Medical Coverage Based on Reason
Bill Falzett
April 26, 2006
The recent opinion piece by Doug LaMalfa (R-California State Assembly District 2) in the Marysville-Yuba City Appeal-Democrat is a prime example of the Republican office holders’ inability to get it right. They consistently misinform and mislead. Universal health care as proposed by Senator Kuehl in State Senate Bill is not the same as the Canadian health care system. An independent study by the Lewin Group showed consistent savings by a plan such as SB840 for all levels – consumers, providers, hospitals, and clinics.
A book by investigative journalists, Barlett and Steele, “Critical Condition: How Health Care in America Became Big Business and Bad Medicine” describes other benefits of a universal system along with the problems of our current health care. They indicate that Medicare is the most efficiently run health insurance company in the US. Medicare’s administrative costs run 2-3%; private insurers costs average between 25-35%. Those dollars come out of our pockets.
Since managed care’s inception, healthcare provider numbers have remained relatively constant while administrative positions have increased tenfold. Among those administrative positions are executives with multimillion dollar salaries that again come out of our pockets.
The Canadian system is the only one of its kind. It is described in a recent study by a Canadian government investigator; “More to the point, my report also notes that despite this recent reinvestment, we are still spending less today on health as a share of our GDP than we did decade ago, that our health spending is in-line with that of other wealthy countries.” Canadians are committed to their form of coverage according to recent surveys. They want greater efficiency. They also have a large geographic, rural, sparsely settled area to cover. Comparisons are not appropriate – our systems are apples and oranges.
The real question is how any politician can continue to support the notion of private insurance as an appropriate form under current economic circumstances. We have a system, Medicare, that can do the job of universal coverage. Our country has about 44 million people without coverage. Our emergency rooms are overloaded with people seeking treatment because they have no coverage and leave their health decisions until the problem is unbearable. Private insurers extol the virtues of prevention but do no real funding for it. Health savings accounts benefit healthy people who are well-to-do not the people who really need the coverage.
Who benefits from the system as it now stands? Do you? How much do you pay for coverage? How much does your employer have to pay? Studies show that providers, hospitals, and employers will benefit by 20-30% reductions in costs. Service access would be increased because of the universality of coverage. Think it over and reject the faulty reasoning that characterizes Mr. LaMalfa’s position.
A book by investigative journalists, Barlett and Steele, “Critical Condition: How Health Care in America Became Big Business and Bad Medicine” describes other benefits of a universal system along with the problems of our current health care. They indicate that Medicare is the most efficiently run health insurance company in the US. Medicare’s administrative costs run 2-3%; private insurers costs average between 25-35%. Those dollars come out of our pockets.
Since managed care’s inception, healthcare provider numbers have remained relatively constant while administrative positions have increased tenfold. Among those administrative positions are executives with multimillion dollar salaries that again come out of our pockets.
The Canadian system is the only one of its kind. It is described in a recent study by a Canadian government investigator; “More to the point, my report also notes that despite this recent reinvestment, we are still spending less today on health as a share of our GDP than we did decade ago, that our health spending is in-line with that of other wealthy countries.” Canadians are committed to their form of coverage according to recent surveys. They want greater efficiency. They also have a large geographic, rural, sparsely settled area to cover. Comparisons are not appropriate – our systems are apples and oranges.
The real question is how any politician can continue to support the notion of private insurance as an appropriate form under current economic circumstances. We have a system, Medicare, that can do the job of universal coverage. Our country has about 44 million people without coverage. Our emergency rooms are overloaded with people seeking treatment because they have no coverage and leave their health decisions until the problem is unbearable. Private insurers extol the virtues of prevention but do no real funding for it. Health savings accounts benefit healthy people who are well-to-do not the people who really need the coverage.
Who benefits from the system as it now stands? Do you? How much do you pay for coverage? How much does your employer have to pay? Studies show that providers, hospitals, and employers will benefit by 20-30% reductions in costs. Service access would be increased because of the universality of coverage. Think it over and reject the faulty reasoning that characterizes Mr. LaMalfa’s position.
Print
Email
