NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/misc/activism/progress/6200

Text File | 1992-09-01 | 8.4 KB | 193 lines

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Path: sparky!uunet!gumby!wupost!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!daemon
From: [e-mail] (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: Health Care: NPR Propaganda repeats Washington Party Line
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:18:37 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 178


    "It is quite striking to hear you describe the $65 billion _cost_
    of Bush's plan -- which he wants to pay for by slashing MediCare
    and MediCaid -- without any mention of the net _SAVING_ a National
    Health care system would entail -- savings in the many billions of
    dollars ... [noting] that voters had insisted on lower costs in
    one election, and on [more] health care in another, your
    interviewer practically snickered as she asked your guest whether
    these silly voters "just aren't putting two and two together?"

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic 25        -> HEALTH CARE <-       Response  1 of  2
harelb
Info resources on econ justice issues    7:33 pm  Aug 19, 1992
From: [e-mail] (Harel Barzilai)
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

        =====================================================
        I n t r o d u c t i o n :   L e t t e r   t o   N P R

                 (Or: Reality versus Media Coverage)
        =====================================================

[The sources used in this letter will be reproduced, in full, later in
this series (i.e., as later responses) --Harel]

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 92 22:29:45 PST
From: Harel Barzilai <[e-mail]>
To: fax:[phone]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Health Care Coverage
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"All Things Considered"
National Public Radio
2025 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
202/822-2000

Dear NPR,

I was frankly astonished to find that in your coverage of Bush's plan
on health care, as well as of alternative plans and strategies [All
Things Considered, Thurs., Feb. 6th], you completely neglected
coverage of a proposed National Health Care plan.

This, despite the fact that several Democratic candidates for the
presidency are in favor of such a plan [including Larry Agran, who was
recently excluded from the MacNeil/Lehrer debate on TV, amazingly,
despite polls showing him ahead of Jerry Brown and catching up with
Tom Harkin, and whom I would very much like to see (or rather, hear)
interviewed on All Things Considered]

It is quite striking to hear you describe the $65 billion _cost_ of
Bush's plan -- which he wants to pay for by slashing MediCare and
MediCaid -- without any mention of the net _saving_ a National Health
care system would entail -- savings in the many billions of dollars
from lower administrative costs _alone_, according to the GAO [1]

For example, in 1987 alone almost $90 billion could have been saved
(enough to expand access to care to all Americans) if the U.S. was as
administratively efficient as Canada. [2]

In 1990, the United States spent $640 billion on health
care. With a Canadian-style system, at Canadian rates, we could cover
everyone for $365 billion. [3]

                            ***  ***  ***

The lack of realization of all of this potential is all the more
depressing in light of the general silence in the media about these
crucial, central facts surrounding the Health Care debates.

For example, earlier this winter when All Things Considered talked
with a commentator about elections in different states and noted
that voters had insisted on lower costs in one such election, and on
health care in another, your interviewer practically snickered as she
asked your guest whether these silly voters "just aren't putting two
and two together?"

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that NPR was either tragically
misinformed on this issue, or worse, deliberately suppressed the
crucial facts (and continues to do so) -- namely that better health
care is not only _compatible_ with but goes _hand in hand_ with lower
cost if a single-payer Canadian-style system is adopted in America.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not just saying that a National Health
Insurance (NHI) plan should have been mentioned in your Feb. 6th
coverage; by any fair and rational standards, such coverage belongs in
practically every piece you do on the health care debates, rising
health care costs, or on the millions of uninsured Americans; not
merely because of the statistics alluded to and the key facts they
represent, but more basically because of the world we live in -- in
which the United States stands alone as the only Western industrial
country without such a national health plan.

Sincerely,

Harel Barzilai

Department of Mathematics // Cornell University // Ithaca NY 14853
216 Fall Creek Dr. // Ithaca, NY 14850
Email: [e-mail]

##################################################################
##################################################################

[1] The General Accounting Office [GAO] stated in a 1991 report that
"If the universal coverage and single-payer features of the Canadian
system were applied in the United States, the savings IN
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ALONE would be MORE THAN ENOUGH to finance
insurance coverage for the millions of Americans who are currently
uninsured. There would be ENOUGH LEFT OVER to permit a reduction, or
possibly even the elimination, of co-payments and deductibles" [In
These Times, June 26-July 9, 1991. My added emphasis]

The article also notes that "In 1970 both Canada and the U.S. spent
about 7.4 percent of their gross national products on health care. By
1989, The U.S. spent 11.6 of its national income on health and Canada
only 8.9 percent. Yet in Canada more health care service was delivered
per person than in the U.S., according to a recent report by the U.S.
General Accounting Office"

[2] _Health Letter_, February 1991 issue, of the Public Citizen
 Health Research Group. Page 8, "Should the Private Health Insurance
Industry Be Eliminated?" which "summarized internist Dr. Thomas
Bodenheimer's article ``Should We Abolish the Private Health Insurance
Industry.'' Dr. Bodenheimer is a member of Physicians for a National
Health Program, and his article appeared in _The International
Journal of Health Services_ last year (Vol 20, No. 2, 1990)"

The article includes the comparisons:

==================================================
Billing, administration, and insurance
overhead as percentage of total spending:

U.S.:           22%
Canada:         13.7%
U.K.            11.1%
==================================================

and

============================================================
Percentage of premiums consumed by overhead:

Private Insurance Companies:              12% (overhead & profits)

Public payers (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid):   3%

Canadian provincial insurance plans:      under 1%
============================================================

[3] Jan/Feb 1991 _In Health_ magazine, which adds that in Canada,
according to a recent study, citizens each spent $18 a year for
"administrative costs," while each of us spent $95 -- for a total of
$20 billion more than we would have with Canadian-style care.  Our
doctors, hospitals, and nursing homes spend much more -- $62.1 billion
by a 1983 estimate -- filing out insurance forms, billing patients,
and collecting.

The article notes that compared to other countries, "[The U.S. health
care "system"] is certainly the most expensive. In 1987, we spent
$2,050 per citizen on health care. Canada spent an average of $1,480,
most European nations even less.

"Unfortunately, spending the most hasn't made us the healthiest.
Canada, culturally most like the United States, has an infant
mortality rate 25 percent lower. Their rate of heart disease death is
20 percent lower. Their average life span -- 77.1 years -- is almost
two years longer"

Similar conclusions were reached by a Business magazine [See
"Condition Critical" cover story, Business Today, Fall, 1990, which
summarized in hard numbers in its charts how "America spends the
most... but gets the least"]