Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 1 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
“But /skeptics may ask, “what do doctors think of an NHP? If they object to it, such a program could hardly succeed.” Well, a survey of physicians published in 1986 found that 56 percent favor some form of national health insurance, although, surprisingly, about 75 percent of doctors think that most of their colleagues oppose such reform.
Also, the overwhelming majority of physicians (81-89 percent) would be prepared to accept paper work and utilization review, and favor tort reform that any NHP would foster, according to a 1991 survey.
If the people want an NHP, many of the largest corporations endorse it, and a majority of doctors are for it, what’s all the hiss about? Why don’t we just go ahead and do it?
There are several answers, but the most significant one is money. An NHP would not only free employers from providing health care for their current and retired employees, and doctors from excess paperwork, micro-management by multiple insurers, and unlimited malpractice suits, but it also would cut the insurance industry out of a substantial amount of business. The last point is where the problem lies.
According to the General Accounting Office, the non-partisan investigative arm of Congress, inplementing a Canadian-style NHP in the U.S. would save about 10
88.0%