Single-payer system will not end health woes
To the Times: “It is time for singlepayer health care”, Pam Magidson, DCDT, June 19, 2017, needs a logical response. One government program, Obamacare, has failed. Why should we replace it with a bigger government program? If the individual insurance market is messed up, let us mess up the individual and group insurance markets. We need to put the light of reason on her proposal.
The percentage of U.S. healthcare expenditures to GDP is reported to be 40 percent higher than other countries. What are the reasons for these expenditures? Obvious differences in the U.S. are obesity and the prevalence of drug dependency. A single-payer system will not eliminate these health issues. It only changes how we pay for health care – we get rid of insurance premiums and take on additional taxes.
A big problem with U.S. health care is frivolous lawsuits. Medical doctors and hospitals pass the cost of malpractice insurance on to their patients. Huge hidden costs are the unnecessary procedures that are performed to prevent second-guessing by trial attorneys. One cannot sue the government. Therefore, a single-payer system would eliminate these lawsuits. Is this what we want? There are legal ways to eliminate approximately half of these lawsuits. However, trial attorneys control Democratic politicians.
The government system could reduce costs by mandating lower salaries for physicians and nurses. Some doctors would retire and others would set up separate practices outside of a government plan. My wife is from South America and I see this happening. Professionals with good jobs avoid the government system because there are long waiting lines and the doctors have limited options to treat their patients. If one of our children is sick while we are in South America, we go to a private clinic. The same situation exists in England.
Ms. Magidson states that the current system is bureaucratic and that it puts American business at a competitive disadvantage. Are you kidding? A government-run system would have less bureaucracy? Are American businesses at a disadvantage with Canadian and British firms that have single-payer systems? She also states that private insurance drives income inequality. Socialism reduces inequality and it also reduces the quality of life by eliminating incentives for productivity.
She asserts the claim by the Physicians for a National Health Program that a government program would reduce cost by $500 billion a year. If there were any truth in this statement, Hillary Clinton would have been able to put in socialized medicine in 1992. It was not true then and is not true now.
Sen. Pat Toomey and the other Republicans are not trying to raise the premiums on those with pre-existing conditions. They are trying to eliminate a fundamental flaw in Obamacare that has led to its failure. People in the individual insurance market can wait until they get sick before the buy insurance. If they have limited incomes they would be stupid not to take advantage of this loophole. People are not stupid. If they do not buy insurance, they have health care available at the outpatient clinics. On Jan. 1 of the next year they can purchase insurance without any pre-existing exclusions. Insurance companies cannot win, so premiums are skyrocketing and companies are withdrawing from the market.
Republicans have a simple solution. If a person elects not to buy insurance, they must pay a penalty when they elect to enter the market. The tax penalties used by Obamacare are not strong enough to force people to buy insurance. If we choose to do nothing, more people will learn how to trick the system and premiums will continue to rise.
I will close with my experience with Obamacare. I am covered by Medicare, but I insure my wife and young daughter with an individual policy. Previously I had a plan from Aetna – $400 a month, $1,500 hospital deductible, 25 percent coinsurance, and $5,000 annual family maximum. Aetna canceled our policy, and my premium under Obamacare is $566 per month, and the deductible for doctor’s visits has doubled. That part is OK. The in-hospital deductible is now $7,500 and I have no annual family maximum. If my wife and daughter had a major expenditure of $100,000, I would have to pay over $30,000 out-ofpocket.
Obama was lying when he said that we would be able to keep our health insurance. Jonathan Gruber, architect of Obamacare, has said that said that the plan was approved because the American people are stupid. He is right that you can pull some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time. We got smart and voted out the elitist.