Sunday, January 28, 2007
single payer health insurance
A significant number of Wal-Mart employees in Wisconsin wind up having to rely on the state-paid Badger Care program for their health insurance at a significant cost to the state's taxpayers. While Wal-Mart leads the list of big corporations whose workers need to take advantage of taxpayer-paid poverty programs, there are several other big firms whose workers need to do so too. About 3,000 employees and their dependents were enrolled in Badger Care from 10 huge corporations. Wal-Mart led the list with 1,252 of those 3,000. The Aurora Health Care organization near Milwaukee added 321, McDonald's 200, Manpower 181, Lands' End, a division of Sears 179, Kmart 184, Walgreens 146, APAC 139, and Target 120.
The annual cost to the taxpayers for those workers was calculated to be nearly $6.4 million. In other words, Wisconsin taxpayers are subsidizing those 10 corporations' payrolls because they see fit not to provide adequate health coverage for workers.
Taxpayers are often appalled to hear such news, but it has become a fact of life in these economic times. Big corporations are making record profits to soothe Wall Street while their workers go begging for benefits. Our political leaders look the other way, swallowing the corporate line that if they had to provide workers more, there would be fewer jobs.
All this ought to be leading the U.S. government to finally admit that taxpayers are already paying a substantial portion of America's health care costs and that we could make the system so much more fair by enacting a national single-payer health plan.
Our complicated health care system has spiraled so far out of control that it’s threatening our economy. General Motors and Ford, two of the nation's economic giants, are facing deep financial turmoil and perhaps, even insolvency because health care costs for employees and retirees are adding hundreds of dollars to the costs of their cars.
Both doctors and patients would be better off if we swept away our current maze of deductibles, provider networks, out-of-network costs, exclusions, policy riders, ER surcharges and such.
FIVE MYTHS ABOUT NATIONAL HEALTHCARE
Myth #1: It would be too expensive
Single payer health care would actually reduce the cost of health care. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that it could save up to $14 billion annually by spreading the risk evenly over the entire population, eliminating deductibles and co-pays and making preventive medicine available to the poor and uninsured. The federal government already subsidizes private health insurance in the form of tax deductions.
Private insurance companies also spend billions on administration and overhead, advertising, and determining and inspecting patient eligibility, all while trying to make a profit.
Single payer health care would not be burdened with some of those costs, like advertising, and unlike private business, it could run at a loss and still work.
Myth #2: It would require a huge, inefficient bureaucracy
The current system is already a huge, inefficient bureaucracy. As previously mentioned, much of the unnecessary overhead and micromanaging in the system now could be eliminated if single payer were put into practice. For example, the bureaucracy and paperwork involved in determining patient eligibility would be completely unnecessary if everyone were eligible and covered. Insurance companies spend an estimated 25 cents of every dollar on administration. Canada, which already has a comprehensive single payer in place and still manages to pay 70 percent less per citizen on health care, spends about the equivalent of about 12 cents of every dollar on administration.
Myth #3: It would restrict patient choice
Single payer wouldn't directly dictate what doctor you have to see in order to get treatment and would thus enable more choice in selecting a physician than the current system would for many, if not most, Americans.
Myth #4: It would be a socialist seizure of the medical industry
It would be nothing of the sort. Socialized medicine would entail hospitals and doctors becoming employees of the state. Single payer only provides funding for people's health care, but doesn't provide the health care itself and would be no more socialist than Medicare and arguably less so than public education.
Myth #5: single payer would impede economic growth
An added benefit of single payer would be that private business would no longer have to worry about health-care benefits, and employees wouldn't have to remain in unpleasant jobs just to keep their benefits. Benefits wouldn't interfere with wage increases, and employers would have more financial mobility.
The annual cost to the taxpayers for those workers was calculated to be nearly $6.4 million. In other words, Wisconsin taxpayers are subsidizing those 10 corporations' payrolls because they see fit not to provide adequate health coverage for workers.
Taxpayers are often appalled to hear such news, but it has become a fact of life in these economic times. Big corporations are making record profits to soothe Wall Street while their workers go begging for benefits. Our political leaders look the other way, swallowing the corporate line that if they had to provide workers more, there would be fewer jobs.
All this ought to be leading the U.S. government to finally admit that taxpayers are already paying a substantial portion of America's health care costs and that we could make the system so much more fair by enacting a national single-payer health plan.
Our complicated health care system has spiraled so far out of control that it’s threatening our economy. General Motors and Ford, two of the nation's economic giants, are facing deep financial turmoil and perhaps, even insolvency because health care costs for employees and retirees are adding hundreds of dollars to the costs of their cars.
Both doctors and patients would be better off if we swept away our current maze of deductibles, provider networks, out-of-network costs, exclusions, policy riders, ER surcharges and such.
FIVE MYTHS ABOUT NATIONAL HEALTHCARE
Myth #1: It would be too expensive
Single payer health care would actually reduce the cost of health care. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that it could save up to $14 billion annually by spreading the risk evenly over the entire population, eliminating deductibles and co-pays and making preventive medicine available to the poor and uninsured. The federal government already subsidizes private health insurance in the form of tax deductions.
Private insurance companies also spend billions on administration and overhead, advertising, and determining and inspecting patient eligibility, all while trying to make a profit.
Single payer health care would not be burdened with some of those costs, like advertising, and unlike private business, it could run at a loss and still work.
Myth #2: It would require a huge, inefficient bureaucracy
The current system is already a huge, inefficient bureaucracy. As previously mentioned, much of the unnecessary overhead and micromanaging in the system now could be eliminated if single payer were put into practice. For example, the bureaucracy and paperwork involved in determining patient eligibility would be completely unnecessary if everyone were eligible and covered. Insurance companies spend an estimated 25 cents of every dollar on administration. Canada, which already has a comprehensive single payer in place and still manages to pay 70 percent less per citizen on health care, spends about the equivalent of about 12 cents of every dollar on administration.
Myth #3: It would restrict patient choice
Single payer wouldn't directly dictate what doctor you have to see in order to get treatment and would thus enable more choice in selecting a physician than the current system would for many, if not most, Americans.
Myth #4: It would be a socialist seizure of the medical industry
It would be nothing of the sort. Socialized medicine would entail hospitals and doctors becoming employees of the state. Single payer only provides funding for people's health care, but doesn't provide the health care itself and would be no more socialist than Medicare and arguably less so than public education.
Myth #5: single payer would impede economic growth
An added benefit of single payer would be that private business would no longer have to worry about health-care benefits, and employees wouldn't have to remain in unpleasant jobs just to keep their benefits. Benefits wouldn't interfere with wage increases, and employers would have more financial mobility.
