America Needs Single Payer Health Care Like H.R. 676 Not The Baucus Plan

The US is the only wealthy industrialized nation that does not provide single payer, universal healthcare for all.  It relies on employer based healthcare, which is lost if you change jobs. It relies on unaffordable private,  powerful super rich insurance companies who deny health care coverage for pre-existing conditions (unless you pay an arm and a leg) and impose other arbitrary rules to increase profit and even those who are "covered" can never be certain of coverage.  Fighting with private health care insurers is a frustrating, stress producing battle for many who are insured.  Health care coverage in the US is an expensive, broken system.
 
While the Obama administration says it will try to make things better,  it will be an ice cream on cow pies process that will not bring the US on par with other industrialized countries where health care is a right guaranteed by single payer, government administered (note administered not provided) universal coverage for all. 
 
HR 676, Medicare for all......HR 676 Medicare for all.....HR 676 Medicare for all.....HR 676 Medicare for all.....
 
HR 676 Single payer, universal healthcare    HR 676 Single payer, universal healthcare     HR 676 Single payer, universal healthcare
 
I've written about this important issue hereherehereherehere herehere, herehereherehere, hereherehereherehere, and here.
 
Ian Welch at Firedoglake weighs in about the Senator Max Baucus health care plan, which requires Americans to further enrich the private insurance companies, instead of copying the successful single payer, universal coverage in other countries.
 
"Enough, enough, enough. Seriously, I'm reading the Baucus plan (more on that later) and I read this line, and about puked:

While there must be a uniquely American answer to the question of containing health care costs, other countries demonstrate the possibility of success.

"Enough. Stop reinventing the wheel and do what works. There are a pile of different models out there, all of which work. The simple fact is that if you want the best results combined with the best cost, they are all single payer, usually allowing top-up insurance of some kind. The only partial exception is Switzerland, in which health insurance companies aren't allowed to make a profit on basic insurance and are required to offer the same basic plan as their competitors (at which point, why bother?) About the only choice Swiss get is in how much their deductible will be.

The Baucus plan is the government forcing people to pay private companies for insurance. It is, in other words, health insurance on the car insurance model. Are you happy with your car insurance?

No? Then why would anyone support Baucus's plan over a simple single payor (sic) insurance plan modeled on a country whose plan has better results than the US and costs less? Or cut the BS and just enroll everyone in Medicare, there's your "American solution for an American problem" for you. Especially since Baucus's own figures show that slightly more Americans actually support Medicare for all than support individual mandates.(pdf/pg.17)

Repeat: HR 676, HR 676, HR 676.......................

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments
  • No comments exist for this post.
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.