It's the only answer. Anything else is ridiculously expensive and potentially deadly.
I believe a single payer system, which eliminates the insurance companies' enormous profits and much of the administrative expenses now involved in health care, would result in lower costs for everyone.
The other advantage of a single payer system is that it makes things easier for doctors and patients alike. Before Medicare Part D went into effect, I had prescription coverage through Medicaid. My share of the expense was essentially the same as it is now, $1 to $5 co-pay for each drug.
The big difference between Medicaid drug coverage and Medicare Part D coverage for a low-income person like me is the frustration, confusion and paperwork for everyone involved. When I had Medicaid, my doctors knew which drugs were covered and which were not, so it was easy for them to prescribe the appropriate meds for me. It was easy for the pharmacy to fill the prescriptions.
Now, when my doctor writes a new prescription, I feel like I'm playing the lottery. The pharmacy has to run it through their computer to see if it's covered, explain to me why it's not, and call the insurer to see if an exception can be made. Then the pharmacy gives me paperwork to take back to the doctor to appeal the insurer's decision. The amount of time and paper involved is enough to bury us all.
What the insurer hopes for - and what often happens - is that the patient gives up and goes away quietly without appealing their decisions.
Also, once a year, I have to wade through a 50+ page booklet from my insurer to try to decipher which drugs are covered and how much the co-pay will be. When I discover that the drugs I need are not covered by my insurer (I just found out that 1 of the meds I'm on will no longer be covered as of Jan. 1st), I then have the joy of wading through the info from other insurers to try to figure out if they will cover all the drugs I need and how much my co-pay would be with that company.
I am a college graduate with a B.A. in English and above average intelligence, and I find it difficult if not impossible to decipher the information in those booklets. I don't know how someone who's not as smart and has less education could ever manage it.
Another of the faults with the current system is that my drugs are covered by a private insurer and other medical treatments are covered by the goverment. The private insurer saves money and increases their own bottom line by refusing to pay for some drugs.
Without those drugs, I will likely end up needing hospitalization and/or surgery. The government, would have to pick up the higher costs of that treatment.
You see the flaw in this system, don't you?
The private insurer makes a higher profit at taxpayers' expense. If drugs and hospitalization were covered by a single payer, they would support the less expensive option, preventative care, i.e. drugs. Which is also the best option for the patient.
The day universal health care goes into effect in the U.S., the first thing I would do is go out and apply for a job. American taxpayers would be spending less on me than they spend now because I would no longer need as much money from Social Security disability or low-income housing assistance. My medical care wouldn't cost taxpayers any more than it does now. In fact, it might cost less because I might be able to pay more of the costs myself.
To those of you who think I should get off my fat lazy ass and go out and get a job and pay for my own private insurance: You've heard of pre-existing conditions, right? And lack of mental health parity? Even if I were lucky enough to get a good job with benefits, it's very unlikely that an employer's group insurance would cover my medical needs.
My medical condition is unstable, so there's no guarantee I could maintain such a job anyway.
The need for single payer universal health care is one of the reasons I am having doubts about Hillary Clinton. I like her personally. I think she would make a good President. But it seems like she's more interested in protecting the insurance companies and their investors than she is in doing what's best for Americans.
Then there's that whole thing about trying to prove she has a bigger dick than any of the guys she's running against. That's why she voted for the war in Iraq. That's why she voted for the bill that may have opened the door for Bush to bomb Iran. I believe those decisions were based on what she thought would help her politically, not what she thought was right.
Not that I think the other candidates - at least the ones who have a chance of winning - are any better.
For a good run down on comparisons between the U.S. health care system and so-called socialized medicine in other western countries, check out
this op-ed piece by Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post.
Turn Ons: Eugene Robinson
Turn Offs: me whining about how much my life sucks
I have a friend who collects nutcrackers, and I'm wondering if she's checked out hillarynutcracker.com. According to the website, Dubya was voted "The Nut I'd Most Like to See Cracked."
