In 1883, Germany under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck established compulsory sickness insurance as part of his political agenda to develop a strong working class as the foundation of a strong Germany.
A few years later, Bismarck established the social security program for the same reason. Germany continues today with a strong single-payer system. Everyone is covered in a single-payer system.
One has only to watch Michael Moore’s movie “Sicko” to see the difference between the health care here in the U.S. and the rest of the Western world.
Physicians for a National Health Program, formed in 1987, has been dedicated to one issue, namely, a single-payer system for the U.S. MASSCARE, a group in Massachusetts, is dedicated to the same issue, namely to establish a single-payer in Massachusetts.
So what is a single-payer system?
A single-payer is one in which all the medical bills are paid by one entity, cutting out the middleman. Medicare is an example of a single-payer in which the U.S. government eliminated the for-profit middlemen or the private insurance companies. As a result, the cost to administer Medicare is about 3 percent versus from 20 percent to as much as 60 percent (Maine) in administrative costs when insurance companies pay the claims.
With the Affordable Health Care Act, insurance companies cannot charge more than 20 percent in administrative costs.
Everyone in Massachusetts is required to have health insurance, but with increasing costs in premiums, copayments and deductibles, many are finding it difficult to afford.
An interesting fact is no one in Germany or other countries with single-payer has medical bankruptcies. Yet two-thirds of all bankruptcies in the U.S. are medical bankruptcies. One would think that Massachusetts would have less but, despite the fact that everyone has to have health insurance, the numbers of medical bankruptcies have not decreased, according to the PNHP in Massachusetts.
A few months ago, former President Bill Clinton was in Worcester speaking at WPI when he remarked that the U.S. spends 18½ percent of its GNP on health care versus 11½ percent or less in other countries with better outcomes. President Clinton paused and with much emphasis stated that that amounts to a difference of 1 trillion dollars a year.
Gerald Friedman, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, has estimated that if Massachusetts were to go to single-payer system, it would save upwards of $15 billion in health care costs. He was quoted in an article in the Charlotte (N.C.) Observer as saying that “the most basic financial problem with U.S. health care is the for-profit insurance system. Insurance profits have increased 250 percent in the last decade.” One has only to look at their premiums and out-of-pocket health care expenses to confirm this huge increase in the last ten years.
How would a single-payer work? Everyone would receive a health insurance card that would allow them access to any doctor or hospital. No one would receive medical bills or have co-payments or deductibles. If one is unemployed, or loses or changes a job, the health coverage goes with them.
A single-payer system encourages preventive care. Decisions on medical care would be made by patients and their doctors and not by insurance companies.
Prescription drugs cost us 60 percent more than other countries. Lipitor costs $124 in the U.S., $5 in New Zealand. Have you ever wondered why the same drugs cost less in Canada than in the U.S.? The reason is that Canada and other Western governments negotiate with the drug companies, as does the Veterans Administration in the U.S.
Date: August 16, 2013