Click here for original article.
There are two main arguments for single payer health care, also called "Medicare for All", now proposed as Congressional bill HR 676 by John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich with 91 co-sponsors.
The Moral Ethical Argument
The first is the ethical moral argument. Health insurance companies make their profit by denying health care to sick people. That is immoral and unethical.
The Economic Argument
The second and perhaps more compelling argument is economic. Our current system of health insurance has created an unbearable economic burden on the nation. Simply put, it is too expensive for us to bear. There are over 100 separate health insurance companies operating under different sets of rules creating a huge 30 % administrative overhead. For comparison, administrative overhead for Medicare is only 2%.
By converting to a single payer system, we immediately save 300 billion dollars in administrative overhead.
As a nation, we are now paying twice what other countries pay for health care, yet we have 45 million uninsured and 18,000 deaths annually caused by lack of access to health care. Almost half the bankruptcies currently filed in the United States are because of medical bills. We are paying a huge national Health Care bill, twice what other countries spend on universal health care, yet we do not have universal health coverage here in the US.
Medicare is a 40 year example of a successful single payer system which has an administrative overhead of 2%, not 30%.
Only One Explanation Why We Don't Have Single Payer Now
These two arguments in favor of a single payer heath insurance system (moral and economic) are so compelling, that one must conclude the only reason we don't have single payer now is because of lack of representative government. The obvious conclusion is that our government does not serve the people who elected them. Rather, our elected government officials serve the special interests of the health insurance industry and other corporations who make massive campaign contributions.
It’s Time to Eliminate the Health Insurance Industry
Medical Review of Claims
How does the Health Insurance Company make money? They make profits by denial of healthcare with a contrived procedure called “medical review of claims and benefits”. Much of the 30 per cent administrative overhead pays for employees doing this sham “medical review of claim” and denial. Employee pay is actually linked to the number of denials generated, and special computer software called "Denial Engine Software may be used." The variables on the software can be adjusted up or down depending on how much profit the company wants to keep that year.
Process of Denial of Medical Claim is a Pretense and Masquerade Based on Guidelines
Rather than provide needed medical care for sick people, the “review of care” is intended to deny payment for medical care. Under this "review of care" procedure, the insurance company claims that the medical claim fails "the guidelines", and this failure is the reason for the denial. How are these "Guidelines" derived? Guidelines are created by health professionals employed for the benefit of the insurance company, and have no connection with the realities of medical practice.
Manufactured Excuse for Denial of Claim
The guidelines provide a manufactured excuse for denial of care based on one of the following: The guidelines have determined that the health care is medically unnecessary, experimental, dangerous to the patient’s well-being, or outside the standards of care provided by a professional association or governmental agency. The healthcare may be denied because it uses an off-label indication (for a medicine or device). However, the real reason for denial of the claim is obvious; the claim is denied because it reduces corporate profit.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
