Universal Single Payer Health Care
The statistics are well known but worth restating:
46 million uninsured Americans.
40% of individual bankruptcies due to health care expenses.
25-30% of health care expenditures going to administration, overhead and other costs that do not directly contribute to actual health care. In other words, approximately $500 BILLION of the $2 Trillion we currently spend annually on health care, has nothing to do with delivering health services.
By contrast, administrative costs for Medicare, which is a well functioning single payer system, are only approximately 3%.
The conclusion is clear. What we need is a universal single payer health care system. Such a system (as proposed in Congressman John Conyers’ bill HR 676) would provide quality coverage to all Americans. That coverage would be independent of an individual’s age, employment status, or pre-existing conditions and would be portable, irrespective of a person’s geographic location or employer. While such a plan would be publicly funded, it would be privately delivered. It would NOT be socialized medicine.
This is clearly the right thing to do. It has been successful in other countries, and there is no reason why tens of millions of Americans should be deprived of health care or have to choose between seeing a doctor or taking medication and putting dinner on the table.
This situation is driven largely by the previously referenced inefficiency in the insurance industry and an inequitable distribution of drug pricing. An example the latter is that Canada is able to negotiate bulk drug pricing which is not available to many millions of Americans due to laws and regulations that prohibit price negotiation here. (Medicare Part D --for Disastrous-- is an illustration of a drug plan that prohibits drug price negotiation.) The result overall is that Americans bear the brunt of the major costs of pharmaceutical R&D in the price we pay for drugs, while others, such as Canadians, pay very little of those costs.
Beyond the fact that universal single payer health care is something all Americans deserve, it is also something that would be good for the U.S. economy and provide many other financial benefits for the our country and for individual Americans.
When Toyota decided to build its new $800 Million RAV 4 plant in Ontario, Canada rather than in the U.S., one of the primary decision factors was the cost of providing health insurance for U.S. employees. If we had a single payer health care system, in combination with the financial incentives that were offered, Toyota would most likely have built that plant in the U.S. The result would have been good for U.S. employment, business and our economy. A total WIN for the U.S. This is just one of many missed opportunities to benefit the American economy that result from the non-competitive position our current health care “system” has created.
Another benefit of single payer health care would be to help alleviate the growing property tax burden in Pennsylvania (as well as other states). The primary component of our property taxes is for education where per-employee costs for educators and others is a major component of that expense. The fastest growing and least predictable element of that cost is for health insurance premiums. Having a universal single payer health care system would effectively take this large, growing and unpredictable expense off the table and the backs of those who pay property taxes. Since property tax growth is especially difficult for retirees on a fixed income, this relief would be of particular benefit to that important and growing segment our population.
In summary, a universal single payer system would not only provide the level of quality health care that all Americans are entitled to, but also provide significant financial benefits to individuals, businesses and the U.S. economy as a whole. This is long overdue. It’s now time to do it!
46 million uninsured Americans.
40% of individual bankruptcies due to health care expenses.
25-30% of health care expenditures going to administration, overhead and other costs that do not directly contribute to actual health care. In other words, approximately $500 BILLION of the $2 Trillion we currently spend annually on health care, has nothing to do with delivering health services.
By contrast, administrative costs for Medicare, which is a well functioning single payer system, are only approximately 3%.
The conclusion is clear. What we need is a universal single payer health care system. Such a system (as proposed in Congressman John Conyers’ bill HR 676) would provide quality coverage to all Americans. That coverage would be independent of an individual’s age, employment status, or pre-existing conditions and would be portable, irrespective of a person’s geographic location or employer. While such a plan would be publicly funded, it would be privately delivered. It would NOT be socialized medicine.
This is clearly the right thing to do. It has been successful in other countries, and there is no reason why tens of millions of Americans should be deprived of health care or have to choose between seeing a doctor or taking medication and putting dinner on the table.
This situation is driven largely by the previously referenced inefficiency in the insurance industry and an inequitable distribution of drug pricing. An example the latter is that Canada is able to negotiate bulk drug pricing which is not available to many millions of Americans due to laws and regulations that prohibit price negotiation here. (Medicare Part D --for Disastrous-- is an illustration of a drug plan that prohibits drug price negotiation.) The result overall is that Americans bear the brunt of the major costs of pharmaceutical R&D in the price we pay for drugs, while others, such as Canadians, pay very little of those costs.
Beyond the fact that universal single payer health care is something all Americans deserve, it is also something that would be good for the U.S. economy and provide many other financial benefits for the our country and for individual Americans.
When Toyota decided to build its new $800 Million RAV 4 plant in Ontario, Canada rather than in the U.S., one of the primary decision factors was the cost of providing health insurance for U.S. employees. If we had a single payer health care system, in combination with the financial incentives that were offered, Toyota would most likely have built that plant in the U.S. The result would have been good for U.S. employment, business and our economy. A total WIN for the U.S. This is just one of many missed opportunities to benefit the American economy that result from the non-competitive position our current health care “system” has created.
Another benefit of single payer health care would be to help alleviate the growing property tax burden in Pennsylvania (as well as other states). The primary component of our property taxes is for education where per-employee costs for educators and others is a major component of that expense. The fastest growing and least predictable element of that cost is for health insurance premiums. Having a universal single payer health care system would effectively take this large, growing and unpredictable expense off the table and the backs of those who pay property taxes. Since property tax growth is especially difficult for retirees on a fixed income, this relief would be of particular benefit to that important and growing segment our population.
In summary, a universal single payer system would not only provide the level of quality health care that all Americans are entitled to, but also provide significant financial benefits to individuals, businesses and the U.S. economy as a whole. This is long overdue. It’s now time to do it!
posted by Anonymous @ Tuesday, June 20, 2006
<< Home