCARE GREEN PARTY - Green Party leaders strongly criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton's health care reform plan, calling it a capitulation to private HMO and insurance corporations and an affront to Americans who lack adequate access to health care. "Senator Clinton's $110-billion-per-year 'mandatory coverage' plan amounts to a gigantic subsidy for the HMO-insurance industry, while shifting the burden -- and the blame for lack of coverage -- onto people who desperately need health care," said John Battista, MD, former Green candidate for state representative in Connecticut and co-author of his state's single-payer legislation in 1999 (the Connecticut Health Care Security Act). "As Michael Moore's documentary 'Sicko' showed, predatory insurance companies are the reason for America's health crisis, with 47 million uninsured and millions more whose coverage doesn't give them adequate treatment," added Dr. Battista. "Ms. Clinton's solution is to reward these companies for their greed, giving them more money. Ms. Clinton has been Congress's top recipient of money from the insurance industry [source: Center for Responsive Politics, which explains her dedication to corporate insurance and HMO profits." The Green Party supports a Single-Payer national health plan, also called 'Medicare For All,' similar to the Canadian system, which would guarantee every American health care regardless of age, income, employment, or prior medical condition; allow choice of health care provider; provide low-cost or no-cost treatment and prescriptions (including certain forms of alternative medicine); and cost low- and middle-income Americans far less than they now pay for private or employer-based coverage by eliminating insurance and HMO company overhead. "America doesn't need 'mandatory' coverage, America needs guaranteed health care," said Linda Manning Myatt, Michigan Green and spokesperson for the National Women's Caucus. "Unfortunately, all of the Democratic presidential candidates, except for Dennis Kucinich, are pandering for their insurance lobby friends. They care more about profits for their campaign contributors than about health care for the American people. Sen. Barack Obama has even admitted that his plan would sustain HMOs and insurance firms. Calling the Democrats' proposals 'universal health care' is fraudulent, cynical, and cruel." _____ avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com> : Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 071107-0, 11/07/2007 Tested on: 11/8/2007 9:33:16 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
