Contribute
Support Left in the West to continue our work:
Blog Ads


-->
Syndication

RSS

Email Updates

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


Event Calendar
July 2010
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * * 01 02 03
04 05 06 07 08 09 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
* * * * * * *
<< (add event) >>

Full Disclosure
Matt Singer works for Forward Montana. He also is a partner in DP Productions, a small, Montana-based T-Shirt company.


Search




Advanced Search


We need universal health care, not insurance

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:23:58 AM MDT


This story in today's Missoulian should remind everyone that we don't need universal health insurance, but universal access to health care:

After a five-day trial and eight hours of deliberation, the jury of one man and six women ruled unanimously against Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., deciding that the California-based company acted in bad faith and breach of contract in denying Samantha Chilcote's insurance claim.

In January 2003, Chilcote, a 32-year-old salmon ecologist, suffered permanent brain injuries in a head-on car collision on U.S. Highway 2. She was not at fault in the accident, and her damages exceeded the amount of the other driver's policy limit.

Chilcote, a doctoral student at the time of her accident, was covered under her family's insurance plan for a total of

$1.5 million in underinsured motorist benefits and $15,000 in medical pay. Still, the company refused to pay out her underinsured motorist coverage and delayed payment of her medical benefits until Jan. 17, 2008, cutting a check exactly five years from the date of the accident, on the same day as a final pretrial conference in her civil case.

What was that quote from a recent panel of doctors discussion the ethics of the presidential candidates' health care plans?

Missoula doctor Tom Roberts: "Our profit-based system is fundamentally at odds with our valued-based system...It is designed to make money and not to take care of people."  

Jay Stevens :: We need universal health care, not insurance
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Unfortunately, universal health care (0.00 / 0)
as proposed by both of our dem presidential candidates does not change the current private insurance-based systems. They just supplement it, and put some minor reforms on insurance companies. So the problems that Chilcote suffered could still exist.

Here's a repost from a comment I made last week. I really think the debate we need to have is do we want to have a single payer system, where we do away with private insurance altogether? I'd give a resounding YES to that question.

I'd encourage everyone to look at HR 676 the alternative to Clinton and Obama's "Universal" health care plans. While single payer may not be palatable from the top down with our current presidential candidates, it is a reality from the grassroots up.

The United States National Health Insurance Act

"The United States National Health Insurance Act establishes a unique American national universal health insurance program.  The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income, or health care status. With over 45-75 million uninsured Americans, and another 50 million who are under- insured, the time has come to change our inefficient and costly fragmented non- health care system."

A few bullet points:

The conversion to a not-for-profit health care system will take place over a 15 year period, through the sale of U.S. treasury bonds.

This program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, inpatient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics, and practices. No co-pays or deductibles are permissible under this act.

HR 676 would reduce health spending in 2005 [dollars] from $1 trillion, 918 billion dollars to 1 trillion, 861.3 billion dollars, which translates into a saving of $56 billion in overall health care spending while covering all of the uninsured.  This is a 3% reduction in over-all health care spending.

As of January 2008, HR 676 had 88 co-sponsors in Congress.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Bookmark and Share

Poll
Should Congress focus more on creating jobs or reducing the short-term deficit?
Creating Jobs
Reducing the Short-Term Deficit

Results

Blog Roll
  • 4 & 20 Blackbirds
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • Cece-in-MT
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • David Sirota
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Granny Insanity
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Lamnidae
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana Netroots
  • Montana Politics
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Piece of Mind
  • Pragmatic Revolt
  • Prairie Mary
  • Rebels Are We
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!

  • Powered by: SoapBlox