Single Payer Healthcare and the Practicing Physician Panel @ USC/Keck Med School, Friday 2/21

[CaPA Office Manager]

Dear CAPA Board and activists,

I attended the Single Payer Healthcare and the
Practicing physician panel discussion at USC/Keck Med
School on last Friday, 2/22. zit was broadly sponsored
by four USC organizations. See CaPA email of 2/21.
The format was good with Sara Rogers, health
consultant to Senator Sheila Kuehl a lawyer
representing physician groups and 3 MDs.

Organization was good with chatting, refreshments,
the panel, and then more conversation. It appeared
that there were about 50 people in attendance,
apparently mainly medical students.

Sara Rogers made an excellent analysis of the Kuehl
Bill and need for universal healthcare coverage. Her
talk may have been a little long and detailed but I
did not see people leaving during her remarks.

The CEO of the organization representing medical
groups and the three physicians all seemed to be
opposed to the Kuehl Bill.

This was an important event. On future similar events
we should attempt to in include one or more physicians
favoring universal single payer healthcare
particularly CAPA activists familiar with the
arguments for the Kuehl bill and national extension of
the Medicare principal to the whole population.
Also earlier and wider publicity for the event.

Robert Peck, Board member, CAPA, Assistant Professor
of Medicine, KECK/USC Med School

[Sue Brown]

Is the content of video of Sara Rogers talk available. As I look for ways
to explain the benefits and need for universal healthcare coverage, I
welcome her information.

Many thanks,

Sue Brown
San Anselmo

[Donald Wolochow]

Why do the major presidential candidates keep touting health "insurance" and talking about people "purchasing" health insurance---with no mention of extending Medicare to all by bypassing the for-profit insurers and using the savings to cover the now-uninsured? Was Dennis Kucinich the only one to mention "single payer?"---look what happened to him! I'm told that the hospitals and their buddies, the insurance companies, have the system in a stranglehold. How do we bring single payer out into the open for discussion?

retired MD in CA

[lad...@aol.com]

Dr. Wolochow: When you say "single payer" you are using a term that
strikes fear into the hearts of most Americans (even many Canadians).
While most Americans, in their hearts, want or will accept a system of
universal care, they fear (and probably rightly so) the concept of
single payer (socialized) medicine. Allowing for and providing the
choice of supplementary insurance for those who can afford it is
probably the only way the average American, the average American
physician, and the humongous insurance lobby in Washington will ever
accept the concept universal health care. Stay well,

Lawrence A. Danto, MD, FACS
1067 Martis Landing, Truckee, CA 96161
530-906-1160

[Stone, Daniel M.D.]

I would agree with Dr. Danto.

Obama's comment that if he were starting from scratch, he'd choose single payer, but doesn't advocate it currently, shows some insight. The savings in admin cost in a single payer system (probably 15-20% of the $1 trillion in healthcare costs) is tempting, as it would go a long way toward extending coverage. But, taking on the insurance companies (who would be out of this business) and the pharmaceutical companies (who rightly expect that their profits would drop if they faced a single bargaining entity) is not a recipe for legislative success.

Also important to remember that although single payer doesn't fit the usual definition of socialized medicine (ie, like Medicare, the government pays for care but doesn't provide it) it would inevitably reduce the choices available for most of the 84% of Americans that currently have coverage. (That may actually be a good thing but is a complex issue.)

Clinton's plan--which essentially sets up a single payer to compete with the private plans-- is an intelligent first step toward a single payer system. But, it would preserve individual choice, which makes it far more politically palatable than a government mandated de novo single payer.

D. Stone

retired MD in CA

welcome her information.

Many thanks,

Sue Brown

San Anselmo

-----Original Message-----

From: california-phys...@googlegroups.com

Office Manager

To: California Physicians Alliance

apparently mainly medical students.

IMPORTANT WARNING: This message is intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential, the disclosure of which is governed by
applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this information is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately
by calling (310) 423-6428 and destroy the related message. Thank You for your cooperation.

[Donald Wolochow]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that "socialized medicine" implies that all health care providers work for the government. "Single payer" (to me, at least) means that there is a single payer for all health care costs. Providers remain as they are today: clinics, groups, individual practitioners, etc., and they are paid for services rendered (or by some other arrangement, such as capitation , e.g. Kaiser). The "payer" could be an independent entity which collects revenue through taxes, fees, membership, etc., but the bottom line is that we are already spending more than enough to cover everyone---as I understand it, the private sector is draining away around 30 percent of this for administrative costs, profit, etc.

I'm not talking about a British NHS, more of a Canadian system (which is underfunded as it stands now, but that's another challenge to meet through efficiency, practice guidelines, computerization and other methods).

dw

[Donald Wolochow]

Thanks to all. I'm beginning to see the light. "Single payer" in the best of all worlds, but some hybrid, less-than-ideal plan in the real world of the back room boys/girls and the lobbyists. Too bad.

I started medical school back in 1951---we never heard one word about billing, paying, costs---nuthin'.....times have changed.

dw

[Larry Freedman]

For the life of me, I do not understand what "socialized" anything
means. Is something predestined to be wasteful and inefficient if it is
socialized?
In the Monday, February 25 edition of the LA Times Susan Brink gives a
rather telling history of the way in which the term "socialized" has
been utilized to create a sentiment against almost any effort to bring
about some form of universal care.
After all, fire departments are "socialized" as are public schools, the
army, navy, air force and coast guard are also socialized. I can go on,
the NIH is socialized, the public health service is socialized, etc. In
fact our government system is "socialized."
Let's stay with the issues, not the labels.

Lawrence R. Freedman, MD, FACP
Los Angeles, CA
Email: <lfre...@ucla.edu>

[jxb...@aol.com]

This may be a little overly pedantic, but none of the Democratic candidates has proposed socialized medicine, merely socialized insurance.  "Socialized medicine" implies that physicians, like their British colleagues, would be employed by the state.  An example of American medicine where the physicians are government employees would, of course, be the VA.  "HillaryCare" from 1994 was modeled on the far more successful German model which is a mixture of public and private insurance and subsidies to lower income families, but physicians employed in single, group, and clinic type practices like the U.S.   The 1994 version also version also placed a great deal of emphasis on the spread of the HMO model as the chief means of cost control.  The currently proposed solutions are similar with various (relatively minor) differences among them and with vaguer proposals for cost control.

My patients ask me about "socialized medicine" from time to time and I always have trouble not snarling at them that "socialized" is a smear word supplied by the GOP.  Interestingly the LA Times study that showed decreased fear of  socialized medicine probably is a reaction to the failure of communism and its relegation by now to history books.  I suspect that "pinko" and "commie" also seem like quaint, dated smears from the 1950s.

J Brown, MD

-----Original Message-----
From: lad...@aol.com
To: dawol...@gmail.com; suub...@comcast.net

---

Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM toolbar for your browser.

[Roger Corbett]

A friendly hello,

I somehow seem to have been included in your email discussion and although I'm all for a single payer system I'm positive I am not the intended recipient of these emails. Perhaps you should check that your messages are not being distributed to other unintended recipients.

Keep up the good fight,

Roger Corbett.

[Shijun Cindy Xi]

Dear CaPA members,

Thank you to all those who attended Friday's event. It is very
exciting to see so many physicians interested. The webcast can be
found below:

http://keckmedia.usc.edu/Keck4/Viewer?peid=da409cc6-f063-4f98-b1e9-9f274e1ef3ba

I apologize that you can't see the panelists' name placards: they are
sitting in alphabetical order (from left to right: Mr. Crane, Dr.
Geller, Dr. LaGrelius, Dr. Strull).

The event program with bios and contact information of all panelists
are available at:

http://www.csphr.org-a.googlepages.com/02.22.08SaraRogersProgram.pdf

To view it fullscreen, click on the cross next to the volume slider.
Let me know if any of you experience problems.

If you do view it, I would also really appreciate you taking a minute
to complete our very brief evaluation form. We look forward to any
comments you have to help us better organize future events.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?key=pJgCzQp70iAryge-wmbojGg

The event was organized mainly by the California Student Physicians
for Healthcare Reform (www.csphr.org), co-sponsors being the USC
Chapters of AMSA and CMA. Funding was provided predominantly by the
USC Graduate Professional Student Senate.

We aimed to provide a spectrum of perspectives on our panel, and we
had 1 supporter (Dr. Geller), 1 opposer (Dr. LaGrelius), and 2 neutral
(Mr. Crane & Dr. Strull). Based on our evaluations, however, it seems
that well-roundedness was our greatest weakness (so far 3.8 on a scale
of 1-5).

We look forward to engaging more physicians in organizing future
events at USC. An upcoming event we are working on will look at
healthcare reform from the perspective of ethics and spiritual
leaders.

March 7 is our next letter-writing event, where we plan to collect
signatures on form letters asking legislators to support SB 840 or
thank them for already doing so. Please let us know if you would like
to participate! You can join our mailing list at
www.csphr.org/facebook.

Thanks so much,

Cindy Xi

--
USC School of Medicine, Class of 2010
President, California Student Physicians for Healthcare Reform
www.csphr.org

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Sue Brown <suub...@comcast.net> wrote:
>

--
USC School of Medicine, Class of 2010
California Student Physicians for Healthcare Reform
www.csphr.org

[CaPA Office Manager]

As far as "single payer" being socialized (and what would be wrong
with that?) that already is nonsense. All single payer means is that
there is one and only one (be it government or private) agency which
run the payment to a variety of plans. "Socialized" means that the
government from general taxation will pay for medical care within the
limits of what the legislators decide. Everyone gets "the same"--that
is, for things affecting outcome, and no one can buy more. It seems
on many accounts to be the most rational going. Countries like the UK
have a "single payer" and are socialized--that is, the money comes
from taxation for basic health care but people are entitled to also
carry private insurance. Over the years the difference in things that
matter to outcome (waiting time, nursing staff, medical staff, etc.)
have been vast.

Single payer does not equate to socialized. Over the years I have
seen nothing terrible about it being socialized. Wealth or lack of
same should not be the deciding factour in our getting or not getting
access and continuance of care--all other things seem to favour the
"upper classes".

Dr Erich H. Loewy
Professor of Medicine and Founding Chair of Bioethics (emeritus)
Associate in Philosophy
University of California, Davis
11465 Ghirardelli
Court

On Feb 27, 5:20 pm, jxbr...@aol.com wrote:
> This may be a little overly pedantic, but none of the Democratic candidates has proposed socialized medicine, merely socialized insurance.? "Socialized medicine" implies that physicians, like their British colleagues, would be employed by the state.? An example of American medicine where the physicians are government employees would, of course, be the VA.? "HillaryCare" from 1994 was modeled on the far more successful German model which is a mixture of public and private insurance and subsidies to lower income families, but physicians employed in single, group, and clinic type practices like the U.S.?? The 1994 version also version also placed a great deal of emphasis on the spread of the HMO model as the chief means of cost control.? The currently proposed solutions are similar with various (relatively minor) differences among them and with vaguer proposals for cost control.
>
> My patients ask me about "socialized medicine" from time to time and I always have trouble not snarling at them that "socialized" is a smear word supplied by the GOP.? Interestingly the LA Times study that showed decreased fear of? socialized medicine probably is a reaction to the failure of communism and its relegation by now to history books.? I suspect that "pinko" and "commie" also seem like quaint, dated smears from the 1950s.

>
> J Brown, MD
>
> -----Original Message-----
>

> From: lada...@aol.com
>
> To: dawoloc...@gmail.com; suubr...@comcast.net
>
> Cc: california.physici...@gmail.com; california-phys...@googlegroups.com

>
> Sent: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 4:34 pm
>
> Subject: Re: Single Payer Healthcare and the Practicing Physician Panel @ USC/Keck Med School, Friday 2/21
>
> Dr. Wolochow: When you say "single payer" you are using a term that
>
> strikes fear into the hearts of most Americans (even many Canadians).
>
> While most Americans, in their hearts, want or will accept a system of
>
> universal care, they fear (and probably rightly so) the concept of
>
> single payer (socialized) medicine. Allowing for and providing the
>
> choice of supplementary insurance for those who can afford it is
>
> probably the only way the average American, the average American
>
> physician, and the humongous insurance lobby in Washington will ever
>
> accept the concept universal health care. Stay well,
>
> Lawrence A. Danto, MD, FACS
>
> 1067 Martis Landing, Truckee, CA 96161
>
> 530-906-1160
>
> -----Original Message-----
>

> From: Donald Wolochow <dawoloc...@gmail.com>
>
> To: suubr...@comcast.net
>
> Cc: california.physici...@gmail.com; California Physicians Alliance

>
> <california-phys...@googlegroups.com>
>
> Sent: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 3:19 pm
>
> Subject: Re: Single Payer Healthcare and the Practicing Physician Panel
>
> @ USC/Keck Med School, Friday 2/21
>
> Why do the major presidential candidates keep touting health
>
> "insurance" and talking about people "purchasing" health
>
> insurance---with no mention of extending Medicare to all by bypassing
>
> the for-profit insurers and using the savings to cover the
>
> now-uninsured? Was Dennis Kucinich the only one to mention "single
>
> payer?"---look what happened to him! I'm told that the hospitals and
>
> their buddies, the insurance companies, have the system in a
>
> stranglehold. How do we bring single payer out into the open for
>
> discussion?
>
> retired MD in CA
>

> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Sue Brown <suubr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Is the content of video of Sara Rogers talk available. ?As I look for

>
> ways
>
> to explain the benefits and need for universal healthcare coverage, I
>
> welcome her information.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Sue Brown
>
> San Anselmo
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: california-phys...@googlegroups.com
>
> [mailto:california-phys...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
>
> CaPA
>
> Office Manager
>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:14 PM
>
> To: California Physicians Alliance
>
> Subject: Single Payer Healthcare and the Practicing Physician Panel @
>
> USC/Keck Med School, Friday 2/21
>
> Dear CAPA Board and activists,
>
> I attended the Single Payer Healthcare and the
>
> Practicing physician panel discussion at USC/Keck Med
>
> School on last Friday, 2/22. zit was broadly sponsored
>

> by four USC organizations. ?See CaPA email of 2/21.

>
> The format was good with Sara Rogers, health
>
> consultant to Senator Sheila Kuehl a lawyer
>
> representing physician groups and 3 MDs.
>
> Organization was good with chatting, refreshments,
>
> the panel, and then more conversation. It appeared
>
> that there were about 50 people in attendance,
>
> apparently mainly medical students.
>
> Sara Rogers made an excellent analysis of the Kuehl
>

> Bill and need for universal healthcare coverage. ?Her

[CaPA Office Manager]

The previous post was forwarded from Dr. Loewy.

On Feb 27, 5:55 pm, CaPA Office Manager

[Scott Nass]

I am sure this problem is temporary, as it has happened on other mailing lists to which I am subscribed. 

However, for those of you who cannot bear to hit the delete button a few times more than you normally must (and who continue to add to the problem by telling us all that you want to leave a list you knowingly and willingly subscribed to), please note the following instructions included at the bottom of EVERY message you are receiving:

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "California Physicians Alliance" group.
To post to this group, send email to california-phys...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to california-physicians...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/california-physicians-alliance?hl=en

VOTE Green Party!

---

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

[Claudia Chaufan]

I guess I just can't see which sort of choices a single payer would reduce. My in-laws live in Canada and they see whichever doctor they please. When I tell them about the debates here they just scratch their heads in disbelief...

Is it choice of "plans" maybe? Of "insurance products"? But who wants those??? And, if whatever they need is not included in the comprehensive package of care they are entitled to, Canadians can pay for it, assuming they can afford it. In any event, we do this here all the time (at several times the prices there).

As to Clinton's plan being a step in the direction of single payer, I beg to differ with Dr. Stone. It is certainly a step in some direction, but which direction we simply do not know -- her type of plan has never been tried. In fact, the public program that she says will compete with the private sector will have a hard time indeed, because those with worse health are likely to fall into it, by choice or by need. And then, who will wants to but into a plan who has all those sick people...? It will be soon underfunded.

I know, we all wish alternatives to social insurance worked (at least most Americans do, given our dread of anything preceded by the word "social"), but there is very little evidence they will :-(

My two cents. ;-)

Claudia

"Stone, Daniel M.D." <Sto...@csmns.org> wrote:

I would agree with Dr. Danto.

Obama's comment that if he were starting from scratch, he'd choose single payer, but doesn't advocate it currently, shows some insight. The savings in admin cost in a single payer system (probably 15-20% of the $1 trillion in healthcare costs) is tempting, as it would go a long way toward extending coverage. But, taking on the insurance companies (who would be out of this business) and the pharmaceutical companies (who rightly expect that their profits would drop if they faced a single bargaining entity) is not a recipe for legislative success.

Also important to remember that although single payer doesn't fit the usual definition of socialized medicine (ie, like Medicare, the government pays for care but doesn't provide it) it would inevitably reduce the choices available for most of the 84% of Americans that currently have coverage. (That may actually be a good thing but is a complex issue.)

Clinton's plan--which essentially sets up a single payer to compete with the private plans-- is an intelligent first step toward a single payer system. But, it would preserve individual choice, which makes it far more politically palatable than a government mandated de novo single payer.

D. Stone

******************************************************
Claudia Chaufan, PhD
MD (University of Buenos Aires)
Lecturer, Social Sciences Division
University of California, Santa Cruz


Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
T. S. Eliot, The Rock (1934)


One day, when picketing the White House in opposition to the Vietnam war, a journalist asked A.J. Muste, author, pacifist and activist:"Why do you demonstrate in the rain? Do you think you will change the country this way?"

"No," replied Muste, "I don't do this to change the country. I do this so the country doesn't change me."