Medicare for all
Assuming it is not overturned by a very highly politicized Supreme Court (“In the balance,” April 2, p. 6), millions of the uninsured will eventually receive coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It is a first step. But the reforms did not go nearly far enough in cost containment. Or, we believe, in coverage. We are building on a shaky foundation: expansion of private insurance companies.
Political opponents warn that the ACA’S healthcare reforms will result in rationing.
Along these lines, the organization Physicians for a National Health Program has determined that the most cost-effective route is Medicare for all. Medicare’s administrative costs are 3%, whereas private insurance runs 31%. The additional funds could be utilized to cover the uninsured.
Yes, there are some waiting lines in Canada for elective procedures, but Canada spends about half what we do per capita on healthcare. With our current spending level, we need not have lines here. In any case, under universal Medicare, any rationing that might someday be required would be based on medical need as determined by your physician, not by insurance companies.
The only way to get a handle on both costs and access is universal Medicare. That is the solution, not privatization and placing the burden directly on a powerless consumer/patient with little information and even less clout relative to providers. Because of the meekness shown by Congress in its reform efforts, we suspect that the situation will be much worse in another 15 or 20 years when it is next addressed by our children.
Jack Bernard Retired healthcare executive
Evan Weisman Retired cardiologist
Atlanta companies because they hire people from another country to manage your account. Is there anything wrong with this picture? Cathy Whitaker