 |
|
Add to My Group
|
May 17, 2008 at 17:47:23
by Beth Grimes 
|
|
|
Your money or your life. That's the choice we have. The insurance industry is made up of profit-making commercial enterprises, my friends, and your medical insurance provider is one of them. These companies don't pay for your illness or injury unless you have already blessed their outstretched palms with a hefty chunk of your hard-earned cash. They may not cover your expenses even then. Your insurance company loves to put limits on your benefits and their claims adjusters are skilled at finding reasons to deny payment of them. Of the insured, most are under-insured, usually because they can't afford costly comprehensive coverage. Three quarters of the two million Americans who went bankrupt in 2007 had health insurance that didn't cover all their medical costs. Reimbursement for the cost of our health care and prescription drugs should come out of the pool of money we policy-holders create by paying insurance premiums. Why is it so hard to get that care and those meds? Could it be because so much of our premium money is spent for budget items unrelated to our care? Expensive advertising? Corporate executive officers' six-figure salaries plus additional lump sums given those execs for keeping costs down and profits up? Do we really want to finance some CEO's bonuses and other perks while the health care we get for the money we pay is often inadequate, sometimes even denied? The Los Angeles Times recently reported that average health care costs to Americans was a staggering $7,026 per person in 2006. Yes, that's per person, not per family. The tab for medical care increased 6.5% in that year. Did your pay increase by 6.5 percent in 2006? 
Could some of the added cost be related to the medicare prescription drug benefit? Oh, yeah, baby. The New England Journal of Medicine, March, 2006, titled a report on the so-called drug benefit a "Part D for defective" program. The NEJM states that Part D was flawed from the get-go, because of its dependence on multiple private companies to create a complex public program that could be comprehended by millions of elderly patients. More than half of American seniors say it is hard to understand.
Lest we forget, Part D came into existence only after an unheard of 3-hour marathon session in the House of Representatives. During that time, reluctant members of Congress were pressured until they gave in and consented to approve this perpetration. Would you be upset to learn that Part D will cost us all around $80 billion a year? Are we a little bit angry because the authors of Part D included a provision making it illegal for Medicare to negotiate lower prices for drugs needed by old people? The way the Veterans Administration can negotiate? The way other industrialized countries can negotiate?
The Medicare drug benefit is only one piece of a flawed health care system in the USA. There are 46.6 million uninsured people in our country. The number of uninsured children has grown to 8.3 million and those numbers keep increasing. Most Americans who have health insurance are under-insured. By now experience has taught us that under-insured means: budget-busting deductibles, co-payments, lab fees and the exclusion of pre-existing conditions.
In spite of President Bush's claim that the federal government is meeting its health care obligations to those who cannot afford insurance, his budget cuts $5.1 Billion over ten years from Medicaid, the program that provides med coverage to low-income kids, their parents, the elderly, and the disabled.
Think there might be a better way? There is. A proven, workable proposal for universal health care is a single payer, tax supported system. The USA is the only industrialized country without publicly financed, comprehensive health care. Many will say, "but that would be socialized medicine and we don't want government bureaucrats interfering in our medical care." Well, friends, interference is exactly what we have now, except that it's insurance company bureaucrats who interfere. Horror stories abound of legitimate claims of policy holders being denied reimbursement for treatment ordered by their physicians.
No matter what the medical insurance industry and its handmaiden, the pharmaceutical corporations, say, single payer is not socialized medicine. Socialized medicine is a system in which hospitals are owned by and doctors work for the government. Our veterans administration and military doctors get their paychecks, and hospitals are owned and maintained by the plan, this way. Spain and Great Britain have similar structures to provide for med-care of their populations.
In Canada, Japan, Australia and most of western Europe, it is only payment for health care that can be called socialized. Patients are free to choose their own doctors and those providers receive fee-for-service reimbursement. Our own Medicare is such a system. Although a single payer plan would raise our taxes, those tax increases would be offset by freedom from the insurance industry's demands for exorbitant payment to cover services we may have to fight for or never receive.
No matter how hard it may be, no matter how much political and health insurance industry resistance will have to be overcome, we must find a way to replace our broken health care system with one that provides tax funded, affordable, readily available, good care to all Americans.
Unless and until that happens, here's the best medical advice you'll find anywhere: don't get sick.
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Enact health care reform now.
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 8 comments |
|
Costs and Savings
You wrote: "Although a single payer plan would raise our taxes, those tax increases would be offset by freedom from ... exorbitant payment ...." Let's give your readers more facts ... Our country can shift from paying around $7,000 per person per year to potentially HALF that or less (according to the experience of ALL the other industrialized countries in the world, many of whose businesses are more globally competitive than U.S. businesses that are in the same markets). See the huge savings: click here AND ... we can have a chance at saving tens of thousands of lives of people who are dying because we rank 19th out of 19th in the ability to minimize preventable deaths as seen here: click here Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate Advocate for Health Care for All with non-profit single-payer national health insurance P.S. -- my first post of a comment, and I hope the 2 links work; otherwise, you can go to www.99oh9.org There, on the left, you can select "Costs and Savings" and "Real People" by Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 8:55:07 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Those links
THE CORRECTED LINKS TO MY COMMENTS Costs and Savings --- click here Real People --- click here Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate by Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 9:02:59 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Medical care
And thank you, Bob, for the corrected links. You and I are on the same side in this issue. So many people are disgusted with the health care mess that they may be more receptive of single payer. Here in California I walked a precinct and handed out information in front of Safeway and wrote letters to editors and to reps in the legislature to try to convince people to vote for Prop 186 which would have established a single payer system. Proponents were disappointed then, but the time may now be right. Senator Sheila Kuehl has written an excellent law, SB 840, but as you can imagine, she is getting a lot of opposition from other legislators. Thank you for all you do. by Beth Grimes (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 3:06:17 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Links to Single Payer vs. Private Insurance
Bob, the links you suggested took me to very informative web sites. Thought I had already found a lot of info on this topic, but the ones you suggest offer much more and in a clear, concise manner. Thanks. by Beth Grimes (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Monday, May 19, 2008 at 3:29:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Health/Medical Care
Thanks, Bob, for the feedback and links to other information. I knew much of what you said, but didn't want to offer readers too many statistics for fear their eyes would glaze over. In retrospect, that decision was an error. Perhaps I'll write another article. by Beth Grimes (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 2:56:38 PM (0+)
|
|
Thanks for a fine article
We must keep advocating a single payer system! It is the only way to stop the rape of the public by profit-motivated insurance and pharmaceutical companies. As a Medicare user I can attest to the total insanity of the Subtitle D prescription drug coverage; this year because of a heart attack I reached the coverage gap in about three months; at that point millions of people like me face astronomical prescription drug costs; for example, most brand name drugs with NO generic equivalents available in the US cost $300-$400 or more for a 90-day supply. Such costs are unaffordable to millions of elderly people. What I and so many others have discovered is that we can get those drugs from foreign sources for $100-$150; often low cost generics are available worldwide but NOT in the US. But otherwise, I have become a huge supporter of Medicare; I have complete freedom as to what physicians and hospitals I use and, with some affordable supplemental insurance, I have damn good health insurance at reasonable cost. by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, May 19, 2008 at 11:04:33 AM (0+)
|
|
On the political front
It is a total disgrace that the next president will NOT be a supporter of a single payer system. No one should vote for Obama, Clinton or McCain on this basis alone. They are all in the pocket of insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Support Ralph Nader who DOES support a single payer system. by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, May 19, 2008 at 11:06:54 AM (0+)
|
|
Thank you for your comment!
I am grateful for your positive comment. Maybe we need to hold the feet of all of our representatives in Congress, and the candidates in any election, to the fire. Of course, real campaign finance reform should be enacted, so that those who are supposed to represent us can be elected without the money they now get from the insurance industry. They might even become more accessible. What happened to you -- the necessity to cover steeply increased cost of medications you need for a serious health problem -- is a disgrace. My husband and I also have medicare and supplementary insurance. In January after Part D was enacted, our HMO raised the premiums of each of us by almost 50%. Not only that, but we've even had to pay more for the meds we need. Some benefit! Again, thank you for the support. by Beth Grimes (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Monday, May 19, 2008 at 1:05:39 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
