Why Support Single-Payer If Obama Doesn't?
Congress members, pundits, and activists recognize the extent to which we now have a monarchical rather than a legislative government. They are inclined to await the president's proposals before acting on an issue. But no union negotiator ever opens with what they'll settle for. You open with your ideal, and then compromise from there. And we elect representatives and senators to push our ideals forward.
HR 676 had 93 cosponsors last congress and already has 60 now. All 60 of them are well aware of the unlikelihood of passing the bill this year. But many of them may recognize the increased likelihood of achieving a more significant "public option" component in the bill we end up with if a major push for HR 676 is part of the initial picture. We need more Congress members to add their names to that list of 60.
HR 676 would create single-payer healthcare. This would mean the elimination of all for-profit health insurance companies, along with their bureaucracies, advertising, and waste. (This tells you where the primary opposition to single-payer comes from.) With single-payer we don't get government healthcare, just government insurance, so people get complete choice of private healthcare -- choose any doctor or hospital you want, not just the ones some company tells you to. It's Medicare enhanced and expanded and covering everyone. The stronger the push is for it, the more likely we are to win it or to see a component of it in what we end up with.
HR 676 would give us a net of 2.6 million new jobs. In other words, it would be a more effective economic stimulus than much of what we have recently funded for that purpose. This report explains:
http://tinyurl.com/hcarestimulus
Here are 10 great reasons to support HR 676, the U.S. National Health Insurance Act: http://guaranteedhealthcare4all.org/sites/default/files/10-Reasons.pdf
1. Everybody In, Nobody Out. Universal means access to health care for everyone, period.
2. Portability. If you are unemployed, or lose or change jobs, your health coverage stays with you.
3. Uniform Benefits. No Cadillac plans for the wealthy and Pinto plans for everyone else, with high deductibles, limited services, caps on payments for care, and no protection in the event of a catastrophe. One level of comprehensive care for everyone, regardless of the size of your wallet.
4. Prevention. By removing financial roadblocks, a universal health system encourages preventive care that lowers an individual's ultimate cost and pain and suffering when problems are neglected and societal cost in the over-utilization of emergency rooms or the spread of communicable diseases.
5. Choice. Most private insurance restricts your choice of providers and hospitals. Under the U.S. National Health Insurance Act, patients have a choice, and the provider is assured a fair payment.
6. No Interference with Care. Caregivers and patients regain their autonomy to decide what's best for a patient's health, not what's dictated by the billing department. No denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions or cancellation of policies for "unreported" minor health problems.
7. Reducing Waste. One third of every private health insurance dollar goes for paperwork and profits, compared to about 3% under Medicare, the federal government’s universal system for senior citizen healthcare.
8. Cost Savings. A guaranteed health care system can produce the cost savings needed to cover everyone, largely by using existing resources without the waste. Taiwan, shifting from a U.S. private health care model, adopted a similar system in 1995, boosting health coverage from 57% to 97% with little increase in overall health care spending.
9. Common Sense Budgeting. The public system sets fair reimbursements applied equally to all providers, private and public, while assuring that appropriate health care is delivered, and uses its clout to negotiate volume discounts for prescription drugs and medical equipment.
10. Public Oversight. The public sets the policies and administers the system, not high priced CEOs meeting in private and making decisions based on their company’s stock performance needs.
