With the debate over health care reform getting hot and heavy, opponents of President Barack Obama’s proposal have been feeding the public a lot of misinformation. Unfortunately, one of my Examiner colleagues has joined them.
In an April 12 post, Watchdog Politics Examiner Martha Gore falsely characterized Obama's health care reform proposal as a “nationalized health care plan,” and Media Matters for America rightly took her to task for misinforming the public.
Let’s get our terminology straight. Nationalized or socialized medicine is a health care system that is publicly financed and delivered, such as Great Britain’s National Health Service. That is not part of Obama’s proposal or the Single Payer plan put forward in HR 676 and S 703.
The public health insurance option in Obama’s proposal and Single Payer both provide for health care that is public financed and privately delivered. In effect, both would extend Medicare beyond the elderly, with everyone covered under Single Payer or having an opportunity to choose such a plan under Obama’s proposal.
While Single Payer would automatically cover everyone, the Obama option would give consumers a lower-cost alternative to private insurance. Since the overhead for private insurance averages 30 percent, compared to only 4 percent for Medicare, such competition could force private insurers to become more responsive to consumer needs.
It should also be noted that under both Single Payer and the Obama proposal, patients have a free choice of doctors, while private insurance limits those covered to doctors within each insurer’s system. It can sometimes be difficult to build a doctor-patient relationship under such an arrangement, as I personally found when I twice had to change primary care physicians when they stopped taking my insurance.
By putting profits ahead of everything else, the insurance companies are the primary cause of our broken health care system, and they are now fighting tooth and nail to maintain their racket. Their fear is that they can’t compete profitably with the cheaper public insurance alternative proposed by Obama, leading many businesses to switch to it for employee health insurance. Under this scenario, the public alternative would likely evolve into Single Payer.
Opponents of the Obama proposal also claim that it would undermine consumer choice in health care, but this argument is absurd. When health insurance is provided by the employer, as is now the case, there is usually no choice for the employee. They are stuck with whatever deal their employer can get, complete with co-pays, deductibles and exclusions that limit coverage.
Details on the Obama proposal are currently being worked on, and it is expected to be introduced in Congress in June. We can look forward to a fierce debate, but don’t expect honesty from the opposition.
Comments
I don't have insurance but still don't believe that we should be forced to pay for health insurance or have to pay for higher taxes to pay for someone else. It also isn't and employers resposibility to provide someone with health care. Most people do not choose it because the companies charge too much. It is not fair for someone that works to have to pay for a person that refuses to work, This country was founded because people didn't like how things were going where they live. People have forgotten that to be sucessful here, you have to break a sweat once in a while if you want to make something of your self. Health care should be up to the people and not the Federal Gov to decide. Since the constituion says nuthing about it then it is up to the states to make their desicions. People are getting too involved in other countries ideas and have forgotten that the US got powerful by not carring about other places and people with pride, not people crying for everything free.
Allen's point would make sense if we were talking about, say, licorice. If you work hard and have money for licorice, good for you! But if you don't have extra money for licorice, too bad. Allen's right - it's not the responsibility of the "haves" to pay for licorice for the "have nots." But health care isn't licorice. It's not a commodity. It's something everyone needs, regardless of income or status, and even the Supreme Court has rules it's a human right when they decided that prison inmates must be provided necessary health care services. Allen's world of letting the poor - however they came to be so - languish and suffer with treatable and preventable illness and chronic conditions because they don't have the money to pay for care is not anything to strive for or be proud of.
Sarah wrote: "Allen's right - it's not the responsibility of the "haves" to pay for licorice for the "have nots." But health care isn't..."
Both Sarah and Allen miss the point here. Per Capita spending on health care in the US dwarfs all other nations. Canada, the US's nearest rival, spends 40% less per person. Out of 18 Industrialized Countries in the World 17 use some form of Single Payer. Only the US uses a Fee-for-Service Insurance based model. US spending on health care is twice the average of those 17 countries.
In short the American People are woefully underserved by the Fee-for-Service system and they are charged rip-off prices. People of Allen's ilk like to advance the absurdity that the American People prefer to over-pay private insurance companies as opposed to being taxed for a smaller sum of money. Well a number of recent polls reveal the American Public's knowledge of the Health Insurance morass barely scratches the surface. As it stood in December 2007 54% of the American People preferred a Single Payer System over what they have right now according to a USA Today Poll. I submit that most of the 46% that were opposed or undecided could be easily brought along with a minimal amount of education on the subject.
Sure, but until everyone stops living off McDonalds dollar menu, out healthcare costs are going to rise regardless...
Here is a question that no one seems to be asking? What about those who make poor health choices i.e. smoking, drug addiction, alcohol? What are the health care costs per year from these lifestyle choices versus the total healthcare cost? I am responsible for individuals who make these unhealthy choices. I think not. Would my family and I get tax breaks for responsible living? Where is that in the reform bill?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!