Amer Hospital Assn Says Universal Health Coverage is Possible

This is an important show of support for universal health care advocates, given that AHA and AMA have not supported previous attempts at substantive health care reform.

"The debate on how to cover the uninsured and at the same time contain costs has been mainly ideological so far, but needs to shift toward finding "a practical, realistic approach," the president-elect of the American Hospital Association said.

Richard Umbdenstock, who will take office in January, was in town for the Greater Cincinnati Health Council's annual meeting at the Montgomery Inn Banquet Center.

He said the AHA has long supported universal coverage. He doesn't think it would be too expensive for the United States, as long as care was provided more efficiently than it is now.

"Our belief is that people by and large already receive care, but unfortunately not at the right place and the right time," Umbdenstock, who is also the AHA's chief operating officer, said in an interview. "So a lot of the cost is already in the system."

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2006/06/05/daily55.html

Reduced the other, you could provide universal health care, best in the world, at substantially less cost:

1) Eliminate insurance company processing. A HUGE waste of money that delivers no value to anyone except employees and shareholders of insurance companies and billing clerks in hundreds of thousands of doctors' offices.

2) Reduce drug/medical device costs. This is tougher, because big pharma has gotten so many laws favorable to them written into the code, but I think if you rattled the nationalization saber, you might get their attention.

Eliminate the insurance companies altogether. Redistribute their workers elsewhere n the health care system, raise taxes on everyone in lieu of their former healthcare insurance premiums to pay for a single payer system.

That is obviously a gross oversimplification of the solution, but conceptually it should work, should provide better care for some and equal care for all, and all at less cost than now. Just the elimination of the insurance company profits will go a LONG way to reducing overall costs.

Taking them on directly would cause any good health care reform plan to fail. GOP control has allowed them to become far too powerful.

Took on the battle in '92 and lost. I think she'd do (and Dems in general would do) better this time.

And this issue IS on voters' minds and can be ridden into the White House. Grid knows the 'Licans aren't going to attempt to fix the system in any comprehensive way.

Although I don't think you could pick all of the workers up in the same line of business -- after all, what they're doing now shouldn't be done in the first place and wouldn't be necessary if such a change were made. Many of them would need outplacement training.

Even businesses would accept higher corporate taxes for health care if they didn't have to pick up as much of the tab as they are now. My employer -- which is forced by the labor market to provide "competitive" (i.e., pretty decent) medical benefits -- has seen those costs double and double again in less than 10 years. It makes it very hard to compete.

Also, profiting on the provision of health care is bad social policy. I don't mind if doctors, nurses, and other health professionals are well paid (heck, even if they're VERY well paid), but for hospitals and clinics to be profit centers? No way. For insurance companies to suck up half (or whatever) of each health care dollar? Phenomenal waste.

but there are a lot of things blocking the way. Retirement systems (mine included) are heavily invested in insurance companies. We need a way of transitioning to a national health care system that won't bankrupt the retirement programs. Single payer is a first step; and the right way to go. Another step I would like to see is lifetime Medicare for each child born in the United States from this day on.

shame on them.

The only group it hurts badly is Big Insurance.

ONce employers realize the sense of UHC (they slowly are, too) we will overcome Big I.

Some of the new health care plans like Mass and Maine have given the insurance companies a break by using plans that keep private insurance, but they also place a bigger burden on insurance companies of covering everyone instead of cherry picking. Maybe we could end up with a system that treats private health insurance companies more like public utilities.

pls hit it

bizzare behavior.. he used political capital for

gays in the military

and let healthcare momentum decay on a shelf for a year.

ONe commentator called that lost time "the golden summer of opportunity".

why are gays in the military more important than nationallized health?Bizzare.

Next dem can ride totally nationalized health into the oval office, and then act promptly with a bill in Congress, ignoring opposition by any group, i submit. Political capital will be that hi, due to disgust with GOP policies right now. Hope i am right.

Educate this medieval ox... how total was Clinton's campaign promise, vis a vis nationalizing health? Just insurance, or also big pill, dr's, and hospitals?

They had an outreach table at the Hessler Street Fair last month. www.span-ohio.org

and was impressed with the amount of research and planning they put into their initiative. I just didn't have the time to become fully involved in the program. I would love to see it on the ballot. However, it would probably be defeated by the insurance companies and their investors. I'm ready for SPAN, but I don't think Ohio is there yet.

They have a nice plan, though a bit utopian. I'm not sure we can get significant health care reform here in Ohio without including private insurance companies - they control so much of the state here.