Single payer healthcare--one step toward economic recovery?

[clear eye]

The IHSP (Institute for Health and Socio-Economic Policy) has issued a study that goes far beyond the well-publicized statistic that in 2007 medical bills caused 62% of personal bankruptcies with the % continuing to rise. The authors of the IHSP's comprehensive study of the economic consequences of enacting single-payer in the U.S. include economist Robert Fountain. It can be found here: http://www.calnurses.org/research/pdfs/ihsp_sp_economic_study_2009.pdf

A summary of the findings was laid out in the following ad showing any job losses in the insurance industry greatly out-weighed by job and economic gains in the general economy:

Good news.
The best, most comprehensive solution for our healthcare crisis, a single-payer system that expands and upgrades Medicare to cover all Americans, also promotes economic recovery. A new study, the first of its kind to examine the economic ripple effect of guaranteeing healthcare to all through Medicare, finds that single-payer healthcare reform creates:


2.6 million new permanent, good-paying jobs (jobs that cannot be easily sent overseas)

$317 billion in increased business and public revenues

$100 billion in employee compensation

$44 billion in new tax revenues

At less cost than the federal bailouts for Wall Street giants such as AIG, CitiGroup, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and other banks

Findings from “Single-Payer/Medicare for All: An Economic Stimulus Plan for the Nation,”
Institute for Health and Socio-Economic Policy, research arm, National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association.

— HR 676 (Conyers)
Only improving and expanding Medicare for all will:

Produce 2.6 million new jobs

Control costs, saving taxpayers billions of dollars

Guarantee healthcare for all

Ensure complete choice of provider

HR 676, Single-Payer, Medicare for All
One nation. One health plan for all Americans.

www.calnurses.org

[Andy823]

1. I couldn't agree more.

However those bought and paid for members of congress who "owe" the health industry for their money to run on, are not going to be so easy to convince. Both sides of the isle are full of those who are bought and paid for by the health industry. They will fight tooth and nail to do the bidding of their corporate masters, so getting a single payer system isn't going to be easy. I don't see it coming down until we can get some changes in campaign financing, and more dems in congress who will work for the people of this country and not the corporations! I hope I am wrong, but only time will tell.

[quidam56]

3. Sadly, Corporate Greed puts PROFIT CARE ahead of PATIENT CARE

In East Tennessee and southwest Virginia, I have seen what is deemed, defended and supported as "the acceptable standards of health care" http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=62 Clearly PROFIT CARE is more important than PATIENT CARE. How many more will die thanks to the greed and mislead health care system we have now.

[clear eye]

2. Not mentioned in that summary is that the costs of the plan...

though paid for by taxes would replace the premiums businesses and individuals are paying now. Himmelstein of the PNHP says that because of the enormous cost savings due to less administration, elimination of profit, and more bargaining power, an ~4% income tax increase would cover all care currently considered standard for everyone under 65 including the sickest. For most people that would be cheaper either than what they already have or what is now open to them if they're uninsured. That means that more money would be free to move around the economy, rather than being socked away in the pockets of a few.

Many on this board will be disturbed by loss of the opportunity to profit by investing in the private insurance marketplace. To them I point out that the need to provide health insurance has become a millstone handicapping all larger enterprises and many small ones in the global marketplace. The need for productive industry to sustain the economy in the U.S. has become glaring. Having health insurance left as one of only a very few enterprises that remains profitable is not sustainable.

[notesdev]

4. It won't solve the problem

Replacing various private bureaucracies with a public one doesn't touch on the heart of the matter, which is the rise in costs. If the core plan is to go to government to promote efficiency, then the plan is doomed from the outset. All the nickel-and-diming that goes on in private systems won't change substantially under a government system, all that will change from the patient's point of view is that the last-ditch recourse - a court hearing - is lost.

The real problem is that there are way too many people who contribute nothing to the health of a patient who get money out of the system.

It is my belief that one has to start solving this problem by addressing the issue of ambulance-chasing lawyers and the immense payouts that they can achieve. Terrible tragedies do occur, but it does not follow that this must necessarily place a crushing financial burden on the rest of the system. It is because of this practice that malpractice insurance is impossible to get at any reasonable price; a single OB-GYN in New York can pay $150,000 per year for that insurance alone. This cost gets passed on directly to the patients and their insurers; an additional cost is incurred in the 'defensive medicine' practice that doctors are forced to adopt so they do not get sued, unnecessary tests, procedures, hospital stays that multiply the end cost of care.

Then there is another element to the equation, one that as a society we need to find a mature, just, and responsible way to handle. This is the real can of worms that these so-called 'reforms' don't want to deal with, but here's the actual bottom line: half of the average person's health care costs are incurred in the last year of life. As a business practice this is done because it is hugely profitable. As a cultural practice this is done because we don't deal well with death. There comes the time where it is the responsible thing to do to provide painkillers, a lawyer to draw up last will and testament, and a priest of the patient's religion, and to prepare for that which comes to all of us at our appointed time.

To avoid this end we pay twice as much to provide care over the course of a person's life. Another way of stating that is that we provide health care to only half the number of people to whom it could be provided. In terms of the economics of the situation, just as we found it impossible to double housing costs and sustain that condition, we are finding the same is true in terms of health care costs.

[Jack Sprat]

5. I agree with half.

Malpractice insurance is reportedly very costly for all doctors. Suing a doctor does not bring your loved one back or reverse the results of a doctor's mistake. Negligent treatment or medical errors should be documented and placed on his performance record, but lawsuits and the resulting insurance against them have obviously added greatly to the exorbitant cost of healthcare in this country. We need to get real and take this burden off medical providers.

Treatment in last year of life: Here is an area where assisted suicide might be helpful. If a person in pain wishes for an expedient death, why do we put those who assist the procedure in prison (Dr Koverkian) and the recent assistants in Atlanta? Now, I think a person fighting to live to their last gasp of air should be allowed to. Yet, there are plenty of people preferring just the kind of assisted euthanasia you are referring to. It should be optional and certainly not criminal.