The time for adopting “single payer health insurance” has arrived.
If I have one disappointment in the Presidential candidates that remain, it is that none of them are advocates for “single payer.” The only legitimate candidate running for President that was a true advocate of “single payer” was Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D – OH), who represents parts of the Cleveland area. To read more about his health plan, visit his website at www.dennis4President.
One consistent argument against “single payer” is that doctors oppose it. Not true. There is a group called Physicians for a National Health Program.
PNHP defines “single payer” quite simply:
Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private.
Let me repeat an important line in their definition of single payer:
“delivery of care remains largely private.”
It is not the same as national health, as is practiced in Canada and England. Not that there is anything wrong with how they practice in those countries.
Another way to explain “single payer” is “Medicare for All.” PNHP makes some valid arguments related to cost.
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.
The savings alone from adopting this plan will be enough to insure all uninsured Americans. It is a travesty that any Americans must live without adequate health coverage. Even worse, too many Americans have to live with “zero” health coverage. We all pay for “inadequate health coverage.”
It is better we get out front on this issue now. It is our obligation to do so. Reading on Walden Bookstore.
Strangely enough, Obama was once for a “single payer” health care system, but then avoided the reality of the health care industry lobby and followed Hillary into largely the same corporate run system we now have with options to cover the uninsured.
Hillary actually criticized Obama for earlier supporting single payer health care during the debates.
For those who insist that Medicare is no good, I’d like to point out that when rich people start using it, Medicare will suddenly become important.
My mother had Medicare plus a supplemental BC/BS gap policy and the coverage was great. Medicare even covered all the expenses of Hospice after Mom decided that she didn’t want to undergo chemotherapy. The only part of Medicare that didn’t make financial sense for her was the prescription coverage.
On the other hand, we’ve been paying close to $500 a month for an individual policy from BC/BS that covers next to nothing unless it’s a serious illness. I think in the five years we’ve had it, they’ve paid for less than $200 of blood tests for my husband. Office calls aren’t covered, plus standard tests like pap smears & mammograms aren’t covered unless something is found. I would have loved to have been able to sign up for early Medicare when we qualified for early Social Security. The costs for managing private insurance, including the insane executive paychecks, is out of hand. I believe that less than 5¢ out of every Medicare dollar is spent on administration.
Thanks for the referral to the Physician’s site.
Yes, let’s remove the concept of “insurance” from the equation completely and just frame the question as you have in your title. We need health care, period.
a good read debunking and discussing some of the “myths” swirling about the discussion…Mythbusting Canadian Health Care — Part I:
and Mythbusting Canadian Healthcare, Part II: Debunking The Free Marketeers:
highly recommended