Category Archives: Single Payer

Mad Dog Attacks Public Transport

Tom Lynch of LynchRyan’s Workers’ Comp Insider blog, wrote an article this morning that follows on the heels of my post from yesterday about the Justice Department not defending portion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

According to Tom, the GOP finally figured out how to fight the ACA, and he discusses three events beginning with February of last year in which the GOP-led Congress attacked the ACA. The three events are:

February 2017 – tax cut law that zeroed out the penalty for not having insurance.

February 2018 – getting 20 states to sue the federal government and contend that repeal of the penalty obviates the individual mandate making the entirety of the ACA unconstitutional.

And just last month, as I wrote yesterday, got the Justice Department to not defend the government in the suit.

Tom continues to say that if the 20 states win, pre-existing conditions, which the ACA protects, goes out the window. There are about 133 million Americans under the age of 65 who fall into that category. I am one of them.

Insurance companies are not happy either, Tom reports, and the trade association for the health insurance companies, America’s Health Insurance Plans, supports the provision under the ACA, and is quoted thus: “Removing those provisions will result in renewed uncertainty in the individual market, create a patchwork of requirements in the states, cause rates to go even higher for older Americans and sicker patients, and make it challenging to introduce products and rates for 2019,” according to a statement released by AHIP.

Finally, Tom asks the question — what happens if the 20 states win their suit? His answer, the 1.25 million Americans with Type 1 diabetes are waiting for an answer.

Yet, they and others don’t really have to wait for an answer, because the answer is staring us right in the face, but we refuse to see it, or even acknowledge its presence. Instead, we keep doing the same things over and over again, thinking the free market has the answer.

That is patently not true. A real, comprehensive, universal single payer system or an improved Medicare for All system that does not force those who are ill and don’t have a lot of money to pay for parts of the coverage, either the medical portion, or the 20% not now covered by Medicare, is the answer. Anything less is just a dog chasing a bus, catching that bus, and the dog and bus getting hurt.


Justice Dept. Says Crucial Provisions of Obamacare Are Unconstitutional – The New York Times

The following article should alarm every decent American, especially those who wants to see every American have health care that does not eat into their life savings or cause them to go into debt.

Your humble author is one of them and may also be affected if this draconian decision is upheld by the courts and the Supreme Court. Thanks Bernie Bots and Steiners…thanks for giving us Justice Gorsuch by not voting or not voting for the Democratic candidate two years ago.

For what this will mean to Americans, here is Dr. Don McCanne’s take on it:

“Amongst the more important provisions of the Affordable Care Act were the requirements for guaranteed issue and community rating. For individuals with preexisting conditions, insurers could not deny them coverage nor could they charge them higher premiums than are charged for others in the same age group. This corrected two of the most serious defects in the individual insurance market that existed before enactment of ACA and made insurance available to many who otherwise could not purchase the plans.

Now Attorney General Jeff Sessions says that he will no longer defend these provisions. If the courts uphold his position, individuals with significant health care needs may find insurance with adequate benefits to be either unaffordable or not even available to them. Then concepts such as “universal” or “affordable” become moot.

How does this compare to our traditional Medicare program? The courts have already ruled that Part A of Medicare – the hospital benefit -is mandatory and must be accepted if the individual also accepts Social Security benefits. However, this does not apply to Part B – the physician benefits – nor to Part D – the drug benefits. Thus the courts have ruled that the government can require certain mandates in health care, but it also demonstrates that our current Medicare program needs to be improved, for this and for a great many other reasons. So a single payer, improved Medicare for all should be able to pass constitutional muster.

Once we have an improved Medicare that covers everyone, instead of thinking of it as some sort of unwanted government mandate, most of us would think of it as an automatic program ensuring health care financing for all of us – one that we have earned though our individual contributions based on ability to pay – guaranteed, affordable health care forever.”

A Well-Constructed, If Unintentional Argument for Single Payer

While not intending to do so, my fellow blogger, Joe Paduda has made a well-constructed argument for single payer health care, all the while examining the impact of health insurance status has on workers’ comp.

Rather than give you my take on what Joe wrote, I am providing the reader with his entire post below:

Health insurance status and workers’ comp

The headlines were comforting – not much change in the number of Americans without health insurance.

Before you breathe that sigh of relief, you’d be well-advised to dig a bit deeper, because there’s plenty of bad news just under the headline.

While the national number of uninsured stayed about the same, that’s irrelevant to you – because healthcare is local. Here’s what I’d be worried about.

Young adults are almost twice as likely as older adults to be uninsured – about one in six younger adults don’t have coverage.

  • Takeaway – no health insurance = more incentive to file work comp claims
  • Over a quarter of working-age Texans don’t have coverage. Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina are not far behind

Takeaway – no health insurance = poorer health status, more comorbidities, more charity care for providers thus more incentive to cost- and claim-shift.

  • 44% of working-age adults were covered by high-deductible plans – but more than half of them don’t have health savings accounts needed to fund those high deductibles

Takeaway – “High” deductible health plans aren’t much different than no insurance at all if the patient can’t afford the deductible – and over half can’t. So, more incentive to cost- and claim-shift.

What does this mean for you?

Workers’ comp will be affected by the Administration’s ongoing behind-the-scene effort to hollow out the ACA and cut funding for Medicare and Medicaid.

But what it also means it that single payer will be the only way every American can be assured of access to health care that is affordable and available when they need it, and is not a luxury they can do without,

It may also mean that the workers’ comp silo may have to be folded once and for all into the health care silo that will cover the elderly, the poor, children, the military and their families, and everyone else not currently covered under any insurance, or under employer-sponsored insurance, which would be done away with.

So, Joe gave us an unintended gift by showing how health insurance status and workers’ comp may lead to the implementation of single payer health care.

Typical Family of Four Now Paying Over $28,000 for Health Care

A report issued Monday by Milliman indicated that the cost of health care for a typical American family covered by the average employer-sponsored preferred provider organization (PPO) plan in 2018 is $28,166, as per the Milliman Medical Index (MMI).

Broken down into component parts, this represents the following costs:

2018 MMI Components of Spending
31% ($8,631) – Inpatient
19% ($5,395) – Outpatient
29% ($8,275) – Professional services
17% ($4,888) – Pharmacy
4% ($995) – Other (Home health, ambulance, DME, prosthetics)

The key takeaway from the report is that employers are paying more; but employees are paying a lot more.

The health care expenditures are funded by employer contributions to health plans and by employees through their payroll deductions and out-of-pocket expenses incurred when care is received, according to the report.

The report continues that they are seeing over the long-term, and that employees are paying a higher percentage of the total, with employee expenses increasing 5.9%, and employer expenses increasing 3.5% in 2018.

The total cost of health care is shared by both the employer and employee for a family of four, the MMI stated, which breaks down to three categories:

1. Employer subsidy. Employers that sponsor health plans subsidize the cost of healthcare for their employees by allocating compensation dollars to pay a large share of the cost.
2. Employee contribution. Employees who choose to participate in the employer’s health benefit plan typically also pay a substantial portion of costs, usually through payroll deduction.
3. Employee out-of-pocket cost at time of service. When employees receive care, they also often pay for a portion of these services via health plan deductibles and/or point-of-service copays.

The relative proportions of medical costs for 2018 are:

56% ($15,788) – Employer contribution
27% ($7,674) – Employee contribution
17% ($4,704) – Employee out-of-pocket

Looking at this another way, employees are paying a total of 44% as either a contribution or out-of-pocket, which adds up to $12,378, compared to the employers’ 56% and $15,788, respectively.

As health care gets more expensive, it will naturally lead to higher costs for employers, but also higher costs for employees. And as has been happening more commonly, employers are shifting more of the costs onto the employees. With stagnant wages, as reported daily in the news, this is going to be a problem for those families caught in the squeeze between rising costs for medical care and stagnant wages.

This would be resolved by creating a single payer health care system that will save both employers and employees money,


Some Final Thoughts On “Health Care under the Knife”

Last month, I wrote two articles about the book by Howard Waitzkin et al. entitled, “Health Care under the Knife: Moving Beyond Capitalism for Our Health.

The first article was a review of the Introduction to the book. The second article examined the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as “Obamacare”, as the last stage of neoliberal health care reform.

In this article, I will critique the overall message of the book and give some reasons as to why I believe radical change in American health care and radical change in American society in general cannot take place until one key condition is met for that change.

This will also apply to the rest of the world where neoliberal policies have taken root. But since much of the impetus of these policies comes from the US and institutions the US created after World War II such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the United Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO), as well as many international financial institutions and the Gates Foundation, it will be difficult, but not impossible to turn back those policies and effect the necessary change to secure universal health care for their citizens. Some have already done so.

The authors have made a very convincing case for their argument that the failure to achieve universal health care is a result of neoliberal policies enacted over thirty years ago both here in the US and in the UK under both Republican and Democratic administrations, and under the various Conservative Party Prime Ministers, from Thatcher, Major, Cameron, and now Theresa May, and Labour PMs, Blair and Brown.

However, their prescription for how we overcome these policies assumes that social change is necessary before there can be change in health care. While technically correct, their understanding of the conditions necessary for that change is flawed.

Economic determinism, the socioeconomic theory that underpins much of Marxist thought about Capitalism and the relationship between workers and owners of the means of production is central to the thesis in “Health Care under the Knife.” But can economic determinism really explain why the central thesis of Marxism has not materialized, since Marx predicted that the contradictions inherent in Capitalism would bring about the revolution that would free the working class.

The truth is more complicated than that, because Capitalism has a nasty habit of reinventing itself, or in the case of the New Deal and the Great Society programs of the 20th century, reform the system to improve the lives of those most affected by the inequalities of the Capitalist system.

Many American families, mine included, benefitted from those reforms. Whether we are talking about Social Security, the GI Bill, student loans guaranteed by the federal government to cover the cost of college for those in the working and middle classes, job training programs, other forms aspects of the social safety net, millions of Americans have moved upward in social mobility.

Anecdotal evidence from friends and relatives, stories of celebrities rising from humble beginnings, and lately, the rise of a biracial male from the State of Hawaii, whose father was an African immigrant and whose mother was a White American, and reached the highest office of the nation, is indicative of this upward social mobility. He did it by working hard and proving that if he could do it, given his background and personal tragedy of losing his father early in his life, anyone can.

The long-predicted revolution, therefore did not happen because many working people, to use a euphemism, “made it”. Some have made it into the middle class, and some have made it into the upper middle class. And some others managed to make it into the lower strata of the upper class. They are not the proverbial “1%”, but nevertheless, they are wealthy. And happy, well-off people don’t make revolutions.

We are however, seeing a reversal among some of the middle class and working class, and that is most definitely due to neoliberalism. And the opioid crisis is decimating the White working class and economic dislocation is one reason for the increase in suicides among White males.

So, to base the argument for single payer solely based on economic determinism and the change the authors contend is necessary for that to occur, is only looking at one side.

After the ascendency of Ronald Reagan to the Presidency, I realized that there was something else besides his charm and ability to communicate effectively that made Americans vote for him overwhelmingly. But I was unable for many years to understand why beyond believing that they did not want to be poor, as many living in Socialist nations were.

However, in the evolution of my consciousness, I have discovered that a socioeconomic theory only tells part of the story. Some years ago, I learned of a biopsychosocial theory of development called Spiral Dynamics. I have written about it before in other posts.

Without going into detail, suffice it to say that Spiral Dynamics is the theory that explains how people think, either as individuals or as a collective. And the reason is it called Spiral Dynamics is because the adult human mind is an oscillating, dynamic spiral from lower order to higher orders of thinking.

Based on the research of Clare W. Graves, Don E. Beck and Christopher Cowan, patented their ideas into Spiral Dynamics. Spiral Dynamics is concerned with the life conditions and coping measures used to solve the problems life conditions present to individuals and collective societies. It also reveals the deep codes about how people think, and what they value.

Using Graves’ labels for the first six levels of existence, they borrowed the term “meme” from Richard Dawkins, the British biologist, and color coded them for better mnemonic effect, as shown in the table below. Beck and Cowan labeled their version of memes, vMemes, or value systems, as they are concerned with the values individuals and collectives manifest at any given time in their development. Individuals and collectives can exist at more than one level at any time.

The table illustrates the last three levels as they currently are represented in the American population, along with the percentage of the world population at each, and the percentage of social power they have. The US is included in these figures, and only at Green do we see what percentage of Americans are at Green. But we can use them nonetheless for our purposes here.

By adding the percentage of population at both Blue and Orange, which in today’s America represents the Republican Party’s bases’, we notice that Blue/Orange has 70% of the population. Conversely, adding the percentage of power for each gives us 80% of the power, meaning that 70% of the American population controls 80% of the social power. Given that fact, to effect any change, either in society in general, or in health care, those percentages must change.

Blue has throughout history viewed the delivery of health care as a form of charity. The word hospital comes from the Knights of the Hospital of St. John, who provided care for poor, sick, or injured pilgrims coming to the Holy Land. And more recently, several Christian denominations have established hospitals for the same purpose. Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterians are but a few of the Christian churches that have built hospitals in cities across the country. Jews also have built hospitals, even the one this writer was born in.

Orange, on the other hand, sees the delivery of health care as a commodity that can be purchased for a price through the instrument of an insurance policy issued by a for-profit insurance company. If one can pay for it, then health care is easily accessible, and available when needed. But if one is not able to do so, then they should have planned accordingly. It is not their responsibility to provide them with health care by using their hard-earned income for such care, is their reasoning.

Green, therefore believes that health care is a right, and that is how it should be. It should be no surprise that one of the areas where the Green meme is seen is in Canadian health care. Many progressives point to Canada’s system as a model for the US.

But what prevents the US from moving forward towards that model is exactly how both Blue/Orange sees health care delivery. And since Orange has most of the power between the two, it is Orange’s Capitalism and Neoliberal policies that dictate how health care is delivered, paid for, and who can get it.

Thus, the one flaw in the argument the authors of “Health Care under the Knife” have is not understanding the value systems that underpin opposition to universal health care. It is not enough to discuss the economic reasons, as they have so successfully done, but to examine the psychosocial aspects as well. Taken together, economic determinism and Spiral Dynamics, in my opinion, explains in greater detail why change cannot happen as the authors would wish, until most of the US population evolves up the spiral.

One of the outgrowths of Spiral Dynamics as theory has been its merger with economics which Said Dawlabani has termed, MEMEnomics. MEMEnomics has been defined as a new branch of social science that studies patterns of economic policies and practices by taking an integral, whole-systems approach to economic sustainability.

According to Dawlabani, the US has entered what he called the Third MEMEnomic Cycle and it is expressed as the “Only Money Matters” Meme. This period began in the 1980s, the same time when neoliberal policies began. It led to what Dawlabani called the perfect Memetic storm. It is at this juncture where we find ourselves, and it his belief that a new paradigm is needed to move into the next cycle.

So, despite polling favoring single payer health care, as the authors rightly note, powerful interests will block any movement towards single payer. Until Orange has diminished in its social power and Green’s has increased, nothing will change. And the radical change they prescribe for this to occur will not, so long as social mobility for some prevents it, and profit can be squeezed out of the system.

Nevertheless, I highly recommend this book as a significant resource for understanding the dysfunction of our broken health care system despite its one flaw of being only one part of the story.

The Disruptors are Coming: The New Health Economy and the Medical-Industrial Complex

A big shout out to Dr. Don MCanne for his Quote of the Day post Friday for today’s topic, and a belated shout out to him for his post last Tuesday about the gains from the ACA being reversed. See my post, ACA Gains Reversing.

This time, Don alerts us to the impact the new health economy disruptors will have and what it might mean for the push towards single payer health care.

Last month, the PwC Health Research Institute (HRI) released a report analyzing the new health economy landscape as more and more companies pursue acquisitions of companies in the insurance, pharmacy benefit management, health care services and retail spaces.
In the last six months, the report states, there has been an explosion of unusual deals between companies such as CVS Health buying Aetna, Cigna buying Express Scripts, UnitedHealth’s Optum buying DaVita Medical Group (Kidney disease and dialysis), Albertsons agreeing to merge with Rite Aid, as well as the much highly publicized partnership between Amazon, JP Morgan, and Berkshire Hathaway.

Naturally, these aren’t the only deals that have occurred. Last year, 67 deals occurred in the US health services market, including payers and providers, the report adds.

The value of these deals increased 146% over those in 2016. The US health care industry, the report states, is undergoing seismic changes generated by a collision of forces: the shift from volume to value, rising consumerism, and the decentralization of care.
The HRI identified four new archetypes of companies engaged in this new health care economy:

• Vertical integrators — CVS & Aetna, Optum & DaVita, Cigna & Express Scripts
• Employer activists — February 2016, 20 US companies form Health Transformation Alliance (HTA) and developed tools to help its members cut employee healthcare costs. In January, Amazon, JP Morgan and Berkshire Hathaway partnered to lower costs and improve employee satisfaction
• Technology invaders — Amazon selling over-the-counter medical products, offering discounted access to Prime service, Apple’s newest operating system allows users to access parts of their EHRs on their phones
• Health retailers — CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Albertsons and others using their network of store locations, consumer insights, national and global supply chains, and national (and sometimes global) branding to attract consumers looking for affordable, convenient care and goods

The HRI report recommends that all healthcare companies should make the following moves:

• Invest in customer experience
• Plan for a broader workforce
• Focus on price

This is how Don McCanne commented on this report. He wrote that Arnold Relman, like Dwight Eisenhower did about the military-industrial complex, warned us about the medical-industrial complex, but did not realize how intense the disruption would be in health care that the HRI report discusses.

According to Don, we are about to see a takeover by the disruptors who “have a leg up on many established health players in understanding consumers and tailoring experiences for them.”
The disruptors are “positioned to address price through greater scale, ownership of middlemen and a wider grip on the US health system value chain.”

If you don’t believe Don, then read what Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan said, “To attack these issues, we will be using top management, big data, virtual technology, better customer engagement and the improved creation of customer choice (high deductibles have barely worked). This effort is just beginning.”

This is exactly what the Waitzkin et al. book describes when explaining the methods used by the medical-industrial complex to control and direct the American health care system for power and profit of the members of the complex.

Dr. McCanne observes that it is almost as if the physicians, nurses and other health care professionals and the hospitals and clinics in which they provide their services have become a peripheral, albeit necessary, appendage to their wellness-industrial complex that is displacing our traditional health care delivery system and its more recent iteration of the medical-industrial complex.

In other words, the physicians and nurses and other professionals have become proletarianized, and the hospitals and clinics merely the places where the medical-industrial complex derives its power and profit from.

Dr. McCanne posits the following questions as to what the health care system would look like once the transformation is well along:

• Once the silos of the health care system are flattened, how will health care be financed?
• Will there still be networks?
• Cost sharing barriers such as high deductibles?
• Will it be possible to fund this expansive model of the wellness-industrial complex through anything remotely resembling an insurance product, especially when the insurers are being amalgamated into what was formerly the health care delivery system?
• And now that the plutocracy is in control, how could we ever remove the passive investors that extract humongous rents through the wellness-industrial complex?
• And what about the patients? Did we forget about them?

It is obvious from his comments that this new health economy is going to be more problematic for providing universal health care to all Americans and will only make things worse. His Rx is to begin now to move to a single payer, Medicare for All program, and not worry about what has passed.

Smart diagnosis and prescription.

Universal Health Care in Reach? Not So Fast

The magazine, The Economist, published a ten-page special report in their April 28th edition on universal health care worldwide.

The report, which one social media commenter said was a perfect example of title and context differentiation, and gave no data or reason why health care was closer to being universal, is an example of a neoliberal publication going out on a limb with an issue vital to all human beings, and giving it short-shrift.

Throughout the report, The Economist mentions the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), as well as the Gates Foundation as international organizations involved with public health in developing countries. The report contains statistics on the percentage of people in certain countries who do not have insurance, and other statistics to paint a bleak picture of health care in developing countries.

What the report fails to do is mention that it is exactly the World Bank, the IMF, international financial organizations, philanthropies like the Gates and other foundations, and the WHO, that have been responsible for preventing these countries from improving their health care systems.

Chapter Nine of the Waitzkin, et al., book previously reviewed in this blog, discusses in detail how these institutions influenced health care around the world for the benefit of multinational corporations in the developed world, and to the detriment of the health care in the Global South.

In particular, the WHO, which began in 1948 as a sub-organization of the United Nations, lost considerable funding due to ideological opposition to several programs operated by sub-organizations of the UN, and because the Reagan administration withheld annual dues. The UN began experiencing increasing budgetary shortfalls, which was passed onto organizations like the WHO.

But to the rescue, came the World Bank, and with this influx of private funds, the agenda of WHO changed to match that of the World Bank, international financial institutions and trade agreements. It was in the interest of these entities that health care be carried out in a vertical, top-down approach that left out key parts of the health care services needed in developing countries, namely surgery and concentrated on addressing infectious diseases like AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis.

But there is another reason why public health in developing countries is in such a dismal state, and it has to do with the debt crisis these nations and others were subjected to by the nations of the Global North and the World Bank, IMF and international financial institutions.

According to the blog,, “Developing countries spent years repaying billions of dollars in loans, many of which had been accumulated during the Cold War under corrupt regimes. Years later, these debts became a serious barrier to poverty reduction and economic development in many poor countries. Governments began taking on new loans to repay old ones and many countries ended up spending more each year to service debt payments than they did on health and education combined.

After many years of activism on the part of advocates for the poor and other activists, the nations of the Global North, through such organizations as the G8, the IMF and World Bank, decide to abolish debts worth billions of dollars owed by developing countries. Yet, despite this action, data in the World Bank’s global development finance 2012 report shows total external debt stocks owed by developing countries increased by $437 billion over 12 months to stand at $4 trillion at the end of 2010, the latest period of available data, according to the Guardian.

Third world debt was a serious issue when I was in college studying international relations and foreign policy, and I was aware of the efforts to reduce or eliminate this debt, so when I read in The Economist that the World Bank and WHO are engaged in public health issues around the world, I have to ask myself how is it possible that the very institutions responsible for the state of affairs experienced in developing countries as pertains to health care, are the very same institutions undoing the wreckage they created. Or at least not in ways that are advantageous to the citizens of those countries.

Instead of the vertical, top-down orientation these institutions are engaged in, a broad, horizontal orientation needs to be implemented that will radically alter the health care systems of these countries and provide all of their people with truly universal health care.

Lastly, The Economist looks at the US, and rightly points to our stubborn adherence to individualism and even quotes Republican congressman, Jason Chaffetz, who said, “Americans have choices.And they’ve got to make a choice. And so maybe, rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love, and they want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care.”

Many Republicans, like Rep. Chaffetz, says The Economist, believe health care is not a right but something people choose to buy (or not) in a marketplace.  I can tell you, dear readers, I did not choose to have End-Stage Renal Disease, nor did I choose to be long-term unemployed (that is due to neoliberal economic policies and to the financial meltdown caused by the very institutions that have a negative impact on universal health care), so Rep. Chaffetz and his Republican colleagues are wrong. And besides, you can’t buy health, as we all get sick and we all die. What you buy is a policy, but policies are not the same as care.

One other reason The Economist cites for the US being an outlier in providing universal care is resistance to reform by powerful interest groups.

I don’t believe this report did anything to move the debate forward towards universal health care, either here in the US, or around the world. It really did not cover any new ground, and its prediction for health care universally achieved is either wishful thinking or a delusion. Either way, until the economic order changes, nothing in health care will.