dairygirl4u2c Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 [quote][b]Progressives and Conservatives Agree: Single Payer Healthcare Is Inevitable By: Rob Stone M.D.[/b] Wednesday August 11, 2010 1:11 pm Tweet16 Share166 “The new health care legislation is a step toward elimination, by slow strangulation, of private health insurance and establishment of government as the ‘single payer.’” - George Will, in his weekly newspaper column, Sunday July 11, 2010 Everyone loves to pick on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and well they should. This 2,000+ page contraption, this heap of handouts to the special interest lobbyists with a few shiny baubles thrown in to placate the common folk, was not only written by the for-profit health insurance industry but now will be implemented by former WellPoint/Anthem Vice President Liz Fowler who actually penned much of the law in her role as Max Baucus’ chief healthcare counsel for the Senate Finance Committee. You don’t have to make this stuff up, as emptywheel reported on FDL July 14, 2010, “Former WellPoint VP Liz Fowler to Implement Health Care Oversight” But what about George Will’s fine whine that the insurance industry faces strangling regulation? Robert Pear wrote in the New York Times on August 2 that the new law will lead to more regulation of the industry, and “the transition is full of risks and uncertainty for all involved.” If the Obama administration is going to "regulate the industry for the benefit of consumers," he noted, then “they can’t help but destabilize or disrupt the existing market.” Wall Street doesn’t like uncertainty. It detests being destabilized. Stock analysts are not missing out on this. The brokerage firm Edward Jones “downgraded the ratings on the stocks of the three health insurers it covers – UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint and Aetna — to ‘sell’ from ‘hold’ late on Friday [7/30]. Those companies are the three largest U.S. health insurers.” (Reuters 8/2/10) This new blow comes after legendary investor Warren Buffett pulled the plug on WellPoint and United Health, selling all Berkshire Hathaway’s holdings in the insurance giants during the first quarter of 2010 (“Buffett’s Berkshire Disposes Stake in UnitedHealth, WellPoint"). . . . Speaking in Virginia, former House Speaker and presumed presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said on May 14, "The employer-based system will collapse because [the ACA] encourages businesses to drop health care coverage and incur the fine. When employees realize the high costs of the health care exchanges, they will demand a nationalized health care system." It only gets worse, or better, depending on your perspective. According to Gingrich, the business community is going to lead the call for single payer Medicare for All. And well they should. Gingrich wasn’t making this up. On May 6, CNN Money released documents showing that “many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government… AT&T revealed that it spends $2.4 billion a year on coverage for its almost 300,000 active employees, a number that would fall to $600 million if AT&T stopped providing health care coverage and paid the penalty option.” Is the Affordable Care Act unaffordable? Isn’t it at least a step in the right direction? Those questions can only be answered by considering whether the ACA ends up strengthening or weakening the health insurance corporations. Progressive critics of the bill point out that the new legislation hands over $350 billion in government subsidies to the private insurers while mandating consumers to buy the industry’s shoddy products. That, combined with a lack of price controls means the ACA could prove to be a bonanza for the corporate stakeholders in the medical-industrial complex. On the other hand, the changing marketplace is full of perils, even if the conservative icons quoted above are exaggerating them to stir up fear of Socialized Medicine (and maybe scare up some donations). If we stand back and rest on our laurels, believing that the ACA will save us, then we are doomed. The industry lobbyists are working overtime to take the best parts of the bill and weaken them, while destroying any good that is in the bill (see Wendell Potter in the Huffington Post on July 27, Health Insurers Leaning on State Insurance Commissioners to "Reform" Reform). “We believe that Medicare for All is inevitable in the United States. It is up to all of us to determine when the inevitable becomes the reality.” - Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), John Conyers (D-Mich.), and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), statement for Medicare’s birthday, July 29, 2010 If you’re not inclined to believe George and Newt, then how about Dennis, John, and Bernie: “It is up to all of us to determine when the inevitable becomes the reality.” The reality is that single payer, Medicare for All, is not inevitable, nor is there any guarantee the ACA won’t bankrupt us while enriching the corporations that lobbied for it. It reminds me of a slogan we have in Indiana, “Healthcare Reform: We’re Still For It, and We’re Not Done Yet!” From California to Vermont, Medicare for All advocates are working for bills to create state single payer systems. The grassroots are pushing up thru the disappointment of the Affordable Care Act. Nationally, [b]with the growing recognition that the health insurance giants stand as the greatest barrier to affordable healthcare for all, investors are beginning to see that this is not an industry socially responsible stockholders should be in[/b] (Huffington Post May 12, Napalm, Big Health Insurance, and Divestment). [b]I went to medical school to take care of sick people. The insurance companies fulfill their fiduciary responsibility to their investors by finding ways not to pay for the care of the sick. All their innovation and creativity go to this goal of not paying for care. No other sector in our crazy healthcare system operates under this incentive.[/b] It will take a mass movement, like those for women’s suffrage and civil rights. It will take a divestment campaign like the one against apartheid in South Africa. [b]We must keep the pressure up, shine a light on their nefarious deeds, drive down their stock prices, and expose them for what they are: parasitic middlemen who add no value while sucking billions out of our economy.[/b] “It is up to all of us to determine when the inevitable becomes the reality.”[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 (edited) the problem should be obvious. the new law, or any system that uses health care, pays a middleman, the insurance company. they could easily devise a system as they do in single payer systems where the government is the insurance company. all we do now is subsideize and give hand outs to insurance, we should just make the government as the ultimate insurer. it's as simple as that. or, for some countries, nonprofits deal with this. hopefully nonprofits rise up with the new law. hopefully, the 80% requirement will make it just as good as single payer, or close enough. perhaps, nonprofits or an insurance company can do it just as cheap as the government. i doubt it though. maybe lower. insurance companies are too fragmented, too inefficient. they spend 30% on administration costs, the government pays five. and that's not even counting insurance's profit margin. that's how we can get our national cost for health care to ten percent, from seventeen, like the rest of the single payer systems. if we did it right, i bet we could get it even lower, as some companies do. especially with our american ingenuity, and the 'economy of scale' effect. Edited October 3, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 (edited) and the thing is. this is a win win situation for everyone. it will cost everyone less, even the rich. politicians often talk about making health care cheaper. they say it in ways thgat make republicans think that they are just going to tax the rich for it. in reality, the savings come from cutting out the middleman, cutting out the administrative costs, profit, and terrible inefficiencies that come with a fragmented market. socialized medicine isn't a godo reason not to switch, at least as long as we make exceptios for people who abuse the system, include personal responsibility, and carrots and sticks to prevent abuse, and drive down costs, etc. health care for good faith people, who are not just down on their luck or making mistakes, is a fundemanental right. the popes say we are to protect these fundamental rights. that we are to tax teh rich, that we are to get governjemnt ivolved, etc. and we can make laws to mitigate the bad effects, eg waiting lines. supplemental insurance, etc. otehr countries do it, so we know it can be done. "Once people understand that for a modest increase in their taxes they can get quality health care that will always be there no matter what, and that they can say good bye to that huge monthly health premium, there will be no holding them back" Edited October 3, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 (edited) [quote]The Case for Universal Health Care in the United States By John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine McCabe, Ph.D. Why doesnt the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States. Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world. Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990 Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960 Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960. Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations. Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits. Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canadas. Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money Myth Three: Universal Health Care Would Deprive Citizens of Needed Services Fact One: Studies reveal that citizens in universal health care systems have more doctor visits and more hospital days than in the US Fact Two: Around 30% of Americans have problem accessing health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country. About 17% of our population is without health insurance. About 75% of ill uninsured people have trouble accessing/paying for health care. Fact Three: Comparisons of Difficulties Accessing Care Are Shown To Be Greater In The US Than Canada (see graph) Fact Four: Access to health care is directly related to income and race in the United States. As a result the poor and minorities have poorer health than the wealthy and the whites. Fact Five: There would be no lines under a universal health care system in the United States because we have about a 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons, whereas demand would increase about 15% Conclusion: The US denies access to health care based on the ability to pay. Under a universal health care system all would access care. There would be no lines as in other industrialized countries due to the oversupply in our providers and infrastructure, and the willingness/ability of the United States to spend more on health care than other industrialized nations. Myth Four: Universal Health Care Would Result In Government Control And Intrusion Into Health Care Resulting In Loss Of Freedom Of Choice Fact One: There would be free choice of health care providers under a single payer universal health care system, unlike our current managed care system in which people are forced to see providers on the insurers panel to obtain medical benefits Fact Two: There would be no management of care under a single payer, universal health care system unlike the current managed care system which mandates insurer preapproval for services thus undercutting patient confidentiality and taking health care decisions away from the health care provider and consumer Fact Three: Although health care providers fees would be set as they are currently in 90% of cases, providers would have a means of negotiating fees unlike the current managed care system in which they are set in corporate board rooms with profits, not patient care, in mind Fact Four: Taxes, fees and benefits would be decided by the insurer which would be under the control of a diverse board representing consumers, providers, business and government. It would not be a government controlled system, although the government would have to approve the taxes. The system would be run by a public trust, not the government. Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care administered by a state public health system would be much more democratic and much less intrusive than our current system. Consumers and providers would have a voice in determining benefits, rates and taxes. Problems with free choice, confidentiality and medical decision making would be resolved Myth Five: Universal Health Care Is Socialized Medicine And Would Be Unacceptable To The Public Fact One: Single payer universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care providers would be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of the government, which would be socialized medicine. Single payer health care is not socialized medicine, any more than the public funding of education is socialized education, or the public funding of the defense industry is socialized defense. Fact Two: Repeated national and state polls have shown that between 60 and 75% of Americans would like a universal health care system (see The Harris Poll #78, October 20, 2005) Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care is not socialized medicine and would be preferred by the majority of the citizens of this country Myth Six: The Problems With The US Health Care System Are Being Solved and Are Best Solved By Private Corporate Managed Care Medicine because they are the most efficient Fact One: Private for profit corporation are the lease efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration. Fact Two: The same procedure in the same hospital the year after conversion from not-for profit to for-profit costs in between 20 to 35% more Fact Three: Health care costs in the United States grew more in the United States under managed care in 1990 to 1996 than any other industrialized nation with single payer universal health care Fact Four: The quality of health care in the US has deteriorated under managed care. Access problems have increased. The number of uninsured has dramatically increased (increase of 10 million to 43.4 million from 1989 to 1996, increase of 2.4% from 1989 to 1996- 16% in 1996 and increasing each year). Fact Five: The level of satisfaction with the US health care system is the lowest of any industrialized nation. Fact Six: 80% of citizens and 71% of doctors believe that managed care has caused quality of care to be compromised Conclusion: For profit, managed care can not solve the US health care problems because health care is not a commodity that people shop for, and quality of care must always be compromised when the motivating factor for corporations is to save money through denial of care and decreasing provider costs. In addition managed care has introduced problems of patient confidentiality and disrupted the continuity of care through having limited provider networks. Overall Answer to the questions Why doesnt the US have single payer universal health care when single payer universal health care is the most efficient, most democratic and most equitable means to deliver health care? Why does the United States remain wedded to an inefficient, autocratic and immoral system that makes health care accessible to the wealthy and not the poor when a vast majority of citizens want it to be a right of citizenship? [b]Conclusion: Corporations are able to buy politicians through our campaign finance system and control the media to convince people that corporate health care is democratic, represents freedom, and is the most efficient system for delivering health care[/b] [/quote] Edited October 3, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now