Say yes to national health care

[babylonsister]

Say yes to national health care

By Michael Hochman and David Himmelstein
October 29, 2007

Michael Moore's film Sicko gave a big boost to the movement for single-payer national health insurance this year. But even those turned off by Mr. Moore's less-than-subtle style will find many reasons to support a single-payer system. As the number of uninsured and underinsured Americans continues to rise and medical costs spiral out of control, these reasons are increasingly compelling.

As doctors at an urban hospital, we see uninsured patients in the emergency room with serious illnesses that easily could have been prevented with appropriate preventive care. We waste countless hours filling out unnecessary insurance forms. And we listen to patients complain about the complexities and hassles of navigating the health care system.

This is why an increasing number of us on the front lines have started calling for meaningful change in the form of a single-payer system in which the government funds health care.

Next weekend, proponents of single payer will gather in Washington for the annual convention of Physicians for a National Health Program. Our group has proposed giving every U.S. resident a health care card entitling him or her to all medically necessary services. The new program would be funded by an increase in taxes, but that would be fully offset by savings from abolishing insurance premiums and many out-of-pocket health care costs. Those wanting cosmetic and other medically unnecessary services could still pay out of pocket.

Opponents of a single-payer system argue that single payer could be even more inefficient and bureaucratic than the current system. They point to other countries, such as Canada, that have national health insurance and yet have long wait times to see doctors.

But research supports the opposite conclusion. For example, a 2003 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that the average overhead of U.S. insurance companies is 11.7 percent, compared with 3.6 percent for Medicare and 1.3 percent for Canada's national health insurance program. And the waits in Canada are a result of Canada's low level of health spending - on a per capita basis, about half that in the United States. The efficiency of Canada's national health insurance program coupled with our current high level of health funding would yield the world's best health care system.

more...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.singlepayer29oct29,0,2682794.story

[Warpy]

1. The Zogby poll this weekend

had several questions regarding concerns, worries, and proposals for candidates. I marked "health care" on each of them.

Even right wingers are starting to twig to the fact that bandaids on corporate medicine won't stop us from bleeding to death, and you know how slow they are to notice anything.

[babylonsister]

2. Thanks for the Zogby reminder, Warpy. And that's good news about

the r/wers.

[taterguy]

3. Yes to national health care

That was easy

[babylonsister]

4. Well thank you for chiming in.

:D

[taterguy]

5. Happy to help

[LWolf]

6. Of course yes!

This one is a no-brainer, unless you have some abiding reason to value insurance and pharmaceutical companies more than people.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

7. Yes! Yes! Yes! eom

[Vinca]

8. The Canadian "wait time" talking point is blown all out of proportion.

You'd think Americans got immediate treatment. I've waited 6 months for a mammogram and 3 months for a colonoscopy (after exhibiting symptoms)and that was when I could afford insurance.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. Yes, three months to see my "personal" physician at Kaiser

when I lived in Portland.

If I wanted to be seen soon, I had to be prescreened by a nurse-practitioner or a physician's assistant--and my premiums still went up 125% in ten years and they would have doubled again since 2003 if I were still there.

[IronLionZion]

12. I have to wait an entire year for a crown on my tooth that had a root canal

so I can get new insurance money in 2008.

And that's after paying about $600 for the filling that caused my tooth infection, root canal therapy, then another filling. Assholes.

I like the Drudge articles about people in the UK pulling their own teeth. They do that right here in the US too. A kid in the US died recently because his tooth infection spread to his brain. But the UK has underfunding of dental care and a national apathy towards dental health. The Brits have "bad teeth" stereotype is true because average brits don't give a flying fuck.

[Vinca]

15. Heck, people in this country put in their own sutures when they cut

themselves. Super glue works great, too.

[IronLionZion]

13. Try getting seen at an urban ER in the US

you'll bleed to death for hours and nobody will blink since it happens all the time. You better believe that will NOT happen in Canada or Europe since their ER's are not as busy. Busy ER's are killing Americans. If we had health coverage to get checkups and routine treatment then our conditions don't become life-threatening emergencies and we can go to the ER only for real emergencies.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

16. Six months for a mammogram?

geesh

I think most of our problem waits are regional - just like Canada's. Some regions in Canada have longer waits than others for a particular procedure. Around here, I can get a mammogram within a week, but - like your situation - I'm sure there are longer waits in other areas of the country. Those kinds of problems can be remedied. Canada is tracking wait times, so the powers that be know where to put resources. With a national healthcare system, they can do that.

[raccoon]

9. K&R. One more for Greatest, c'mon somebody....nt

[NMMNG]

11. Yes!

:applause:

[slipslidingaway]

14. Thanks, great article. Single-payer or we could give tax credits

so people can buy their own insurance from for profit companies :shrug:

Leave the largest 'consumers' of medical care, Medicare patients, entirely dependent on government programs and tax payer dollars. Let the private insurance companies retain the most profitable segment of the population :( And how many additional people will be eligible for Medicare in the next 10-15 years, quite a few I believe.


from your link...

"...Despite the merits of a single-payer system, none of the major 2008 presidential candidates supports it. Instead, they have put forth a creative array of meaningless, incremental reforms that would do little for our failing system...

Although few mainstream politicians endorse single payer, we see reason for optimism. A recent survey of Massachusetts physicians found that almost two-thirds favor single payer, and we believe health care providers are coming around nationwide as well. We hope the political thrust for single payer will come soon. If it doesn't, we face a future of more wasteful spending, more inefficiency - and ever more Americans struggling to get by without health insurance."

[Imagevision]

17. Yes to Universal healthcare but not written by the healthcare businesses like the

drug program written by the drug companies.

[TahitiNut]

18. The insurance companies have already started torpedoing "Medicare For All"

... by having their owned and operated congresscritters create the "Medicare Advantage" bullshit. In this fashion, they assure that they'll profit from a two-tiered (or multi-tiered) single-payer system ... which is NO LONGER "single payer."

It's absolutely abominable how much corruption and destruction of Medicare and Medicaid has been done by the privateers and their corrupt politicians in the last six years!

[reinhardt]

19. They know they gotta change something fast

http://www.enterprisecorruption.com/