|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Common Sense Health Care
The United States and South Africa are the only two industrialized nations that do not provide universal health care for their citizens. The overall health of any society can be judged by how well it provides for the well being of its people. 37 million Americans have no form of health care coverage. Many of those who do have coverage are reluctant to use it because of costly deductibles and co-payments which come out of their pockets over and abovethe high premiums charged by iniurance com panies.
Now that the Clinton Administration has made health care a priority, the idea of health care as a right should have a profound influence on what type of universal health care we as a nation choose. What plan for universal health care best guarantees that right, regardless of income, gender, race, or age? Which plan reduces the massive health care bureaucracy while insuring the freedom to choose one's own doctor or method of treatment?
Is there an alternative to the Clinton plan?
Under a single-payer plan, doctors and hospitals remain private and are paid on a fee-for-service basis, but their fees are regulated by state and local health boards and paid by the single-payer, the public insurance system. Additionally, many health care providers-like "single-payer," because it greatly reduces the costs required to deal with the current system. (Studies have shown that a single-payer system would elminate 79 percent of private insurance overhead costs, 60 percent of hospital administrative costs, and 32 percent of prescnption drug costs.) Consumers have free choice of their doctor, and alternative forms of medicine and treatment are also covered under the plan. Economically, single-payer is proven to be more fiscally responsible, cost-effective, and efficient. Socially, it guarantees' health care to everyone as a right. Politically, its administrative philosophy is decentralized, allowing for localities to determine their own health care needs through publicly accountable health boards. All things considered, it's pretty tough to beat the benefits of a single- payer system.
All procedures involving health care are covered by the service, including prescription drugs, eyeglasses, and dental care. Like the single-payer system, there are no deductibles or co-payments; but unlike the single-payer system, there is np longer a national insurance system because providers are not paid on a fee-for service basis, I.e., providers are paid a salary in the same way teachers are paid in the public school system.
Socialized medicine is the fullest extension of the idea that health care is a basic human right which should be guaranteed to everyone in society. Some nations operate on partially socialized systems, like Britain, France, and Sweden, and have succeeded in providing quality health care to their citizens.
Many experts have supported the concept of a socialized health care system in principle, but have argued that the United States is not yet ready to embrace the idea of salaried doctors. This is why most of those experts have come out in support of the single-payer model as the most feasible as well as practical compromise for universal health care.
As for rationing, health care is already "rationed" in America today. Many patients often must wait up to three weeks to see their doctors, and when they do, even those with health insurance are faced with an inability to afford certain tests or procedures which the doctor may recommend. Rationing of the worst kind occurs in the U.S. through poverty, for the 37 million Americans without any form of health insurance. Statistics show that 94 percent of Canadians wait no longer than seven days to lee a doctor. How long did youwait the last time you needed a doctor?
Most Americans are concerned with higher taxes. But polls show that most Americans don't mind paying higher taxes for definite services. First of all, it's important to start health care funding by eliminating government waste in bloated areas (such as the military-industrial complex) and diverting those already existing funds to the health cafe budget. As for the taxes necessary to fund national health insurance, they are certainly no more than what those who have insurance currently pay for coverage. In fact, Canada's single-payer system has proven its ability to cut costs while insuring quality.
As to the issue of government control: single-payer is based upon people controlling their own health care needs through accountable community health boards. The system is administered on a state and local basis. This enables the decentralization of funds and allows for a more responsible and democratic allocation of resources. In short, we the people pay for it, we own it, we control it.
Find out who is supporting the bill in your area. Help to organize letter-writing and phone campaigns to Congress. Join with others who are holding public forums in support of a single-payer health care plan.
This is the first time the United States has put the issue of national health care before Congress. The decisions made on health care in coming months will affect health care in America for at least the next generation. We must raise the call for a single-payer plan, as a real alternative to both our current health care debacle as well as the bungling bureaucracy of the Clinton plan. The Socialist Party has been pushing for a national health insurance system since 1928; we understand the urgency of this situation, and the need to put in place a system which will work for everyone. Join us, and help make it happen.