|
Seriously, I don't get this debate between "care" and "insurance", the point of a single payer system is to be able to cover all the costs of medical care, leave the care itself to those who know it best, doctors and nurses and let's leave the financing to the pencil pushers, OK?
The advantages of having a single payer plan are enormous, and cannot be ignored. First things first, everyone already pays into a system very similar to this, Medicare, basically all we need to do is expand Medicare to cover everyone, such as under H.R. 676, and then, perhaps later on, roll up the other public plans under the Medicare system, to eliminate any gaps in coverage, such as long term care and homes, etc.
The goal of any public health care plan should be to reduce costs as much as possible without affecting care. The best way to do that is to reduce the bureaucracies that exist to deal with the financing aspect of the health care system. We have literally hundreds, thousands, of organizations that deal with health insurance, and that's just a waste of money, an inefficiency in the system. Because of this, we have enormous costs, as much as 2 trillion dollars, to finance our health care system, yet we have millions of Americans that can't even see the doctor unless they decide not to pay the rent or groceries that month.
A single payer system, at the very least, can make sure that no one in America would have to make such a choice. This is important, because, for all the rhetoric about the importance of preventative care in reducing costs, that doesn't mean jack shit to a low income family that can't afford to go to the doctor without going hundreds of dollars in debt. They won't go to the doctor, hell, I haven't been to the doctor in years, I could be dying of cancer right now, and don't know it, simply because I can't afford to have it checked. Granted, that's unlikely, with my age and health, but its just an example.
The point that I think everyone is missing is that we need health care that is affordable, not so much on the individual level, but nationally. What good is a private/public hybrid system if it actually INCREASES costs nationally? That can actually be worse than not trying at all, such a system would FAIL, and could set back health care reform by decades, at the very least.
The reason I'm for a single payer system is that its the most economical system to ensure maximum coverage at the lowest costs. Other nations with similar systems pay a fraction of the costs that the United States does for their health care systems, that's something we should learn from. A single payer system maximizes the risk pool, because its paid for by everyone, through federal taxes, and could be paid for through a progressive tax structure, to minimize burdens on low income families. In addition, there are fewer gaps, if someone gets laid off from a job, and is unemployed, that wouldn't affect their health care coverage at all, they can still get the medications or treatment they need without increasing any debts they have.
The argument that the United States is somehow unique and that a single payer system can't work here is foolish. First, it has never really been tried, so how the fuck would we know? Second, the United States is the most powerful economy and richest nation on Earth, if we can't make such a system work here, then all those other nations that do have systems like this should have had those systems collapse years ago.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
