Universal Health Care

Editor, Gregg Salisbury

Can a single-payer, universal health care system be implemented and work in the U.S.?

While recent congressional and media attention has been diverted to the insurgency in Iraq abroad and social security reform domestically, the debate over finding a plan for improving equitable access to health care in the United States has quieted.   But the issue remains a sizable one in the United States where well over forty million people live without health insurance.  The U.S. has the only government in the "industrialized world" which does not ensure universal health care to all its citizens, while the nation spends over twice as much per person as the average of the other industrialized nations on health care.

Different levels of managing universal health care have been proposed, from highly controlled government run plans, the extremes of "socialized medicine", to "managed competition" plans such as that proposed by the Clinton administration in 1994.

--------------
Yes, a single payer system in the United States would be successful, and certainly better than the current system.

Most of the plans that argue for universal health coverage begin with the stance that health care should be and is a constitutional and legal right. 
The current system affects middle class families the most according to the Center for Economic and Social Rights, who are forced out of insurance plans, either their own or employer-run plans due to exorbitant costs. Other groups hit hard include minority groups and children.  Of the 40 million uninsured, 10 million are children.

In February of 2005, a bill for such a national health insurance program was introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) (see link below).  The program would cover "all medically necessary services, including primary care, in patient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics, and practices."

Proponents of such a plan, besides health care for all, claim significant savings.  A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office claimed a single payer program would  "generate $34 billion dollars in savings from insurance overhead alone."   The Physicians Working Group estimated such a plan would save $150 billion annually "by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private, investor-owned insurance industry and reducing spending for marketing and other satellite services."

Proponents point to plans implemented in Canada, Europe and industrialized Asian nations, that though not without fault, provide coverage to all at significantly less expenditure by percentage of GNP. They renounce the notion that charitable clinics and emergency rooms fill the gaps for the uninsured as many of these people endure ailments longer, and have worsened conditions due to reluctance to seek care for financial reasons.

The plan by the Physicians Working Group would have most hospitals and clinics "remain privately owned and operated.  Investor-owned facilities would be converted to not-for-profit status, and their former owners compensated for past investments. Physicians could continue to practice on a fee-for-service basis, or receive salaries from group practices, hospitals or clinics."

For more information:
http://www.amsa.org/hp/sp.cfm
http://www.amsa.org/hp/myths.cfm
http://www.physiciansproposal.org/
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-676
http://cesr.org/ushealthright?PHPSESSID=52b551b2827d32b26fefb44b69762e5b