You are herecontent / The Simple Answer to America’s Health Care Crisis: Medicare for All

The Simple Answer to America’s Health Care Crisis: Medicare for All


By Dave Lindorff

When it comes to reforming America’s disastrous health care “system,” there are two issues that need to be considered: access and cost.

The so-called reform proposals being offered by the Obama White House, the House and the Senate, are failing on both counts, and deserve to die.

No progressives should allow themselves to be suckered into promoting one or the other.

Here’s the problem. As long as the health insurance industry is permitted to be the primary paymaster, the cost of medical care will continue to soar, not least because the insurance industry is so concerned about minimizing its own outlays that it is forcing the system to devote nearly 30% of every health care dollar spent to administrative costs (compared to 3-4 percent for Medicare, and even less for single-payer systems like Canada’s). That’s true whether there is a so-called “public option” government-run health insurance plan or not. Note that 30 percent of America’s $2.5-trillion health care bill per year is $750 billion a year, a sum which does absolutely nothing to make a single person more healthy or less ill. Even if one were to assume that the lion’s share of those administrative expenses were only for the private funded portion of America’s health care system, and for Medicare, the state-run but partly federally-funded portion that is famous for its paperwork mess, and the uninsured, who also consume a lot of paperwork when they do get treated at hospitals under mandated free-care provisions of at the expense of local governments, we’d be talking about 30% of $1.5 trillion, or about $450 billion going to administrative costs every year—still a staggering sum.

Medicare, the health program for the elderly and the disabled, and Medicaid, the federally and state-funded program that funds medical care for the poor, together cost some $850 billion a year. Add to that the $150 billion that hospitals and local governments spend annually to cover the uninsured poor who don’t qualify for Medicaid, and the $50 billion the federal government spends for veterans’ care. That’s just over $1 trillion in government spending to cover the health care of roughly half the population of the United States.

The rest of us—working people and our families—rely on private insurance, some of it paid for by employers, some by us, either as our share of the cost of company plans (growing every year), or as the deductible and co-pay portions of our medical bills. That privately funded medical care costs us about $1.5 trillion a year—50% more than the government spends on the medical care for a roughly equal number of people. If you do the math, it turns out that we who rely on the private sector are spending about $10,000 per person per year on health care, either directly out of our own pockets, or in the form of money our employers are paying into insurance plans for us—money that could otherwise be coming to us in the form of higher wages or lower-priced goods.

What this means is that right off the bat, if the politicians in Washington were to simply thumb their noses at the insurance industry, and at the greedy docs and drug companies who are paying millions in legal bribes to protect their stake in the lucrative medical game, and if they were to extended Medicare to all of us, we could immediately eliminate $500 billion from the nation’s collective medical bill, because that’s how much more cheaply Medicare, Medicaid and the VA are able to treat patients than the private sector. But the savings would be far more than that. The cost of treating the uninsured--$150 billion a year—would be dramatically reduced, because it is currently almost entirely for emergency care at hospitals, the most expensive possible way to deliver medical care. My guess is that at least $100 billion would be saved simply by switching all those people over to Medicare, so they could walk into a doctor’s office for treatment instead of into an ER. The VA, with its separate government-owned hospital system, would become largely redundant if all veterans were simply treatable under Medicare, which would probably save a considerable portion of that $50 billion-per-year expense. Furthermore, by switching private-pay patients over to Medicare, most of the $450 billion a year currently wasted on administrative costs would be eliminated—a savings of perhaps $3-400 billion a year. While some of that would be reflected in the cost differential between privately financed and Medicare financed care, most is not. The main reason Medicare’s per-patient cost for care is much lower than for private pay patients (who, remember, are younger and healthier on average than Medicare patients, and so should be cheaper to treat, not more expensive), is that Medicare sets out payment schedules for doctors and hospitals, and negotiates payments for medicines—all at much lower levels than do private insurers, who often just set reimbursement rates, and let their insured patients cover the difference out of pocket.

Taking all these savings together, it’s a good guess, I would say, that by simply expanding Medicare to cover all Americans without exception, the nation as a whole could save upwards of $900 billion on its current $2.5 trillion annual medical bill.

Now that’s not to say such a change wouldn’t involve a tax increase. The current publicly funded share of that $2.5 trillion bill is about $1 trillion, when you add together federal, state and local outlays, all funded by the taxpayer. An expanded Medicare that covered everyone would, by my reckoning, cost about $1.4 trillion, once all the costs were added, and the savings implemented, including lowered payments to doctors, hospitals and drug companies. So we’d have to cover an extra $400 billion a year through tax increases.

But remember, there would be no more local revenues going to pay for uninsured care at local hospitals, no more state taxes going to pay for Medicaid for medical care for the poor, no more out-of-pocket payments by families for co-pays and deductibles, or for employee share of insurance premiums. And companies would no longer be paying anything for employee health insurance. The net gain to the average person would be enormous.

That’s the point that the medical industry lobby conveniently ignores. It’s a point also conveniently ignored by the politicians they’ve bought in Washington and the White House, who only talk about the increased taxes that a single-payer government takeover of health care finance would entail.

And, to get back to the beginning of this article, there would no longer be an issue of Americans going without access to medical care. Everyone would be on Medicare. And not one of the costly “reform” proposals being pushed through Congress today can say that. Every proposed “reform” plan leaves millions uninsured.

Note too that, under basic Medicare (as long as you don’t get suckered into one of those HMO rip-offs like Humana and other insurance firms advertise), everyone gets to choose his or her own doctor and hospital. There is no gatekeeper system—another bugaboo raised by the health industry lobbyists.

With a universalization of Medicare, at one fell swoop, America would have a single-payer system—one that its elderly citizens already have, and by all accounts are very satisfied with—and one that would be substantially cheaper than what we have now.

For everyone.

Socialized medicine? Maybe, but it’s a socialism we already know. Call it “socialism with American characteristics,” if you like. Or to crib from a comment President Obama made to the fat cat docs at the American Medical Assn. convention recently, it’s a socialism that is “part of the American tradition.”

So, want to have some fun? Tell your congressional delegation to demand that the Congressional Budget Office, which just came up with an estimate that the Senate’s health “reform” bill would add $1.6 trillion in costs over 10 years, do a study of what expanding Medicare to all would cost, after netting out the savings to individuals and employers of having their insurance payments and out-of-pocket health expenses eliminated.
___________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-area journalist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"With so many millions of us without health insurance (or even the ability to afford it), something had to give. Right? Well, remember all the promises during last years’ campaign? Solutions! Solutions! 'Health care for all!' I, for one, sensed a disaster – for the POOR. Why? The stage was being set with proclamations of 'mandatory' requirements from both Clinton and Obama."

The number of bankruptcies attributed to not being able to pay healthcare bills has climbed to 60% of all personal filings. This in a time of an unprecedented mortgage crisis. Now let’s consider that of those medical bankruptcies 75% had been paying for and were “covered” by our private for profit “health insurance” system. In other words nearly half of all bankruptcies arise from folks who had health insurance and still went bankrupt. And yet some still insist that we cannot afford a public healthcare system.

The 2007 Lewin Group Report produced for the supporters of twice vetoed SB840 shows that healthcare insurance premiums rose on average from 2000 until 2006 at 11% a year. If increases had continued at that rate we would be paying 256% more for insurance now in 2009 than in 2000 and 187% more since Schwarzenegger took office. However, we know that premiums are rising much faster now. Some BlueShield plans alone have just raised their rates 19%.

The January 14, 2009 study by the Institute for Health and Socio-economic Policy, IHSP, shows that nationally the passage of HR676, a single payer health insurance plan, would create 2.6 million new jobs. HR676 has 83 sponsors in the current congress. This plan would boost the economy with a $317 billion increase in business and public revenues. It would add $100 billion to the employee compensation. Public budgets would benefit by a $44 billion increase in revenues.

Locally for California, the Lewin Group Report shows that the healthcare bill SB840 would save $8 billion healthcare dollars the first year (2006) and the savings would grow in ten years (2015) to $25 billion. This would save state and local governments about $900 million in the first year at the same time all Californians would have comprehensive healthcare. Compared to projected ten year costs under the current system state and local governments would save a combined total of $343 billion. Businesses would benefit by a 16% reduction compared to the current system, and average family spending would decline to $2,500 a year.

Just who are these so-called fiscal conservative legislators trying to save by denying Californians and all Americans a comprehensive healthcare system? Just how many millions did Schwarzenegger take from big pharma and the medical insurance industry to twice veto SB840 thus contributing to the crash of our state’s economy? Just how are our representatives, Democrats and Republicans alike, unable to see the damage that the current government subsidized for profit private insurance system is doing to families, businesses, and to our local state and national governments?

This is not a temporary economic crisis. This is a crisis in our democratic system of government. How many more months of economic collapse can our system endure before the world will be watching an Iranian style crisis in the United States? Do we really need to wait till then? Single-payer is privately provided healthcare, publicly funded. California’s population is 37 million, Canada’s is 34 million. Canada does not have a single-payer system. Canada’s healthcare is funded by 14 government agencies. AB840 and HR676 are uniquely American systems protecting American values!

and what our congress people are supporting and voting for, is two different things. Both my Senators have said publically that they support private insurance companies regardless, no exceptions. Neither of their comments even mentioned the public itself. Clear to me, they support Greed and Profit over the public's benefit.

Such a refreshing moment when the ACTUAL truth and facts are made available to the public. Very rare in this country today.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.