|
Medical/Medicare systems are being undermined to the point of collapse. The inherent problem of a patchwork system with minimal regulation has just gotten worse in the years since the last attempt to reform the system.
Now that businesses agree something must be done and 68% of Americans believe it is more important to provide healthcare coverage for everyone than it is to keep taxes down, what should be considered going forward?
One major reason Americans spend so much money on healthcare is because we pay so much in overhead -- 25% of each dollar spent on health care goes for overhead. In fact, the American health care system spends over $1000 per capita -- more than 3 times more than what the Canadians spend on their system. If we saved the excess overhead cost, we could afford to cover health care for all Americans.
The last time our country discussed fixing the health care mess in the early 90s, one of the biggest disappointments for many progressives was that single payer (where the government replaces the insurance companies in paying for care - like they already do with Medicare) was "off the table" from the very beginning. Opponents claimed that Americans would never accept a government managed system.
Why such an objection to single payer? The biggest objection comes from the health care insurance industry who currently are doing exceptionally well in enriching their CEOs and employing numerous gate keepers whose job is to pre-authorize, pay for, or deny care while making a tidy profit. The second objection comes from the business community as they are ideologically predisposed to believe that only market-based solutions are legitimate. The third objection comes from American public who has also been conditioned to disdain government solutions both by the decades long right wing campaign to convince Americans that free markets are best and that government is the problem. (Although, bad corrupt conservative governance where the free market is allowed to prey on Americans is tarnishing that idea.)
Universal health care is particularly unsuited for a market-based approach because people are unable to do a lot of comparison shopping when they are sick and the overwhelming need for health care is when someone is sick, not when they are well. Furthermore, most believe that what level of care they get should not be based solely on their ability to pay or who they work for. Creating artificial markets to provide the illusion of choice has proven to be an unrealistic method for achieving the goal of reasonable and affordable health care for our country. In fact, experience throughout the world shows that a government managed program will provide the best value for our money, both in expense and in quality.
Promoting and enacting single payer health care would provide additional, not insubstantial benefits.
· Americans could once again see that government can be trusted to do something right and something that benefits everyone. This could also begin to restore a level of faith in our constitutional democracy and our ability to work together for a common purpose.
· If health care is no longer provided by one's job, Americans would no longer have to worry about switching jobs. This could help restore some balance on the employee side of the corporation-employee relationship.
· Americans would no longer have to worry about losing their house or going into bankruptcy when someone in the family got sick if everyone was covered.
· If everyone pays into the same pool, the amount each person pays will be much smaller than if we are all forced to purchase our own insurance with all its commensurate overhead from advertising different plans, paying the outrageous CEO bills, and the bureaucratic mess that doctors and hospitals face in having multiple companies to deal with. With single payer we'll get far more for less.
· We can build in more transparency into the system because as a public service, the money spent would be overseen by congress and available for all to see.
· We could actually have less regulation and less government interference into our lives.
The current proposals that assume we keep the current patchwork of insurance companies are heavily weighted to building a regulatory system around individuals who will be mandated to purchase insurance (lots and lots of paperwork) and who must be punished if they don't. Insurance companies will have to be heavily regulated to provide insurance to even the very sick. The end result is more regulation on both businesses and individuals. If insurance companies were cut out of the loop, these regulations would not be needed. All that would be needed is our current tax system collecting our contributions to providing health care for all and expanding our Medicare system to pay for everyone and not just the elderly.
Today, we have a unique opportunity and challenge to do something that will help our entire country be a better place for ourselves and our children. However, if we do not get a chance to argue for single payer, we will be creating yet another Rube Goldberg scheme that works better for corporations than the people while draining away our resources.
[1] Revolt of the CEOs, Christopher Hayes, Washington Monthly, June 2007, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0706.hayes.html
|
|
