Who’s Talking about Single Payer?

With millions of uninsured people in the US, an international economic crisis, and a new administration committed to health care reform, we are now at a more critical time than ever to be asking; “How can we achieve affordable, universal health care in the US?”  “How can we make health for all happen here?”

While the Obama administration and the media have discussed many options for health care reform in recent months, one possibility has been consistently ignored: single payer health care.  Single payer, currently outlined in House bill H.R. 676, means that the government would be the only provider of health insurance for all residents of the US.

Unlike our current system, where a myriad of private health insurance companies drive up administrative costs and exact huge profits, care providers under single payer would bill only the government. People could freely choose where to go for care, and single payer would eliminate co-pays, deductibles, and employer contributions.  At the same time, additional taxes would be added to individuals and employers (see the Healthcare-NOW website for a clear explanation of how H.R. 676 funding would work).

Overall, the program would reduce health care costs for families and businesses, and could even be considered a key economic stimulus. Most importantly, it would guarantee the right to health and health care for all residents. Coverage would include primary health care, prescription drugs, mental health care, dental care, eye care, and long term care, among other provisions. 

Single payer models of health care have long proven effective elsewhere in the world, in countries such as Canada and Australia.  Closer to home, San Francisco’s universal health care program, “Healthy San Francisco,” has not only resulted in better health outcomes but also reduced costs for the city (see the 2009 report pdf). If it has worked in all of these places, why not in the US nationally?

President Obama, who as a state senator described himself as “a proponent of single-payer universal health care coverage,” has since argued that it is too impractical to dismantle the current insurance system. At his Health Care Summit on March 5, he initially invited no advocates of single payer, and only opened the dialogue to Rep. John Conyers and Dr. Oliver Fein of Physicians for a National Health Program after public outrage and pressure. Fein´s informative blog about the summit emphasizes the continuing obstacles to even discussing single payer as a serious option.  In a recent documentary by PBS, “Sick Around America,” mandatory for-profit health insurance was treated as the only alternative to the current system, and single payer was ignored completely.

In the face of these obstacles, we need to work hard to make sure the debate stays open and focused on what is most important: achieving health for all in the US.  In our opinion, this means at least keeping single payer on the agenda. To add your voice to the health care debate, visit the action page of Healthcare-NOW: http://www.healthcare-now.org/action/

Note: image from Healthcare-NOW's website

Comments

[R. Putin]

In the US this is all muddled because according to the law everyone already has health care. Any person regardless of ability to pay or any other factor has to be treated by hospitals offering emergency care.

Those without the ability to pay often are covered under numerous other systems. The other systems you have mentioned in Canada and Australia have a greatly lower number of people that they have to take care of. And the level of care varies greatly depending on where in Canada (or Australia I presume) you live.