It's very complicated but I'm going to stick my neck out and try to refine the details of the two options that are currently out there for discussion on healthcare reform; people please correct me if I'm wrong or missing some major fact.

We're looking at two public systems: one is simply streamlining billing and reversing the current system of denying needed healthcare procedures; the other is a federalized system to cover those who have none:

* The 30% savings is obviously the key factor in the assessment of a Universal Single Payer healthcare system, which is the preferred option by those who are in favor of a system that gives us the optimum options (choice of doctor's etc) at the greatest cost savings, along with the elimination of the private sector's notorious healthcare denials. The level of federal involvement is basically for the billing.

* The Medicare For All system would be a nationalized system (we're calling it the "public option") that would allow everyone who is a citizen of the US to have healthcare and would be paid for by federal deductions at a minimal rate assessed by the Medicare office. It would be offered to those who want it or need it, allowing those who do not want it to keep their private health insurance system, with all its pros and cons. (This is the system the Obama Admn is most interested in adding in with the private insurance we already have.)

Please write or call our state legislature on our UMass premium increase at http://www.mass.gov/legis/,
and then take a moment to write Kennedy and Kerry to let them know we care about our fellow citizens who do not have coverage. Unfortunately we have to challenge our two Mass state senators not to play the "corporate profit" game by choosing one of these two options above and urging them to do the same:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm ...

and watch for the BS from the insurance companies that is soon to hit the airwaves...

this is Frank Olbris' reply

Emily and USA people:

Your questions are good, but rest on some assumptions that need clarification. My comments will be contained in brackets [ ] within your text.

Frank,

Thanks very much...further refine the details; correct me if I'm wrong. We're looking at two public systems - one is simply streamlining billing and reversing denials, the other is a more federalized system:

["Federalizing" and "streamlining billing" are not alternatives. They could be used together, or apart.]

[Single payer (SP) does "streamline billing" but in a very different way.
Instead of billing the patient, SP systems have providers bill a central fund.That is, sort of, what Medicare does. A genuine SP system would not have the patient involved in billing or paying (except through general taxes)--thus cutting out huge paperwork expenses. SP systems do not "reverse denials" but rather have a simple criteria; whatever is medically necessary is paid for. Under that medical/ethical rule, there could be denials of service--but not based on protecting profits for insurance companies.]

* The 30% savings is obviously the key factor in the assessment of a
Universal *Single Payer* healthcare system....The level of federal involvement is basically for the billing.

[The Canadian system started in the 1960's in one province, so SP systems can be established at any level (federal, state, or regional), if legal entanglements can be cleared away. Whichever level of government adopts SP, that level of government would establish the rules of the system. The "federal involvement" can simplify billing, but other levels could too, and in a real SP system there would be other changes--like global budgeting for hospitals, etc.]

* The *Medicare for All* system would be a nationalized system (we're calling it the "public option") that would allow everyone who is a citizen of the US to have healthcare and would be paid for by federal deductions at a minimal rate assessed by the Medicare office.

["Medicare for All" is a concept of providing Medicare coverage--usually better than currently provided--to people of all ages. It is not the same as a "public option" which assumes private insurance would continue. In SP systems, it is necessary to pool all risk and all premiums in order to be efficent--that is an economic principle. Leaving private insurers to provide health insurance allows for "cherry picking," where they would seek to insure the healthiest (they have many techniques which they use now) while encouraging sicker people to use the public system. Essentially they seek to have public coverage cross-subsidize their profits.]

It would be offered to those who want it, allowing those who do not want it to keep their private health insurance system, with all its pros and cons. (This is the system the Obama Admn is most interested in adding in with the private insurance we already have.)

[Yes, that is the essense of the "public option." However, our society is paying dearly for this "individual choice" in insurance--through much higher costs than necessary, financial devastation to people with medical problems, and (according to the National Institutes of Health) 20,000 people dying each year due to lack of heath care. So while "individual choice" sounds so patriotic and culturally familiar, it distracts attention from our really bad current system. Advertising techniques are highly developed in the U.S., but they are not a good basis for deciding public policy.]

From where you stand, am I close?
Emily

[I understand that the terms and concepts of health care policy can be confusing--and commercial interests want to keep it that way, with advertising slogans and emotional appeals to "sell" their views. However, our current fragmented and commercially influenced health care system is crumbling, and taking corporations, small businesses, and governments with it. We have to step outside the familiar box, for more basic changes--in order to solve the problems. - Frank Olbris]

I just posted some information on the Union Voice page... about what Bill Moyers has to say about the movement to exclude single payer healthcare from even being in the mix...that's a red flag to me! Also there is a video about the Nurses and CNAs who were protesting the fact that SP proponents were excluded from the planning process for National Healthcare.

Yes, the Single-Payer option has not been included as a viable option and people like Bill Moyers are on top of this blaring omission - he points out that our federal government has ignored it. To exclude SP as a viable option shows how much influence Big Money has (in this case it's the insurance companies) over our system.

Two more articles that helped me understand what is being presented in the US House and Senate as we begin to build policy around this urgent issue follow:

This one points out the Medicare-like public option Ted Kennedy is presenting. At this point this is all that is being discussed by our federal gov, and if this is all we get (if we get it) I suppose it's better than nothing. As with all major social changes, sometimes a slower transition will keep things in check, as we have been "mainlining" corporate money for some time now. The goal is to bring it to the Single-Payer level in the end, however, which could take a decade or so I suppose. My concern is that this Medicare-like system would not function as well as a Single-Payer system, however.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/health/policy/30health.html?_r=1

This one discusses the reasons why a public option, no matter if it is based on Medicare, or the Single-Payer format, will improve the system overall, as it will pressure insurance companies to get their sh-- together and start providing real care at lower rates (the part of capitalism that works, as it provides competition, which the insurance companies have been lacking and is why things have gotten so out of hand), while providing a public option that has good health, not profit, at its core. I should point out that the SP system is preferred by most groups who have studied this topic, because it merges the better care of our private system at a reduced cost to the public, and with no denials of needed care.

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/140367/health_insurance_bankrupts_americans/