interesting health care analysis - (long read)

[Guest guest]

A

single-payer

healthcare system is what every industrialized nation in the world has

except the United States.  Countries with single-payer systems have

proven to be far superior to the U.S. system, which is dominated

by profit-driven insurance companies, in every category  -- cost,

universal

coverage, healthcare quality, life span, and even choice of doctor.

 Single-payer healthcare is where the government is the single institution that

pays for everyone's

healthcare, with no middlemen profiteers.  Numerous polls have also found that

a large majority of Americans

support a single-payer national health insurance plan.  A February NY

Times/CBS News poll showed 59% in favor of single-payer.

In a speech to the AFL-CIO union federation in 2003, Barack Obama stated, “I

happen to be a proponent of a single-payer

universal healthcare program.†But he warned of obstacles. “But as all of

you know, we may not

get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White

House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the

House.†  Done, done, and done. So, what happened?

The problem is that, despite their rhetoric, the Democrats are a party of big

business, just like the Republicans.  The Democrats actually received more

money from the healthcare industry in 2008 than the Republicans. 54% of

industry donations, or $90.7 million, went to the Democrats while the

Republicans got $76.6 million. Senator Max Baucus, the Democrat heading the

reform effort in the Senate,

received nearly 25% of all his campaign donations from the healthcare

industry in 2008.

The

U.S. healthcare system is totally dysfunctional. At the root of the

problem is a system organized to meet the profit needs of corporations.

A former corporate executive for the healthcare company Cigna, Wendell

Potter, recently admitted, “[O]ur Wall Street-driven healthcare system

has created one of the most inequitable healthcare systems on the

planet.†(www.pnhp.org)

Costs are added that have nothing to do with delivering care. An

average of 31% of all spending goes straight to administration, the

highest overhead costs in the industrialized world.

The insurance companies that control this wasteful system are

the key obstacles to universal coverage. These companies are parasites.

They don’t provide care. They are middle men interested in profit.

But they have powerful connections to both political parties.

Obama’s Plan

Obama is tapping the anger of millions of people at the healthcare

system. But he is not willing to replace the insurance companies,

killing his chances of delivering the reform we need. Instead, his

policies reflect his overriding priority since his inauguration: fixing

Corporate America’s crisis-ridden corrupt capitalist system.

Obama threw trillions at the Wall Street banks to save them from

collapse. Now, Obama has identified skyrocketing healthcare costs as

the biggest challenge to the long-term health of U.S. capitalism and a

“ticking time bomb†for the Federal budget.

Healthcare makes up 17% of U.S. GDP, compared to less than 10% in

Canada and France. Costs are predicted to rise to 20% of GDP in the

next few years.

Obama claims he has found billions in savings through reforming

regulations. He is also proposing a public plan option that he says

will help lower costs by injecting competition into the insurance

market (see box below).

Obama is also proposing to subsidize and expand coverage partly through

increased spending. But subsidizing expanded coverage under the current

for-profit system will be extremely expensive, with a targeted cost of

$1 trillion over ten years, and debate in Congress is raging over how

to pay for it. Still, it won’t achieve universal coverage unless Obama

supports the appalling plan to force everyone to buy insurance.

Single Payer

Eliminating the insurance companies, as proposed by supporters of

“single payer†and backers of House Resolution 676, is the best way to

cut costs and immediately achieve universal coverage.

Currently, hospitals are mainly funded through battles with various

insurers over thousands of itemized bills. It’s a costly system that

requires loads of administration. Some hospitals have more billing

clerks than nurses!

Instead of channeling our money through a mess of insurers who skim off

profits at every turn, single payer would fund hospitals like fire

departments. A single public agency would provide budgets for

hospitals, clinics, and doctors’ offices.

According to studies at the Harvard Medical School, this would save as

much as $400 billion per year, enough to cover all out-of-pocket

expenses with $300 billion left over to create jobs.

------------------------------------------

Democrats Declare Single Payer is “Off the Tableâ€

FACT: Before Obama made his spectacular rise to power in the Democratic Party,

he was an avowed advocate for single payer.

With this initial support plus the popular anger at corporations,

certainly an extremely popular president could mobilize support for

single payer – if he wanted to.

Now that Obama is president, he says we can’t “start from scratch†with

single payer. But eliminating the insurers doesn’t eliminate the

hospitals, doctors, and nurses. What Obama really means is that he

defends the insurance companies. In the 2008 elections, he received $18

million from the healthcare industry, more than any other candidate.

Like all past Democratic Party presidents, Obama has decided to put the

interests of his party – and their big business backers – above those

of struggling working-class Americans.

-------------------------------------

 

Not willing to pass single payer, Obama has put forward a vague

proposal for some sort of public plan option as an alternative to

private insurance. This proposal has become the most controversial

aspect of the debate.

Many unions and progressive groups are mobilizing support for a kind of

public option plan similar to Medicare and Medicaid, but available to

everyone at low cost. Under this best-case scenario, the public option

would be cheaper than private insurance because of savings on

administration.

Physicians for a National Health Plan estimate that even if half of the

population switched to a public option plan with minimal overhead, the

savings would amount to less than 9% of the savings from a single-payer

plan (www.pnhp.org).

However, the “public option†we are more likely to get, if at all, will

be much worse. The insurance companies and their supporters in

Congress, including many Democrats, have enough support to strip any

public option of real teeth.

This has led to a “middle ground†proposal from the third-ranking

Democrat in the Senate, Schumer, calling for any public option

to operate within the current rules and standards of the insurance

market, with co-pays and premiums set to market rates. This kind of

public option is virtually meaningless.

Rather than limiting our demands to what is acceptable to Obama and the

Democratic Party – and therefore to big business, we should build an

independent mass movement in the streets, clearly demanding single

payer and an end to for-profit healthcare.

-----------------------------------

How NOT to Build the Single-Payer Movement

At the end of May, over 3,000 people rallied in Seattle behind a

coalition of 200 progressive groups and unions urging support for

“universal†healthcare. Demands for single payer were intentionally

excluded by the pro-Democratic Party organizers of the rally.

But the signs and chants brought by ordinary people showed widespread

support for this demand. Democrat Senator Patty Murray was shouted down

at the rally when she refused to support single payer.

With a bold lead, millions of people could be mobilized in support of

single payer, fundamentally shifting the public debate in Washington.

According to Labor Notes, 558 resolutions in favor of single payer have

been passed by union locals, central labor councils, and state

federations.

Unfortunately, most unions and progressive organizations give a blank

check to the Democrats, but this is a dead-end strategy for

single-payer supporters. The Democratic Party leadership has a vested

interest in defending the insurance companies who finance their party.

Even supposed single-payer supporters in Congress like Sen. Bernie

have given up without a fight, saying only Obama’s plan is

“realistic.â€

Only a determined social movement, like the civil rights movement, that

campaigns independently of the two parties can bring enough pressure to

bear on the politicians to force them to concede single payer.

Instead of giving millions to the Democrats, unions and progressive

groups should put their resources towards a major mobilization with

marches and rallies for single payer across the country.

We can force the politicians to cave if, instead of rallying support

for the Democrats, we boldly expose the big business character of both

parties and run our own candidates against them on a clear

pro-single-payer, anti-corporate platform.