The Choice
The debate for improving our health care system is nationwide. Many, like Governor Schwarzenegger and Mitt Romney, have devised plans that make all Americans have health insurance. This is corporate-based, profit-driven health care. Just a different version of what we already have that does not work; that does not provide the medical care we need to be a healthy, productive, competitive society. The only difference will be that insurance companies will make more profit because they will have more enrollees.
Individuals that cannot afford the high price of premiums and yet do not fit into the economic range of those that can receive adequate government subsidies might be forced to break the law and not have any insurance at all. Others might opt to try to buy policies that are insurance in name only with unthinkably high deductibles, high co-pays, and outrageous limitations of coverage. All of these individuals will still put off care until they need to go to the Emergency Department and in the end everyone else will still have to pay for their care.
You cannot say you have Universal Health care for your citizens if millions of them still cannot receive appropriate care due to insurance policy inadequacies.
What's the other choice?
Single-payer, single standard of care, universal health care.
This is patient-centered (not profit-centered.) Everybody pays into a single agency and this agency pays out to the providers.
Every doctor gets paid for every patient treated. Every hospital gets paid for every patient cared for. And every citizen gets the health care they deserve.
Ask any doctor or hospital how much time and money they spend trying to collect debts; how much they overcharge paying patients to cover for those who cannot pay. It is a huge problem. Single-payer solves this economic problem. Ask any Emergency Department nurse how many patients they see that should go to a primary care doctor for colds, flu, and minor injuries. Single-payer will free up EDs to take care of true emergencies. Also ask the ED nurse how many patients they see that could have averted their medical crisis had they received preventative care like the diabetic who comes to the ED in renal failure or the patient with high blood pressure who comes in with a devastating stroke. These high cost emergencies (high financially and high in terms of human suffering) could be averted with preventative care that would be covered under a single-payer system. And again this would free up Emergency Departments even more to be ready to handle your heart attack or catastrophic injury where waiting time can be the difference between life and death.
Given this, the choice is not hard at all. If we want to fix our health care problems, we do not need mandates for all to buy insurance, but we do need a single-payer system.
In California support Senator Shiela Kuehl's bill (SB 840 California OneCare) and nationwide support Congressman John Conyers' bill providing Medicare for All.
Individuals that cannot afford the high price of premiums and yet do not fit into the economic range of those that can receive adequate government subsidies might be forced to break the law and not have any insurance at all. Others might opt to try to buy policies that are insurance in name only with unthinkably high deductibles, high co-pays, and outrageous limitations of coverage. All of these individuals will still put off care until they need to go to the Emergency Department and in the end everyone else will still have to pay for their care.
You cannot say you have Universal Health care for your citizens if millions of them still cannot receive appropriate care due to insurance policy inadequacies.
What's the other choice?
Single-payer, single standard of care, universal health care.
This is patient-centered (not profit-centered.) Everybody pays into a single agency and this agency pays out to the providers.
Every doctor gets paid for every patient treated. Every hospital gets paid for every patient cared for. And every citizen gets the health care they deserve.
Ask any doctor or hospital how much time and money they spend trying to collect debts; how much they overcharge paying patients to cover for those who cannot pay. It is a huge problem. Single-payer solves this economic problem. Ask any Emergency Department nurse how many patients they see that should go to a primary care doctor for colds, flu, and minor injuries. Single-payer will free up EDs to take care of true emergencies. Also ask the ED nurse how many patients they see that could have averted their medical crisis had they received preventative care like the diabetic who comes to the ED in renal failure or the patient with high blood pressure who comes in with a devastating stroke. These high cost emergencies (high financially and high in terms of human suffering) could be averted with preventative care that would be covered under a single-payer system. And again this would free up Emergency Departments even more to be ready to handle your heart attack or catastrophic injury where waiting time can be the difference between life and death.
Given this, the choice is not hard at all. If we want to fix our health care problems, we do not need mandates for all to buy insurance, but we do need a single-payer system.
In California support Senator Shiela Kuehl's bill (SB 840 California OneCare) and nationwide support Congressman John Conyers' bill providing Medicare for All.
Labels: Medicare for All, single-payer, universal healthcare