|
|
|
|
|
|
Resources |
|
|
|
The U.S. Does Not Need Nationalized Health Care
| Article
# : |
18285 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
10 / 1990 |
2,490 Words |
| Author
: |
John C. Goodman
John C. Goodman is president of the National Center for Policy
Analysis, a Dallas-based research institute. |
Bethlehem Steel Corporation and General Electric Company favor a national health care plan, while American Airlines endorses government-mandated health insurance. Ford Motor Company and Chrysler are partial to a Canadian-style national health care system. And even some physicians are chiming in.
In the January 12, 1989, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine a group called Physicians for a National Health Plan (PNHP), representing less than half of one percent of all practicing physicians in the United States, called for a comprehensive national health plan. The U.S. Bipartisan Commission on Comprehensive health Care (the Pepper Commission) this spring came out with its proposal for health care reform that would conservatively cost $86.2 billion a year.
Altogether, there have been at least 30 different proposals by various commissions, task forces, and special interest groups to transform our health care system. All have one thing in common: They promote the growth of third-party (private or public) health insurance.
In addition, there have been a number of legislative proposals advocating a major federal commitment to health care. Rep. Fortney “Pete” Stark (D-California) proposes a $120 billion plan that includes stringent cost controls on doctors and hospitals. Rep. Willis Gradison (R-Ohio) proposes taxing some employer-paid health premiums and using the revenues to finance tax credits for those who purchase their own health insurance. His plan would levy taxes on richer Americans and allow them few benefits. Rep. Mary Rose Oakar (D-Ohio) wants a Canadian-type health plan enforced and run by the states, and Sen. John
... (1995 of 15127 Characters)
Read Full Article
|
|
