Single-Payer Health Care Advocates Deserve a Place at the Table
At a town hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, this week, President Barack Obama was asked why he has taken single-payer health care off the table.
It's a great question.
Not only have the Obama administration and top Democrats taken the option off the table, they are excluding single-payer advocates from the official forums on health care reform, while advocates of the for-profit medical system turn up and have their say. All this in spite of the fact that President Obama has repeatedly admitted that single-payer is good policy. (Single-payer health care is a system, like Canada's, in which the government provides health insurance for everyone. It is simple, straightforward, has a much lower cost, and it works.)
The Obama administration believes they have a good plan. It includes an option for public coverage so that families can opt for public health care coverage if they are uninsured or not satisfied with the private insurance they currently receive.
At a conference in Washington earlier this year, I asked Jacob Hacker -- one of the architects of the plan -- why they were not advocating single-payer health care, a system that has proven successful in other industrialized countries, as we showed in a special YES! issue on health care options.
Hacker's response was similar to Obama's response in Rio Rancho. People are afraid to give up their employer-provided plan. Although single-payer may be a better system, the private/public plan is more likely to escape the "Harold and Louise" treatment, and is more likely to get adopted than single-payer health care.
It could be that Obama and Hacker are right.
But here's the thing. Right now, the medical-industrial complex is working hard to eliminate the public option. That way, there wouldn't be a public system to compete with them and set a standard for good quality, non-bureaucratic health care. Why would they want to compete? It's great having a monopoly on our health-care dollars.
Since the private insurance lobby is at the table every day, pushing to eliminate the public option, wouldn't it be smart to allow people on the other side -- the single-payer advocates -- to come to the table, too? Then the Obama plan can take the place it belongs, as a centrist compromise.
Allowing people to the left, as well as to the right of the Obama position into the discussion is a good strategy. And doing so would recognize two important facts -- that single-payer happens to be a great policy and it has support from a large number of Americans -- maybe even a majority. In a healthy democracy, a good policy with widespread support should be part of the debate.
Sarah van Gelder is Co-Founder and Executive Editor of YES! Magazine. She edited YES! Magazine's special coverage of the health care reform debate.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Please tell me why a single payer has to be the government
We don't have a viable, sustainable health insurance industry in this country. Stress test banks: good idea. Stress test health insurance companies: even better idea. We have what should be called "Middleman Insurance". This insurance costs $400 billion a year in upfront administrative costs. Can health insurance companies really reduce their piece of the pie? We see a health insurance receptionist at every hospital, every health care provider or every walk-in clinic These same providers that must negotiate individually with the insurance companies. Health care providers pay another layer of costs because of insurance companies. Want to see if you can be treated for an illness or injury? First, you must get through the insurance gatekeeper. Wouldn't you want to consider what has been successful in Canada? Does it really matter to you if it is called "socialized medicine? Please see this program.
http://www
You are absolutely right. The advocates of a single payer system must have a presence at the table for health care reform. A 2008 survey shows that 59% of American physicians favor a single payer system. The issue of a nonprofit, private, single-payer system seems to be passing under the radar screen. It is well-outlined in the book, Universal Health Care System for the United States of America, freely accessible through http://uhc
The book explains that a single payer need not be an inefficient government-run system. It can be a nonprofit, people-funded, people-managed, privately run insurance agency. It runs as a corporation/co-op.
It is really disheartening that President Obama has caved in to the for-profit segment of the health industry. (See open letter to President Obama on the Huffington Post under my name on May 14, 2009.)
A private, nonprofit, single payer can provide universal health care with preventive care for all and save our economy over $1 trillion per year. (See my Huffington Post article at http://www
Furthermore, it will keep 1.7 million jobs in the U.S. (See my articles on the Huffington Post, April 15th and April 18th, 2009.)
I hope that with the help of people like you a nonprofit, private, universal health care system can save our health and our economy.
Each side needs a forum to make their promises so they can be judged in the end. I will have no trouble giving up my overpriced private insurance which covers few preventive measures to give the government-run system a shot. If they can't deliver, well, that's when that free market kicks in again. I want real choices, Mr. President.
I saw the arrogant "representatives of the American people" make jokes and call the police on people who were protesting zero single payer respresentation in hearings for health care reform. Disheartening and unAmerican in my opinion.
Face it folks, we don't own our government and have no say. Most Americans want single payer, universal health care, but the lobbyists for the health insurance, drug, AMA have been buying off our "representatives" while we go without health care for decades.
Instead of having psychopathic serial killer interviews on TV, why doesn't the American media ever investigate or report on the REAL numbers of Americans without health care, and the thousands of Americans who suffer and die every day from our greed-based system?
"Single-payer health care is a system, like Canada's, in which the government provides health insurance for everyone. It is simple, straightforward, has a much lower cost, and it works"
Single payer health care is a system like France's (the highest rated in the world), or like our own Medicare system, in which...
If you give in to the framing that the only single payer model out there is Canada's, you lose a lot of people because they have heard bad things about the canadian system, true or not.
Pointing out the well loved Medicare as our already exisiting single payer system, and France's, acknowledged as superior to ours in most ways, makes the framing much different.
That's why when wingers talk universal health care, they talk "socialized medicine" and trot out Canada and England as their favorite examples, because they don't do much better than us, if at all, in many rankings of health care.
But Britian has really done trmendous work on their waiting times:
http://cmh
Cheers,
As a strong supporter of Pres. OBAMA, and an early one, I must admit that I am puzzled about him coming out against SINGLE PAYER MEDICARE. This is the plan that should be instituted since it's run by the government and will not allow private corporations to decide the fateof the health services. The same with the prescription program - it should be under the SINGLE PAYER PROGRAM, as part if . I must say, I am disappointed that PRES. OBAMA is not in favor of it, as I gather from the very comments I hear from him. I would appreciate if very much if you would pursue this issue and report on what you have found out OBAMA intends, since it does not sound like he is in favor of it. I have written to him for a clarification of what he intends to do, but have not received a response. From what I can gather from the news, he is not headed that way. Thank you for pursuing this.
The filibuster needs to be dropped to 56 votes. Also, it needs to be like it used to be. The rules should require that they stand up like they used to. The new rules make it too easy to filbuster and to abuse it.
Obama is insulting our intelligence ! Unfortunately, our fake press/media ask no questions.
Also, too many kool aid drinkers are not looking at the substance, or lack there of, from the Presdient.
He also skipped the answer about Bauscus being bought off.
This is an urgent issue. I think that the reason that the powers that be are trying to rush a bill through on this is because they are afraid that the people will become informed on single payer and mobilize. Please do something. A good place to start is by going to Physicians for a National Health Program: http://www
The bottom line is that legislation that will further enshrine and empower the insurance industry has already largely been developed. We will all be mandated to buy insurance, and then we will be stuck with our current sick system with its sick incentives. As already noted, the public option is likely to be gutted by the Republicans and the Blue Dogs.
Also, there are still many people who don't know that doctors and nurses have been arrested while trying to get a place at the table before the Senate Finance Committee. There has been little coverage in the mainstream media Here is one link with the video of the arrests from last week. Please pass this on and encourage your friends do something & pass it on. http://lab
Finally for now, please read Amy Goodman's editorial which details just how many millions Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D) has gotten from the insurance companies and other healthcare business interests. Then, pass it on. http://sea
Thank you to Sarah van Gelder & the informed posters here.
While NOT single-payer, it will become universal and eventually far more competitive than private insurance - that's been doing to us just what the credit card companies are. And eventually, it will force HUGE-profi
Though I have a decent if ever more expensive plan, I would opt to switch immediately. It could likely help build volume purchasing power for the public plan and if paying the same I do now could instead also help others less fortunate unable to pay. I'd like that.
I'd feel progressively patriotic switching to anything public by also knowing it was NOT paying some CEO $1+ Billion a year in salary. And, big-business medical with a policy of first looking for ways to deny EVERY claim - while one person becomes so filthy rich from it, is the pure evil greed of profiting on continued sickness and death in others.
For single-payer healthcare:
THE MORAL ETHICAL ARGUMENT
Health insurance companies make their profit by denying health care to sick people. That is immoral and unethical.
THE ECONOMIC ARGUMENT
Our current system of for-profit corporate health insurance has created an unbearable national economic burden. Over 1500 separate insurance companies operate under different rules creating 30 % administrative overhead-- Medicare overhead is only 2%.
By converting to a single payer system, we immediately save 300 billion dollars.
We pay twice what other countries pay for healthcare, yet 50 million Americans have no healthcare coverage and 87 million were without health insurance in the past 2 years. Half of bankruptcies are due to medical bills.
Despite what we pay, the US ranks LAST of 19 industrialized nations in preventable deaths, and 29th of 37 in infant mortality. The World Health Organization ranks the US at 72nd for healthcare accessibility and efficiency. We can no longer maintain the status quo for the ways we currently provide and pay for health care.
ACTION:
1. ASK your Senators to support S 703, The American Health Security Act.
2. ASK your Representative to support HR 676, The United States National Health Insurance Act.
Contact: http://www
3. ASK Obama to support Single Payer reform: http://www
Phone: Comments: 202-456-11
A new study shows that SINGLE-PAYER HEALTHCARE REFORM WOULD BE A MAJOR STIMULUS FOR THE US ECONOMY and would provide:
** 2.6 Million New Jobs,
** $317 Billion in Business Revenue,
** $100 Billion in Wages, and
** $44 Billion New Tax Revenues
The press release is here: http://www
Here’s the study: http://www
It’s clear that single-payer is the solution, not only in terms of providing quality care for all, but also economically!
WHY ISN’T SINGLE-PAYER ON THE TABLE?
An enemy of the best is no friend of the good.
Dual systems:
Private system, unlimited choices, private funding, no government payments for any services.
Public system, government owned, operated, funded by national sales tax, all prescribed services and medications free to patients using this Veterans Administration style service, no insurance, no co pays, simple no hassles care, and free period.
The Veterans Administration has been controlling the problems with access, cost, quality, and malpractice successfully for years.
This article, (The Best Care Anywhere by Phillip Longman)
http://www
documents how the VA was transformed by Dr. Kizer, into a system that is producing the highest quality health care in the country.
Businesses choosing national health care would free themselves from all financial burdens or any involvement in any way for the health services their employees receive, whether it’s a one truck plumber or a 100,000 employee bank.
We have the most expensive health care in the world with modest outcomes.
Current expenditures for health care at 17% of GDP, $ two trillion dollars, have become a private enterprise disgrace.
Mr. President you have been listening to the wrong guys, get Dr. Kizer and the VA folks to fix this mess.
And hey, get Eliot Spitzer over to Wall Street.
The VA isn't all that great. Some of us call it the VA health care cost containment system. As in, they do try to move you along, and to stall, and to deny treatment. As in PTSD, which is well documented. So it is a good model for what COULD be but not necessarily for what it is now.
They're shutting out the single payer advocates because cost comparisons between copying a single payer approach used in Europe, Canada, and/or Japan, and the current approach creates a compelling argument in favor of single payer. I think the savings would be north of $600B a year. Therefore they don't want any single payer benchmarks to compare to, in order to rip the people off. It's as simple as that.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
