Can we all get behind State Sen. Keiser's new proposal for a WA state health plan?

[pnwmom]

Please?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2723688&mesg_id=2723688

[SeattleGirl]

1. I'm behind her!

Damn, this would be GREAT!

[eridani]

2. It isn't going to happen this year in a short session--they are doing a study

A suggested letter from Physicians for National Health Care--Western Washington

Dear Senator/Representative ____________

I ask that you support Senator Karen Keiser’s (SB 6221) and Representative Eileen Cody’s (HR 2536) “Working Group” legislation for the economic analysis study and subsequent public forums comparing models of health care reform for our state. In order for this study to be meaningful, however, a public insurance model, such as the Washington Health Security Trust (SB 5756, HB 1886), must be included along with the four models already proposed.

I would like to address three points:

First, a public insurance model is an excellent one that has the greatest potential to cover everyone in the state, while controlling costs, thereby getting us to a sustainable, high performing health care system. A public insurance model has already been included in at least 14 studies in other states. It is the only model found to cover everyone without increasing costs. When compared with other models, it is the only one to fulfill the Institute of Medicine’s criteria for universal health care. At least nine of these studies were done by the Lewin Group, now under consideration for conducting the Working Group’s economic analysis.

Second, a public model is sufficiently different from the others to warrant study. The other models being considered in this bill are either not comprehensive or are public/private models. Only a public insurance model does not fragment the risk pool or offer inequitable, tiered coverage. The other models continue to be structured around private insurance markets, with a supporting role being played by public insurance programs, whereas the public model is the only one that reliably restricts the private insurance industry. Administratively, it is simplest and least costly. A public insurance model is clearly different.

Third, a public insurance model should not be disregarded as being “not appealing to the public or not politically feasible at this time.” I believe you will find the public model to be the most favored pathway to reform when the study findings are discussed in the Working Group public forums.

• The public will support a public insurance model. A recent Associated Press poll found that 65% agreed that the US should adopt a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers. 54% of responders considered themselves supporters of a single-payer health care system in which everyone would get their insurance from a single government plan.

• Health care professionals will support a public insurance model. The recent Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System and American College of Physicians position papers endorsed a public insurance model as one of two pathways to an equitable high-performing health care system.

• Other legislators support a public insurance model. Both houses of the California legislature passed a public insurance bill last year (vetoed by the governor). What’s feasible in California should be feasible in Washington, given Democratic control of both houses and the governorship.

In summary, I believe that unless a public insurance model is included in the Working Group legislation, that I, and all Washingtonians, will be unfairly denied the opportunity to examine, compare and express meaningful choice as we make major decisions on how to fix our broken health care system.

Sincerely

[Mithreal]

3. Yes, indeed, hi from the 26th LD. nt