Single payer grows in popularity, just not in name

March 25, 2006

I get the sense that more Dem politicians would be willing to acknowledge the obvious benefits of a [tag]single-payer[/tag] [tag]healthcare[/tag] plan if they weren’t absolutely convinced that Americans would balk at the increased federal spending. After all, that’s what single-payer healthcare is — people get medical care, the government pays for it.

I’m convinced Americans would embrace the idea if it were on the policy table. Consider the polling data:

Many adults in the United States believe their federal administration is not doing enough to help them with the cost of medical services, according to a poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates for the [tag]Pew Research Center[/tag] for the People and the Press. 70 per cent of respondents think the government spends too little on health care.

Asked if they thought the government spends too much, too little or the right amount on health care, it wasn’t even close — 70% of poll respondents said the government spends too little. Asked if they thought the average American spends too much, too little or the right amount on [tag]health care[/tag], the results were nearly identical — 65% said people spend too much.

Public opinion is already leaning towards single payer, whether they’re familiar with the phrase or not. Dems just need to start moving the conversation in this direction. The message will land on fertile soil.

Wrong argument. The case for national health
care should be one of principal, to begin with.
Should health care be a societal right in America,
or remain a commodity? I have a feeling, when
asked bluntly like that, the answer would be a
resounding “yes,” by the vast majority of Americans.
But no one is ever going to frame the issue like that
in this corporate plutocracy of ours.

The next question is how to do it. National health
care becomes the only viable answer. Ironically,
if done properly, health care should improve,
and health care costs should decline dramatically.
I say this because statistics show we pay far more
for far less than all the other industrialized countries
which do have national health care systems.

But will it ever happen? I doubt that the Dems
will ever phrase it as right vs. commodity, being
the spineless cowards that they are. But it might
just happen for the wrong reason – to get the
gorilla off the backs of industry, so they can
compete globally. If employers no longer provide
most of our health insurance, the government
has to step in.

Ironically, such a step would also slow down
outsourcing, by reducing the cost of labor.

So we might just do it, for corporate America.
But not, of course, for our people. Those days
are long gone, probably never to return, because
the Democrats are pretty much playing the same
game as the Republicans. They’re just not as
good at it, yet. Sucking up to corporate America
is the game. Good God, it’s worse. Corporate
America IS the government now.

  • I just googled a couple facts: American GDP is $11.75 trillion and health care accounts for 10.9% of that, or about $1.28 trillion.

    Universal health care should be a no-brainer, but the health insurance lobby will fight tooth and nail to preserve the present system – after all, what part of the $1.28 trillion is their profit??? The new Medicare Part D (prescription plan for seniors) further entrenches the existing health insurers.

    Is there anyway the insurers can be bought off???….grandfather them into a regulated (much as utility monopolies used to be regulated) universal care system – i.e. let them administer a transparent system for a finite period of time, say 10 or 15 years and then phase them out???

    I’m wondering if I just outlined Hillarycare???…lol.

  • 1. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Healthcare sounds like it should be a part of that.
    2. We can’t afford the current system. Universal healthcare will be more affordable, and better to boot.
    3. It will help improve productivity in the economy and help job creation. It will make creating new jobs easier.
    4. It will help with homeland security by coordinating emergency responses.
    5. Medicare and VA are already doing a good job. Universal healthcare would just be an extension of what’s already working.

  • If all of you think government-paid health care is such a good thing, I suggest you ask someone who relies on it in Great Britain. Would you want to wait months for a cat-scan or an MRI as sick people now do there.

  • Fallenwoman has fallen for several logical fallacies. Even in Great Britain public health service isn’t the only option, any more than public education is the only option here. That some people experience delays for elective procedures is no criticism of a system which serves everyone. I read recently that health care in Great Britain is about what it is here in terms of service and cost; the difference is that about 40% of our people aren’t served at all. Those that are served are paying far too much into the greedy hands of private providers, insurers and lawyers.

  • Universal health care is needed here; the most efficient way would be to have it administered under the current public employees’ health care administration (which is currently used by the president, vice president, and members of Congress as well) as had been proposed by former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry during the 2004 elections.

    If it’s good enough for our president, vice president, and members of Congress, it’ll be good enough for all of our country’s average citizens–without adding a new bureaucracy. I’ve even heard some companies–such as Wal-Mart–would be in favor of something like this to take the burden off of companies supplying costly health-related benefits to their employees. The question: Could the government and the citizens they represent, override the objections of the entrenched health insurance industry which is more interested in maintaining their monopoly and their profits under the current set-up.

  • The folks I know who study healthcare policy from a data standpoint rather than an ideological bent seem to agree that single-payer is the only way to go. They also recognize that getting there is going to be very difficult because of the mess our current “system” is in. That said, I’d like to comment on the idea that “…people get medical care, the government pays for it.”

    People pay for health care in any case, whether through taxes, insurance premiums, out-of-pocket, or lower wages that enable employers to pay. Just wondering if we’ll all get raises when taxes go up but employers no longer kick in with benefits. Anyone care to wager?

  • I don’t think fear of spending is the problem, it’s more the brainwashing about other countries’ systems (see fallenwoman above). I frankly don’t see any way single-payer can happen until our current system completely falls apart; the insurance and (possibly) pharmaceutical industries will fight it to the death, and they have way too much money and power, and they’ll use it to play on those fears. That’s why the Clintons made their plan so complicated, to try to buy those players off, and we all know how that turned out. The current system will eventually come unglued, when business simply refuses to keep paying for insurance for employees, and then there may be an opportunity for change. My guess is we’re talking about at least 10 years; certainly it makes sense to be laying plans now, but we shouldn’t fool ourselves that we can go anywhere until the current system collapses.

  • Think – a single payer health care would benefit GM, Ford, IBM, Microsoft, Boeing, and any fortune 1000 company and more!

    Who out there has the clout, the muscle, to beat out GM, IBM, Boeing and the rest?

    HCA? Humana? Glaxo-Smithkline?

    BZZZZZ

    Wrong answer.

    The healthcare/big pharma have clout but, c’mon – HC/pharma can’t hold a candle to Boeing, IBM and the rest of the fortune 1000.

    So, what’s going on here?

    When the likely suspects are ruled out then you must consider the unlikely suspects.

    Perhaps american business wants their employees wed to their jobs by way of receiving healthcare benefits through the employers.

    Perhaps american business wants to have an additional boot forcing down the becks of the working person.

    Perhaps paying for healthcare costs is a small price for the employer to pay for the having the working person indentured to their employer in part because of ermployer-subsidized healthcare costs.

    In short, if GM, Boeing, IBM, et. al. wanted to change the situation, change would happen so fast our heads would spin.

    But it is not – wonder why?

  • I think the non-health care-related corporations can, and ultimately will, lead the way here or at least not obstruct the proceedings. GM is already at an acknowledged disadvantage in global competition because it has to pay too much for health care costs. Health insurance from corporations is the last bit of paternalism to fall but fall it will. Yes, insurance companies and pharma will have to be bought off somehow but it will need to happen. Usually, I agree with hark completely, but not on this. We don’t need an intellectual debate about rights and commodities on this one. Other countries have systems that work. Our people need and want one. And yes, it’s come to the point where it’s good for [most] businesses. So, some leading pol and grass roots organizations need to go after it [again]. How many baby boomers are retiring early or being thrown out of jobs in their 50’s and don’t qualify for medicare for another 10+ years? Everyone’s plan through work are costing more and covering less. Doctors are extremely unhappy with managed care and no longer an impediment. Time to hit the reset button on this one.

  • A friendly rebuttal to Rebecca Allen — my own personal, casual survey would suggest that an awful lot of people now know we were conned by Harry and Louise, and a lot of Americans are a lot less enthralled with trusting the perfect wisdom and fairness of markets than we were in 1994. We’ve learned a lot; we know the Harry and Louise crowd are quite proud to have Hillary’s scalp dangling from the corporate belt.

    We have to keep challenging the common wisdom. I think that good universal primary care would uncork the economy in all sorts of ways; creative people would be much less apprehensive about striking out on their own, and small businesses would form and grow at a much higher rate.

  • I think we just need to look at how remarkably well many other countries are doing with this sort of thing… Oh, wait a minute… right…

    Personally, I can’t stand most government “efficiency” (examples: DMV, and government schools, where Johnny can’t read, but feels good about himself), and the thought of turning over my physical health to ’em scares the bejeezus out of me.

    • Comments are closed.