Why single-payer "Medicare for All" is what we need

[Towntalk]

Blunt Talk by Health-Care Leader

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123008136111331971.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

House members urge Congressional leadership to boost health care support in stimulus package

http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/December08/26/econ_stim_hel-26Dec08.html

The year in Health Care and what it portends in 2009

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/healthmatters/2008/12/24/the-year-in-health-care-and-what-it-portends-for-2009/

U.S. Recession Will Hurt Health Care

http://www.forbes.com/leadership/managing/2008/12/22/health-recession-us-cx_1223oxford.html

[Towntalk]

Yes Jay, there is a difference, but that's not the point. Both are in deep trouble as is the Social Security program.

As you well know, there have been hundreds of articles written telling us that we are fast reaching the point where the Medicare program will either have to go through radical changes or be done away with.

If and when this happens, we'll all be up a creek without a paddle.

Those who advocate for "single-payer" will not tell you is that even in those countries that have government controlled health care that their program are in their own crisis.

Reports out of England, Canada and France are saying the very same things about their programs that our officials are saying about ours.

England for example is having to lure doctors from overseas because there aren't enough of their own people entering the medical profession.

The people who want the government to take over health care to take medical decisions out of the hands of the private sector say:  "As long as we continue to rely on private for-profit insurers, universal coverage will be unaffordable. Their administrative costs consume nearly one-third of our health care dollar.4 We will never have enough money to provide everyone with decent care until we eliminate private insurance with its enormous waste and inadequate coverage. And we will never be able to keep costs down and get the care we need as long as the wasteful and unnecessary insurance companies stand between us and our doctors." What they don't tell you is that in those countries that have universal health care, that bureaucrats replace the private sector decision makers.

The single payer advocates want free health care where absolutely every thing is covered from ingrown toe nail to major surgery. Not even in those countries that have universal health care do they have programs where every medical procedure known to man is covered.

I ask you, what medical procedures would not be covered under a universal health care program. Name those procedures by name, not generalities.

Should a woman for example who doesn't like the shape of her nose and goes to a Plastic surgeon for corrective surgery be covered?

Should the medical procedures for underperforming, inadequate men be covered?

Should hair transplants be covered?

[jay]

Isn't there a difference between Medicare and Medicaid?

Working people contribute to the one fund and the same people are eligible for coverage at age 65.  The other fund basically uses U.S. general fund monies to provide medical services for the poor at any age.

[Towntalk]

States Cut Medicaid Coverage Further

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/25/AR2008122501148_pf.html

States from Rhode Island to California are being forced to curtail Medicaid, the government health insurance program for the poor, as they struggle to cope with the deteriorating economy.

With revenue falling at the same time that more people are losing their jobs and private health coverage, states already have pared their programs and many are looking at deeper cuts for the coming year. Already, 19 states -- including Maryland and Virginia -- and the District of Columbia have lowered payments to hospitals and nursing homes, eliminated coverage for some treatments, and forced some recipients out of the insurance program completely.

Many are halting payments for health-care services not required by the federal government, such as physical therapy, eyeglasses, hearing aids and hospice care. A few states are requiring poor patients to chip in more toward their care.

[irishbobcat]

Why single-payer "Medicare for All" is what we need

By Len Rodberg, PhD
1. Americans are afraid that they can't afford to get sick. Those of us with insurance are paying more and more of the premium and more out-of-pocket as well. Studies show further that we face bankruptcy if we get sick1. Many among us have to choose between paying for medicine and paying for food and housing. And with the recent economic downturn, the ranks of those without insurance are growing.
2. A majority of physicians (59 percent) and an even higher proportion of Americans (62 percent or more) support single-payer national health insurance or "Medicare for All."2 In spite of this, all we are hearing about today are mandate plans that would require everyone to buy the same private insurance that is already failing us. These proposals don't regulate insurance premiums, they don't keep the insurance companies from refusing to pay many of our bills, and they don't improve the insurance we now have. Some offer a "public option," but this will quickly become too expensive as the sick flee to the public sector as private insurers avoid them, abandon them, or make it too difficult for them to get their bills paid.
3. These proposals won't work, either to expand coverage or to contain costs. Plans like these have been tried in many states over the past two decades (Massachusetts, Tennessee, Washington State, Oregon, Minnesota, Vermont, Maine).3 They have all failed to reduce the number of uninsured or to contain costs.
4. These mandate plans will add hundreds of billions of dollars to the nation's health care costs. In this economic downturn, we need assure health care for all without adding to the nation's cost and the government's deficit. The bottom line is: these proposals don't reform our fragmented, inefficient system, they just add to its complexity and costs.
5. As long as we continue to rely on private for-profit insurers, universal coverage will be unaffordable. Their administrative costs consume nearly one-third of our health care dollar.4 We will never have enough money to provide everyone with decent care until we eliminate private insurance with its enormous waste and inadequate coverage. And we will never be able to keep costs down and get the care we need as long as the wasteful and unnecessary insurance companies stand between us and our doctors.
6. Every other industrialized country has some form of universal health care. None uses profitmaking, investor-owned insurance companies like ours to provide health care for all their people. 5
7. We have an American system that works. It's Medicare. It's not perfect, but Americans with Medicare are far happier than those with private insurance. Doctors face fewer hassles in getting paid, and Medicare has been a leader in keeping costs down. And keep in mind that Medicare insures people with the greatest health care needs: people over 65 and the disabled. We should improve and expand Medicare to cover everyone.
8. A single-payer "Medicare for All" system is embodied in H.R. 676, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers and 92 other members of Congress. It would have:
·   Automatic enrollment for everyone
·   Comprehensive services covering all medically necessary care and drugs
·   Free choice of doctor and hospital, who remain independent and negotiate their fees and budgets with a public or nonprofit agency
·   Public or nonprofit agency processes and pays the bills
·   Entire system financed through progressive taxes
·   Help job growth and the entire U.S. economy by removing the burden of health costs from business
·   Cover everyone without spending any more than we are now.6
9. The growth in health care costs must be addressed if any proposal is to succeed.
·   Single payer offers real tools to contain costs: budgeting, especially for hospitals, planning of capital investments, and an emphasis on primary care and coordination of care.
·   Mandate plans offer only hopes: competition among insurance companies, computerization, chronic disease management. Competition among the shrinking number of insurance companies has already failed to contain costs and, in the absence of single payer and reformed primary care, computerization and chronic disease management will raise costs, not lower them.
10. Single-payer Medicare for All is the right answer:
·   It is right on choice. It provides free choice of doctor and hospital, the choice Americans want and value. In mandate plans, we lose those choices.
·   It is right on efficiency. Single payer would slash administrative costs and promote efficient primary care. It would also enhance evidence-based quality assurance.
·   It is right on accountability. It will be a public, nonprofit system that will respond to what doctors and their patients need, not what corporate executives and  their stockholders want.

Maybe Santa will bring us Single-payer Healthcare in 2009!
Merry Christmas!
Dennis Spisak
Mahoning Valley Green Party
Ohio Green Party
www.ohiogreens.org
www.votespisak.org/thinkgreen/