RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Why we need single-payer



Toolbox

Published: May 17, 2009

I found it fascinating that the nation's hospitals, insurance companies and drug makers have pledged that they will voluntarily "slow their rate of increases" by 1.5 percent per year over the coming years.

These corporations are ruled by the principle of the most profit they can exact by any means, not limited by any sense of what is reasonable nor what is good for the country and its people. You can be sure that if they are going to give up 1.5 percent of their income per year, they are still going to make a very hefty profit.

Therefore, it follows that they have, implicitly, proven that they have been ripping us off at an unconscionable rate.

As one who has lived under a national health care system for a number of years in one of the smaller but most enlightened countries, I can tell you that such a system works to everyone's benefit and I never heard anyone complain they didn't like it.

It provided as much choice as anyone could want. The organization and efficiency of the system resulted in costs far, far less than what we suffer with in the United States. The portion of income taxes that covered its cost amounted to considerably less than we pay in premiums for the massive profits, grotesque executive pay, and inefficiencies of our so-called medical system. And that nation's people were far healthier than the U.S. population.

President Obama has already said that if he were "starting from scratch," he would opt for a single-payer, national health care system. I think it is time we started from scratch.

Edward C. Day

East Montpelier Center








READER COMMENTS


If you don't like the price of gas, think of what it would cost if there was only one Brand/Dealer from you had to buy from! That Brand/Dealer could charge whatever the market could bear because they are the only deal in town.

Now shift that to Heath Care the same would apply. 20 Years ago a single person could buy heath care coverage for about $50-60 month.

Today that basic policy would cost almost $300. A major reason is because in the State of Vermont you have limited choice. Yes cost have gone up and all that but where there is no choice there is little price control.

Single pay is never a good choice because there is no choice. Open the market, require basic equal coverage and let the market decied the cost and you'll find the cost for coverage will be less.
-- Posted by M Mobae on Thu, May 21, 2009, 6:27 am EST

report this comment


Oh look, Richard Sanders learned how to post a link! Congrats, Dick! Now lets see if you can post another one instead of just the same one over and over again. Too hard for ya? What's the matter, couldn't get your head out after posing for the photo?
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Tue, May 19, 2009, 2:05 pm EST

report this comment


The purpose of any company in a capitalistic economy is to make a profit. How else would they get folks to finance the company? Would you buy stock for your 401K where there was no chance of a dividend or of the stock increasing in value?

Actually I beleive that Richard Tarrant in his run for the senate suggested that the medicare model was a good one for a health insurance program. He thought that the beaucracy for handling claims was in place and that perhaps folks under age 65 could be allowed to participate by paying increased monthly premiums appropriate to their age.

However he was the only candidate that actually discussed the cost of health care in the USA. As he put it 'no matter who is paying for it, the cost is too high'. Someone has to evaluate the overall cost of all aspects of health care and find ways to reduce the COST not just transfer the responsibility of who will be paying. In the end it is the consumer/taxpayer who pays.
-- Posted by northstar62 on Tue, May 19, 2009, 7:45 am EST

report this comment


Every industrial democracy ... has health care for all citizens. Which one of the codgers mouthing off here is willing to give up their Medicare coverag? Who thinks private insurance is better than that? Hello, Medicare IS single payer!
-- Posted by Juliet Chien on Mon, May 18, 2009, 9:18 pm EST

report this comment


Comfy looking for none none,

http://www.bored.com/photos/headupass.html
-- Posted by Richard Sanders on Mon, May 18, 2009, 5:08 pm EST

report this comment


Mark, I think it is appropriate that you would question how deeply you want the government involved in the intimate details of your life. The thing is, right now it is the insurance companies that are all up in your game (if you have health insurance) and their ONLY concern is profit. Mind you I am not saying that profit is a bad thing, but there has to be health care for everyone..it is a matter of public health. It is, as you pointed out I think, critical that health care for everyone does not turn into a form of governmental micromanagement (as insurance companies already have in many ways) People still need to maintain the right to make personal choices, even bad ones. People must not be required to give up their rights just to get the care that they need to maintain or repair health.
If our government is functioning as it is supposed to, I think it would follow that our rights would be more protected with universal health care (because it is our gov't that is not allowed to violate these rights) than they are now by insurance companies that really don't need to concern themselves with such trivialities.
I don't think it is any simple task, but if we do it right, (maybe we could use recent educational models to see what not to do), the whole country could be a lot better off for it.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Mon, May 18, 2009, 2:04 pm EST

report this comment


Meh.. Relax everyone. If it were illegal. We wouldn't have State Healthcare systems.

I didn't say the individual states couldn't do it. In fact Article 10 makes it clear that if it is not specifically listed in the Constitution then the rights of the states takes over.

Article 10:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

So Yes, National health care is illegal.
-- Posted by Dave Holleran on Mon, May 18, 2009, 12:15 pm EST

report this comment


When I consider how prone gov't is to abusing its power (like illegal telephone wiretapping, for ex), I am uncomfortable with the idea of putting the gov't in direct control over the most intimate details of my life.

In the public forum, I am astonished at the inconsistency I see -- often, it seems the same vociferous critics of gov't are suddenly lovers of that very same gov't as soon as the topic changes to something they want, like health care. So, if we don't trust Big Brother on military spending, water-boarding, and telephone wiretapping, why are we so eager to trust him with our intimate medical details?

..
-- Posted by mark on Mon, May 18, 2009, 11:26 am EST

report this comment


Dave?

To much coffee today? Feeling a bit tired? confused?
-- Posted by None None on Mon, May 18, 2009, 11:18 am EST

report this comment


Meh.. Relax everyone. If it were illegal. We wouldn't have State Healthcare systems.

Some form of national healthcare could be good.

Now... If you want something you feel is better. You are entitled to do that. And if they gave some sort of kickback to those that choose not to use the National system. Then that would work fine.

So, It wouldn't be an act against our constitution.

It would be a NATIONAL HEALTHCARE system in place of all state healthcare systems. If all states could agree with it.
-- Posted by None None on Mon, May 18, 2009, 11:16 am EST

report this comment


By the way, the US government does not have the authority to force a national health care policy on its citizens. No where in the Constitution does such a power exits (read it sometimes). National Health care is an illegal act.
-- Posted by Dave Holleran on Mon, May 18, 2009, 8:24 am EST

report this comment


I dont think this "enlightened small country" exists. I have yet to see ONE country with govt run health care that works. Look at Canada- where health-care is "free," but access to it is largely unavailable. There is a shortage of doctors, nurses and hospital beds, and the wait for even the most basic treatment is horrible. Ever wonder why hospitals in NY and Washington place billboards in Canada advertising services, which, by law, Canadian's are not permitted to pay for? Why do you think thousands come here every year for medical services they could get for free in Canada?

Look at Britain, where according to the WHO, 25,000 people die UNNECESSARILY of cancer every year! Do you know why? Because according to experts, Britain's universal heath care system has "third world cancer care"...

YOU SHOW ME ONE COUNTRY WHERE ITS BETTER, PEOPLE HAVE MORE ACCESS TO TREATMENT, THE MEDICINES ARE MORE SOPHISTICATED, THE DOCTORS BETTER, OR YOU HAVE GREATER FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND I WILL SIGN RIGHT UP. YOU CAN'T. SUCH A PLACE DOESNT EXIST....IF SOCIALIZED MEDICINE IS SO MUCH BETTER THEN GO TO CUBA FOR YOUR NEXT MEDICAL PROCEDURE AND TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK...

Dont let these left-wing idiots destroy our heathcare system. They will have you believe it leads to better care and cheaper costs for all. All it is, is another way to tax the crap out of us. You think they are gonna deny care to illegal immigrants? They wont let individual states do it. Can you say free ride for many at a large cost for the few?

Why should my taxes increase so you can take your little brat down to the doctor and get him on ritalin? Or pay for some illegal immigrant that snuck in the country and doesnt pay any taxes in, but uses the healthcare services..My taxes already support your subsidised housing, fuel assistance and foodstamps, along with all the other welfare programs. Now you want me to pick up your healthcare too?

I have a great idea. You pay your own damn bills and I will continue to bust my ass at my job paying mine. Dont believe what they are telling you, the single-payer idea, while it sounds great, is total crap. I cant afford it. Neither can you.



"As one who has lived under a national health care system for a number of years in one of the smaller but most enlightened countries, I can tell you that such a system works to everyone's benefit and I never heard anyone complain they didn't like it.

It provided as much choice as anyone could want. The organization and efficiency of the system resulted in costs far, far less than what we suffer with in the United States. The portion of income taxes that covered its cost amounted to considerably less than we pay in premiums for the massive profits, grotesque executive pay, and inefficiencies of our so-called medical system. And that nation's people were far healthier than the U.S. population."

BS. SO, EDWARD DAY, WHERE IS THIS COUNTRY? IM WAITING....
-- Posted by rutvegas on Sun, May 17, 2009, 1:28 pm EST

report this comment


Right on Edward, could'nt agree more!
-- Posted by Mountain Boy on Sun, May 17, 2009, 11:50 am EST

report this comment


And how about a little deserved blame for the greedier still trial lawyers... the ones who happen to be in the dem's hip pocket by the way, or vice versa.

Serious tort reform would greatly reduce health costs, more than any of these BS notions the left throw around.
-- Posted by Allen Kuusela on Sun, May 17, 2009, 10:45 am EST

report this comment


I, too, would like to know what country you are referring to. I wonder, if I entered that country illegally would the hospitals offer me free medical care as is the practice in the U.S.? A large part of the problem in the U.S. is that the working people who actually pay for their medical care are also paying for the illegals who do not pay for health insurance or for medical care.

It's easy to place the blame on "greedy" drug companies, but that argument no longer holds water.
-- Posted by Patty None on Sun, May 17, 2009, 9:15 am EST

report this comment


Only in the liberal lexicon is "profit" a dirty word!

Stop and think where you would be right now if no company had ever been allowed to make a profit. You would have exactly NONE of the items you fill your home with today. You would not have cures for 98% of the diseases and illnesses that we are subject to. Yeah, we'd be doing well! NOT!

And this whole notion of "single payer" healthcare is a joke anyway. First it doesn't work. It is far too expensive... ask San Francisco where the costs went more than 10 times the "expert" estimates and they can't pay for it. Most of those who want this "single payer" healthcare are the ones who want something for nothing, conveniently forgetting that it is those of us who actually work that pay for it.

I suppose in Vermont, it may come to that, and by that I really mean "single payer" because soon in this bankrupt, welfare state, there may only be one person left in the state with an actual job, paying for the hundreds of thousands of citizens who choose not to work and yet still insist on lining up at the doctor's offices and ER's and demanding the best treatment that single payer's money can buy.
-- Posted by Allen Kuusela on Sun, May 17, 2009, 7:06 am EST

report this comment


nice letter
-- Posted by bruce meyer on Sun, May 17, 2009, 7:02 am EST

report this comment


It would be helpful if we knew which small enlightened country we were talking about so we could compare apples to apples.

In all the discusion of health care in the US I hear of lowering the cost but never see any discussion of how that will happen. Do we nationlize the drug companies and dictate what research they will be permitted to do, what drugs they will be allowed to manufacture, how much these drugs will cost? Do we nationalize the hopitals and tell them who to admit, who to treat and who are not worthy of treatment because they are too old or too sick to waste their valuable assets on?

All the discussion that I hear is about who will pay the bills. Will it be the Feds. The state, the employer, the employee. The discussion needs to focus more on what is the cause of increasing medical costs are. Why are drugs so expensive. Is it research? Is it the cost of educating new doctors? Is it the fact that folks are ready to sue a doctor, hospital or drug company if they don't get the result that they want? Every wants their doctor to be the great healer. Their decision and treatment to be all that is necessary to put us back the way we felt when we were young and healthy. That is fantasy. Life isn't that way. Sometimes despite the best efforts of all concerned you will get sicker and even die. Doctors are not divine. They cannot heal with a touch.

Drug companies cannot create drugs that cure everything and they cannot create drugs that won't have a negative side effect for some patient.

The Govt. is not "The Answer" by itself. They can be part of the solution by strict testing of drugs to try and insure that there are fewer drugs out there with fewer side effect. They can regulate where drug companies advertise. Advertising prescription products to the general public is wrong. It costs a fortune and is telling the public that they know more about their care than the trained doctor. They should tell their doctor that they want this product or that product based on what they are told on TV or in magazines. That's backwards. It is the doctor who is trained to make that decision, not the patient or the folks on madison ave.

Believe me that the politicians do not want a solution to health care. They get to mluch money from all concerned, The health industry, the lawyers and the "public service lobbiests". Beside it's a great issue to batter their opponents with.

Her's another question to ponder. Why is the cost of education going up at staggering rates as well? Are all the kids that much smarter than they were 30 years ago? Are they that much more prepared to find jobs and manage their financial lives? I don't think so.
-- Posted by northstar62 on Sun, May 17, 2009, 6:44 am EST

report this comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout