HEALTH CARE
Decision Points

On Monday, Senate Democrats and White House officials met "to discuss how to merge the two versions of the Senate's health care legislation, and Democratic aides said they were aiming to have a combined bill 'mostly baked' by the end of this week." As the New York Times explains, "once the bills are melded, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will be asked to develop a revised cost analysis, which will take several days. At that point, provided everything is in order, the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, will look to start the floor debate" by the week of Oct. 26. In the House, "Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants have been at work for weeks trying to blend legislation approved by three House committees. The result is certain to include a government insurance plan, but the details of the 'public option' have split the rank and file, and leaders have spent days struggling with the issue." Throughout the merging process, lawmakers have been concerned with thee major issues: the public option and how it reimburses providers, affordability and coverage, and the employer mandate.

PUBLIC OPTION: The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) included a public option to compete with private insurers on an equal playing field, while the Finance Committee did not include a public plan, instead proposing "the creation of private, nonprofit health cooperatives." Pelosi is insisting the House health care bill include a public option and has sent "three different public option proposals to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to assess their financial impact. The three plans vary in the way medical provider reimbursement rates are handled." A robust public option that initially reimburses providers at 5 percent above Medicare rates was originally part of the House bill. A second alternative would allow the public option to reimburse at higher than Medicare rates but could trigger the lower Medicare reimbursements if costs increased. A third option would have the public plan negotiate payment rates with providers. According to the CBO, a public option that reimburses at 5 percent above Medicare rates would generate $85 billion more in savings than a plan that reimbursed at market rates. In fact, in its analysis of the HELP committee bill, the CBO concluded that "the public plan would pay providers of health care at rates comparable to privately negotiated rates -- and thus was not projected to have premiums lower th an those charged by private insurance plans in the exchanges." As a result, that kind of public option does "not have a substantial effect on the cost or enrollment projections." Conversely, the House bill's original public option "would be about 10 percent cheaper than a typical private plan offered in the exchanges," the CBO concluded. Recently, lawmakers have proposed several other alternatives. Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) is floating a new public option compromise that would "allow states to individually decide whether to create a private-insurance competitor such as a government plan and a nonprofit insurance cooperative, or to open up state-based insurance pools for government workers to every resident." Another proposal would "establish a robust, national public option for insurance coverage but give individual states the right to opt out of the program." Early last week, Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) -- who led a group of seven conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats who objected to a public option that reimbursed providers based on Medicare rates -- floated a proposal to replace the public option with a proposal that would allow Americans under 65 to buy into the Medicare program. Medicare would reimburse the newly enrolled population "at a reimbursement rat e much greater than current Medicare rates."

AFFORDABILITY AND COVERAGE: During a conference call with reporters yesterday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) said that, in merging the two different bills in the Senate, lawmakers were looking to expand coverage and improve affordability. After all, "health reform that fails to make insurance more affordable is at best an incremental improvement." Currently, the Finance Committee's bill would offer subsidies on a sliding scale to families between 134 percent and 300 percent of the federal poverty line (with a flat subsidy for families between 300 and 400 percent) and cap out-of-pocket spending for families in that range. According to preliminary analysis conducted by the CBO, families could still spend 10-20 percent of their income on health care coverage. In the HELP bill, affordability credits are available on a sliding scale for Americans earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line and are slightly more generous than the provisions in the Senate Finance Committee bill. Similarly, under the House bills, families eligible for subsidies would have to spend less on coverage and would have to reach smaller out-of-pocket spending caps. Research indicates that families that spend more than 5-9 percent of their gross income on health care begin confronting affordability problems. As affordability expert Karen Pollitz points out, "depending on what premiums are charged for qualified health benefit plans" subsidies capped above a certain level "may prove to be insufficient to ensure affordable health care for all Americans." She suggests that Congress should "consider instead a rule that no individual or family will have to pay more than 10 percent of income on health insurance premiums...cutting subsidies off entirely at an arbitrary income level can leave families vulnerable," she says. During yesterday's conference call, however, Baucus said that it would be politically difficult to increase subsidies and implied that the Senate may reduce the value of the minimal creditable coverage for Americans in the exchange to "help address affordability"; this kind of solution would shift the costs of coverage onto the enrollee.

EMPLOYER MANDATE: All three House bills and the Senate HELP bill include an employer pay-or-play provision, which requires large employers to offer creditable coverage or pay a fine. The provision establishes the principle that while individuals should be responsible for purchasing health insurance coverage -- with a waiver for those who cannot afford to do so -- large businesses that do not directly provide health care to their employees should pay into a public pool to help finance their employees' coverage. An employer mandate enhances the existing system of employer-based coverage, levels the playing field between employers "that provide insurance and those competing with them that do not," reduces "crowd-out of private coverage by new public programs," and preserves the employer contribution -- an important source of funding for health care reform. The Senate Finance bill contains a free-rider provision, which only targets employers whose workforce is eligible for subsidized coverage in the exchange. Under the provision, employers who don't offer affordable coverage to their employees, would "have to cover the cost of any government subsidy their employees would qualify for under reform." But as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out, the free-rider mandate only requires employers to partly finance the coverage of lower income workers (workers who qualify for sub sidies in the exchange) and may discourage employers from bringing on new lower income hires. "It would make it considerably more expensive for employers who do not offer health insurance to hire workers from lower-income families," providing employers with strong incentives to "tilt hiring toward people who have a spouse/parent with a good income." Poor parents with children in one-earner families would be particularly disadvantaged, and "since minorities are more likely to have low family incomes than non-minorities, a larger share of prospective minority workers would likely be harmed." Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) introduced an amendment to replace the free rider provision with a pay-or-play mandate during the Finance Committee's mark-up process and promised to debate the issue on the Senate floor.

BUT RALLYING CONGRESSIONAL DEMS IMPOSSIBLE AS THEY FIGHT OVER WHO'S TO BLAME



NBC'S Ken Strickland: "[T]here Is Clearly A Civil War Within The Democratic Ranks." (MSNBC's "Live," 10/16/09)



Associated Press: "You May Think Democrats And Republicans Are At Odds Over Health Care. Well, They've Got Nothing On House And Senate Democrats Going After Each Other." (Erica Werner, "House, Senate Dems At Odds On Health Care Overhaul," The Associated Press, 10/19/09)



Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) Blames Obama For "Failing To Lead Democratic Troops" On Health Care. "'[A]s much as I want this administration to succeed, they did not present a piece of legislation to the United States Congress. We still don't have a piece of paper that says what his plan is. We're kind of like pilots flying blind,' he added. The congressman also faulted the president for failing to lead Democratic troo ps during the contentious August recess period. 'It was the perception of many that the administration stayed on the sidelines of the summertime healthcare debate until the president, rightly so, addressed a joint session of Congress and solidified this as being a top priority.'" (Michael O'Brien, "House Dem: Obama Not Leading On Healthcare," The Hill's "Briefing Room" Blog, 10/19/09)



White House Attacks AFSCME President Gerry McEntee For Speaking Out Against Health Insurance Tax. "'We have had just about enough of his gratuitous slaps,' said a senior White House official Friday, calling the politically charged language 'outrageous and unacceptable' from an ally -- even from one that had, the official noted, devoted substantial resources to health care efforts. 'He's doing his members a real disservice,' said the official, who said that while all other labor leaders had been careful to keep their opposition to elements of health care proposals modulated and largely inside the tent, McEntee was 'beyond the pale.'" (Ben Smith, "Labor Chief Takes On White House," Politico, 10/17/09)



Left-Wing Group Attacks Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) With TV Ad Over Public Option. "The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is launching an ad Wednesday asking whether Senate Majority Leader Reid is a strong enough leader to pass a public option. The ad will air on cable and broadcast channels in the Las Vegas market." (Chris Frates, "Reid's Political Fix Could Mean Public Option Slips Into Senate Bill -- Progressives Buy Ads On Las Vegas TV -- White House Annoyed By Slaps From Labor Allies -- Palin Turns Wonky," Politico's "Politico Pulse" Blog, 10/19/09)



AND DEMS STILL IN DISARRAY OVER PUBLIC OPTION, TAXES TO PAY FOR EXPERIMENT



Senate HELP Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) Wants Senate Dems Opposed To Public Option To Give Up. "'There are 52 solid Democrats for the public option,' said Senator Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who is chairman of the health committee. 'Only about five Democrats oppose it. Should the 52 give in to the five? Or should the five go along with the vast majority of the Democratic caucus?'" (Carl Hulse & Robert Pear, "Health Care Poses Stiff Tests For Top Democrats," The New York Times, 10/18/09)



But Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) Says Public Option "Alive" But Doubts There Will Be Enough Votes. "On a conference call with reporters moments ago, Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus said that the public option is still alive, adding, in a familiar refrain, that the question for Democrats now is what kind of public option can get 60 votes. ... 'It's alive... We're trying to see what makes the most sense.' . .. [H]e did ultimately hit that point, casting doubt on the idea that a health care bill that includes a public option that pays hospitals and doctors at Medicare-like rates, could overcome a filibuster ...'" (Brian Beutler, "Baucus: The Public Option Is Alive...We're Just Not Sure What Type," TPMDC, 10/19/09)



Senate Dems Won't Pass Strong Public Option, But House Dems Insist On It. "House Democrats are adamant about allowing the government to sell insurance to people who don't have affordable care and are too young for Medicare or make too much money for Medicaid. The leading Senate bill contains no such public option and even if senators ultimately agree to some public plan variant, it's certain to be much weaker th an the House version. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has staked out an uncompromising position on the issue. 'I want to send our conferees to the table with the most muscle for America's middle class,' she says." (Erica Werner, "House, Senate Dems At Odds On Health Care Overhaul," The Associated Press, 10/19/09)



Senate Finance Dems' Bill Doesn't Have Employer Mandate To Buy Insurance While Other Dems' Bills Do. "The House includes a requirement for employers to provide insurance coverage to their employees or pay a penalty. There's no such mandate in the leading Senate bill. Instead, employers would be required to pay a fee for any employee who obtains coverage with government subsidies. The distinction may seem subtle, but it makes a big difference to business groups and Democrats on both ends of the ideological spectrum." (Erica Werner, "House, Senate Dems At Odds On Health Care Overhaul," The Associated Press, 10/19/09)



Senate Dems Want Tax On Health Insurance While House Dems Prefer Income Tax Hike On Small Businesses. "The Cadillac plan tax faces major opposition in the House, where more than 100 Democrats oppose it. Some of the opposition stems from organized labor which fears its members could be subject to the tax. House members say their approach -- a tax on individuals making more than $500,000 a year and households maki ng more than $1 million -- is a fairer way to go and would find more favor with the public. Some senators share concerns about the high-value insurance plan tax and have already decided to adjust it so more plans are exempt, according to Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. But some senators are skeptical about making a small group of the highest-income Americans pay for everyone else, and they're adamant about the need to use a financing mechanism that would have the benefit of keeping down health care costs." (Erica Werner, "House, Senate Dems At Odds On Health Care Overhaul," The Associated Press, 10/19 /09)



Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) Says Fight Among House Dems Over Paying For Health Care Bill "Philosophical." "'I don't know how you split that difference,' said Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. 'It's not just about numbers. These are philosophical differences about how you pay for reform.'" (Erica Werner, "House, Senate Dems At Odds On Health Care Overhaul," The Associated Press, 10/19/09)

http://ad.thehill.com/www/delivery/avw.php...&n=a9aaece3


Reid offers doctors a deal

By Alexander Bolton - 10/20/09 06:00 AM ET

The White House and Democratic leaders are offering doctors a deal: They’ll freeze cuts in Medicare payments to doctors in exchange for doctors’ support of healthcare reform.

At a meeting on Capitol Hill last week with nearly a dozen doctors groups, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the Senate would take up separate legislation to halt scheduled Medicare cuts in doctor payments over the next 10 years. In return, Reid made it clear that he expected their support for the broader healthcare bill, according to four sources in the meeting.

A spokesman for Reid declined to comment for this story.

Also in the meeting were: Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.); Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.); White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel; Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag; and Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House healthcare office.

“They said they’re going to need our help in getting healthcare reform over the goal line and they expect our support,” said a participant who represents doctors. “Reid, Baucus and Dodd. All three said the same thing: They want and expect our support.”

At last week’s meeting, Emanuel and Orszag met with the doctors groups for only a few minutes at the start of the session before walking over to the House side of the Capitol. Doctors groups interpreted their short visit as a signal from the White House that it supported Reid and the Senate Democrats.

A second participant said Emanuel and Orszag “were in for five minutes and then went to the House side to talk strategy.”

“They were there because the White House wanted to show how serious they were and to give their stamp of approval,” said the source.

Reid also asked that doctors ease up on demands for medical malpractice reform during the upcoming healthcare debate. Democrats have traditionally resisted calls for tort reform, which trial attorneys — a reliable base group — staunchly oppose.

But the primary focus of the meeting was on Democratic plans to bring to the Senate floor a standalone bill costing nearly $250 billion that would freeze cuts in doctors’ payments mandated by a 1997 law. Without the freeze, doctors would see their Medicare payments drop by 21 percent next year and by 40 percent by 2016. The bill’s costs are not offset by tax increases or spending cuts at a time when the Obama administration estimates the federal deficit at $1.4 trillion.

J. James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association (AMA), said that it would be very difficult for doctors to support the broader Senate healthcare legislation if there were no effort to address long-term cuts to Medicare payments. The Finance Committee health reform bill would increase doctors’ payments by 0.5 percent in 2010 at a cost of $10 billion, but it would leave doctors facing a 25 percent cut in 2011.

“It would be very challenging for physicians looking at a .5 percent increase next year and 25 percent cut the following year to say, ‘Yay, let’s support the reform bill’ or to say the health reform bill would be viable,” said Rohack.

Rohack, who did not attend last week’s meeting, applauded Reid for moving a separate bill and “highlighting this program of broken physician payment formula that has to be solved.”

Richard Deem, AMA’s representative at the meeting, spoke positively about Democrats’ efforts to pass both the doctor payment fix and healthcare reform after Reid made his presentation, according to sources in the room. The AMA has begun airing television advertisements in a dozen states in support of the bill freezing doctors’ payment cuts. A source with another doctors group said the AMA announced to allies last week that the campaign would cost $2 million.

The AMA, considered one of the most influential healthcare trade groups, spent $8.1 million on lobbying through the first six months of this year.

Reid and other Democratic leaders said they would rely on doctors groups to round up enough votes to pass the “doctors fix” legislation at a time of high anxiety over the deficit. But they also made clear that Democrats expect something in return for pushing a bill that Republicans will criticize as fiscally reckless.

Leaders stressed the importance of supporting healthcare reform, but Reid also urged doctors to go easy on their longstanding demands for tort reform.

“It was a brief remark that was said like, ‘Oh yeah, one more thing.’ He said, ‘I would appreciate it if you don’ t push for medical liability reform amendments. We know how things stand in the Senate and we can get some good things done for doctors on other issues. Let’s work together,’ ” according to a source who described Reid’s remarks.

Three other sources confirmed Reid made the remarks.

The representative of one doctors group, however, characterized Reid’s comments on medical malpractice reform as less explicit. This source said Reid merely argued that medical malpractice reform would save little money and that it would not have close to enough votes to pass the Senate.

Addressing a joint session of Congress in September, President Barack Obama raised the possibility of including some measure of tort reform in the healthcare overhaul as a way to entice Republicans to sign on.

http://ad.thehill.com/www/delivery/avw.php...&n=a9aaece3

For years Republicans have said that excessive malpractice lawsuits contribute greatly to the rising cost of healthcare.

A White House aide who was briefed on the meeting said that it should not be viewed as a deal because doctors groups have yet to agree to any concessions. That contrasts with the pharmaceutical industry, which struck a deal with the White House under which it would support healthcare reform and provide $80 billion in savings to seniors on brand-name prescription drugs.

White House officials and Baucus also struck a deal with hospitals to lure their support. The Senate Finance Committee’s bill would exempt hospitals from federal payment cuts mandated by a new Medicare Payment Advisory commission it would create.

At last week’s meeting with Democratic leaders were representatives from the AMA, the American College of Surgeons, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Alliance of Specialty Medicine, the American Osteopathic Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Several of these groups have raised strong objections to provisions in the Senate Finance Committee’s legislation, such as the proposed creation of the Medicare commission and a 5 percent cut in payments to doctors who rank in the top 10 percent for amount of Medicare resources used.

Healthcare policy experts say that organized opposition from doctors, whom Americans consistently rank as highly trustworthy in public opinion polls, could derail efforts to overhaul the nation’s health system.

“What’s really important is that doctors are not vocally in opposition,” said Henry Aaron, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who specializes in healthcare financing. “If they mobilize strongly in opposition and ran ads and talked to their patients, it hurts. It would be a serious obstacle. As long as they’re not out fighting, I think the administration has achieved most of the gain.”

Meet the Senators in the Creepy Right-Wing Cult Trying to Defeat Health Care Reform
By Adele M. Stan, AlterNet
Politics: The Family has spent decades consolidating power within the GOP and may have come to dominate the party even among those who do not belong to the cult.

http://www.alternet.org/politics/143252/me...lth_care_reform

Can the Democrats Avoid a Populist Health Care Rebellion?

by Kevin Zeese / October 20th, 2009 (2)

The insurance industry is the major problem in health care and Americans know it, but the Democrats are on the verge of forcing Americans to buy insurance while failing to solve America’s health care crisis. It is a prescription for electoral, economic and health care disaster.

The leadership of the Democratic Party is on the verge of passing health insurance reform. The centerpiece of the “reform” is requiring Americans to buy overpriced insurance from private corporations. But, it is evident that many in the Democratic voting base see the insurance industry as the problem – not the …
(Full article …)
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/10/can-the-...care-rebellion/

Obama vs. the Insurance Industry: Behind the 'Smoke and Mirrors' in the Health Care Debate

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,568613,00.html

usnews
The Healthcare-Reform Hypocrisy Sweepstakes

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/The-Healthca...733490.html?x=0

Amnesty International: The Great Divide Between Health Care and Civil Rights
from The Huffington Post by Amnesty International

A dramatic disconnect between principles and policies has hampered current U.S. health care reform efforts. This became obvious when candidate Obama declared health care to be a right and then proceeded to treat it as a commodity when negotiating with insurance companies a requirement for individuals to buy a commercial health insurance product.

Similarly, early on in the debate the president championed the principle of universality by promising some form of health coverage - if not necessarily health care - for 46 million uninsured people, only to lower the policy goal to 30 million American citizens in his speech before Congress, excluding many immigrants and low-income people. Since then, further policy provisions that restrict access to health coverage for immigrants - documented and undocumented - and reduce affordability for lower-income people have appeared in the health care bill adopted by the Senate Finance Committee.

With people of color already up to three times more likely to be uninsured than white Americans and suffering from unequal health outcomes, it is no surprise that over the past few weeks a new coalition of groups representing people of color has launched an ad campaign for racial equality in health care reform. With this new advocacy push, prominent national organizations such as the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) are now framing their intervention in terms of people's rights.

The coalition's principles state that "health care is a basic human right, as essential as food and shelter," thus echoing ongoing human right to health care campaigns by organizations such as Amnesty International USA and its coalition partners. A number of mainstream media outlets covered the launch of this new campaign - most notably Public Radio and WNYC's The Takeaway, which featured a thoughtful piece aimed at "exploring whether or not affordable health care can be considered a fundamental human right." However, while the Takeaway reporters seemed prepared to answer in the affirmative, representatives from NAACP and NCLR remained oddly silent on this issue.

That's because as soon as principles are placed into the realm of policy, they become subjected to pressures created by the dominant political consensus. Translated into policy, the new coalition's main demands include a so-called public option, steps to eliminate racial disparities, and "complete access and coverage for all legal residents." The imagery used in their TV ad - people of color denied boarding a bus - emphasizes that the current health care debate should be linked to past civil rights struggles, with a focus on desegregation and formal equality.

Popout

Aligning health reform with a civil rights perspective clearly sends a powerful message, but it does come with some definitive drawbacks. Civil rights, rooted in Amendment XIV of the Constitution, do not include non-naturalized immigrants - documented or undocumented. Therefore, while a policy push that narrows health care access to "legal" residents may not conflict with a civil rights approach, it does ignore the human rights principle of universality. Presumably, such a policy is pursued on a purely pragmatic basis, reflecting the dominant tone of the debate, according to which, as stated by a prominent mainstream migration policy organization, "most agree that unauthorized immigrants should not benefit from government spending".

Yet even on pragmatic grounds, this position is flawed. Provisions put in place to exclude undocumented immigrants from government spending programs, such as citizenship documentation procedures in Medicaid, have been identified as significant barriers to access primarily for African Americans, not immigrants. Those harmful provisions may still find their way into other aspects of health care reform as well. Whenever we pitch the rights of people of color against those of immigrants, we tend to end up with no rights for either group. No civil rights organization can afford to treat undocumented immigrants as illegitimate competitors for public monies or as potential carriers of disease. And no one can legitimately refer to health care as a human right without recognizing all human beings as rights-holders.

There is another reason why it can be problematic to foreground the language of civil rights, rather than human rights, in the health care struggle. Our basic economic and social rights, such as health care, are more explicitly addressed in the international human rights framework than in the U.S. Constitution. In the past, civil rights have been largely interpreted as equal protection of the law - or formal equality - not as substantive rights in the economic sphere. They don't lend themselves easily to setting standards that could give a specific meaning to such formal equality. If everyone received equally little - for example if no one got on the bus or, for that matter, if no one received health care - citizens could still be formally equal.

That's why Martin Luther King, Jr., aimed to move from civil rights to human rights, from desegregation and formal equality to economic justice and equity. In his Poor People's Campaign, Dr. King intended to tackle health care and similar fundamental human needs as economic human rights and to seek justice beyond judicial decisions. A richer vision of justice means that as human rights advocates we can go beyond demanding equal opportunities in relation to whatever reform measures emerge from D.C. and constructively advance a more substantive policy position. Such a position would link the goal of a universal, equitable health system to a collective, accountable public financing mechanism for health care that enables everyone in society to share costs and benefits.

None of this is meant to underestimate that a focus on health disparities in the tradition of civil rights wouldn't be a huge achievement if adopted by policymakers in charge. The disgrace of persistent racial disparities is neglected in the current debate, so much so that a couple of prominent think tanks recently tried to direct attention to this outrage by sidestepping the moral perspective and putting a monetary value on people's health. Both the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies and the Urban Institute released reports on how much money could have been saved in direct medial expenditures by eliminating racial disparities in health care ($229.4 billion for the years 2003-2006 according to the Joint Center). Economic or fiscal arguments are assumed to resonate more in our market-centered debate than rights-based arguments. Fortunately, this pessimism is not shared by the NAACP, which in its 880 Campaign is explicitly mourning the needless deaths of 880,000 black people over a 10 year period, due to a higher mortality rate than white people.

In fact, numerous organizations and networks have pushed for the elimination of racial disparities in health for many years, with little media resonance. Some of them have made effective use of human rights in their efforts; for example, the National Health Equity Coalition emphasized in a letter to incoming president Obama that "in order to address racial and ethnic health disparities, it is important that the right to health is implemented so that available resources are utilized in a manner that supports achievement of the highest attainable standard of health for every individual." And back in 2007 the US Human Rights Network organized a collective report submission to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which included a chapter on racial disparities in health care. In response, the UN committee asked the US government to address health disparities, in particular by eliminating the obstacles that limit minorities' access to adequate health care.

Amnesty International USA has given its own commitment to help eliminate health disparities through its human rights principles and petition for health care reform. These principles recognize that a health care system must be both universal and equitable - it must include everyone and eliminate disparities - in order to meet human rights standards. Neither universality nor equity can be compromised for more convenient policy positions. Our society must organize the collective public provision of equal high quality health care for everyone - people of color and all immigrants, poor people and people in rural and inner city locations, women and men. This entails, as recognized in the NAACP's centennial anniversary statement that an organization like the NAACP should follow Dr. King and "shift its mission from achieving civil rights to attaining human rights for all."

By Anja Rudiger, Guest Contributor to the Human Rights Now blog.
More on Health Care

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amnesty-inte...h_b_331957.html