Your site was very helpful to me. Thank you.

Your site was very helpful to me. Thank you.

Your site was very helpful to me. Thank you.

Your site was very helpful to me. Thank you.

Your site was very helpful to me. Thank you.

Great site. Enjoyed it.

Great site. Enjoyed it.

Great site. Enjoyed it.

Great site. Enjoyed it.

hmm... good site

hmm... good site

hmm... good site

hmm... good site

online casinos

My email address is charliecrystle@yahoo.com

Charley,

I don't know if this is the forum to keep such a discussion going, but I do not have an email address for you. If it is not, either send me your email address or just don't respond.

I read this "Physicians for a National Health Program reform plan". This plan is a bit dated, but with the renewed emphasis this political year on health, I think it is a good read. It provides many strong ideas, and challenges the market-based, conservative philosophies that are mainly being currently discussed.

The main area of concern that I have with this plan concerns provider supply issues and resultant access in a universal system. I have just sent them the below illustrative letter, and will be interested in any reply. Below is my letter to them:

-------------------
I recently read your healthplan at your www.pnhp.org website. Although it is
dated now, it still is a good read, and I hope you are still a viable and
active group as healthcare reform makes its ?? phoenix return in 2004!

I have a big question concerning who determines what an adequate number of
providers will be in your system, as well as types of providers and their
scope of practice? Traditionally, organized medicine-dentistry-etc has been
the fox guarding the henhouse on this issue, and provider supply-side
numbers have been kept low as a professional competitive advantage, IMO.
This is a critical area that is usually not discussed in reform circles.
How do you plan on providing timely, quality access in your universal system
and prevent the serious ques from developing that will anger many, even the
majority, of citizens and at the same time not alienate the providers?

Dentistry can provide an excellent example of how this can cause problems,
as many potential patients in need, even with poor insurance such as
Medicaid, cannot now find a dentist willing to see them. At the same time,
almost all dentists are as busy as they wish to be and are not amenable to
much leverage to take new patients who can pay less if at all.

Neil

Here's a link to my post about dropping out:

http://www.charliecrystle.com/archives/000141.html#000141

Universal Health Care means all Americans are coevered as defined by John Conyers bill HR 676. The funding in this single-payer system comes from a payroll tax that would save most businesses money. There are some really good brief explanations at www.pnhp.org to your other questions. I don't mean to punt on this, but PNHP has really nailed the issue well.

Charley,

Thanks for responding. Can I ask two questions (?):

--What was the main reason you dropped out?

--I told you healthcare was tough. Let me ask you some probing questions about this.

--What is a definition of universal healthcare and what are the major components of it?
---who would determine what would be covered?
---where would the funding come from?
--How would run-a-way cost potential and quality be controlled/determined in a fee for service system?
--In a capitated system, how would quality of care be protected/monitored?
---Assuming a growing lack of providers nationwide, how will access to the above quality care be assured in a universal system?

That's correct--I've dropped out, at least for now. I'm running Mission Research again and building a statewide colation around universal health care.

During the campaign I focused on economic issues, mostly--trade, jobs, outsourcing, and insourcing.

I'm not sure what the purpose of the blog is right now. Just to keep interested people updated. I haven't really settled into it just yet, but I'm keeping it going. We have a decent number of visitors, just not many comments...

Charley,

I met you this past summer and fall at several Lancaster County Dem functions, including the Michael Dukakis dinner. I recommended that you concentrate on economics to bring people together, stay away from divisive, small, Republican sponsored issues, and be careful of the healthcare issue (because noboby knows how to control the system yet) as your main message. The last I heard, you had dropped out of the race for Senate. Is this true, and what is the purpose of this blog now?