British Expatriate Network

By MATT LEINGANG, Associated Press Writer Sun Jul 10, 558 AM ET

COLUMBUS, Ohio - A push for universal health coverage is being rekindled in some states by the soaring cost of health care and the lack of political support in Washington for federal changes.
ADVERTISEMENT

Advocates of a single-payer system — where the government would collect taxes and cover everyone, similar to programs in Canada and across Europe — have introduced bills in at least 18 state legislatures. Some are symbolic gestures, but heated debate is taking place in California and Vermont.

In Ohio, doctors, union officials and religious leaders are gathering signatures to get a single-payer health system placed on a ballot next year.

"The level of misery with private insurers is rising, and that's why we're seeing this increased activity," said Larry Levitt, vice president of the California-based Kaiser Family Foundation, which analyzes health care issues. "But whether one state can succeed, I don't know."

Not since Oregon in 2002 has a state voted on a single-payer health system. Voters there soundly rejected it, as did Californians in 1994. Both times, the proposals came under fierce assault from the medical, insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

However, Oregon supporters are aiming for another ballot measure in 2008, and a bill in California would have the government pay for health care in a state where 7 million people are uninsured.

Across the nation, the number of uninsured is 45 million and rising, and 16 million lack enough insurance to cover all their medical bills.

Premiums for employer-sponsored health plans rose an average of 11.2 percent in 2004, the fourth consecutive year of double-digit growth, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Companies are raising employee fees for health care, increasing co-payments and decreasing benefits.

Mainstream medical groups, including the American Medical Association, oppose single-payer systems. The AMA fears they would stifle the development of new medical technology and create longer waits for patient care should government budgets become strapped for money.

Advocates dismiss those arguments as scare tactics.

"There's no other solution out there," said David Pavlick, a member of the
United Auto Workers in Cleveland, which has endorsed the Ohio campaign. "The system we have now is immoral, it's foundering and it's on its last legs."

A single-payer system would be financed through a mix of payroll tax increases and new taxes on personal income. The new taxes would take the place of insurance premiums that many people currently pay for health coverage, and there would be no out-of-pocket expenses.

States would use their leverage to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs and other health services. Hospitals and doctors' offices would be relieved of the hassles and expense of dealing with multiple health insurers.

Claims that the system would cost less have merit, said John Sheils, vice president of the Lewin Group, a Virginia consulting firm that conducted a study last year of how a single-payer system would work in California. The study found that the state would save $343.6 billion in health care costs over 10 years.

But Sheils said a single-payer system isn't a panacea. States could be hard pressed to keep funding levels adequate during recessions, when tax revenues decline.

"There are positives and negatives with all types of health systems," Sheils said. "The question that has to be asked is what are we getting out of our existing multipayer system that is worth all the money we are spending on it?"

In any event, voters are still leery. A Kaiser Foundation poll released earlier this year found that 55 percent of Americans opposed a single-payer health system. Thirty-seven percent favored it.

Knowing that, some states are taking incremental approaches.

Maine started enrolling people this year in a state-private program that offers affordable health coverage to small businesses and families. The goal is to bring coverage to the 130,000 Mainers who lack it by 2009.

"It's really going to the states to push health care reform along," said Janne Hellgren, coordinator for a universal health care movement in Massachusetts. "Washington just isn't willing to change the status quo."

___


I see the most liberal state in the country "california* saw something in UHC that they didnt like

I notice that my health insurance (Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield) has now priced itself out of the market for next year and is not recommend by my benefits board for next year.

We will instead have to trade over to a smaller, local plan with the local community hospitals which should make things simpler for doctor visits but might affect the other stuff I have used in the past like counselling and current accupuncture.

At the same time, my Union is probably geared up for a possible strike in the fall for the usual song-and-dance we do over health benefits vs. wage increases.

Could just be me but I never used to give any of this stuff a second though in the UK. I had NHS for the basics, BUPA from my company for anything that I needed in a hurry or was beyond the NHS and salary increases were perfomance based and generally once or twice a year.

Which country is better again? ???

In the US is the healthcare for middle high income families better than the UK?
and if you didnt have any health insurance would you prefer the NHS in the UK or Canada?

That's the thing. In the UK, none of us had to worry about how we were going to pay for some treatment we were recovering from. OK, so the quality of health care isn't as good but hey, it's free for all. I'll take that any day over copayments, owrrying what the insurance will cover, continuous coverage, cobra, doctors and hospitals treating as much as they can prescribing as much as they can so they can get more money..... and all that jazz.

socialists are nothing but thieves.

But it's not free. You're taxed for it. It costs a bloody fortune and doesn't work efficiently. Not the USA system is perfect but it is faster and better for when you need fast life saving treatment.

Sorry, not enough coffee yet and no ciggies. Boy i'm gonna be narky :evil:

Sounds like the healthcare system over here. In actual fact, I've read that the healthcare system here is more inefficient than the NHS because there is far more beauracracy and duplication of effort. If the freakin' health insurers could get their act together, and the government gave them suffient help and prods in the right direction, then we wouldn't need this discussion.

I have been unemployed for 8 months. Thank God I and my wife have not been sick or had injuries for this time.

The American system is fine if you are working. If you are not, it is overly priced and inaccessible.

Given that the USA is spending almost 15% of it GDP on healthcare compared to the UK's measly nearly 6%, it should be better but it's not.

Just so glad I live in Canada.
Whats it like living in a furnace John?

and your employer subsidises the premium.


mine doesn't

Bollox!

t'was a joke eastendboy

Before we open up UHC discusions again lets dispell one rumor ...

ITS not FREE there is no free lunches there never was somebody somewhere pays the bill.

tThe one exception to the rule is illegals they get free health care in any medical facility that excepts govt funds that wil never change wether we ahve a UHP or not .



My thoughts .

there should be medical insurance available for all those who wish to PAY FOR IT .

Health insurance as a govt program ??.

history should tell you the answer to this question
wHAT govy program do you know of that

(1 ) works efficiently
(2) its not over staffed by suits
(3 ) it not either running in the red or asking for more money each year
( 4) has acheived or is close to achieving what it was set up to do
(5 ) can be overhauled and adjusted easily when PUBLIC opiinion decrees so .

the above being fair and reasoned statements why would anybody assume that a new govt programe *UHC* would work or be more efficent less costly than any they have in place now ?????

i do believe that a programe could be devised by local govts that would allow perants without health care to pay and enroll there childrenin it until the child is a adult

such a programe is in place in texas but being voluntary has not got that much response

some citizens claim they * cant afford* health care premiums ,that being the case why should one assume that they could afford a govt sponsered program.

most citizens have health care 257 MILL 3 mill dont althou this fiqure is not one to be proud of .
.WHY take away the health care programe tHAT MOST americans enjoyand pay voluntarily and replace it with a programe that would be as expensive and not as efficent as what they have now that would be madatory ??.

those that promote a UHC programe that 'demands' perticipation by ALL working citizens are taking AWAY the choices they have now and replacing it with old socialist retoric govt control of you from cradle to the grave and * one size fits all *

I dont want to live in a world where my choices are further eroded .


JMHO

why does it have to be less costly than what is in place now John?

I'd pay top dollar for good universal health coverage where everyone was covered.

99% of all government services are exactly that, services.

It's called the United States Postal Service. Not the United States Postal Company.

therefore your 5 point plan John doesn't apply.
The idea of UHC isn't to make a profit. But to make sure parents don't have their homes foreclosed on as their kid needs kidney dialysis twice a week.