This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Kevin Grumbach, MD; Thomas Bodenheimer, MD, MPH; David U. Himmelstein, MD; Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH
Physicians for a National Health Program Cambridge, Mass

JAMA. 1991;266(15):2079.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.

—Dr Schweppe articulates many of the advantages of the single-payer approach to health insurance that is a critical feature of the Physicians for a National Health Program proposal. As to the question, "How are we going to pay for it?," we have stressed the principle of relying on "healthy" financing mechanisms—progressive payments and taxes on unhealthy products, such as cigarettes. Although we suggested a greater role for payroll taxes in order to minimize disruption of the existing pattern of funding, a graduated federal tax such as that proposed by Schweppe would certainly be consistent with our financing principles. In contrast, employer-mandate proposals violate the "healthy" financing principle by imposing an extremely regressive tax on employers and employees in low-wage businesses in the form of mandatory private insurance premium payments that are not adjusted for income.

Schweppe correctly emphasizes the administrative savings possible under a single-payer system. Since the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?