To the Editor:
The battle has been joined. Already we hear that the health insurance industry is investing massively in a public relations campaign to defeat inclusion of any government sponsored component in upcoming health care legislation. Even the “Swift Boat” team is resurrecting itself to join the fight.
We already have a very successful government health program. It’s called Medicare. Why not expand that very efficient system to all Americans? Comprehensive single payer plans are standard in Europe and Canada, and the quality and coverage of those plans is far better than our own. In many of those countries (for example Canada and the Netherlands) self-funded plans are available for those wishing supplementary coverage.
I recognize that, given our tradition of employer based health coverage, a single payer system is probably impossible, but we also have a tradition of encouraging competition in the marketplace. Let’s use it.
It’s imperative that we provide a Medicare-like system to compete with private insurance plans. That is a win-win for everyone, forcing both systems to focus on choice, cost and efficiency. The argument made by the health industry is that we will lose choice. What nonsense. The inverse is true. With Medicare I have the ability to choose. That would most certainly not be the case if I had no other option than an HMO type plan.
However, choice is only part of the problem. What about cost? Without any change in percentage rate increase, which today is nearly 2 percent higher than the average annual growth in GDP, health care costs will gobble up 40 percent of GDP by 2050. It’s the elephant in the room.
To lower this rate will require very hard fundamental choices. It will require sacrifice from all stakeholders; the medical profession, health care providers, and patients.
Existence proofs exist — the Mayo Clinic provides an excellent example of a cost efficient system that provides superb quality of care. It will require difficult cultural change from health care providers and pharmaceutical companies, based on quality of care outcomes and elimination of unnecessary procedures and bureaucracy.
More is not necessarily better. Viewing the patient as a profit center can no longer be tolerated. We as patients/customers of health care must face difficult choices, not the least of which is how we fund expansion of benefits to the 30 million Americans not covered.
Both Democrats and Republicans have come up with funding proposals that will require elimination of tax shelters. If ever there was a need for bi-partisan cooperation, this is it. We all should be conversants.
Health care is not a privilege, it is a right. Let’s get involved in determining our long term health care future.
Bernard van der Hoeven, Walpole
