eg: UK or Brides UK or Classical Art or Buy Music or Spirituality
 
eg: UK or Brides UK or Classical Art or Buy Music or Spirituality
 

Your Online Guide » Politics and Policy » Globalization of World Politics

[S502]Single Payer Health Plan
by Kate Loving Shenk, Kat

1) The government can't run anything. I don't trust the government.

The current gang in Washington may be a good reason not to trust the government to do ANYTHING right.

However, Medicare and Social Security are good examples of systems that run well and on time. People receive their checks the same time every month and health care is provided: on time.

2) I'm a free market person and don't want any part of "socialized medicine."

Single Payer Insurance is defined as a single government fund with each state which pays hospitals, physicians and other health care providers, thus replacing the current multi-payer system of private insurance companies.

It would provide coverage for the fifty million people who are uninsured.

It would eliminate the financial threat and impaired access to care for tens of millions who do not have coverage and are unable to afford the out-of-pocket expenses because of deficiencies in their insurance plans.

It would return to the patient free choice of health care provider and hospitals, not the choice that only the restrictive health plans allow.

It would relieve businesses of the administrative hassle and expense of maintaining a health benefits program.

It would remove from the health care equation the middleman-the managed care industry-that has broken the traditional doctor-patient relationship, while diverting outrageous amounts of patient care dollars to their own coffers.

It would control health care inflation through constructive mechanisms of cost containment that improve allocation of our health care resources, rather than controlling costs through an impersonal business ethic that robs patients of care so as to increase profits for the privileged few. Single Payer Universal Health Care would provide access to high quality care for everyone at affordable prices.

3) Canadians have long waiting periods and come to the U.S. for their health care needs. Therefore, such a plan would make for waiting periods in the U.S.

First of all, ask almost any Canadian if they would trade our system for theirs. The answer is a resounding "NO."

They may have to wait for elective surgeries, for instance, but we have to wait for these kinds of surgeries, as well.

Canadians have the option to buy extra coverage to get heroic measures covered, say in the case of Cancer treatment.

At 9% of their GDP, they are spending much less than we are as a nation. We, the wealthiest nation on earth, spend 14 % of our GDP.

4) Our country cannot afford to insure everyone.

Our country already has enough funds dedicated to health care to provide the highest quality of care for everyone. Studies have shown that under a single payer system, comprehensive care can be provided for everyone without spending any more funds than are now being spent.

Not only do we have more than sufficient funds, we are also a nation that is infamous for our excess health care capacity. Typical of these excesses is the fact that there are more MRI scanners in Orange County, CA than in all of Canada.

With our generous funding and the tremendous capacity of our health care delivery system, the delays would not be a significant limiting factor in the U.S.

5) Americans do not want "Socialized Medicine."

Socialized medicine is a system in which the government owns the facilities, and the providers of care are government employees.

In sharp contrast, a single payer system uses the existing private and public sector health care delivery systems, preserving private ownership and employment. The unique feature of a single payer system is that all health care risks are placed in a universal risk pool, covering everyone. The pool is funded in a fair and equitable manner so that everyone pays their fair share in taxes, unlike our current defective system in which some pay far too much while others are not paying their share. The funds are allocated through a publicly administered program resulting in optimum use of our health care dollars.

A single payer system has no more in common with socialized medicine than our current Medicare program.

Socialism is a dirty word in this country. Universal health care for all has been equated with socialism, and much propaganda has been communicated by the press, by right wing politicians, by medical groups such as the AMA or anyone else who has an agenda to keep the 1500 plus health insurance companies a thriving market with profits that undoubtedly help to pay for their agendas.

6) A Universal Single-Payer would lower the standard of care to a level of mediocrity for everyone, preventing the affluent from exercising his or her option to obtain the highest level of care.

Our current system is characterized by essentially two alternatives: either no insurance with severely impaired access to even a mediocre level of care, or being insured by a managed care industry that has whittled down what is available until mediocrity has become the standard of care. Only the relatively affluent have access to unlimited care.

The generous level of funds that we have already dedicated to health care, adding to this a more efficient administration with an exclusive mission of optimum patient care well above the mediocrity that we now have, lays the foundation for a universal health care system in America.

A single payer system does not preclude the affluent from paying, outside the system, for a penthouse suite in the hospital, or for cosmetic surgery or for any other service that would not be part of a publicly funded program.

But if Americans knew the truth, and would turn off their TVs and use that time instead to change this country, using the power of grassroots politics, to make a single payer universal system a reality for all, then we would finally have the best health care system in the world.

Any group with the passion to change the world, one issue at a time, with a loving intent, can do it.




Health Care For All PA is taking this initiative to the next level, which I will explain shortly.

Meanwhile, the press ignores these Bills.

Meanwhile, the HighMark/Independent Blue Cross (IBX) merger is building its case.

Meanwhile, Governor Rendell plans to pass PA ABC which will cover only 200,000 Pennsylvanians, out of the 1.4 million who currently have no health insurance at all.

This will make a bad situation much, much worse here in the Commonwealth.

But no matter how media and corporate monopolies ignore the inevitable, we are heading toward Single Payer one way or the other.

Single Payer is publically funded while the Blues are privately funded.

The insurance companies compete against the for profit powers represented by Aetna and United and all the rest while Single Payer is designed for the public good.

One enriches shareholders and an elite few while the other is designed to provide quality, affordable health care for everyone here in Pennsylvania.

The IBX/Highmark merger has prompted concern among critics about competition in the insurance market and clout the new company would wield in setting reimbursement rates for hospitals and doctors, an article in Pittsburgh's "Business Times", May 26, 2008 states.

The consolidation of IBX and Highmark is the largest insurance company deal ever proposed within any state and will create a $22 billion dollar company.

Our grassroots group, Health Care 4 All PA, supports Single Payer because it's the best way to fulfill our mission: to bring quality, affordable health care to all Pennsylvanians.

We've decided to protest the merger because it runs counter to our mission.

Governor Rendell has cut a deal with Highmark and IBX to help them get the merger approved in return for their help, financial and otherwise, in passing PA ABC.

PA ABC replaces Adult Basic which provides health insurance to approximately 55,000 poor Pennsylvanians.

Approximately 95,000 are on the waiting list and these plus 120,000 others would in theory gain access to PA ABC.

However, because there is a 4% annual increase by the health insurance companies after the second year, and add to this increased rates for participants under PA ABC than they were paying under Adult Basic, you can safely project that poorer Pennsylvanians will be forced to lose health insurance coverage.

People on the waiting list will potentially be withdrawing their names.

The Governor is not telling us the truth: that at the very least, PA ABC is under funded and enrollment ends when the money is spent.

Yet Rendell continues to assert that PA ABC will cover everyone.

Additionally, PA ABC will also reinstate the State subsidy for malpractice insurance which the Governor had withdrawn previously, in the attempt to gain support for PA ABC.

Malpractice would only be reinstated, however, for those physicians who add the PA ABC patients as enrollees, with payout at low Medicaid-like fees.

Health Care 4 All PA needs to empower those legislatures who resist this ploy by helping them to see that resisting this makes moral sense.

(Thanks to Jerry Policoff for making available the above statistics on Adult Basic and PA ABC. Jerry will be writing a more comprehendsive article on this very topic in the days to come).

Governor Rendell is on record as saying he will sign HB 1660 if it comes across his desk.

Our grassroots efforts have many dimensions. We see the corruption of the insurance companies and we see the politicians who pander to them.

But to date, we have 43 sponsors for HB 1660 and SB 300 in the State House and Senate.

Our growing grassroots movement needs to become aggressively disciplined and organized to fight the forces of ignorance here in Pennsylvania.

So we have taken it to the next level which is: Gaining support for an economic impact study to outline exactly how much Universal Access to health care will cost in the Commonwealth.

We need the economic impact study because our group is not a legislative body.

The study does not guarantee passage, but makes the case for passage.

Keep in mind that Rendell's PA ABC did not have an economic impact study.

Sounds like it could have used one.

The Casino and Gaming initiatives had no economic impact study.

The bar is set higher for us.

We've hit every standard and crossed it.

We will not back down.

We will get the money for the economic impact study in the Autumn of this year.
Article Source : aqa resources

Kate Loving Shenk has sinced written about articles on various topics from Fitness, self improvement and motivation and Pixel Advertising. Kate Loving Shenk is a writer, healer, musician and the creator of the e-book called "Transform Your Nursing Career and Discover Your Calling and Destiny." Click here to find out how to order the e-book:. Kate Loving Shenk's top article generates over 90500 views. Bookmark Kate Loving Shenk to your Favourites.
EditorialToday Politics and Policy has 3 sub sections. Such as Famous Politicians, International Politics Relations and General Elections. With over 20,000 authors and writers, we are a well known online resource and editorial services site in United Kingdom, Canada & America . Here, we cover all the major topics from self help guide to A Guide to Business, Guide to Finance, Ideas for Marketing, Legal Guide, Lettre De Motivation, Guide to Insurance, Guide to Health, Guide to Medical, Military Service, Guide to Women, Pet Guide, Politics and Policy , Guide to Technology, The Travel Guide, Information on Cars, Entertainment Guide, Family Guide to, Hobbies and Interests, Quality Home Improvement, Arts & Humanities and many more.
About Editorial Today | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Submit an Article | Our Authors