EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Tax-Financed Health Care Offers More Value
Shame on all of us, especially those of us in positions of public trust. Forty-five million of our friends, family, and neighbors, including 1.3 million Ohioans, have no health-care coverage at all.
Tens of millions more are at risk of bankruptcy even though they have insurance. Their coverage is too skimpy to protect them financially.
What do the current conservative leaders of many states and the nation have to say about the fact that we spend twice as much as any other industrial democracy in the world and yet fail to cover 16 percent of the population? To paraphrase Marie Antoinette, "Let them buy high-deductible health plans."
But who are the uninsured? They are mainly (75 percent) lower-income working people and their kids. Most of these folks struggle to keep food on the table and the lights on. They can't afford even bare-bones policies.
What are the facts, not the hype, on market-based reforms such as Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), high-deductible health plans, and mandated insurance (a la Massachusetts)? These represent the next bogus effort to keep private insurers in charge of our crumbling sickness care non-system. Remember how they promised that a competing insurance market of Health Maintenance Organizations was going to save American health care?
Unfortunately, despite the nostrums of the market ideologues, health-care costs have continued to soar at twice the growth rate of the gross domestic product while 10 million more have gone uninsured. Pound as they might on the square peg of market forces, health care will never be a nice round market commodity.
Why? The consumer's not sovereign. The doctor, not the patient, orders the care. There's no easy exit from the market for patients. When critically (and expensively) ill, you buy or die. The most expensive health care is not necessarily desired. If open-heart surgery were on sale would you have two?
There's often inadequate information to make wise purchasing decisions. Sometimes the best doctors are unsure of the wisest course of action for a patient. It is the uncertainty of illness and its attendant costs that creates the need for insurance in the first place.
The profit motive runs contrary to the best cooperative and Samaritan traditions of medical practice and training. There are lots of natural monopolies. Should we build another hospital in Bowling Green so that the competition will leave them both half-empty? The market for medical services fails these tests of an effective market and will fail in the guise of health savings accounts.
The 10 percent of patients who are very ill generate 70 percent of the costs, averaging $39,000 per year. They will never save anything in their HSAs. Studies confirm that high out-of-pocket costs, the hallmark of HSAs, yield worse health outcomes for the poor, elderly, and chronically ill.
The health-care bureaucracy already consumes 31 percent of spending. The fees for tracking 300 million individual HSAs would only aggravate this shameful waste.
Half of personal bankruptcies are due to uncovered health-care bills, again the hallmark of HSAs. Even boosters of HSAs (Mckinsey and Co.) find 56 percent of employees less satisfied with their new accounts than their old health plans.
There is a national health insurance program (HR 676) in front of Congress and the Health Care for All Ohioans Act (HCFAO) in front of the Ohio General Assembly. Either of these plans would create an improved and expanded Medicare for all Ohioans.
Taxes would replace private insurance premiums and out of pocket payments. Taxes would go up but premiums and out of pocket payments would go down by even more. These funds, added to current public spending, would create a single insurance pool adequate to cover all for no more than we spend now.
How can this be? In a multi-payer system, the complexity yields high administrative costs. Each insurer, hospital, and doctor must keep track of myriad contracts, discount arrangements, benefit packages, formularies, limited referral networks, and insurance rules and regulations designed to reduce utilization and profit the insurers. HSAs leave this insurance and billing bureaucracy in place and then add the complexity of tracking millions of individual savings accounts.
Studies by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office both confirm this surprising fact - the administrative simplicity of a single universal insurance pool, such as Medicare, yields savings that allow comprehensive coverage for all at current levels of spending. A tax-based public system is simple and efficient. There is simply a lot less work to do.
How do we know it can be done? Because every other western industrial democracy already has a national health insurance program, each has managed to cover all their citizens at about half of what we spend and they still have better health outcomes than the U.S.
Business owners should realize that the health-care system provides the maintenance on their work force, just as other experts provide maintenance on their expensive and complex industrial and business machinery.
It makes good sense to get the most comprehensive maintenance system for the best price. More for the same money - value - is what tax-financed universal health insurance system can provide. Those businesses avoiding the cost of insuring their employees are the recipients of cost shifting. This occurs through higher taxes to fund indigent care and higher prices paid when doing business with companies who continue to insure their employees and pass along the costs shifted to them in the price of their products.
Patchwork solutions such as Medicaid expansions, vouchers, tax credits, or medical savings accounts won't work. They mainly serve to enrich the insurance bureaucracy. They fail to control costs and fail to cover everyone. Fundamental reform is what we need.
The Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 Americans die each year from lack of health insurance alone. A tax-financed universal health insurance system will save lives and save dollars. It's good for business and our health. Counter-intuitive or not, businessmen and all of us should support a single-payer universal health insurance solution. Financially, we already are.
What's the bottom line? America needs affordable universal health insurance. We can build it with administrative savings and public accountability but not with health savings accounts designed to profit Wall Street and the insurance industry. HR 676, the National Health Insurance Act or the Health Care for All Ohioans act would create an expanded and improved Medicare for all Ohioans. We know it would work because Medicare works. It would save lives and save money and it is the right thing to do.
Johnathon S. Ross MD, a Toledo internist, is past president of Physicians for a National Health Program (pnhp.org) and a member of the Ohio council of Single Payer Action Network (spanohio.org).
© 2007 The Toledo Blade
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

10 Comments so far
Show All"Should we build another hospital in Bowling Green so that the competition will leave them both half-empty? The market for medical services fails these tests of an effective market and will fail in the guise of health savings accounts."
Can someone explain how this argument makes sense w.r.t. health savings accounts?
Aside from the above, I agree with the author's call for universal coverage. However, I prefer to call it a Universal Single-Payer system, rather than insurance.
The primary product of the Insurance industry is "peace of mind." I don't want a system that gives me peace of mind when I fall sick. I want a system that values the health and lives of people; One that will help cure sickness and advocate good health.
Kathyodat, I'd rather pay an additional 3% in taxes, than forking out approximately $400 every month to pay for a friend's child's insurance and drug costs stemming from treating his development disorders. Add the $95 every 3 months to pay his doctor to write the prescription, the costs total over $5000 a year.
Is it not better for small businesses to not worry about health coverage and administration? No waiting periods, no COBRA, no nonsensical red tape, no preferred providers, no HMO's, no copays and in-network drug stores.
It is important for us to present to people that we must get the best care for the money we pay, and the only way to get it is to have a single-payer not-for-profit health care system (Yes, system - not insurance).
Amen.
Some of the "plans" that come out of states call for mandatory health insurance. This is just playing into the hands of the greedy and criminal insurance companies. They say that they will help those that can not afford it get insurance. That is just putting tax dollars into the hands of the for profit greed mongers.
We need to eliminate insurance companies NOW. They have bled the people dry for FAR too long. There is only ONE way and that is single payer. The government IS your insurance company...period. Of course, you would expect the insurance companies to oppose this. They are making billions of dollars denying claims to their customers. It is the closest thing to money for nothing that they could find.
Thank you Dr. Ross. Even my supposedly progressive Congressman, Peter DeFazio (OR) is coming up with a plan that keeps the health insurance industry meddling and profiting in our health care. His office staffer told me "He's no friend of the health insurance companies". Oh, really? Just a good Samaritan then?
It is so frustrating that Americans are being bamboozled by the corporate media into thinking universal single payer health care would be socialized medicine and the government would start making our health care decisions. A very good part of HR676 is that the financing would be out of the hands of Congress which has been devastating to Medicare. Along with every other program that doesn't benefit the corporations or military.
As long as Americans continue to cruise though life asleep at the wheel, we will continue to be robbed blind by corporate predators and their congressional enablers, who aren't doing so badly themselves in this profitable relationship. And its all being paid for by us, the suckers.
I'll say what I've said before: I'm a healthy adult with no chronic diseases and I pay $792 each month for individual health insurance. This is an HMO with referrals for specialized care, precertification for any hospital admission, etc. This premium increases by 25% each year. By next year at this time, I'll probably be without coverage because the next 25% increase will simply price me out. Either that or I'll start tapping retirement funds to pay today's health insurance premiums.
Universal Healthcare
It's Free for Everyone
Dr. Zimmerman Robert, not really free, 95% of taxpayers would pay a 3% tax increase, but nothing more for all their health care needs except cosmetic plastic surgery. That includes prescriptions, vision, long term care, mental health care, including addiction treatment (a boon for our society), by the care provider of your choice if they are state licensed. A bargain.
But what do we get? We get our lawmakers forcing us to pay insurers to continue to get rich off us. Go see SiCKO. And then throw out these lawmakers who are refusing to do right by us. As far as I'm concerned, there are only 78 Representatives in Congress who should be reelected in 2008. If someone ran against Peter DeFazio on a platform supporting HR 676 I would vote for that person. Any Congressperson who continues to support the health care insurance industry is aiding and abetting criminals.
We are Prey, get over it.
I've been trying to figure out the details of Ron Wyden's insurance plan. As far as I can tell, it makes no effort to curb costs, leaving that up to the market. Republicans are signing on to it, which is not reassuring.
It comes with deductibles, copays, premiums, and limits such as 10 spinal manipulations a year. It is estimated to save the average person $22 a year over current plan costs (some more and some less). Whoopdeedo. It is mandatory but not available for people who qualify for Medicare. People also must choose as a primary care provider a physician or internist (what's the difference? - they're both MDs and my primary care provider is a naturopath, not included). Personally I think his plan sucks. He also presupposes that people making under $10,000/year are paying $1,300 annually in health care costs. Hell, they don't even have enough money for food, and some of them are on Medicaid anyway . It doesn't account for the fact that bringing in the uninsured will increase health care expenses because they will arrive with untreated conditions. It also somehow leaves about 1 1/2% of the population uncovered - no explanation for that. That's about 3.5 million people. I guess, not worth fussing about by Wyden. The bill itself is extremely difficult to figure out, but the Lewin Group does some breakdowns that help. But there is much that is still unclear, such as, it covers "routine" dental work, whatever that means. It also ominously talks about being able to "upgrade" the plan at people's own expense. Why should we have to want to? I'm deeply offended about a mandatory plan that tells us what we can and cannot have - talk about socialized medicine, corporate style! Give me the Conyers-Kucinich single payer system!
Another point about the Wyden plan is that while it subsidizes premiums for people below the federal poverty line and on a sliding scale up to 400% above, it doesn't offer to subsidize the deductibles and copays which are substantial for the lower income people, including paying the first $4000 for catastrophic illnesses.