“Health insurance in a civilized society is a collective moral obligation,
not a discretionary consumer good. It’s somewhat analogous to national
defense: We strive to safeguard everyone from the unpredictable
consequences of an unforeseen tragedy, not just those who can find room
in their household budgets to pony up for defense spending.”
Bruce Barry, professor of management and sociology
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
Letter to the Editor, New York Times
April 14, 2009
Health Care for ALL - really!
With our current health care system in catastrophic crisis - 51 million people uninsured, many millions more inadequately insured, 45,000 people a year dying because of no
insurance, medical bankruptcies at an all-time high, increasing costs, increasing exclusions from coverage - health care for everyone is a front-burner issue. Providing it is possible, and as Dr. Barry eloquently states, is a collective moral obligation.
Universal health care is spoken of under many names currently – “Health Care for All”, “Medicare for All”, “Improved Medicare for All”, “National Health Program”. Sometimes it is called “Single Payer” or “National Health Insurance”, which actually refer to the proposed unified, not-for-profit financing mechanism. Despite the variety of names, providing comprehensive, affordable health care for all people is the single objective.
Universal health care would provide all medically necessary care, including doctor visits, hospital care, prescriptions, mental health services, nursing home care, rehab, home care, eye care and dental care. There would be no out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and co-pays, and no exclusion of people or diagnoses.
Other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations.
The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $8,160 per
capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison (on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates) and still leaves 51 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered. We can do better, and we
must.
insurance, medical bankruptcies at an all-time high, increasing costs, increasing exclusions from coverage - health care for everyone is a front-burner issue. Providing it is possible, and as Dr. Barry eloquently states, is a collective moral obligation.
Universal health care is spoken of under many names currently – “Health Care for All”, “Medicare for All”, “Improved Medicare for All”, “National Health Program”. Sometimes it is called “Single Payer” or “National Health Insurance”, which actually refer to the proposed unified, not-for-profit financing mechanism. Despite the variety of names, providing comprehensive, affordable health care for all people is the single objective.
Universal health care would provide all medically necessary care, including doctor visits, hospital care, prescriptions, mental health services, nursing home care, rehab, home care, eye care and dental care. There would be no out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles and co-pays, and no exclusion of people or diagnoses.
Other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations.
The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $8,160 per
capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison (on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates) and still leaves 51 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered. We can do better, and we
must.
Unified Public Financing
So where is all that money going? Why don't we have coverage for everyone? How does the U.S. spend more on health care and get less than other countries? The answer: our patchwork system of for-profit payers (private insurers) spends health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments, corporate and shareholder profits, and exorbitant executive pay. In addition, medical practices and hospitals have to employ large administrative staffs to deal with all the insurers, adding to the cost of care.
Combined, this costly combination of profit and excess administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $400 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans. When considered at the state level, similar proportions of waste and potential savings apply, allowing comprehensive, high-quality coverage for residents.
Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary, or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning boards.
A “single-payer” universal health care system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing the associated administrative/profit waste. Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.
Thanks to PNHP for providing much of the above material. For further information, and for the pertinent source references, see PNHP's Resources page.