So why don't we have a National Health Insurance Plan in America? The political will has not gained momentum on this issue due to AMA propaganda
that continues to cast doubt in the public mind concerning the success of such
a plan. The first misgiving usually offered is that our country cannot afford to pay
for comprehensive care for everyone.
Every other industrialized nation provides comprehensive care to all at a much lower
cost than our system which leaves so many people out. Other nations spend 6-10
percent of their Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, whereas we, the wealthiest nation
on earth, spend 14 % of our GDP.
Our country already has enough funds dedicated to health care to provide the
highest quality of care for everyone. Studies conducted by the Congressional Budget
Office, the General Accounting Office, the Lewin Group and Boston University School
of Public Health have shown that under a single payer system, comprehensive care
can be provided for everyone without spending any more funds than are now being spent.
There has been considerable publicity about the delays in receiving elective services
that are characteristic of other nations, especially the United Kingdom and Canada.
At 6% and 9% of their GDP, respectively, they are spending much less than we are
as a nation.
Not only do we have more than sufficient funds, we are also a nation that is infamous
for our excess health care capacity. Typical of these excesses is the fact that there
are more MRI scanners in Orange County, CA than in all of Canada.
With our generous funding and the tremendous capacity of our health care delivery
system, the delays would not be a significant limiting factor in the U.S.
“Americans do not want socialized medicine,” is a phrase that is frequently used glibly
to dismiss the single payer concept. Socialized medicine is a system in which the
government owns the facilities, and the providers of care are government employees.
In sharp contrast, a single payer system uses the existing private and public
sector health care delivery systems, preserving private ownership and employment.
The unique feature of a single payer system is that all health care risks
are placed in a universal risk pool, covering everyone. The pool is funded in
a fair and equitable manner so that everyone pays their fair share in taxes,
unlike our current defective system in which some pay far too much while others
are not paying their share. The funds are allocated through a publically
administered program resulting in optimum use of our health care dollars.
A single payer system has no more in common with socialized medicine than our
current Medicare program.
Many contend that government bureaucracies are very wasteful compared with
the efficiencies of the private market place. In the health care arena, this
has not been true. Our Medicare program, a publicly administered program,
operates on an administrative cost of less than 2%. The managed care
intermediaries consume 9 to 30% of the health care dollar.
This difference is due to large corporate administrations, costs involved
with competition between companies and marketing expenses that would be
nonexistent in a public program. A single payer system has as its mission
the optimization of resources for better patient care. Funds are
not wasted on corporate administrative excesses.
Another argument is that a single payer system, by being universal, would
lower the standard of care to a level of mediocrity for everyone, preventing
the affluent from exercising her/his option to obtain the highest level of care.
However, our current system is characterized by essentially two alternatives:
either no insurance with severely impaired access to even a mediocre level of care,
or being insured by a managed care industry that has whittled down what is
available until mediocrity has become the standard of care. Only the relatively
affluent have access to unlimited care.
The generous level of funds that we have already dedicated to health care,
adding to this a more efficient administration with an exclusive mission of
optimum patient care well above the mediocrity that we now have, lays the foundation
for a universal health care system in America.
A single payer system does not preclude the affluent from paying, outside the
system, for a penthouse suite in the hospital, or for cosmetic surgery or for
any other service that should not be part of a
publicly funded program.
Other than the assurance that everyone would have coverage for health, there is
even a greater good that a single payer system would bring to our nation: Making
preventative and public health services available to everyone would improve the
level of health of this country. Reduction of communicable diseases and reducing
the higher costs of untreated chronic diseases helps us all.
Healthy people, for instance, make for a healthier work force with less lost
work time, greater productivity and a more positive healthy environment.
Socialism is a dirty word in this country. Universal health care for all has
been equated with socialism, and much propaganda has been communicated by the
press, by right wing politicians, by medical groups such as the AMA or anyone
else who has an agenda to keep the 1500 plus health insurance companies a
thriving market with profits that undoubtedly help to pay for their agendas.
But if Americans knew the truth, and would turn off their TVs and use that time
instead to change this country, using the power of grassroots politics, to make
a single payer universal system a reality for all, then we would finally have
the best health care system in the world. The Green Party in this country has
as one of its missions to bring a universal system of health care to all Americans.
Any group with the passion to change the world, one issue at a time, with a
loving intent, can do it.
