ossobuco wrote:However, I consider myself lucky I can do that, though it is a big stretch for me, how big you don't want to know, as a selfemployed person with fairly low income - I have liked having the md's I wanted to choose, and my general fortunes over time with that system.
Hard to change insurance even if I hated it at this point.. once one is older and has previous health issues racked up.
(I hate it, but it is the debilitating life of payments I've hated, not my options.)
I do pay more for the PPO but the choice is worth it.
I should shut up now. I am lucky to live in a country that has a pretty good health system although this current federal govt is doing its best to ruin it.
Baldimo, we are on opposite points of view most of the time, though I am mostly quiet, since I have low expectation of mindchange, and, if it comes, and I do think it happens, it is from quiet points.
Anyway, I am pleased with what has worked to be very helpful to me...
and only wish same for all.
BBB
Many A2Kers are not old enough to know how the employer-paid health insurance system started. It was a short-term plan solution. During World War II, stringent controls were established to control prices of goods and services and severe restrictions on union strikes existed. When labor unions were negotiating with employers, there were few ways to increase pay because of the restrictions. The unions figured out a way to increase employee compensation without violation the government's restrictions. The employer would pay for health care insurance plans. The employers agreed to this plan---and so the practice was established for long into the future.
It worked pretty well as long as there was full employment. But the world economy changed with the global economy and outsourcing of jobs facilitated by NAFTA.
We can no longer sustain a system of health care insurance paid by employers in the growing global economy. We cannot be competitive with other countries whose employers do not pay for their employee's health insurance either because they are third world countries or rich countries that provide national health insurance under a single payor.
The single payer plan is the best and least expensive answer without harming the quality of and access to health care. It will get the for profit insurance companies out of the process and can reign in the greed of the drug industry. It can control the for profit health care delivery industry (HMO's, hospitals, etc.) A side benefit will be getting rid of thousands of industry lobbyists who corrupt our political system. Getting rid of them might be worth the single payer system by itself.
Most physicians have changed their minds about their fear of a single payer plan and now are in favor of it. They are distressed about non-medical people intruding into the decision making process between the patient and the doctor.
The sytem devised to get around government restrictions during WWII is not excuse to continue it when it has outlived its usefulness. It is now doing more harm than good. The last figure I know of is that at least 43 million people do not have health care insurance in the US. Not only does this effect the quality of their lives, it means that everyone else pays for their care in higher premiums and E.R. costs in taxes.
The change to a single payer system is long over due.
BBB
Ralph Nadar's 2000 call for a single payer health plan
OCTOBER 13, 2000
Ralph Nader Calls For Universal Health Care Plan
Ralph Nader said today that health care in the U.S. should be provided by a national health insurance program providing comprehensive benefits to all Americans and funded directly by the federal government under a "single-payer" system. Already, one half of health expenditures are taxpayer dollars including by Medicare, and federal, state and local employee health plans.
"Our country needs full Medicare for everyone with free choice of doctors and hospital by patients," Nader said. "Any health care payment system should also stress prevention of disease and injuries."
Nader, the Green Party candidate for President, said massive savings from a single-payer system would be more than enough to provide universal coverage for the same amount as the nation pays now for an inadequate health care system that leaves more than 45 million Americans -- with 10 million added under the Clinton-Gore Administration -- with no health care coverage.
Under the current system, Nader said unnecessary and fraudulent billing, administrative costs for health-care vendors and huge profits and bloated salaries at large HMOs and other health care companies. He described the current system a "disgrace to our democracy." "The U.S. is the only western nation that does not provide health insurance coverage for all its people.
"The U.S. pays more per person for health care than any other country in the world," Nader said. "Yet, according to the World Health Organization, the U.S. is ranked 37th in the overall quality of health care."
Nader said access to health care is distributed unequally among the rich and poor and among racial groups. Among whites, 11 percent lack health insurance while 21 percent of African-Americans and 21 percent of Asian-Americans are without insurance, along with 33 percent of Hispanics. Young people (18 to 24 year olds) have an uninsured rate of 29 percent?-a higher uninsured rate than any other age group.
----------------------------------------------
13 October 2000
Universal Health Care
The state of health care in the United States is a disgrace to our democracy. The United States spends more per person on health care than any other country in the world, but the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. 37th in the overall quality of health care that it provides. We are the only industrialized country that lacks universal health care. More than 42 million Americans have no health insurance.
Access to health care is distributed unequally among rich and poor, and also among the races. Among whites, 11% lack health insurance, already a shocking number. But 21% of African-Americans, 21% of Asians and 33% of Hispanics lack health insurance. This translates directly into higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy. Young people aged 18-24 have a higher uninsured rate than any other age group, with 29% uninsured.
In addition to leaving broad segments of the population uninsured or under-insured, the U.S. health care system has many other important faults that could be remedied by a system of universal coverage. These include serious gaps in coverage for: prescription drugs and medical supplies; dental, vision and hearing care; long-term care; mental health care; preventive care for children; and treatment for substance abuse.
Health care should be provided by a national health insurance program providing comprehensive benefits to all Americans throughout their lives, and funded directly by the federal government (known as a "single-payer" system). Under the current system, hundreds of billions of dollars a year go into insurance company overhead, unnecessary and fraudulent billing and administrative costs for health-care providers, and huge profits and high salaries at large HMOs and other health-care companies. Studies show that savings from a single-payer system would be more than enough to allow us to provide universal coverage for the same amount that we are now paying for inadequate health care.
We find persuasive a plan based on the "Physicians' Proposal" for a national health program published by Physicians for a National Health Program in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1989, and their proposal for a national long-term care program published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1991. Under this plan:
Everyone would be included in a single, comprehensive public plan covering all medically necessary services, including acute, rehabilitative and long-term care, mental-health services, dental care, prescription drugs and medical supplies.
Everyone would have access to personalized care with a local primary care physician, and free choice of doctors at all times.
Health care providers would still be in the private sector, and the health plan would provide for different payment schemes for health-care providers, to minimize the disruption of the existing system. The payment schemes would be designed to prevent profit motives from influencing physicians, so there would be no incentives to recommend too much or too little care.
A transition fund would be established for those health-care administrators and insurance-company employees whose jobs would be eliminated due to the simplicity of the single-payer system.
Although we could provide universal, single-payer health insurance for the same amount that we spend on health care now, we would need funding to replace the portion now paid for by employers and individuals. We would do this through several mechanisms:
A small payroll tax (<4%) on employers. The tax would represent a large savings for employers who now pay health-insurance premiums for their employees, but an additional cost for those who do not.
A small tax on stock and bond transactions (1/4 of 1% of transaction value for both the buyer and the seller). For long-term investors, this tax would be negligible. It would have the additional effect of reducing short-term speculation and thus the volatility of the markets.
An additional income tax on the wealthiest 5% of Americans. Other Americans would pay no additional taxes, and would be free from health-insurance premiums and from out-of-pocket spending for medically necessary services.
Closing corporate tax loopholes to ensure that corporations pay their fair share of taxes.
Providing universal health care can only be accomplished through a single-payer system: no country has ever achieved universal coverage with private health insurance. The time to act is now.
