What Americans Want: National Health Insurance

It doesn't have to be this way. A video of a woman dying in a Brooklyn hospital waiting room after nearly 24 hours waiting for treatment is just one more heartbreaking piece of evidence that our health care system is not only broken, it has become a hazard.

Few Americans needed more evidence. We know our health care system is broken, and a majority of us know what to do about it, even though our views are largely absent from the mainstream news and the political debate.

The 47 million without health insurance know they may not be able to see a doctor or get admitted to a hospital when they need help.

Those who do have health insurance know that deductibles, exceptions, and limits can quickly bring out-of-pocket costs for an illness or injury beyond their means. In the upcoming issue of YES! magazine, we report that 68 percent of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills among those with insurance.

Health coverage forces people to stay with jobs they don't like and to compromise on getting the care they need. Thirty percent of those surveyed in a November 2007 Gallup poll put off getting treatment they needed because of cost.

The system is not working for those paying the insurance premiums, either. Businesses have seen premiums more than double since 2000. And we aren't getting much bang for all these bucks. In the YES! Fall 2006 "Health Care for All," we reported that Americans spend twice per capita as much as other industrialized countries, yet our life expectancy is lower than 27 countries. Little wonder, since having private insurance costs us an estimated 25 cents for each health care dollar for the additional paperwork and bureaucracy, fat CEO pay packages, marketing, and profits.

Although the national political season has seen few mentions of national health insurance, that is exactly what a majority of Americans say they want. Here are the figures:

• In a CNN News poll, 55 percent preferred a system "administered by the government and paid for by taxpayers" -- just 29 wanted to hold on to the current private insurance system that leaves some without coverage.
• When asked: "Do you think the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes?" 64 percent said yes.
• And Americans are impatient for change; 17 percent of those polled by Gallup at the end of 2007 said the rising cost of health care is a crisis; another 56 percent called it a "major problem." Listen up, candidates. That's a total of 73 percent.

Support for national health insurance is not coming just from the progressives who all along have supported Representative John Conyers' single-payer health care bill. (Single-payer means the government provides the insurance, but health care services remain as they are -- combinations of private, public, and non-profit.)

Support is also coming from people across the political spectrum and the country. In her upcoming piece in YES! magazine, Daina Saib talks to physicians like Dr. Rocky White, who tell her: "Any time a state has studied it, they find that single-payer is the most cost-effective and covers everyone." Dr. White is a member of Physicians for a National Health Program, but he is also pressing for action in his state of Colorado, hoping that when the states lead the way, national policy will follow as it did in Canada.

Daina also talks to entrepreneur, Jack Lohman, a lifelong Republican and co-founder of Business Owners for Single Payer, who tells her: "For the same 16 percent of GDP that we are spending on health care in the U.S., we could provide first-class health care to 100 percent of the people." And a single-payer system would "get health care off the backs of corporations so they can be more competitive with products made overseas."

In an election season, you often see candidates run for the middle, and ignore proposals that seem risky -- even if they are the best policies. That's the reason YES! magazine will be focusing on a "purple agenda" during this election season. Instead of concentrating solely on the candidates' platforms, the next issue of YES! will look at what the American people are supporting. When we are clear on what we want, we have a much better chance of getting people elected who can be held accountable.

It turns out many of the things Americans want do not fall along polarized "red/blue" lines; we tend to be pragmatists first of all. And, as with single-payer health care, it turns out many of our proposals are fair, smart, and do-able.

Follow Sarah van Gelder on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SarahVanGelder

Comments

[kingcityguru]

Ok, let me throw in a Canadians two cents: The national health care system we have in Canada is probably better than what you have in the States if you are not very rich or very poor, but it has many flaws, long wait times, and poor customer service.
May I suggest a combination of the two.

[Ian]

(part 2)
(4) Private insurance companies consume about 15% of health care premiums in administration, overhead, and profit. US Medicare (the government program which serves the elderly) consumes about 2% of its budget on the same functions. Health insurance company revenues equal about half of the US health care price tag. That's half of 15% of GDP (the health care price tag) or 7.5% of GDP. The 15% that goes to admin/over­head/profi­t mulitplied by 7.5% of GDP is about 1.1% of GDP. That's 1/88 of the GDP to that single function that adds NO value to my life as a consumer of health services. That's obscene.

Give me Canada's core system... coupled with the ability and willingness of the US to pay extra (as demonstrated by the current practice of spending 15% of GDP)... any day!

[Ian]

(1) The US spends 15%+ of its GDP on health care. Canada spends about 10.7%... about 70% funded from your national health plan and 30% from other sources. Imagine what Canada's health system would be like if your national health system were funded to the tune of C$5700 per person per year (15% of Canada's GDP) instead of C$2800 (the share of your health care costs paid by your health system): Staff, facility, and equipment shortages that lead to long wait times? Gone! All theraputic and necessary prescription drugs, physical therapy, long-term care, home care, dental care and ambulance services? Covered in full... with no out of pocket costs! I actually think Canada could accomplish this for about C$4700-5200 per person per year.

(2) In Canada, a few people die "waiting in line" for procedures. In the US, lots of people die because the 1/6 of Americans under age 65 who are uninsured can't get in the queue in the first place.

(3) The effect of increasing the number of payers for health care from one to just two (i.e. from a single payer system to a largely-si­ngle-payer plus one other payer) increases the cost/price of providing health care by as much as 10%. In the US... that would be 1.5% of GDP... or US$200 billion per year... or 20% more than the entire annual price tag for health care in Canada. (cont'd)

[jeplanet]

First, let me say; I doubt you are actually Canadian. This is just the kind of rhetoric that repubs and opponents on universal health care like to spew. "long wait times". blah blah blah.
But just in case you are Canadian, and just stupid:
You need to do some reasearch, dummy. So that you can realize just how good you have it.
If "poor customer service" (whatever THAT means) is your worst complaint, why don't you try moving to the US where you can pay $500+ for your healthcare every month, and then still have deductibles and still risk having your claims denied.
Canada's system isn't perfect, no-one's is. But it succeeds way more often than it fails. And at least it allows doctors and nurses etc. to care for ALL their patients, without having to be concerned about who can pay. No Canadian Doctor ever has to look a patient in the eye and say, "I could save your life, but you don't have any insurance".

[orangepetal]

YES !

[darker]

Well, the Bush-Cheney NANNY STATE FOR THE RICH & RICHER think that you are
a "communist and socialist and unpatriotic" if you want gov't health insurance.

However, the corporate welfare queens get tons of gov't subsidies and tax breaks but they do not call it corporate communism and socialism and unpatriotic.

You are supposed to be scared of being "communist and socialist and unpatriotic" and not demand that your TAX DOLLARS SHOULD PAY FOR NAT'L HEALTH INSURANCE. Because the rich want your
money for themselves.

[FearlessFreep]

Guess which presidential candidate has been calling for National Health Insurance? (Hint: It's the one liberals hate.)

[philistine]

Tax credits, still feeding the same pigs already at the trough. Nice try.

[BillZBubb]

People say all sorts of things to pollsters. But, when the Republicans start whining about "socialized" anything and saying the Democrats will RAISE YOUR TAXES, the fools fall for it every time.

In other words in a general sense people say they are for a national health system, but when faced with the reality of taxes to pay for it or the phony spectre of big government, they vote NO.

Anyway, it is a moot point at this time because the only candidates trying to get us to universal care lost in the primaries. The two remaining candidates don't offer much. We'll have to wait at least until 2012 to get another shot.

[oldpotsmuggler]

For many smaller companies with the owner as the chief executive the only reason that health care is offered as an employee benefit at all is because federal law requires it to be made available across the board if the owner wants to use pre tax dollars to pay for his own coverage. And then along comes John McCain and the proposal to completely take away the business tax deduction for employee health insurance. Instead, it is predicted, we will all get raises equal to the amount that insurance had been costing, and everyone would be entitled to a tax credit to be used to pay for our own coverage.

But the tax credit will not cover the cost of even the bad insurance that's now prevalent, and no employer is required to pass on enough to make up the difference. What will happen, though, is that many small business owners will be better off to just get gold plated coverage for themselves and let the wage slaves figure out how to get by on our own.

The Republic answer to the health care issue, then, is to keep the worst of the current system and get rid of the rest. However more of their constituency will be better off so that works.

[Fairfloss]

I would rather have better HEALTH CARE FACILITIES. Better doctors and better medical assistants, not to mention nurses.

National Health Care Insurance is nothing without the caring people to operate it. We'll only have the lowest of practitioners when it is a government run program. It'll be like, "take a number and wait."

[oldpotsmuggler]

I wonder why the people in the countries with government run systems that cost less then we pay have a higher satisfaction level about the care they receive than we do? Such were the results of a survey published in Busniess Week Magazine earlier this year. We were at or near the bottom in life expectancy and waiting time to receive service also.

Hey, buddy, you don't work for a health insurer do you? Or are you just a doctor who's afraid that you're going to have to work for only two or three times what you're worth, instead of ten times?

[SeriousBlack]

You just don't get it. The private health insurance middleman costs (not to mention the fact that their main goal is to DENY TREATMENT IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE THEIR PROFITS) make it so that the health care that you receive is either non-existent (if you can't even afford insurance) or sub-par. Eliminating the skyrocketing costs that private insurance causes WOULD give you better health care facilities and enable doctors/nu­rses/assis­tants to spend more time treating you instead of half of their time/effort/money battling private insurance company paperwork and challenges.

Why is it that so many people simply refuse to see the main element of the entire system that causes most of the problems and dysfunction?

[jeplanet]

The opponents of universal health care in the US have been extremely successful at convincing people that universal health care is something to be feared. They use phrases like "die on a waiting list", and "you'll have to pay for others".
They try their best to slander the systems in Canada and other countries that have universal programs; which, by the way, is MOST of the world.
And look at how effective they've been.
Fairfloss (above) actually believes that if you guys have universal health care, it will mean that you'll only get "the lowest of practitioners". Are you kidding me ???
So see, the scare tactics work.
I am a nurse, and a Canadian. I've got no reason to lie to you; our system WORKS.
I pay $44 a month for my health care and I am FULLY COVERED. If I need a catscan, I don't have to apply and have my procedure OK'd by anyone; I just get it. If I need brain surgery, and then some rehab afterward, I am FULLY COVERED.
Nothing to be scared of, people. I'm really hoping you get to see for yourselves.
Peace.