Editorials & Other Articles
In reply to the discussion: Role of regulation in value-based health care [View all]ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The PNHP left out the links included in the text of the original blog post for citations. That's a red flag that it's something that doesn't support the conclusion that PNHP wants.
Here a link to the full blog post, with all citations;
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20180927.405697/full/
Can you tell me what conclusions you reached from this? Not clear from your post, which mashes up excerpts from the already edited PNHP report with comments on the PHNP article.
Also - the snippet of an Obama quote in the rotating banner at the top of the PNHP page dated July 22, 2009:

leaves out the full context what he also said in that same July 22, 2009 press conference, cutting it off mid-sentence, which doesn't lend PNHP much credibility on that- he was answering a reporter's question about if his plan would cover every single person or fewer than that. Here's their snippet in context:
THE PRESIDENT: I want to cover everybody. Now, the truth is that unless you have a what's called a single-payer system in which everybody is automatically covered, then you're probably not going to reach every single individual, because there's always going to be somebody out there who thinks they're indestructible and doesn't want to get health care, doesn't bother getting health care, and then unfortunately when they get hit by a bus end up in the emergency room and the rest of us have to pay for it.
But that's not the overwhelming majority of Americans. The overwhelming majority of Americans want health care, but millions of them can't afford it. So the plan that has been -- that I've put forward and that what we're seeing in Congress would cover -- the estimates are at least 97 to 98 percent of Americans.
There might still be people left out there who, even though there's an individual mandate, even though they are required to purchase health insurance, might still not get it, or despite a lot of subsidies are still in such dire straits that it's still hard for them to afford it, and we may end up giving them some sort of hardship exemption.
.................................
So tonight I want to answer those questions. Because even though Congress is still working through a few key issues, we already have rough agreement on the following areas:
If you have health insurance, the reform we're proposing will provide you with more security and more stability. It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it. It will prevent insurance companies from dropping your coverage if you get too sick. It will give you the security of knowing that if you lose your job, if you move, or if you change your job, you'll still be able to have coverage. It will limit the amount your insurance company can force you to pay for your medical costs out of your own pocket. And it will cover preventive care like check-ups and mammograms that save lives and money.
And it certainly doesn't include this quote from a few months earlier- which explains WHY he didn't support Single Payer as a solution to the US problem:
We dont want a huge disruption as we go into healthcare reform where suddenly were trying to completely re-invent one-sixth of the economy. So what Ive said is, lets set up a system where, uh, if you already have healthcare through your employer and youre happy with it, you dont have to change doctors. You dont have to change plans. Nothing changes. If you dont have healthcare, or youre highly unsatisfied with your healthcare, then lets give you choices. Lets give you options, including a public plan that you can enroll in and sign up for. Thats been my proposal.
http://www.healthfreedoms.org/obama-single-payer-if-we-were-starting-from-scratch/