SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH INSURANCE SYSTEM

           

With the President and most Republicans in Congress calling for repeal of Obamacare, and Republicans not able to get consensus on a new plan, we should consider the options that could easily solve our healthcare problems.

Canada and most of the countries of Europe have single-payer health insurance systems. I’m sure they are perplexed by our pretensions of being the world’s leading nation when we don’t even have a modern health insurance system. Under a single-payer system the American Government could provide health insurance for all citizens just as it does now for those on Medicare. It would also cover dental, eye, and psychiatric care.

There is another possibility. With the “Public Option,” a single-payer system would allow people who are not eligible for Medicare to purchase Medicare insurance from the government for prices far lower than they would pay under the current system. Although there was a strong effort made in Congress to include a “Public Option” when the ACA (Obamacare) was enacted, that effort was defeated by senators like Joe Lieberman from Connecticut--the insurance capital of America.

The main reason we do not have single-payer system is not that the public opposes such a change. Many polls show that Americans would prefer a universal health insurance program comparable to the system in Canada over the current system. Some 58 percent of respondents in a Gallup Poll support replacing ObamaCare with a universal healthcare system.

Nor is the reason we do not have a single-payer system that such a system would be more expensive for taxpayers and the government than the kind of private insurance system we have now. A single-payer system would actually save billions of dollars in health insurance costs. Private insurance companies in the U.S. spend about $400 billion a year on administrative costs. Under a single-payer system, in which Medicare takes-over payment of all healthcare costs, virtually all of those administrative costs would be swallowed by the Medicare department of the government. The government would simply provide Medicare for everybody, not just seniors.

 Medicare for everybody would also save billions of dollars for taxpayers. It would cost individuals only an extra 2 percent in taxes, or around $1,200 per year for someone earning $60,000 a year. That’s substantially less than most people currently have to pay for health insurance under the ACA.

The reason we do not have single-payer system is not that the quality of healthcare under a single-payer system would suffer. The truth is that our current healthcare system is very far from the best in the world. The countries with single-payer systems are doing far better than we are. The World Health Organization ranks the United States healthcare system 37^th in the World, behind Canada and all of the single-payer health care countries in Europe (We did beat-out Slovenia and Brunei).

The main reason why we do not have a single-payer system is that such a system would reduce the revenue of private insurance companies, and those companies have used their enormous power and wealth to strong-arm Republican and conservative Democratic legislators into blocking it.

A single-payer system would not put all health insurance companies out of business. They would be able to go on providing several types of health insurance, including the kind that we call “Medigap,” which is used by seniors today to pay for costs not covered by Medicare. They would also still be able go on selling Life, Property, and many other kinds of insurance.

           Right-wing demagogues will argue that a single-payer program is “socialized medicine.” That is mendacious nonsense. The same people argue that Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare are socialized medicine. A single-payer system would not do away with private doctors. Under a single-payer system, people would be able to choose their own doctors, specialists, clinics, and hospitals.

Do we want to save lives and make it possible for everybody to have quality healthcare under an inexpensive system, or do we want to preserve the profits and privileges of the private insurance industry?