Featured * :: health care for all

Health Care For America Now!

Roger Hickey — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:38:45 -0400

On Tuesday, July 8, a new campaign will be launched – for Health Care for America Now! – at press conferences in Washington and 55 other cities and towns. We at the Campaign for America’s Future are proud to play a leadership role in launching this much-needed campaign, led by 100 national and local organizations.

The steering committee includes ACORN, AFSCME, Americans United for Change, Campaign for America’s Future, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Center for Community Change, MoveOn, NEA, National Women’s Law Center, Planned Parenthood, SEIU, UFCW, and USAction – not a bad core group to make history with. And now is the time!

Profound economic changes are convincing the public that we need to take action together to build a healthy, sustainable economy and ensure real security for all families. And that includes, first and foremost, making sure everyone has quality, affordable health care.

The mission of the Campaign for America's Future is to develop and promote bold policy ideas that can build a majority for change. We brought together environmentalists and union activists to promote an "Apollo project" investment agenda to make America energy independent – and to create the next generation of good American jobs. We sounded the alarm about conservative plans to privatize Social Security, and – working with a coalition similar to HCAN – we helped to defeat those dangerous plans to undermine retirement security.

So it was only natural that over the last two years, we have been encouraging health care experts to think big, to come forward with plans to cover everyone who doesn’t have good health care coverage, while reining in spiraling costs by reorganizing the most inefficient aspects of what is today a very fragmented, wasteful and unstable health care system.

For two years, we have worked to promote discussion of the Health Care for America plan, written by Yale University health expert Jacob Hacker and published in January 2007 by the Economic Policy Institute. Praised by activists, policy experts and labor leaders, the Hacker-EPI plan helped inform the policy work and public opinion testing of many progressive organizations. And partly as a result of our discussions with the presidential candidates and their policy teams, and our pointed health care questions to them all over the blogosphere during the primary election debate, it became the template for the health care plans of candidates John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. National Public Radio reported in January 31:

All three plans (Obama’s, Clinton’s and Edwards’) came from the same source: a Yale University political science professor named Jacob Hacker. And all three were based on the concept of something called "shared responsibility," where government, individuals and employers all pay something. . . . So, Clinton and Obama would let people keep their existing coverage if they want to, or buy into a government-sponsored plan like Medicare, and the government would subsidize small businesses and the poor.

Most Americans know that we can’t depend on the health insurance industry – or the drug companies – to solve the big health care problems of spiraling costs and millions with inadequate insurance or no coverage at all. In fact, those companies and their lobbyists are a big part of the problem. Clearly, if insurance and drug companies want to be part of a national system to cover everyone, they cannot be allowed to exclude people from coverage, including people with pre-existing conditions. They will have to sell good, comprehensive insurance that we can afford, stop shifting costs to us through high deductibles and co-pays and stop employing devious tricks to deny people with coverage payment for their health care services. And, while we believe everyone should be free to keep or elect private health insurance, everyone should also have the choice to enroll in a public, Medicare-style insurance plan that guarantees affordable coverage, without a private insurer middleman.

So a big part of our contribution to HCAN will be to distribute research and analysis that makes the case not only for why we need change, but for the kind of change we need. Information is power, and we will distribute this information to the many parts of our grassroots coalition. And we will push forward health care policy experts and opinion leaders whose views on health care need to be heard, nationally and locally, in Congress, in the media, on the web and in the field.

Another project HCAN and CAF will engage the public in is a campaign that and demonstrates all the many ways that insurance and drug companies put their profits before our health care and use their political influence to undermine health care change.

Most politicians now say they favor some kind of health care “reform,” but HCAN is mobilizing a citizens’ force that can make sure we do it right, based on the principles of choice, affordability, shared responsibility, and fairness. Without the kind of public mobilization HCAN is bringing to this debate, we could end up, once again, with a system that leaves us at the mercy of predatory private insurance and drug companies.

We’re excited to continue our leadership on this critical kitchen-table issue, and confident that the new Health Care for America Now! coalition will empower the public to triumph over special interest influence and solve the growing health care crisis.

The McCain Health Plan: Millions Lose Coverage, Health Costs Worsen, and Insurance and Drug Industries Win

Roger Hickey — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:24:29 -0400

Today Arizona Sen. John McCain will deliver what his handlers are hyping as a major address on health care. McCain’s plan is a dangerous fraud.

He wants voters to think he is going after health care cost inflation. In reality, he wants to dismantle the employer-provided system that now covers over 60 percent (or about 158 million) of non-elderly Americans, forcing millions of us who now get fairly decent health insurance on the job to instead buy whatever they can find on the individual market controlled by unregulated and predatory insurance companies. And he would drive health care costs upward, not downward.

This is truly amazing: McCain and his handlers knew they had to say something about health care. So they turned to their friends (and financial supporters) in the health care industry and the conservative think tanks. And they have adopted the most extreme right-wing ideological approach, premised on the idea that the big problem in health care is that Americans have too much insurance – in their words, we don’t have enough “skin in the game” – and that only when we have to buy health care with money that comes directly out of our own pockets will consumers force doctors, hospitals and insurance companies to become more efficient.

So that’s the theory. But it is contradicted by the facts. Most of us already pay part of our premiums out of our own pockets, and we increasingly have to shell out for co-pays in order to get to see a doctor. The result—in practice—is that most people, even those with good insurance, now think twice or three times about even getting regular preventive health checkups. Having lots of “skin in the game” has meant that millions of Americans don’t get health care they need—and that’s one of the big problems in U.S. health care driving costs up, not down.

But McCain, like George Bush, pays more attention to ultra-conservative theory than he does to the facts. So McCain wants to tax workers’ health care premiums that are paid for by employers. Ask any expert, conservative or liberal, and they will tell you the result will be companies will stop providing health care as an employee benefit. Fortune Magazine quotes one of their experts on the impact of McCain's plan: “I predict that most companies would stop paying for health care in three to four years,” says Robert Laszewski, a consultant who works with corporate benefits managers.

Now keep this in mind: McCain and his corporate advisers don’t dispute this. The massive upheaval that would result – millions of families losing their health coverage on the job and then having to try to find an insurance company that would sell them a new policy that would cover their families—that’s not an unintended consequence of his proposal. That chaotic loss of health security is exactly what McCain intends to happen. He wants us all to buy insurance not as part of a group—like an employee group or a co-op—that can negotiate for better coverage at lower premiums, but as individuals, at the mercy of the private insurance companies.

And get this: McCain wants to abolish the regulations that currently exist in most states that require companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions, provide benefits that don’t exclude some medical conditions, and prevent them from charging huge premiums for crumby benefits. How would he do this? By “giving people the freedom” to buy insurance in other states with weaker regulations. You can bet that most of the big insurance companies are now shopping around for the state that wants to become the corporate headquarters state for the new deregulated health insurance industry – if President McCain wins. Delaware? Mississippi? Arizona?

But, but, but . . . I can hear some people saying, McCain does give people refundable tax credits to help pay for health insurance. And that is part of his package. But his whole philosophy is that too many millions of American’s are getting health care benefits that are too rich, and you certainly can’t say that about the level of tax subsidy he would provide—$2,500 per year for individuals and $5,000 for a family, according to the McCain for President website. Last year the average yearly cost of the most popular type of insurance plan offered by employers hit $11,765, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study. So the average person with a family would end up paying $11,765 minus the $5,000 tax credit, or $6,765—about double the $3,226 Kaiser tells us the average employee paid for his or her share of premiums.

Again, this is NOT unintentional. McCain and his corporate advisers think it is good for individuals and families to pay more because it makes them think twice before seeking health care, and—in theory—they will shop around for cheaper care. And if they can’t cover the costs of real health insurance with McCain’s tax credit, the insurance industry will sell you lower-cost plans with big holes in coverage or costly co-pays—that is, if you are not already sick and you aren’t too old for them to see you as profitable.

And McCain will be glad to help you invest your tax credit in a Health Savings Account —a savings account coupled with an insurance plan cooked up by his friends in the insurance industry with such high deductibles that it only applies for catastrophic health costs. For those normal trips to the doctor, you just take money out of the savings account until there is nothing left—and then you really reduce health care costs by forgoing the trip to the doctor altogether.

The ultra-conservatives have a name for this combination of tax credits and HSAs. They call it “consumer-directed health care.” A better name is “high-cost health care”—or “insurance company-directed health care.” And although they promote it as saving money for individuals, for our economy and our society, the available evidence shows that it does nothing to reduce health care costs—but it will leave millions of people with worse coverage, more chronic health problems, and higher levels of health cost-driven bankruptcies. And, perhaps most importantly for McCain’s financial backers, it would leave the insurance industry and the drug industry even more in control of America’s health care system than ever before.

The release of this McCain health care plan is an important test for the mainstream media. Health care experts who are “reality-based” will, if asked to comment, tell reporters that there is no evidence that McCain’s proposals will do anything to reduce health care costs, but will the media fall for the McCain spin?

Here’s the story they would like major media to report:

“While Democrats Obama and Clinton, stuck in an endless primary contest, fight with each other over who would cover more of the uninsured, John McCain has been using the luxury of uncontested time to develop a thoughtful plan for bringing down health care costs—the issue voters care most about when it comes to their own family budget worries. And McCain’s plan would attack the health cost spiral by unleashing the power of individual consumers and families in a more competitive health care marketplace, not by using the power of the federal government to either provide health care and not by dictating health insurance arrangements between workers and employers. Expanding consumer choice—and encouraging health care consumers to be wise purchasers of health care, said McCain, is the best way to force the health care system to become more efficient and reduce the burden of health care costs.”

Most honest reporters will note that the McCain will not improve the lot of America’s 47 million uninsured, but they may give McCain credit for focusing more on controlling prices than Obama and Clinton. That might sound “fair and balanced”—but it would be wrong.

The reality is, McCain’s proposals would greatly increase the number of uninsured Americans, while also doing nothing about health care costs except increasing the number of people who can’t afford good quality health care for themselves and their families. Let’s see if the media gets both parts of the story right.

Lewin Group: 'Health Care for America' Works

Terrance Heath — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:32:46 -0500

Study Finds 'Health Care For America' Plan Covers All for Less

Jacob S. Hacker

"Health Care for America," developed for the Economic Policy Institute by Yale University Political Science Professor Jacob Hacker, would provide health care coverage for virtually every American while generating huge cost savings — more than $1 trillion over 10 years, according to the Lewin Group, a nationally respected, nonpartisan consulting firm. (Read the full Lewin Group report. ) Their report offers the most detailed analysis of the reform proposal to date.

The plan combines the best features of the current employer-based system, which the Lewin Group estimates would serve two-thirds of workers under Hacker's proposal, with a federally administered insurance pool similar to Medicare, the popular program for older Americans, that would be funded by user premiums and co-pays, employer contributions and government subsidies.

Key elements of this plan have been included in the health care proposals of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama.

“What these results show is that by building on the best elements of Medicare and employment-based health insurance, 'Health Care for America' can provide every American good affordable, guaranteed coverage for no more than we're spending for health care today – and with the promise of big savings and quality improvements down the road,” Hacker said in response to the findings.

READ: The full Lewin Group report | Health Care for America's role in the health care debate | Health Care for America and the presidential candidate's health care plans

Two Approaches to Health Care

There are two widely divergent approaches to the problems of the U.S. health care system. Conservatives want to further diminish the role of government and tell individuals that "you're on your own" in shouldering the burden of health care costs and battling the health care business bureaucracy. In the Health Care for America plan, a large national pool administered by the government would compete with private plans to provide health care for everyone, a “shared responsibility” approach.

Here are the major differences between the two approaches:

The Political Divide: Shared Responsibility vs. "You're On Your Own"
	Shared Responsibility	"You're on Your Own"
Employers	Employers would offer health coverage at least as good as Health Care for America, or pay 6 percent of payroll into a national pool to cover their employees.	Current tax deduction for employers that offer health care would be eliminated in favor of a new standard income tax deduction for anyone with health insurance — essentially a disincentive for employers to offer coverage .
Individuals	Individuals would automatically be enrolled, either at their place of work or when they seek care, with a guarantee of coverage from birth until they go on Medicare. Premiums would be capped, with generous subsidies for lower-income families.	Individuals would be encouraged to purchase health care through tax incentives, including tax-advantaged health savings accounts for high-deductible plan enrollees. Individuals with modest means would be left out.
The federal government	The federal government would use the buying power of the large national pool to negotiate lower costs by providers and drug companies.	The government would not regulate the individual insurance market either to increase access or to reduce costs, producing less coverage at higher cost, without pooling risks.

The Evolution of the Health Care Debate

Roger Hickey — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:07:30 -0500

The following are commentaries, blog posts and news releases that show how our "Health Care For America" plan helped shape the debate in 2007. Download this as a pdf document

The Great Risk Shift and Health Care for All
By Christian Norton
December 21, 2006

Health Care forAmerica
By Roger Hickey
January 11, 2007

Health Care for America Posted on Talking Points Memo Café

Activists and Experts Hail Health Care for America Plan
Launch Progressive Debate on Medical Coverage for All
Written by Jacob Hacker and Published by EPI
Campaign for America's Future and other groups that stopped Social Security privatization vow nationwide campaign on health care

AFSCME Supports "Health Care for America" Plan
McEntee: Expansion of employer-based health care offers America its most realistic chance to achieve affordable coverage for all.

Statement of SEIU President Andy Stern regarding the Health Care For America proposal

Health Care For America: Blog Roundup
By Bill Scher, January 16, 2007

Edwards Gives a Nod Toward “Health Care For America”
By Bill Scher, February 6, 2007

The Universal Health Care Debate is Over
By Bill Scher, February 7, 2007

Blog Reaction to Edwards Health Care Plan
By Bill Scher, February 8, 2007

More Links on Hacker and Hickey on Edwards Plan:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/6/142556/8612
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/6/135021/6412
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/billscherforourfuture/2007/feb/06/jacob_hacker_roger_hickey_on_edwards_health_care_plan

Health Care Advocates Praise Edwards Health Plan

Where the Health Care Debate is Going
By Bill Scher, February 20, 2007

Health Care for All Information Project listserve
This is an example of the Health Care for All Information Project listserve. News and action opportunities are sent to 8,000 health care activists weekly.

The Health Care Answers We Need
By Roger Hickey, March 23, 2007

Universal Care: Getting the Right Mix
By Roger Hickey, March 26, 2007

Adviser Describes Obama Health Plan
By David Cutler, June 1, 2007

Hacker: Obama’s Health Plan’s Actually Pretty Good
By Isaiah J. Poole, June 4, 2007

Obamacare: Clearing Away The Fog
By Jacob S. Hacker, June 4, 2007

Hillary Confirms Commitment to Health Care for All
By Roger Hickey, September 21, 2007

Hillary’s Turn
By Jacob S. Hacker, September 24, 2007

Download this as a pdf document to understand the facts and perspectives behind the health plans offered by the 2008 presidential candidates. You will find each of the above commentaries, blog posts and news releases that show how our "Health Care For America" plan helped shape the debate in 2007.

Health Care For All

OurFuture.org Staff — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:15:33 -0400

America’s health care debate has never been more urgent – as our economy flags and our social contract is eroding. Health costs are climbing, and so are the number of uninsured and underinsured Americans. Public demand for comprehensive reform has prompted Americans to demand action. And they are encountering a stark choice between progressive and conservative paths beyond the status quo.

The Institute for America’s Future Health Care for All website is your one-stop resource to stay current, offering the latest research and fast facts.