HEALTHCARE REFORM MESSAGE |
|
PROBLEM This segment ‘frames’ the problem so that responsibility for the problem is properly connected to powerful institutions, and the ‘enemy’ is identified. |
1.Our health system has become a genuine life-and-death problem, because healthcare been swallowed by big insurers who maximize profits by minimizing care, manipulating the rules to avoid covering those most in need.[1] 2.The result is unreliable and unaffordable for the insured, at a per-capita cost twice as high as other advanced nations;[2] 45,000 deaths occur annually among the uninsured;[3] 31% of health care spending wasted on profits and bureaucratic overhead imposed by the for-profit insurer;,[4] and in return for our premiums and tax dollars, we get only the world’s 37th best health care.[5] |
حل: Emphasis is on broadly-shared moral values, نه specifics of how reform would work, but rather what it would deliver |
1. We need a "Medicare for all" system that guarantees quality coverage to all Americans, with everyone having the right to choose their own doctor, and without for-profit insurers dictating treatment to doctors or denying care to patients. 2. Such a system is supported by about two-third of the American people,[6] and 59% of US doctors,[7] although this majority public and medical support rarely gets considered.[8] |
عمل This outlines specific steps your want your audience to take or specific policies to support |
1. Right now, form is being mis-shaped in the hands of Congressional leaders have received huge campaign contributions from for-profit insurance, drug, and other health interests, and ruled the "Medicare for all" plan "off the table." [9] 2. While Medicare for all must remain our ultimate goal, our best strategy right now is probably to push for a public option under which all Americans can choose to sign up for a Medicare-style plan.[10] |
[1] As Dr. Marcia Angell of
[2] Per capita- health costs in the
[3] Physicians for a National Health Program, "Harvard study finds nearly 45,000 excess deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage" available at http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/september/harvard_study_finds_.php
[4] Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein,"Administrative Waste Consumes 31 Percent of Health Spending¸" August 21, 2003, نیو انګلستان Journal of Medicine. After analyzing the costs of insurers, employers, doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and home-care agencies in both the د امریکا د او کاناډا , they found that administration consumes 31.0 percent of د امریکا د health spending, double the proportion of کاناډا (16.7 percent). Average overhead among private د امریکا د insurers was 11.7 percent, compared with 1.3 percent for کاناډا ’s single-payer system and 3.6 percent for Medicare. Streamlined to Canadian levels, enough administrative waste could be saved to provide compressive health insurance to all Americans. http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/administrative_waste_consumes_31_percent_of_health_spending.php
[5] " The World Health Organization’s ranking of the world’s health systems." Available at
سرچینه: WHO World Health Report - http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
[6] یو ښه summary of this data is contained in Corporate-Managed Democracy: Health reform in the age of Obama," Z مجله, September 2009, available at http://www.zmag.org/zmag/viewArticle/22376
§ 67 percent "think it’s a good idea [for government] to guarantee health care for all
§ 64 percent would pay higher taxes to guarantee health care for all
§ 69 percent think it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide health coverage to all
§ 59 percent support a single-payer health insurance system (CBS/نیویارک ټایمز poll, January 2009)
§ 59 percent of doctors back a single-payer system (د داخلي طب اعلامیه، اپریل 2008)
§ 73 percent feel that health care is either in a "state of crisis" or has "major problems" (
§ 71 percent feel that we need "fundamental changes" or to have the U.S. health system "completely re-built," compared to just 24 percent who wish only for "minor changes" (Pew Research Center, 2009)
[7]Roger Bybee, "The Doctors Revolt:Watchdogs of system are now biting their master, the big insurers," July 01, 2008 د امریکې اټکل, available at http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/18376
[8] The "Medicare for all" or single-payer alternative has virtually disappeared from mention in the major corporate media. وګورئ Single-Payer & Interlocking Directorates
The corporate ties between insurers and media companies." اضافي! د اګست په 2009په www.عادلانه.org/index.php?page=384; مطالعه:" Media Blackout on Single-Payer Healthcare Proponents of popular policy shut out of debate, March 6, 2009, http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/03/06-9. Even the نیویارک ټایمز public editor acknowledged that the single-payer plan has not received its fair share of coverage from the ټایمز. See Clark Hoyt, The Health Care Sprawl, نیویارک ټایمز, Oct. 11, 2009, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11pubed.html?_r=1
Hoyt’s discussion understates the huge impact that the ټایمز has in defining what is political "realistic" and "viable":
"The Times has focused its coverage on proposals that editors and reporters judge to be politically feasible, who means that tort reform, popular with conservatives, and single-payer health coverage, popular with liberals, have received relatively scant attention. Anger boiled over recently, when یوه مقاله on Medicare-for-all, a version of single-payer, explained all the reasons it was dead, and arguments against it, without going into arguments for it. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a liberal media watchdog, urged followers to object, and I received roughly 1,000 messages.
"Katharine Seelye, the reporter, said she was trying to explain why Medicare-for-all was not going anywhere and provided links online to arguments for it. “I thought the substance of it had been dealt with elsewhere many times,” she said. But د ټایمز had not seriously explored the issue during the current debate, and I thought FAIR had a point.
"The public option, a government-run health plan that would compete with private insurers, favored by a majority in the Times/CBS News poll, has been covered extensively as a political story. But the substance has received less attention. جیل ابرامسون, the managing editor for news, said she wondered if the paper had done enough. “If people had understood it more, would the politics have turned out differently?” she said. “I don’t know, and I’m not saying this from a point of advocacy.” Editors need to keep asking: Do their judgments about what is realistic become self-fulfilling prophecies?"
In other words, does the lack of serious coverage of the single-payer idea help to condemn it to political marginality? Give the consistent patter of dismissing and virtually disqualifying the single-payer plan from serious discussion, I would emphatically argue "Yes."
The singlepayer/"Medicare for all" plan received short shrift from mainstream media like the نیویارک ټایمز او واشنګټن پوسټ (although ironically, not in د سوداګرۍ اونۍ and the news pages of the وال سینټ ژورنال ) during the 1993-94 debate, and that dismissive attitude has continued into the present debate in 2009. See for example, Media Quarantine of Single-Payer Continues Fifteen years later, public health insurance still taboo," اضافه! د جون په 2009, available at http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3793; Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting release, March 12, 2009, "Single-Payer Is So ’90s:Medical reporter warns against ‘government-run health system’, available at http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/03/12-8; ډیو لینډورف، "The New York Times Trashes Single-Payer Health Reform," Sept. 22, 2009, نور ولولی: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-lindorff/the-new-york-times-trashe_b_293930.html; Roger Bybee, واحد-payer dismissed, Z Magazine; Roger Bybee, "Media Miss Bigger Picture in HealthCare debate,
اضافي! May/June 2008 ...
[9] Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus raked in $3 million in campaign contributions from the health and insurance sectors between 2003 and 2008, according to the واشنګټن پوسټ, amounting to 20 percent of his total contributions (based on Center for Responsive Politics data). Moreover, former Wellpoint insurance lobbyist Liz Fowler played a central role in helping Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus of
[10] A نیویارک ټایمز/CBS poll released Sept. 24 showed a stunning 65% majority (with just 26% opposed)–for "the government offering هر څوک [emphasis added] coverage in a government-administered health insurance plan–something like coverage that people 65 and over get–that would compete with private health insurance plan.?" A 47% plurality of Republicans favored such a plan. Significantly, none of the major Democratic plans defines a "public option in such terms."
ZNetwork یوازې د خپلو لوستونکو د سخاوت له لارې تمویل کیږي.
مرسته