A
AbelMalcolm
Guest
I've given up trying to argue with Republicans on the need of a national health insurance system
here, like they have in all the rest of all the advanced and civilized democracies of the world. I
swear, especially in these newsgroups, it seems obvious that Republicans just take an evil delight
in seeing their fellow human beings suffer. So screw the Repugs. I want to debate with people who
really do have compassion, not those who blatantly lie about having it.
Why we need a "single payer" system. Because Doctors waste most of their invaluable time, with one-
fourth of the cost of their medical care being wasted on complicated burueacracies, such as on HMO's
who micromanage their decisions, and on consulting formularies before they can prescribe medicines,
& on the filling out of hundreds of long, complicated and confusing insurance forms, e.t.c. This is
also referred to as "overhead" cost. What Doctors would rather do is spend their time caring for
sick people.
One fourth of the cost of our medical care could be shaved off if we had a "single payer" system.
That is, a single streamlined system, minus the bureacracy. The government run Medicare system does
this, and their overhead cost is only 2%.
There's no reason why we shouldn't have a "single payer" national health plan, like they have in the
rest of the non-Republican democratic and civilized world? Keep in mind that a national health plan
is not supposed to be a 1st class system that is superior to every thing else. It is for those
hapless souls who have no health insurance at all. And so it may not seem like much of a service to
the likes of fascists like Rush Limbaugh, and they will inevitably deride it ad nauseum, but to the
40+ million Americans who have no health insurance at all, it is EVERYTHING to them, and a definite
life saver.
Abel Malcolm http://www.amnesty.org
_______
Time for single payer?
Ruth Rosen
Monday, December 29, 2003
San Francisco Chronicle
sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=3D/chronicle/archive/2003/12/29/EDGS53U1CM1.DT= L
DON'T BE SURPRISED if health care turns out to be the sleeper issue in the 2004 presidential
campaign and if a majority of Americans eventually decide that a single-payer system is the most cost-
efficient way to provide health care for everyone.
Why? Because our health system -- a fragmented hodgepodge of private and public-health plans --
is broken.
HMOs -- which pay huge amounts for administrative and bureaucratic costs, advertising and
skyrocketing drug prices -- no longer can contain costs. They have also turned the health-care
system into a blizzard of paperwork.
Physicians who recently resisted a single-payer system have grown increasingly resentful of HMO
bureaucrats who micromanage their medical decisions. Inadequate reimbursements are driving some out
of business. They also dislike having to consult dozens of drug lists or formularies before they can
prescribe medicine for their patients. They'd rather spend time caring for sick people.
Businesses, which seek a level playing field, may also become supporters of a single-payer system.
Consider the inequities they face. General Motors, which has a huge group of retired workers, must
pay for their lifetime health costs. Newer companies, however, either don't offer health-care
benefits to workers or retired workers or don't yet have any retired workers to worry about.
Labor, too, is a natural constituency for a single-payer system. The three-monthlong grocery
workers' strike in Southern California against major supermarkets has highlighted the burden
businesses now bear for paying for their workers' health care. How can Safeway, which has paid
decent wages and benefits, compete with union-busting Wal-Mart, which pays subsistence wages and
offers health-care insurance at unaffordable premiums?
It can't. To avoid a race to the bottom, each employer should not have to pay for their
workers' health care. Instead, through an equitable tax, they should contribute to a single-
payer health system.
And don't forget the 40 million uninsured Americans. Soon after the Medicare bill passed, Senate
Majority leader Bill Frist announced that Republicans would next try to address the medical needs of
those who lack medical insurance. These are people whose votes could be captured by any candidate
who promises to reduce their anxieties about getting health care.
The wealthy, too, may come to view single payer as a better alternative. Why? Because one of the
best kept secrets in the United States, according to the American Hospital Association, is that 80
percent of our emergency rooms are overcrowded and the average wait is four hours. The poor, of
course, already know this. But when middle class and wealthy Americans with heart attacks or serious
injuries discover that they, too, may be diverted from one hospital to another, they may reconsider
the value of their "excellent" medical insurance.
The fact is, most hospitals operate with "a just-in-time inventory" that works just fine for an
average Tuesday evening in May. But on a Saturday night during the winter flu season, emergency
rooms are filled with children and elderly people with high temperatures, along with heart attack
victims and people bleeding from knife or gunshot wounds. (Don't even think about what might happen
after a bio-terrorist attack, a fire or an earthquake.) Triage nurses must decide who will receive
medical attention. When all the emergency rooms are filled to capacity, some patients lie on gurneys
in the hall, waiting for an intensive-care bed and monitor.
By contrast, a single-payer system would reduce the burden on emergency rooms by providing everyone
with primary care in physicians' offices and outpatient facilities.
A single-payer system would also cost less. The overhead for Medicare is only 2 percent; for private
insurance it is up to 25 percent.
Health care is a human right, not a privilege. If you don't believe this now, you might change your
mind if and when you find yourself in need of life- saving care in a hospital emergency room.
E-mail Ruth Rosen at [email protected] =A0
here, like they have in all the rest of all the advanced and civilized democracies of the world. I
swear, especially in these newsgroups, it seems obvious that Republicans just take an evil delight
in seeing their fellow human beings suffer. So screw the Repugs. I want to debate with people who
really do have compassion, not those who blatantly lie about having it.
Why we need a "single payer" system. Because Doctors waste most of their invaluable time, with one-
fourth of the cost of their medical care being wasted on complicated burueacracies, such as on HMO's
who micromanage their decisions, and on consulting formularies before they can prescribe medicines,
& on the filling out of hundreds of long, complicated and confusing insurance forms, e.t.c. This is
also referred to as "overhead" cost. What Doctors would rather do is spend their time caring for
sick people.
One fourth of the cost of our medical care could be shaved off if we had a "single payer" system.
That is, a single streamlined system, minus the bureacracy. The government run Medicare system does
this, and their overhead cost is only 2%.
There's no reason why we shouldn't have a "single payer" national health plan, like they have in the
rest of the non-Republican democratic and civilized world? Keep in mind that a national health plan
is not supposed to be a 1st class system that is superior to every thing else. It is for those
hapless souls who have no health insurance at all. And so it may not seem like much of a service to
the likes of fascists like Rush Limbaugh, and they will inevitably deride it ad nauseum, but to the
40+ million Americans who have no health insurance at all, it is EVERYTHING to them, and a definite
life saver.
Abel Malcolm http://www.amnesty.org
_______
Time for single payer?
Ruth Rosen
Monday, December 29, 2003
San Francisco Chronicle
sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=3D/chronicle/archive/2003/12/29/EDGS53U1CM1.DT= L
DON'T BE SURPRISED if health care turns out to be the sleeper issue in the 2004 presidential
campaign and if a majority of Americans eventually decide that a single-payer system is the most cost-
efficient way to provide health care for everyone.
Why? Because our health system -- a fragmented hodgepodge of private and public-health plans --
is broken.
HMOs -- which pay huge amounts for administrative and bureaucratic costs, advertising and
skyrocketing drug prices -- no longer can contain costs. They have also turned the health-care
system into a blizzard of paperwork.
Physicians who recently resisted a single-payer system have grown increasingly resentful of HMO
bureaucrats who micromanage their medical decisions. Inadequate reimbursements are driving some out
of business. They also dislike having to consult dozens of drug lists or formularies before they can
prescribe medicine for their patients. They'd rather spend time caring for sick people.
Businesses, which seek a level playing field, may also become supporters of a single-payer system.
Consider the inequities they face. General Motors, which has a huge group of retired workers, must
pay for their lifetime health costs. Newer companies, however, either don't offer health-care
benefits to workers or retired workers or don't yet have any retired workers to worry about.
Labor, too, is a natural constituency for a single-payer system. The three-monthlong grocery
workers' strike in Southern California against major supermarkets has highlighted the burden
businesses now bear for paying for their workers' health care. How can Safeway, which has paid
decent wages and benefits, compete with union-busting Wal-Mart, which pays subsistence wages and
offers health-care insurance at unaffordable premiums?
It can't. To avoid a race to the bottom, each employer should not have to pay for their
workers' health care. Instead, through an equitable tax, they should contribute to a single-
payer health system.
And don't forget the 40 million uninsured Americans. Soon after the Medicare bill passed, Senate
Majority leader Bill Frist announced that Republicans would next try to address the medical needs of
those who lack medical insurance. These are people whose votes could be captured by any candidate
who promises to reduce their anxieties about getting health care.
The wealthy, too, may come to view single payer as a better alternative. Why? Because one of the
best kept secrets in the United States, according to the American Hospital Association, is that 80
percent of our emergency rooms are overcrowded and the average wait is four hours. The poor, of
course, already know this. But when middle class and wealthy Americans with heart attacks or serious
injuries discover that they, too, may be diverted from one hospital to another, they may reconsider
the value of their "excellent" medical insurance.
The fact is, most hospitals operate with "a just-in-time inventory" that works just fine for an
average Tuesday evening in May. But on a Saturday night during the winter flu season, emergency
rooms are filled with children and elderly people with high temperatures, along with heart attack
victims and people bleeding from knife or gunshot wounds. (Don't even think about what might happen
after a bio-terrorist attack, a fire or an earthquake.) Triage nurses must decide who will receive
medical attention. When all the emergency rooms are filled to capacity, some patients lie on gurneys
in the hall, waiting for an intensive-care bed and monitor.
By contrast, a single-payer system would reduce the burden on emergency rooms by providing everyone
with primary care in physicians' offices and outpatient facilities.
A single-payer system would also cost less. The overhead for Medicare is only 2 percent; for private
insurance it is up to 25 percent.
Health care is a human right, not a privilege. If you don't believe this now, you might change your
mind if and when you find yourself in need of life- saving care in a hospital emergency room.
E-mail Ruth Rosen at [email protected] =A0