--->

Tuesday, May 18, 2004

Taking on health care,part one 

Over at another blog...the topic of Kerry advocating for a universal health care system came up. The argument against it was that it would be hugely expensive and unwieldy. The Republican/Conservative argument against it includes those things as well as "socialism" and a massive government program that won't work.

I'm going to post a series of pieces here with some of my comments on this topic. I'm an advocate of a single payer universal health care program. I'd like to see some good debate on this topic.

It seems to me that we already have a hugely expensive and unwieldy system right now. It's ineffective in many ways and very inequitable.

The American Medical Students Association has put out a fact sheet on this topic. Here are some of the highlights:

MYTH: It would cost too much money.

FACT: A single-payer universal system would cost no more than we're already spending on health care, according to studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Lewin Group, and the Boston University School of Public Health. The GAO estimates if the United States changed to a universal single-payer system, it would save in the short run: $34 billion in insurance overhead and $33 billion in hospital and physician administrative costs. This savings would come from providing timely care to those who would otherwise delay care, thereby becoming sicker and more expensive to treat.

The cost of serving the newly insured would be about $18 billion. The cost of providing additional services to the currently insured-due to elimination of co-pays and deductibles-would be about $46 billion.

MYTH: Americans would pay more.

FACT: Several studies show costs for middle-class Americans would not increase. All but the poorest Americans would pay more income tax, but in most cases the tax would be equal to or less than what they currently pay for health insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles, which would largely be eliminated. Money to take care of the currently uninsured would come from money saved by eliminating private insurance overhead costs and by spending less on high-tech equipment that duplicates or exceeds what's needed in any geographic region.

MYTH: It would create a huge bureaucracy.

FACT: Experts say the employer-based managed-care system is already a huge bureaucracy. It consumes 9 to 15 cents of every health-care dollar. Medicare, a single-payer plan for seniors, spends only 2 to 3 cents of every dollar on bureaucracy.

MYTH: Americans would have trouble getting in to see a doctor.

FACT: Canadians, who live in a single-payer system, see their primary care physicians more often than Americans do now. There are more doctors per capita in Canada than there are in the United States. Yet the cost of physician services in Canada is one-third less than it is in the United States. About half the cost savings in Canada comes not from offering less care but by reducing insurance overhead and paperwork. The rest of the savings comes from allocating money to pay for expensive equipment so there is less excess capacity and duplication. Ninety-six percent of Canadians prefer their health-care system to the U.S. model.

MYTH: The United States has the best health care in the world.

FACT: The United States has higher infant mortality, higher surgical mortality and lower life expectancy than Canada. The United States has a much lower rate of access to primary care doctors than Canada. Canada has the same acute care bed-to-population ratio as the United States. Patient satisfaction, quality of care and outcome of care in Canada equal or exceed that in the United States, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office. For this lower quality, Americans pay 40 percent per capita more than Canadians do on health care.


There's more "fact/myth" at the ACSA website.
|


Return to Main

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.