President Swordsman Gets Everyone Universal Health Care

So back in 1993, everyone beat up on Hillary Clinton for saying we had a health care crisis in this country. Very few would dispute that today. And it looks that with 60% approval ratings for universal health care, we have a good shot at it being enacted in the next decade. I'd say Obama probably will enact something resembling this unless enough people are ignorant enough to buy into some Republican plan that doesn't even cover themselves. Yes, you read that correctly.

In debates with people over health care, a common mantra is to disparage nearly any kind of proposed program or reform as "socialized medicine". Oooo, socialism, ooo, bad. Nice boogyman. Except "socialism" means a specific thing. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production or that government actually employs the people involved in the industry. No one other than perhaps Dennis Kucinich has proposed such a sweeping plan.

In fact, most countries that have universal health care uses a combination of private and public health care, including the US. If you think we don't have socialized medicine, check out Medicare. And anyone who states they are opposed to socialized medicine: I want to know when you intend to renounce any and all Medicare benefits for yourself. And if you don't, you are what normal people call a "hypocrite".

Unlike most of the rest of the world, our health care is dependent upon which job you have, which is from a legal loophole back in the 1970s and makes zero sense. Quite a few people, probably some on this very site, have been denied perfectly legitimate claims by insurance companies. Stopping frivolous malpractice claims will not help despite what the President would have us believe. The real costs of health care are profit taking by pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies.

Now I'm not one to begrudge anyone a fair profit. My problem with these two industries is that they're using government regulation and lobbying to make money off us. This is not the free market at work and it isn't good for any of us. Pharmaceutical companies get to use the research funded by the US government (our tax dollars), move the labs and drug factories offshore, and then charge us exorbitant prices (since the administration passed a law that the US government cannot negotiate prices), and use their willing dupes in Congress to pass laws saying we cannot buy THE SAME DRUGS from overseas.

Yet they make money selling these same drugs for much less everywhere else in the world.

I think we definitely want a system that allows doctors to practice wherever they want, and patients to be able to choose which doctor they go to. We want a system that has no long waiting lines and which doesn't allow everyone and their dog to show up at the ER because they have the sniffles. We want a system that is run as much as possible by the doctor and the patient. Not the government. Not some big corporation. By the people it immediately affects. We also want a system that isn't expensive. Not difficult, I think, since we already spend almost twice as much per person as most countries, including France.

I mean, check this out: http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/c%20hcm010307oth.cfm

So here's my plan:

Everyone would be included in a single, comprehensive public plan covering all medically necessary services, including acute, rehabilitative and long-term care, mental-health services, dental care, prescription drugs and medical supplies.

Everyone would have access to personalized care with a local primary care physician, and free choice of doctors and hospitals at all times. No waiting times or lists. In a publicly-financed, universal health care system medical decisions would be left to patients and doctors, not to insurance companies or the government.

Health care sellers would stay private, and the health plan would provide for different payment schemes for health-care sellers, to minimize disruption to the existing system. The payment schemes would be designed to prevent profit motives from unduly influencing physicians, so there would be no structured incentives to recommend too much or too little care.

A transition fund would be established for insurance-company employees whose jobs would be eliminated due to the simplicity of the single-payer system.

The system should be monitored by a non-profit organization that is NOT governmental in origin or design. A federally-chartered non-profit membership organization be created through a Congressional charter to serve as a national patient watchdog (with state chapters). Essentially, this is the ORIGINAL Blue Cross organization writ large. It would be illegal for this organization to turn a profit or to be sold to any corporation, individual, or stockholder.

Patients would be able to sign up at their local doctor's office, hospital, or clinic. This organization (let's call it Public Health Oversight Association) would have full-time advocates overseeing relevant governmental agencies, Congress, and the private health sector. The non-profit organiation would have all the rights that corporations and individuals have: advocacy, lobbying, litigation, research, etc., and the ability to ally with other similar pro-citizen groups. This modest organization would be chartered so as to ensure that public policies affecting the provision, quality, and cost of health services reflect fairly the needs and concerns of consumers and continue to be informed by their organized voices.

Patients and doctors could certainly sue the oversight organization if they felt they were unfairly treated.

No corporations making profits off of people's illnesses. No government taking control of people's lives. Not socialism. If you truly believe this proposal is socialistic, I suggest immediate and massive therapy. This plan actually REDUCES the size of government since it takes the place of Medicare and Medicaid, two large government boondoggle programs.

Okay, how do we finance this?

The public financing already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees' health care. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and any and all other out of pocket payments.

For the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness. The 7% payroll tax is less than what many corporations pay now for health care for their employees. GM and Ford should love this plan. Currently, the average cost is 8.5% of payroll.

This helps small businesses most of all. Now they cannot compete for employees, since they cannot easily afford to give health care plans to their employees. Right now, some of these guys get hit with 25% of their payroll expense going to health care. That's insane.

How can we do this for less? First, currently Medicare has an administrative cost of 3% and private health insurance companies is about 18%. Each insurance provider also has their own regulations, paperwork, rules, etc. We reduce that. Also, no profit motive means no jacking up insurance premiums or pharmaceutical costs.

The American Nursing Association wants universal health care and so do most physicians, but they are understandably wary about it. Since many companies are moving plants overseas (and not to Mexico, but to Canada and Europe where they do not have to get soaked for health care), even the conservative Heritage Foundation is for a similar plan.We also require neighborhood clinics to take cases that the ER shouldn't have to deal with. Think of them as mini-ER's without the emergency quotient.

If you make $100,000 a year (and no one in their right mind is going to argue that someone who does isn't fairly well off unless you are John McCain), the different costs stack up like this:

Current Summary:

YOU
$28,000 Fed W/H
$1,450 FICA-HI
$2,400 HMO
Your total out of pocket: $31,850

COMPANY
$1,450 FICA-HI
$8,500 HMO
Company's total: $9,950

My Plan:
YOU
$30,000 Fed W/H
$1,450 FICA-HI
Your total: $31,450
Savings: $450

COMPANY
$7,000 FICA-HI
Company's total: $7,000
Savings: $2,950

When various economists list more socialized countries such as - and this varies - Canada, the UK, and Holland as better places to invest and build factories as opposed to the US, this is why.

Plus, we already pay $730 billion of federal dollars for health care. And that doesn't include state budgets or the dollars paid to the insurance or pharmaceutical companies.

Under this plan, private health insurance would mostly not exist. There would be no reason for it unless people wanted it over and above the regular health care. The non-profit group would set costs and payments so that people could afford health care. It basically replaces private insurance companies with a separate non-profit organization. The NPO does not approve treatments, your doctor does.

And by the way, no grousing about how there are long waits under universal health care. The only nation that has longer waits for medical care than the US is Canada. Which is why opponents always cite it.

Thoughts?