The health insurance industry wants to turn their problem into an opportunity by turning our opportunity into a problem. The recipe is all too simple.
▪ Provide a dash of spin to the party of no that re-defines “universal healthcare” into a requirement for all Americans to buy private health insurance.
▪ Add equal amounts of cost-fear to business and decreased-benefits-fear to the wealthy, pensioners and the unions.
▪ Mix in gracious amounts of campaign money to incumbents.
▪ Chop up some populist talking heads on cable news and discard.
▪ Mix finely grated experts with talk radio.
▪ Let the mixture sit in a dark, smoke-filled room until the odor rises and forces opponents to run for cover holding their noses.
▪ Season to taste with government subsidies to states to provide their legislature’s version of coverage for their uninsured and the uninsurable.
▪ Heat and serve.
▪ Creates servings for some (the biggest portions to shareholders of the health insurance industry), but far from all. Does, however, ensure that the health insurance industry will live a long, happy and profitable life, safe from single payer universal healthcare for Americans, unlike like the short, miserable, and destitute lives of those who will never be able to afford it.
The following is a listing of universal health care pros and cons as argued by supporters and opponents.
Common arguments forwarded by supporters of universal health care systems include:
▪ Universal health care systems, in an effort to control costs by gaining or enforcing monopsony power, sometimes outlaw medical care paid for by private, individual funds.
▪ Health care is a basic human right or entitlement.
▪ Ensuring the health of all citizens benefits a nation economically.
▪ About 59% of the U.S. health care system is already publicly financed with federal and state taxes, property taxes, and tax subsidies – a universal health care system would merely replace private/employer spending with taxes. Total spending would go down for individuals and employers.
▪ A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork. Administrative costs in the U.S. health care system are substantially higher than those in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of U.S. health care spending.
▪ Several studies have shown a majority of taxpayers and citizens across the political divide would prefer a universal health care system over the current U.S. system.
▪ Universal health care would provide for uninsured adults who may forgo treatment needed for chronic health conditions.
▪ Wastefulness and inefficiency in the delivery of health care would be reduced.
▪ America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country but has worse ratings on such criteria as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, and wait times, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
▪ A universal system would align incentives for investment in long term health-care productivity, preventive care, and better management of chronic conditions.
▪ Universal health care could act as a subsidy to business, at no cost thereto. (Indeed, the Big Three of U.S. car manufacturers cite health-care provision as a reason for their ongoing financial travails. The cost of health insurance to U.S. car manufacturers adds between USD 900 and USD 1,400 to each car made in the U.S.A.)
▪ The profit motive adversely affects the cost and quality of health care. If managed care programs and their concomitant provider networks are abolished, then doctors would no longer be guaranteed patients solely on the basis of their membership in a provider group and regardless of the quality of care they provide. Theoretically, quality of care would increase as true competition for patients is restored.
▪ A 2008 opinion poll of 2,000 US doctors found support for a universal health care plan at 59%-32%, which is up from the 49%-40% opinion of physicians in 2002. These numbers include 83% of psychiatrists, 69% of emergency medicine specialists, 65% of pediatricians, 64% of internists, 60% of family physicians and 55% of general surgeons. The reasons given are an inability of doctors to decide patient care and patients who are unable to afford care.
▪ According to an estimate by Dr. Marcia Angell roughly 50% of health care dollars are spent on health care, the rest go to various middlepersons and intermediaries. A streamlined, non-profit, universal system would increase the efficiency with which money is spent on health care.
▪ In countries in Western Europe with public universal health care, private health care is also available, and one may choose to use it if desired. Most of the advantages of private health care continue to be present, see also two-tier health care.
▪ Universal health care and public doctors would protect the right to privacy between insurance companies and patients.
▪ Public health care system can be used as independent third party in disputes between employer and employee.
▪ Libertarians and conservatives can favor universal health care, because in countries with universal health care, the government spends less tax money per person on health care than the U.S. For example, in France, the government spends $569 less per person on health care than in the United States. This would allow the U.S. to adopt universal health care, while simultaneously cutting government spending and cutting taxes.
Common arguments forwarded by opponents of universal health care systems include:
▪ Health care is not a right. As such, it is not the responsibility of government to provide health care.
▪ Universal health care would result in increased wait times, which could result in unnecessary deaths.
▪ Unequal access and health disparities still exist in universal health care systems.
▪ The performance of administrative duties by doctors results from medical centralization and over-regulation, and may reduce charitable provision of medical services by doctors.
▪ Many problems that universal health insurance is meant to solve are presumed caused by limitations on the free market. As such, free market solutions have greater potential to improve care and coverage.
▪ The widely quoted health care system ranking by the World Health Organization, in which the US system ranked below other countries’ universal health care systems, used biased criteria, giving a false sense of those systems’ superiority.
▪ Empirical evidence on the Medicare single payer-insurance program demonstrates that the cost exceeds the expectations of advocates. As an open-ended entitlement, Medicare does not weigh the benefits of technologies against their costs. Paying physicians on a fee-for-service basis also leads to spending increases. As a result, it is difficult to predict or control Medicare’s spending. Large market-based public program such as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and CalPERS can provide better coverage than Medicare while still controlling costs as well.