Murphy’s Law, written by Barbara Murphy, appears monthly in The Golden Times. The column represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily the opinion of the publisher.
‘Single Payer’ Medicare-For-All
Is The Solution To Healthcare Costs
As much as they wrangle over everything else, politicians on both sides of the aisle in Congress agree that a major cause of the country’s huge budget deficit is Medicare. To fix it, Republicans are suggesting a plan to privatize Medicare through a voucher system. The Obama administration has proposed a gradual tightening of Medicare expenditures.
Robert Reich, who was Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, said both sides have got it wrong. “Medicare isn’t the problem,” he said in a recent on-line article. “It’s the solution.”
The country could save as much as $400 billion a year, Mr. Reich said, if we eliminated private medical insurance and switched to a taxpayer-financed (Medicare-For-All) system (or what is known as a “single-payer” system).
Mr. Reich, author of “Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future,” said that allowing anyone at any age to join Medicare would save billions in administrative costs alone. Medicare’s administrative costs are just 3% while administrative costs for private insurance costs can range as high as 40% (for individual plans).
A major occupational category at most hospitals, Mr. Reich said, is “billing clerk.” He said: “A third of nursing hours are devoted to documenting what’s happened so insurers have proof. Trying to slow the rise in Medicare costs doesn’t deal with any of this. It will just limit the amounts seniors can spend, which means less care. As a practical matter, it means more political battles, as seniors — whose clout will grow as boomers are added to the ranks — demand the limits be increased. (If you thought the demagoguery over ‘death panels’ was bad, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.)”
Mr. Reich said the Republican plan, drawn up by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), which would give seniors vouchers they could cash in with private for-profit insurers would make things even worse because “it would funnel money into the hands of these for-profit insurers, whose administrative costs are far higher than Medicare’s.”
You wouldn’t know it from any of the mainstream media’s coverage of the healthcare cost issues, but there is already a bill in Congress calling for the kind of Medicare-For-All system advocated for by Mr. Reich.
The bill is H.R. 676, “The Expanded and Improved Medicare-For-All Act,” which was originally introduced in 2007 and was re-introduced this past February by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).
H.R. 676, which has been endorsed by hundreds of organizations including the National Council of Senior Citizens, would create a publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare system available to all U.S. residents and all residents living in U.S. territories.
Under H.R. 676 all medically necessary services would be covered, including long-term care. Patients would have their choice of physicians, hospitals and clinics. Private health insurers would be prohibited from selling coverage that duplicates the provisions of H.R. 676. Workers displaced by the transition to the Medicare-For-All system would be first to be rehired and retrained under H.R. 676. Conversion to the new system would take place over a 15-year period. The transition period would be funded through the sale of U.S. Treasury bonds.
Operating funds could come from increases in employer and employee payroll taxes of 4.5 percent and 3.3 percent respectively; a 5% percent health tax on the top five percent of income earners; a 10% tax on the top one percent of wage earners; a 1/3rd of 1% stock transaction tax; closing corporate tax loopholes; and repealing the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners.
It is estimated that under H.R. 676, the average healthcare costs for a family of four would be reduced from the present average of $11,500 to about $2,700 for those making the median family income of $56,200.
Other bills that would create universal health coverage are Senate Bill 703, introduced by Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, and H.R. 1200, introduced by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA).
While these worthwhile pieces of legislation are being largely ignored, the country remains embattled over President Obama’s “Affordable Healthcare Act,” often referred to as Obamacare.
Though not a single payer system, the Act takes some important steps toward providing for universal healthcare coverage. Republicans and ultra-conservative Democrats are fighting Obamacare largely because of its provision requiring every American to buy health insurance. Obama Administration defense lawyers have argued that Congress created the need for national coverage when it enacted a law requiring hospitals to provide emergency care for all who require it. Defense lawyers said that in 2008 healthcare providers had to pay $43 billion to cover the costs of those who could not pay. The defense lawyers argued that requiring everyone to buy health insurance will spread the costs to all who can afford to pay.
I hope and pray the Obama Administration wins the court battle over the insurance mandate. And I hope and pray that Obamacare itself can be saved despite the determination of conservatives to destroy the program by depriving it of the money it needs to operate.
I support Obamacare because it is moving in the right direction toward universal coverage. But what I would really like to see is Medicare for all. I’d like to see H.R. 676 gather steam, get some extensive press coverage and finally be enacted into law.
The American medical system is the best in the world, but it is paid for by the worst system in the world.
Folks worried about the federal budget deficit and the cost of Medicare should listen to people like Robert Reich and John Conyers.
*
Barbara Murphy, 78, writes for The Golden Times about controversial issues each month.
Is The Solution To Healthcare Costs
As much as they wrangle over everything else, politicians on both sides of the aisle in Congress agree that a major cause of the country’s huge budget deficit is Medicare. To fix it, Republicans are suggesting a plan to privatize Medicare through a voucher system. The Obama administration has proposed a gradual tightening of Medicare expenditures.
Robert Reich, who was Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, said both sides have got it wrong. “Medicare isn’t the problem,” he said in a recent on-line article. “It’s the solution.”
The country could save as much as $400 billion a year, Mr. Reich said, if we eliminated private medical insurance and switched to a taxpayer-financed (Medicare-For-All) system (or what is known as a “single-payer” system).
Mr. Reich, author of “Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future,” said that allowing anyone at any age to join Medicare would save billions in administrative costs alone. Medicare’s administrative costs are just 3% while administrative costs for private insurance costs can range as high as 40% (for individual plans).
A major occupational category at most hospitals, Mr. Reich said, is “billing clerk.” He said: “A third of nursing hours are devoted to documenting what’s happened so insurers have proof. Trying to slow the rise in Medicare costs doesn’t deal with any of this. It will just limit the amounts seniors can spend, which means less care. As a practical matter, it means more political battles, as seniors — whose clout will grow as boomers are added to the ranks — demand the limits be increased. (If you thought the demagoguery over ‘death panels’ was bad, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.)”
Mr. Reich said the Republican plan, drawn up by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), which would give seniors vouchers they could cash in with private for-profit insurers would make things even worse because “it would funnel money into the hands of these for-profit insurers, whose administrative costs are far higher than Medicare’s.”
You wouldn’t know it from any of the mainstream media’s coverage of the healthcare cost issues, but there is already a bill in Congress calling for the kind of Medicare-For-All system advocated for by Mr. Reich.
The bill is H.R. 676, “The Expanded and Improved Medicare-For-All Act,” which was originally introduced in 2007 and was re-introduced this past February by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).
H.R. 676, which has been endorsed by hundreds of organizations including the National Council of Senior Citizens, would create a publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare system available to all U.S. residents and all residents living in U.S. territories.
Under H.R. 676 all medically necessary services would be covered, including long-term care. Patients would have their choice of physicians, hospitals and clinics. Private health insurers would be prohibited from selling coverage that duplicates the provisions of H.R. 676. Workers displaced by the transition to the Medicare-For-All system would be first to be rehired and retrained under H.R. 676. Conversion to the new system would take place over a 15-year period. The transition period would be funded through the sale of U.S. Treasury bonds.
Operating funds could come from increases in employer and employee payroll taxes of 4.5 percent and 3.3 percent respectively; a 5% percent health tax on the top five percent of income earners; a 10% tax on the top one percent of wage earners; a 1/3rd of 1% stock transaction tax; closing corporate tax loopholes; and repealing the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners.
It is estimated that under H.R. 676, the average healthcare costs for a family of four would be reduced from the present average of $11,500 to about $2,700 for those making the median family income of $56,200.
Other bills that would create universal health coverage are Senate Bill 703, introduced by Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, and H.R. 1200, introduced by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA).
While these worthwhile pieces of legislation are being largely ignored, the country remains embattled over President Obama’s “Affordable Healthcare Act,” often referred to as Obamacare.
Though not a single payer system, the Act takes some important steps toward providing for universal healthcare coverage. Republicans and ultra-conservative Democrats are fighting Obamacare largely because of its provision requiring every American to buy health insurance. Obama Administration defense lawyers have argued that Congress created the need for national coverage when it enacted a law requiring hospitals to provide emergency care for all who require it. Defense lawyers said that in 2008 healthcare providers had to pay $43 billion to cover the costs of those who could not pay. The defense lawyers argued that requiring everyone to buy health insurance will spread the costs to all who can afford to pay.
I hope and pray the Obama Administration wins the court battle over the insurance mandate. And I hope and pray that Obamacare itself can be saved despite the determination of conservatives to destroy the program by depriving it of the money it needs to operate.
I support Obamacare because it is moving in the right direction toward universal coverage. But what I would really like to see is Medicare for all. I’d like to see H.R. 676 gather steam, get some extensive press coverage and finally be enacted into law.
The American medical system is the best in the world, but it is paid for by the worst system in the world.
Folks worried about the federal budget deficit and the cost of Medicare should listen to people like Robert Reich and John Conyers.
*
Barbara Murphy, 78, writes for The Golden Times about controversial issues each month.
