Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWhy is Single-Payer Health Reform Not Viable?
HELENA, Mont. - When it comes to health care reform in America, there is a relatively simple solution that will cover everyone's basic health care, control costs and save businesses, most people and the country a lot of money.
It's called a single-payer health plan, where the government collects taxes to finance national health insurance. The government, which is the "single payer," covers all citizens and pays the bills when they visit private (or public) doctors, hospitals and other facilities for medical care.
All would have basic coverage, regardless of whether they have a job, or where they work. Nobody gets billed for basic care. No-body goes broke because of medical bills.
Yet this option has been declared "off the table" by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who's among those leading the charge for health care reform in America.
Top Democrats who will be deciding policy in America in 2009, including Baucus and President-elect Barack Obama, say single-payer is "not politically feasible," because the public won't strongly support it.
What they really mean is that when it comes to health care reform, they don't want a political fight with some of the nation's most powerful financial interests, which have the resources and the motivation to turn public opinion against meaningful reforms.
These interests include the health insurance industry, pharmaceutical drug companies, some hospitals, highly paid medical specialists, medical suppliers and others who now profit handsomely from our current system - and who could no longer command those profits under a single-payer system or an alternative form of a national health plan.
There's no doubt that it would be a huge political battle to attempt to install a single-payer or other national health system in the United States.
But single-payer is not without its prominent supporters.
HR676, which would create national health insurance and a single-payer system, was introduced last year by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich. and has 93 co-sponsors in the U.S. House. It has not even had a hearing.
Nearly 500 labor unions from across the country have endorsed the bill, as have AFL-CIO units in 39 states, including Montana. There is a national coalition supporting single-payer, led in part by the California Nurses Association (CNA), which has 85,000 members.
Michael Lightly, director of public policy for CNA, said single-payer is "the most fiscally conservative approach" to health care, because by having one payer/insurer (usually the government), you eliminate the profits of private health insurers, you negotiate bulk purchases of drugs, you negotiate reasonable fees with health care providers and you have global budgets for hospitals and large clinics.
Single-payer or a regimented national plan also is how nearly all other developed countries run health care and cover everyone - and at a lower price than we do, because it's more efficient.
Yet Democratic leaders in Congress, who want to reform health care, say single-payer won't be an option, because it doesn't "poll well."
They cite polls showing that the public thinks single-payer equates with "big government" and taking away what insurance they already have. A majority may like the idea, but that support erodes when asked if they'd pay higher taxes to support it.
This polling is testing the obvious lines of attack that single-payer's political opponents would employ: big government, higher taxes, less choice.
If single-payer is packaged in that context, of course it's a loser. But as any skilled politician knows, if you craft a better message and get it out there, you win.
Higher taxes? Not if single-payer all but eliminates the health insurance premiums that you and your employer currently pay.
Big government? In America, the government is the people, and you tell it what to do. It has to be more responsive than big insurance.
Less choice? With single-payer, no doctors or hospitals are out of the network, because there is no network. It's one system. Everyone gets the same basic care. You might have to wait for specialty care or some tests, but that's not exactly a deal-breaker.
"The only reason it's not on the table is because there is a belief that it's not politically viable," Lightly said. "That is a miscalculation in our view. We believe that a real policy debate means single-payer must be a part of that debate."
Lightly also said that even the mild reforms proposed by Baucus and Obama are going to face a political fight from insurers and other interests.
If you're going to have a fight, why not fight over something worth winning? he asks.
Finally, there's the simple question of morality: In America, an incredibly wealthy country, shouldn't we join the modern world and guarantee basic health care for all, regardless of the ability to pay?
As health care writer T.R. Reid told a Helena audience a week ago, our neighbors are suffering and dying because they don't have decent health coverage.
You don't believe that? Just open a newspaper or walk into your local grocery store. Every week, you're bound to see a flier or advertisement for a fundraiser for someone who's been horribly injured in an accident, or stricken with cancer or other debilitating disease, and can't pay thousands upon thousands of dollars of medical bills.
Under a single-payer system or other national health care plan, that wouldn't happen.
But unless citizens apply the pressure to our political leaders, it won't even be considered.
70 Comments so far
Show AllIf a politician is telling you that the polling doesn't support single payer health care guaranteed by the government with higher taxes to support it, they are quite frankly, flat out lying to you. This is from a pew survey report from 2005:
"Solid majorities of every group, with the sole exception of Enterprisers, favor a government guarantee of health insurance for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes. Across the electorate, support for guaranteed health insurance ranges from 55% among Upbeats and 59% among Social Conservatives to 90% among Liberals. By contrast, Enterprisers strongly oppose guaranteed health insurance for all, if it means higher taxes (76% oppose, 23% favor)."
Here is the link: http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=948
The richest 10% of the US population own 90% of the country's wealth. The bottom 90% simply fight over table scraps. We have more than enough resources to provide for universal health care. Most Americans just need to realize who our real enemy is: the super rich who control the government and mass media. They are the ones sending our jobs overseas and preventing nearly 50 million Americans from having health insurance.
Gee, will government run health care be as pleasant and efficient as the DMV?
I can't wait.
Uh oh.
Maybe I'd better get used to waiting, because under a single-payer system that's all I'll ever do - wait and wait and wait - to see a doctor.
Under my current health insurance, I phoned up Kaiser, and I was able to get an appointment in two days. When I went, I had no lines at all, and received excellent service. Yeah, American health care (never mind that it is consistently ranked as one the best systems in the world) is soooo awful. I'm sure Europeans paying @80% income taxes have it much better.
I think you're Joe Hopeless because you obviously don't read the many informative and intelligent responses to your previous post; you just repeat the same old line like a broken record.
My local DMV, and the State of California for that matter, have an appointment program. You call for an appointment and when you get to the DMV, you do not wait.
Why would you wait longer to see a doctor under a Single-payer system than under today's system? On your first visit you will not have to fill in pages of information on who your insurance carrier is. If you don't like that doctor, it is your right to choose another. The field opens up access to many more doctors than today's system because all doctors will accept you and your "insurance," unlike doctors who do not accept some insurance companies, (most likely because their "insurance girl" doesn't know how to fill in their forms, or there hasn't been an agreement between the doctor and the insurance company to pay less for all covered procedures).
You, Sir, strike me as a very poorly informed person. How many Canadians have you talked to about their health care? Here is a report from one American who lived in Canada:
Take It From A Patient: Canada's System Works, by Sandy Smith Madsen [Edited for length] (Originally published in Common Dreams.)
Although I was born and raised in Tennessee, I was served well by Canada¹s universal health-care system during the 13 years that I lived in Canada. As a legal resident, I was entitled to the same high level of health-care benefits enjoyed by all Canadian citizens. I was free to go to any doctor, anywhere, anytime.
Three of my children were born in Canada. The bill for the birth of my youngest Canadian-born daughter was $3.00. This bill covered excellent prenatal care, delivery, and a private hospital room. It included visits to my home by a nurse and by my doctor, visits that were made as follow-up care after a normal, healthy delivery.
Want to see a doctor in Canada? Simply show up with your health-care card. Many Americans already know this, as they have been caught helping themselves to Canadian health care by means of counterfeit health-care cards.
Canadians are never denied care, or forced to wait for care, for lack of funds or because of a pre-existing condition. Patients requiring urgent care or primary care are never put on waiting lists. While it is sometimes necessary to wait for elective surgeries, or specialist care, if the delay is such that the patient¹s health will be harmed, all expenses are paid for the patient to access care in another location.
The United States spends almost twice the amount per person as Canada spends on health care, yet Canadians enjoy a lower infant mortality rate and a higher life expectancy.
Since Canadian health care follows you from the cradle to the nursing home, the loss of a job is not the disaster it is in the U.S. Unemployed you may be, but if you are unemployed in Canada, you still have your health care. While Canadians receive quality health care in return for their tax dollars, in the U.S we pay only slightly lower taxes and soaring health insurance premiums. With the loss of a job, all our paid premiums go up in smoke. In Canada, a major health problem does not lead to financial ruin.
The way my Canadian friends tell it, there are more Canadians who believe that Elvis lives than there are Canadians who want the U.S. health-care system.
Physicians for a National Health Program
Our Mission: Single-Payer National Health Insurance
The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $7,129 per capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison and still leaves 47 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered.
This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.
Beginning in November 2006, PNHP launched a national campaign to seek endorsements for the Conyers/Kucinich US National Health Insurance Act (HR 676).
Click here to learn more about single-payer national health insurance: http://www.pnhp.org/
Last survey I saw listed the United States as 37th in health care world wide. Not exactly top of the list, is it!
Human dignity demands we provide a doctor/patient-run health care system to replace the insurance based system. Ethical businesses in a moral economy expand BOTH private and common wealth. Public health is part of our common wealth. It's government's job to protect its citizens and our common wealth from unethical businesses.
Looking out for one another makes the country stronger.
Five questions for strong, empathetic and responsible citizens: 1.How do we strengthen America? 2.How do we broaden prosperity? 3.How do we promote mutual responsibility? 4.Is a better future possible? 5.How do we make government effective?
"The discussion that we are having here is what our representatives should be having in congress. How long will corporate lobbyists be allowed access to our elected representatives when the result is that our elected representatives no longer act in our intrests. Of course, what really becomes evident is that the choices we are offered for candidates have already been sponsored by the corporations they will serve; they become manufactured products we have to choose from at our polling places in our consumer society. The problem is deeper than a broken health care system, it is in our brand of democratic process."
Correct! That is why the answer to this problem, as well as all the other problems caused by the influence of big corporations on legislators, through lobbyists and huge donations is a "voter-owned" election system. In such a system, candidates provide petitions to get on the ballot, take minisculke contributions only, and their campaigns are funded by the govt. It works out to about $7/person in Hawaii and similarly low amounts in the five states where it already exists. Double or triple that to include national elections and, voila!, level playing field, more minority representation and corporate influence negated. What ar we waiting for?
BTW, Obama-nation, after pledging to use public funds only, reneged and... you know the rest!
I'm all for single payer as soon as someone, anyone can demonstrate to me that it will not cost me one penny more in taxes than my current premiums (and lost income in the form of the compensation my employer provides via this benefit) and that I'll have an equal or better quality of healthcare. Until you can do that most Americans will oppose it.
Your challenge is bogus.
Force the insurance companies to fully cover the 50 million uninsured (and tens of millions more underinsured).
Then we'll adjust your premiums upward accordingly (at least 25%).
Only then can a true comparison be made.
Why.... I don't care (for the sake of this argument) about the uninsured, nor will most people. The 250 million Americans who DO have insurance want to know and be shown how will this cost ME less.
Ha! You won't think that way when Obama FORCES everyone to buy insurance.
If he follows the Massachusetts model many of these 50 million will get insurance for free.
That'll jack your premiums up even higher...and increase your wait times for appointments!
My questions for you...
How much more productive will our country's output be when all people receive preventitive care?
How much money will we save by identifying/treating illness before it becomes catastrophic?
What price can you put on a healthy society?
Convince me that a single payer system that spends only $3 per hundred on administrative costs can be less effective than an insurance based system that spends $30 per hundred?
nwfisher,
Your employer could answer this one better, but we'll look at the question anyway.
You want to know how you will be compensated for "lost income in the form of the compensation my employer provides via this benefit".
I would imagine that most employers would gladly increase employee pay to offset additional taxes, thus essentially providing the same benefit. This would give businesses a boost and may result in further pay increases because the additional tax will be far less than the cost of insurance. What you have to remember is that your employer operates in a free market where wages and benefits are used to attract quality workers.
Thank you for the opportunity to address these issues. Many people have concerns like the ones you have expressed. I hope this helps.
Would they provide additional compensation in the form of wages (for the share of my healhcare they no longer pay) that I would use to pay the new taxes? One would hope so, but certainly not guaranteed. Would the additional tax be "far less than the cost of insurance"? My cost on insurance is about $30 a week in my contribution plus the lost potential wages in the form of my employers contribution to the tune of about $60 a week. That amounts to roughly $90 a week times 52 weeks is $4680 a year (I am the only one insured). So that plus the average amount of of my yearly copays and deductibles (maybe another $1000) comes to about $6000 a year. That would be the maximum in new taxes on a 75K income provided my employer did start paying me the full amount of what used to be his contribution. The broad voting public will never embrace single payer until those numbers can be STRONGLY shown to work out at least even if not in my favor.
nwfisher,
Price, continued.
Let's take a look at just a few significant aspects of overhead.
CEO salaries. It's worth pointing out that we are talking about hundreds, if not thousands of CEOs. The average CEO salary is $8 million a year. It's safe to assume that many make far less than that, but it wasn't the Aetna CEO who earns $57 million, or the CIGNA CEO who earns $42 million. I'm sure any government employee would love to earn a salary like that, but it's not going to happen in a Single Payer system.
I could go on all day talking about the salaries of the individual who decides whether you are healthy enough to insure, something we obviously don't need in a system where everyone is covered. We could spend our time discussing the Lawyers who are employed to investigate your medical history looking for any reason at all to drop your coverage and deny payment in order to keep profits up. I don't think we need to go into every last detail here, it's easy enough to see that the insurance companies are not the most cost effective system.
Lets then look at our current government-run programs and how a Single Payer system would effect them.
Let's start by confirming a basic understanding that almost everyone can get health care, even if they can not pay for it, or can't get insurance because of certain health problems. These government programs are a bureaucratic nightmare. The reason for this is not hard to understand. We do not want to pay for other people who can afford to pay for themselves. So the first step is to prove that you are absolutely broke, with nothing left to sell, and nobody can or will help you. Basically, if you have a pot to piss in, you better sell it, and come back when the money is gone. The whole process will require several appointments, and a note from your doctor who will not see you until you can pay up. This wonderful adventure is funded by the taxpayer of America, because we take care of our own. This may sound a bit cynical, but at one point in my life, I was young and broke, and actually had the opportunity to enjoy this uniquely American experience.
So, what happens to these government programs under a Single Payer system? Well if our health care is paid for through our taxes, like these government programs already are, the process is simplified. Whether it's the expensive insurance plan you have now, or a government program because you can't afford the care you need, there would be no need in a Single Payer system to spend hours upon hours answering questions and filling out paperwork in hopes of being covered. Either you made enough money to pay and it was taken out of your taxes or you didn't, either way, you're covered. Let me explain a little further. Under our current system, the insurance companies are skimming a disgusting amount off the top, enough in fact that if the 'profit' was used for health care, it would cover our government programs with enough room to include the millions of uninsured Americans while also improving the care everyone recieves.
America ranks #1 in money spent, in other areas we are not doing so well. It's a proven fact that Health Care can be done better for less when it doesn't involve private insurance as a middle man. This should be encouraging for a nation that simply loves to claim to be the greatest in the world. We clearly don't mind paying more than anyone else. All we need to do at this point is invest that amount into a proven system. American style 'Single Payer Health Care' would be by far the greatest health care system in the world.
gertrudeY
Your analysis is fascinating, truly. Do you know about "SB 840" , the single payer legislation which was passed by the State legislature of California, and was vetoed by the governor of CA just a month ago? After 12 years of work, our group is NOT about to give up. Check our web site www.healthcareforall.org
Senator Sheila Kuehl was our excellent main sponsor, but she has been termed out. Senate Bill 840 (Kuehl), the California Universal Health Care Act is supported by numerous organizations under the coalition, One Care Now, including the local chapter of the physicians group. JOIN US.
nwfisher,
Let's start with price.
The first thing we should look at is what we are currently paying for, that we would not be paying for under a Single Payer plan like HR 676.
Campaign contributions. For example, Senator Max Baucus(D-MO), who has proposed an insurance mandate, received over $500k from the insurance industry in the last election cycle. In a Single Payer National Health Care system, our money designated for health care would not be used for political contributions amounting to $41,866,808 in the last election cycle.
Lobbyists. Actual figures on lobbyist income from the insurance companies is not readily available. Starting in 2003, over 100 million a year is an accurate underestimation. Like Campaign Contributions, Lobbyists are an expense that we are currently paying through insurance, and would not be paying under a Single Payer plan.
PR firms. Like 'National Center for Policy Analysis' are employed through various means like non-binding contributions. From their about page: "The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector." For an example of the service provided by NCPA to their contributors, Google "Devon Herrick" This just one example of 'Public Relations' related expenses that would not be included in a Single Payer plan.
These are just a few expenses we are currently paying for that a Single Payer National Health Care plan would eliminate. What people should take note of, is that these expenses do more than simply raise the price we pay for health care, they also corrupt our political system in a way that makes it hard to get these costs under control.
Dear nwfisher:
Okay. You've put out a challenge.
If I provide you with a reply to your challenge, will you commit to carefully reading it?
Anyone who carefully reads something will have some kind of questions or comments or concerns. If I provide the reply, will you please also commit to sending me your questions / comments / concerns?
If yes to these, I'll work on a reply.
Bob Haiducek, Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate,
who advocates getting reminders to follow the schedule.
"If you're going to have a fight, why not fight over something worth winning?"
I like the way this article asks the above question and then presents what could be the answer in the following paragraph:
"...there's the simple question of morality."
That's why.
We've internalized the amoral market mindset to such a degree that in cases like this morality is forgotten or considered beside the point. That is, forgotten until you yourself or a loved one becomes the victim.
The discussion that we are having here is what our representatives should be having in congress. How long will corporate lobbyists be allowed access to our elected representatives when the result is that our elected representatives no longer act in our intrests. Of course, what really becomes evident is that the choices we are offered for candidates have already been sponsored by the corporations they will serve; they become manufactured products we have to choose from at our polling places in our consumer society. The problem is deeper than a broken health care system, it is in our brand of democratic process. We the People ought be more involved in the legislative process. We vote on all major issues at the city, county, and state level; why not federal as well. If we are asked to decide whether two consenting same sex adults may marry, why not deciding something we ought really have a say in such as if we as a people live or die which is a very true choice when it comes to having health care or not. We would still have corporate sponsored propaganda broadcast over corporate sponsored airwaves or printed in our corporate sponsored journals but honest information to inform our decisions is still available if we seek it. We as a people have devolved into unquestioning lemmings and will have to rehabilitate ourselves before we can rehabilitate our government. We can't put out a fire by throwing on fresh wood.
Did anyone else see the commerical that Obama ran on his healthcare plan during the final weeks of the campaign?
It made my blood boil.
Here's the text of the ad:
Announcer: "On health care reform -- two extremes. On one end, government run health care, higher taxes. On the other, insurance companies without rules, denying coverage. Barack Obama says both extremes are wrong.
His plan: Keep your employer-paid coverage. Keep your own doctor. Take on insurance companies to bring down costs. Cover pre-existing conditions, and preventive care.
Common sense for the change we need."
This is nothing more than Obama trying to BURY single-payer healthcare by misrepresenting it as a government run tax boondoggle.
The video of the ad is here if you wish to watch it: http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/10/ad_health.html
** Obama was FOR single-payer when he was a state senator in Illinois. After the insurance companies lined his pockets with dough he changed his tune.
I'm barely computer literate. Could somebody give me a list of people/agencies to voice my approval to?
Thanks for asking this question. Please consider the following information and suggestion(s).
This is a critical time. Thanks to the actions of the U.S. Congress in 2003, even the non-profit health insurance we have today (Medicare for seniors) will start to disappear in 2010. There is a need to get out the word to citizens that we are getting so close to this critical time of moving from non-profit Medicare (which is already partly privatized!) to a higher degree of privatization. It is time to do positive, proactive steps, of which THE most critical actions are education (about the need to go to NON-profit financing of health care) and communications (to U.S. Representatives) and each of us telling 3 others Or, optionally, tell more citizens if you want to get just a little bit of training and become an activist, which is simply getting a little more background information and helpful tips, followed by helping people to do the three critical actions, primarily within your U.S. Congressional District.
I very strongly encourage you to only communicate to your own U.S. Representative (optionally also add your own U.S. Senators and the U.S. President-elect). Some, perhaps most, of the representatives make it very clear that they either primarily or only listen to their own constituents in their U.S. Congressional District.
The result? You are both efficient and effective ... getting the maximum benefit (a great contribution) for your time and effort.
The website (www.99oh9.org) gives you all the information and the guidance that you need to know for
1) the three basic options of U.S. Mail, e-mail, and phone and how to use them.Go to the Schedule and select the links to write and to call.
2) how to determine all the information for your U.S. Representatives for how to send notes, send e-mails and make phone calls (usually with around 3-4 toll-free numbers in case one of them shuts down, which DOES happen; the government does not set up the toll-free numbers and cannot say how long they will last). This activity is ONE communication to ONE person the first half of EACH month -- to make an EXCELLENT contribution.
3) how to get a short, monthly e-mail reminders for doing the communications on a regular basis, which is what we very much need to do (with the number of citizens growing and growing who are doing the communications)
If you have any questions about using the website to communicate to your U.S. Representative, please Contact me.
Bob Haiducek, Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate,
who advocates getting reminders to follow the schedule.
1-800-828-0498
White House Operator.
Free Call.
Ask her to connect you to any Senator or Congressperson.
Call a hundred times a day, every day.
Put the number in all your outgoing email and post it on every internet site you visit.
Kapeesh?
Just think what single payer healthcare could do for the auto industry. This alone could reduce the cost of a new car by about two thousand dollars. This will help save Detroit!
This obvious fact illustrates perfectly that the Democrats no longer represent middle-class people.
This is the PERFECT OPPORTUNITY for the Democrats to do some Naomi Klein Shock Doctrine tactics and use the auto crisis to push HR 676 through.
But they have no interest in doing so.
Democrats' loyalty is to the insurance companies, not 50 million suffering Americans.
Their inaction speaks a thousand words.
Absolutely correct.
They need demonstrate that they care about real people.
In the meantime we ALSO need to demonstrate that WE care enough to get THEM to care.
Do we care about America? Do we care about each other? Our inaction speaks a thousand words.
Bob Haiducek, Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate,
who advocates getting reminders to follow the schedule.
I grew up in the aftermath of the Second World War in a time of great promise and great peril. The country honored the young men and women who served and gave them the “GI Bill” that provided access to education that many would not have been able to get otherwise. It provided a way to recover from the sacrifice that had taken too many of their best and brightest.
Perhaps the promise of peace in our time was now possible. The United Nations was established with lessons learned from the League of Nations. An international tribunal was established to subject the war criminals to punishment for violation of human rights. A declaration of Human Rights was drafted in 1947 and signed in full or in part by the nations. The United State did not sign the section recognizing Health care as a human right.
With two terrible wars an economic collapse and sixty or more small wars behind us the dangers of settling disputes violently should have been clear to all.
The belief that we can divide the world into “we” and “they,” that we are good and they are bad, that it is our moral obligation to destroy the bad, by whatever means necessary has its genesis in the “fourth century Christian heresy” known as “Manichaeism.” Economically “we” are in competition with “them.” Politically, ideologically and militarily “we” must achieve victory over “them.” And the corollary that the “ends justify the means.”
It is so engrained that few even recognize the source or the consequences of what they take to be self evident. This heresy justifies the most horrific of policies. Good people have no idea of the blindness that this thinking creates. It is a blindness that extends to all areas of public life.
It is hard to accept that we should do something in the common good, if we accept the division of us into us and them. “I would love to have universal health care as long as we didn't have to support them,” is the refrain that I have heard over and over in one form or another. This thinking is blind to the fact that those countries that have universal health care spend much less and have better outcomes than our insurance based employer paid health care affords.
We were faced with an important election, an election to set the course for years to come.
John McCain does not understand the blindness. He is part of the problem. Sarah Palin is blind. Her ignorance is manifest.
Barack Obama is the better choice. His intelligence and his background are indicative that he understands more than we have seen. I belive that he will be a great president. I have talked with Joe Biden and he has wisdom that we need.
Universal health care must be extended to the people of the United States and to all people who do not now have it. It is a universal human right recognized around the world. The United States is the only developed nation that does not afford it to its people.
Progress in science and industry in my lifetime should have been used to provide for the basic needs of all human beings. That was the promise of my generation, but the peril was that the majority of that wealth was dedicated to war and destruction. Global warming is a price that we will pay for the folly of our heretical persuasions.
The economic and political temperature has risen to a state of flux. It presents great opportunity and great peril. The vote on November 4th is an indication of which way we are turning.
The urgency and frustration is in how to communicate what we have learned to those who could benefit but are blind to the promise.
Excellent set of comments.
It sounds like you know a lot about non-profit single-payer national health insurance and strongly support it.
It is not clear if you know about the failure of Obama to support what we need ... and the associated Obama requirement, promise, and specific suggestion ... of which he communicated all of this in April 2007. If you get reminders and follow the schedule (below) you will then be communicating with your U.S. Representative about this critical need. And you will be helping to fulfil the Obama requirement and helping to realize his promise to us.
Bob Haiducek, Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate,
who advocates getting reminders to follow the schedule.
I have experienced single-payer in UK and Germany and the only difference from my rather good health care here in Rochester NY - no copay, less paper work.
Sam Abrams
mas.smarba@gmail.com
I experienced a personal emergency in southern Germany and a family emergency (my 3 year old son) in northern Germany. A relative of my wife experienced a personal emergency in England. No medical bills. For the last case of my wife's relative (a resident of New York) he was tested all day from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. He wanted to learn where he should pay. The doctor said "You don't understand, sir. You don't pay, I pay."
In other words, everyone in the country pays and everyone benefits. In the U.S. where everyone pays dearly (250% more than the average of other industrialized countries) but not everyone benefits and the health outcomes are poor (now dropped to 30th in life expectancy in the world) and the financial and emotional stress is extreme (bankruptcies, divorces, suicides, lost businesses, lost jobs). An that is just skimming the surface.
Bob Haiducek, Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate,
who advocates getting reminders to follow the schedule.
For the emotionally stunted among us, having to wait in a long line for any kind of basic health care is much preferable to not being able to afford to get in that line at all. This needs to happen folks. The only ones fighting the idea of single-payer health care are ultra-conservative misers, slimy politicians who continually worry about re-election and the feloniously-greedy insurance, pharmaceutical and medical industries.
It's so obvious that only morons and those making a huge buck refute it. The majority of people I talk to are all for a single-payer healthcare system. The wealthy could still have their pet doctor(s) on retainer. The rest of us could give a huge sigh of relief and stop worrying about having our futures snatched by huge greedy corporations. That politicians (even Obama) back away from it shows the enormous power of these greedy corporations. I personally feel that only armed revolution will be able to overthrow this power, but I would loved to be proved wrong.
Please help me prove you are wrong. You are an obvious supporter, and all I need is for you to take ONE action to ONE person (your U.S. Representative) the first half of EACH month. Thanks in advance; links are in my signature block.
Bob Haiducek, Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate,
who advocates getting reminders to follow the schedule.
Employer proxied private health insurance is the horse's ass from hell.
And everyone knows it. Hwedoneedno steenkin poll.
So that's what a brain fart looks like!
I think all this waiting around for single payer is a good thing. It prepares people for the long lines they will encounter if we ever get stuck with "single-payer".
Long lines? I had to wait five weeks just to get in for a check-up at a clinic, the clinic system is so overloaded. But a long line is better than a locked door for someone who has a medical condition they needed treated. Currently at least 30,000 people die in the US yearly for lack of health care coverage.
I've had to wait all day in an emergency ward lobby to get my 94 year old aunt in a wheel chair admited. We finally gave up and took her home. We called and called her primary physician, but he wouldn't see her. She was a very fit and healthy woman and four months later she was dead (never having seen her doctor). A similar nightmare happened with my father who died of brain cancer. His doctor kept canceling appointemnts and it was six months after we noticed someting wrong that my father was able to see him. By then it was too late. I had to wait until I got onto medicare before I could get treated for COPD and by then it was pretty advanced. My co-pays were outrageous, and now I only see my doctor when I'm in very dire straights. My mother has Blue Cross from my father's civil service retirement plan, and it's very good health insurance as such things go. But it's still a nightmare, and the doctor doesn't see her for more than a few minutes at a time. The last time she was in the hospital for pneumonia she got a very bad bed sore because the hospital (one of the best in Tucson) was understaffed.
I'd love to know where you are coming from, Joe Hope. To me you sound like an idiot.
Have you ever been to doctors in Canada? I have. They have public-run health insurance and they don't have long lines and their waiting lists for operations are comparable to ours. The myth that Canadians have long waits is promulgated by a few right wing anti-single-payer free market fundamentalist types. You can find examples of people in Canada who have had long waits for operations, but what they do is generalize those into the norm. In short, it's a lie. You can find similar stories in the U.S., plus a lot more stories of people who could never get the operation at all because they have no money, or no insurance, or get their claim denied. Stories of people in countries with government health insurance getting poor service are a bunch of hot air meant to confuse people. We can do at least as well as France, Britain, Canada, and Germany, don't you think? Maybe better?
39 of the 50 state AFL-CIO's have endorsed HR676, single-payer government run health insurance, or Medicare for All. These are real people with working-class interests at heart, not corporate apologists. They are not stupid.
Yep. Lived there for 4.5 years, and I have spoken to Canadian friends and acquaintances about their health care since I lived there (which was 1988-1993). It's just fine.
However, sometimes the government officials (the politicans, that is) adjust the budget and cause problems. (Example: Canadian wait times had to come back down after the politicians messed up the financing in the late 1980's. And I just read today that the French politicians have messed up; sorry, I haven't researched it completely yet.) After we get the U.S. Reps support (via the 2 links below), which will help get the U.S. Senate and U.S. President support and get the necessary discussion going, then we will still need to have enough of us paying attention to help ensure that there is a public agency that is set up that is NOT influenced by the day-to-day decision-making of the federal politicians (translation: lobbyists) nor any of the state politicians (translation: lobbyists).
Bob Haiducek, Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate,
who advocates getting reminders to follow the schedule.
Long lines? I have already had to wait three months to get in to the last two doctors I've had. I'm already used to it. So bring on single-payer.
The answer to the article's question is:
The health industries will not tolerate dissent from their desired policies on the part of Congress or the Senate. They will search and find some stuffed shirt willing to vote their way and finance him or her into public office. When the electorate becomes as intolerant as the for-profit health inudstries of those who vote against their interests, single-payer coverage for all will happen.
Poet
Excellent, Poet! You've got it the basis for the two links in my signature block! ... THEN (that is, when your comments are fulfilled AND citizens decide to TAKE ACTION), AND ONLY THEN, WILL THE FOLLOWING HAPPEN
BASIS: an overwhelming power of citizens via thousands of constituents communicating monthly to a U.S. Representative will most likely result in that Representative’s positive response … or may result in their losing the next election because they failed to positively respond.
Bob Haiducek, Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate,
who advocates getting reminders to follow the schedule.
As our economy fails and our markets tumble at least one reason is that our companies no longer provide quality service at reasonable prices. They are proped up by false values to provide more profits. When that is changed we will begin to be prosperous again.
Single payer insurance is the only way to rid ourselves of unacceptable overhead for health care. There is no reason to have insurance companies when you have total health care nor is there any reason to pay more for drugs than any country in the Western world. Our costs of research need to be shared by all the people who purchase drugs no matter what country they live in.
If we can't control these costs we can not be competitive in the world economy. It is fair to ask what employees of insurance companies would do. Most will have no trouble being clerks for other companies as the economy grows. Most have no special skills - just the ability to collect money and deny coverage. The ones that have real value will be readily accepted in the health fields.
But the real reason for single payer is not financial -- it is moral. If the richest country can't provide health care to all its people, is the country really Christian (or any other religion). How do these people go to church knowing that they could provide basic health care for everyone at lower costs and better care? How do they ignore the sufferring of so many? How do they ignore the suffering of their parents and their children?
Chuck Drinnan
The persistence of the circular, self-reinforcing argument that single-payer health care is "presently" unrealistic in the US because We the People aren't ready to accept it is maddening and exasperating beyond belief.
I lost considerable respect for Paul Krugman a while back when I discovered that he blandly subscribes to this "pragmatic" view. In fact, it's a good example of why I remain highly skeptical and suspicious of the renewed enthusiasm for "pragmatism" and "realistic" politics that's become all the rage since the Erection. It's all very well to observe that politics is "the art of the possible", as if that doesn't beg the question of who exactly decides what's "possible"-- "possibility" is ultimately in the eye of the beholder.
And while I agree that the rapid evaporation of the corporate insurance industry would generate turmoil in the labor market and result in massive unemployment, I can't accept this as a justification to maintain the status quo, including long-range transitional approaches designed to promote corporate health at the expense of the physical and mental health of the population at large.
I mean, was it Received Wisdom to caution against Jonas Salk developing a polio vaccine because it would devastate the iron lung and prosthetics industry?
· Yr Obd't Servant
Brilliant work! I'll be borrowing your Jonas Salk/iron lung analogy. Thank you.
"Just think of the massive layoffs in the iron lung industry! Boohoo!"
Alright, I am trying to maintain my composure here but, has anyone seen Michael Moore's "Sicko"? If you have not seen it, SEE IT!
What the government is afraid of fighting is BIG INSURANCE. Just like BIG OIL, insurance companies have a stronghold on policy in this country and the very unfortunate thing is the policy is on People's Health. The un-insured, the under-insured, the un-insurable are always getting hit hard!
This system works in other Countries, France, England, Switzerland and Cuba just to mention a few and works well. It works for the patients and it works for the Physicians. Everyone benefits!
Not everyone. Pity the poor health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. They've got a very good thing going and we have to protect them AT ALL COSTS!
It is possible to utilize the single-payer program. If counties and states can create and utilize medical facilities for non-insured, low-income, no income patients, it shouldn't be that hard to do it on a federal level. There has to be a merge of the "shady health-care lobbyists money over lives attitude" and the basic need to mend the masses.
Law Student
If people could feel the pain of the elderly or the sick or the people who die every day because of our broken healthcare system they would demand single payer.
It's really simple: "I CARE ABOUT YOUR HEALTH CARE"
v:nicely said.
Let congress put it into a bill now. Let's see who votes for it and against it.
It's called showdown in polka..Let them all go on record so we can vote them out
next time they run for office.
To tell us that it does not poll right is repeating the Republican agenda.
When FDR passed Social Security, the good-old-boy republican network labeled it
a communist plot, and they have been trying to destroy it ever since.
Take note, Bush wanted to put Social Security in private hands, "privatize it"
they called it...Can one imagine what would have happened to this agency in
today's stock market? Everything that the Bush Crowd Privatized has failed,
look at Enron..
FYI, it's already been in place as a resolution (bill) to support since early 2003 (six full years) and has recently gone nowhere in terms of increased support, which is why we need to communicate to all U.S. Representatives.
The bill is U.S. House Resolution H.R. 676.
The degree of support after 5 years was at 20%.
The degree of support after 6 years was at 20%.
You can do detailed monitoring of the U.S. Congress support.
-- see the status by individual U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives
-- see the status by each of the 50 states
-- see the Graphs of Progress
-- see the Voters Guide for the 2010 election so that you can encourage the strong single-payer supporters to run again in 2010
Citizens have all the tools is needed for:
-- what to do for the current progress (the 2 links in my signature block below).
-- how to help the future progress towards more single-payer support in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, at least where there are people to encourage to run again.
Bob Haiducek, Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate,
who advocates getting reminders to follow the schedule.
What Democratic Party leaders really mean when they say "single payer doesn't poll well" is that it may impact the contributions they receive from the insurance industry.
The Democrats, AARP and others have limited participation in their debates to candidates who will not support single-payer. They have specifically excluded single-payer advocates Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader.
"Single payer doesn't poll well" is a red herring, a canard, a lie if you prefer that term. Many reliable polls have shown repeatedly that about 70% of Americans would prefer a government run health insurance system, and around 55 to 60% say they would prefer it even if it meant higher taxes. Of course it would mean higher taxes, but taxes or insurance premiums, what's the difference, it's all money; and you would certainly get more for your money in a system whose main purpose isn't to deny your claim.
So, if we implement single payer (and thus legislate out of existence the entire health insurance industry). What do we do with the several million new unemployed?
Picking cotton?
How about putting them to work making solar panels, wind turbines, and repairing America's crumbling infrastructure? There's plenty of work to do that the "free market" is leaving undone.
Guess what-- the insurance industry doesn't care about their low level employees either. They can't outsource them fast enough. Besides the "entire health insurance industry" is screwing a lot more people than it's helping with their crappy jobs. There will be jobs in the new government-run health insurance system, though not as many, but at least they will be serving the public.
Can we horse whip them?
Boo hoo- cry me a river. Health is just one facet of that crooked "industry".
Yeah, because the secretary, the underwriter, the marketing person, the person working from home doing billing, etc... they are all crooks.
You can also throw in the hundreds of millions of dollars of wealth that evaporates from people's 401K plans and stock portfolios as those companies are legislated into bankruptcy.
nwfisher:they can take some of the jobs needed to fill the newly add-ons to singlepayer. Then we can use others in the various aspects of new Work Projects:make your own list. What do we do with all the other unemployed people? Change that: what should we do with all the other unemployed people? How about: paid schooling? Etc. This is a country full of creative, intelligent people with ideas for solutions. I think Robert Reich, who is not wildly liberal, had lots of ideas about labor and jobs. The best way to end a recession is to have public works programs and other things.
Yes, this is one of the things that single-payer will have to address.
There will also be those who will want to keep for their employer-provided health plans - and not pay into the single payer syatem, especially and ironically, union workplaces where the employee contribution is small.
I guess there are a some people who actually buy their own plans, but these are either poor poeple with those awful plans that cover practically nothing - so thay would abandon them, or rich people spending thousands a month, let them keep their plans, but taht will pay any additional taxes too.
There will need to be a phase-in procedure for single payer, but no one should be allowed to totally opt-out. The privately insured will still be required to pay a reduced, but gradually increasing amount into the system - which will eventiually lead them to change over.
of course, we could slash the defense budget and have the funds for single payer with little or no tax increases. But the tens of millions of of new unemployed from all the closed-down "defense" contractors would be even a bigger problem.
Of course, this is all pure fantasy...
---USAn---
Here's the Republitards' argument: it's "government-run" healthcare. The government will tell you which doctor you can see and which treatment you can have. On top of that, we'll have to pay higher taxes.
It's like the government-run interstate highways (freeways), the government-run libraries (public libraries), and the government-run retirement system (Social Security). When you take the on-ramp to a freeway there's a guard posted there telling you where you can go, and where you cannot. Librarians tell us which books we can read, and which we cannot. And when you retire and those Social Security checks start coming, the government tells you where to retire and how to spend your benefits.
And, all of these things are paid for with our taxes! Horrors!
Do I even have to mention those government-run traffic lights and stop signs?
Hey, Republitards, you voted for Bush twice! You're pinheads! Now, sit down and shut up!
Excellent post. You're so right, and the touch of sarcasm drives the point home.
So, sneak it in the back door. Allow anyone to obtain Medicare Insurance, regardless of age. Allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices (Medicare already sets fees for everything else). Then when people have the choice they will opt for Medicare (already a single-payer program). The only battle that will develop in Congress is with the lobbyists who try to get Medicare outlawed.
Sorry to report this to you, but the lobbyists already got the U.S. Congress to schedule the outlawing of Medicare --- by scheduling it to become privatized. They successfully started that process in 2003 decision-making, for which the activities will start NEXT year --- 2010.
For more read about the wrong direction.
Please please please communicate to your U.S. Representatives. See the two links below.
Bob Haiducek, Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate,
who advocates getting reminders to follow the schedule.
I don't care how you do it, but GET THESE INSURANCE COMPANIES OFF MY BACK!!! They sure charge a lot for doing nothing!